061383 CC Reg AgP
~
..
.,' ......
,
-.......~w~ 1l~....~..'....~..,l.i.6.t"f!"..... .....-.
.:". ..... .. . .
t
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUIAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1983
COUNCIL CP.AMBEPS
5755 COUNTRY CWB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 7: 30 EM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance and prayer
B. Roll Call
Mayor RaSCoP.~.....
Haugen
Shaw v
Leonardo . /
Stover \./'
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Regular Council Meeting - May 23, 1983
[attachment #la]
2. CITIZEN'S FORUM:
A.
B.
3. REQUEST TO REZONE TO PURD:
Location: Boulder Bridge Fa.rm!28000 Smithtown Road
(Previously approved by Resolution, this item is a procedural matter
where an ordinance is required to amend the zoning)
4. PRELIMINARY PIAT REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST:
Project name: Boulder Bridge Farm - 2nd Addition
Applicant: Tom Wartman
[attachment #4a - Planner's Report]
[attachment #4b - Engineer's Report]
[attachment #4c - Planning Corrmission Recomnendation]
5. 8:00 EM - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE EXPAND NON-CONFOWiING
STRUCTURE
Location: 5950 Grant Street
Applicant: Ms. Lucille Rand
[attachment #5a - Planner's Report]
[attachment #5b - Planning CorrmissionRecomnendation]
.
.
.
REGUlAR COUNCIL MEEI'ING
-2-
JUNE 13. 1983
6. 8:15 PM - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FDR SIGN VARIANCE:
location: Driskill's Super Valu
Applicant: Ev Driskill
[attachment #6a - Planner's Report] NIp.-
[attachment #6b - Planning Carmission Recc:mnendation]
7. COUNCIL ACTION - REZONING AND SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST:
6055 lake Linden Drive
Mr. Harold Johnsen
[attachment #7a - Resident letter]
(Refer to rt.ay 23, 1983 Council Agenda Packet, Attachments #3a, #3b, and
#3c as well a minute sumnary found in this packet.)
location:
Applicant:
8. SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL:
location:
Applicant:
P065 Eureka Road
Ms. Cathy Hendrickson
[attachment #Sa]
9. REQUEST FDR VARIANCE. TO EXPAND A NONCONFDRMING STRUCI'URE:
location:
Applicant:
5435 Timber Lane
Mr. Mike Jorgenson
[attachment #9a - Planner's Report]
[attachment #9b - Planning Commission Recommendation]
[attachment #9c - Letter's from Citzens]
10. REQUEST FDR REZONING FRCM R-l TO R-2:
location:
Applicant:
24275 Yellowstone Trail
Mr. WSNIle Pokorny
[attachment #lOa - Planner's Report]
[attachment #lOb - Planning Commission Recommendation:
[attachment #lOc - Citizen's letters]
Nfl\.
11. REQUEST FDR SETBACK VARIANCE:
location:
Applicant:
lot #11 & #12, Woodhaven 2nd Addition
Mr. Mike Halley
[attachment #lla - Planner's Report]
[attachment #llb - Neighbor's letters]
.
.
.
RffiUIAR COUNCIL MEEl'ING
-3-
JUNE 13, 1983
12. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - ~UEST EDR VARIANCE:
IDeation:
Applicant:
4540 Enchanted Point
Mr. Robin Woehnker
(Refer to May 23, 1983 Council Agenda Packet, attachments #5a, & #5b
as well as minute sumnary found in this packet)
13. COUNCIL ACTION - ~UEST TO REZONE:
Project Name:
IDeation:
Applicant:
Shorewood Condaniniums
5620 County Road #19
Tingewood, Inc.
(Refer to May 9th Council Agenda Packet, item #4 as well as minute
sumnary found in this packet)
14. COUNCIL ACTION - ~UEST EDR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENIMENT TO THE C-l ZONING
DISTRICT:
(Refer to Council Agenda Packets dated May 23, 1983, item #4 - and dated
April 11, 1983, item #6 , as well a Minute summary found in this packet)
15. PlANNING CCMIlISSION RRPORI':
A.
B.
16. PARK CCMIlISSION REPORI':
A. Review of 1983 Park Corrmission goals and objectives.
[attachment #16a]
B.
17. ATTORNEY'S REPORI':
A. Report on Gas Franchise Resolution
B. Boulder Bridge Sewer equalization charge
C.
18. ENGINEER'S REPORI':
A. Johnsen Report - 6055 lake Linden Drive
B.
19. AIMINISTRATIVE REPORI':
A. Review of Kennel License application
B. other items
. .l
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR COUNCIL MEEI'ING
MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1983
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 7: 30 fM
AGENDA
CAIL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance and prayer
B. Roll Call
Mayor Rascop
Haugen
Shaw
Leonardo
Stover
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Regular Council Meeting - May 23, 1983
[attachment #la]
2. CITIZEN'S FDRUM:
A.
B.
3. REQUEST TO REZONE TO . PURD:
Location: Boulder Bridge Farm/28000 Smithtown Road
(Previously approved by Resolution, this item is a procedural matter
where an ordinance is required to amend the zoning)
4. PRELJMINARY PLAT REVIEW AND VARIANCE REQUEST:
Project name: Boulder Bridge Farm - 2nd Addition
Applicant: Tom Wartman
J
[attachment #4a - Plarmer's Report] ,
[attachment #4b - Engineer's Report] J
[attachment #4c - Plarming Corrmission Recorrrnendation],/
5. 8:OO:EM - PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FDR VARIANCE EXPAND NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE
Location: 5950 Grant Street
Applicant: Ms. Lucille Rand
[attachment #5a - Plarmer' s Report] v ,
[attachment #5b - Plarming CorrrnissionRecommendation]J
REnULAR COUNCIL I'4EEI'ING
-2-
JUNE 13 1983
6. 8:15 FM - PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIAL~CE:
Location: Driskill's Super Valu
Applicant: Ev Driskill
[attachment #6a - Planner's Report] ~ N!,+
[attachment #6b - Planning Comnission ~endation]
7. COUNCIL ACTION - REZONING AND SIMPIE SUBDIVISION REQUEST:
6055.Lake Linden Drive
Mr. Harold Johnsen
[attachment lf7a - Resident letter] /:
(Refer to ~JBY 23, 1983 Council Agenda Packet, Attachments #3a, #3b, and
#3c as well a minute sumnary found in this Packet.)
Location:
Applicant:
8. SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL:
9065 Eureka Road
Ms. Cathy Hendrickson
[attachment #Sa] /'
9. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE:
Location:
Applicant:
Location:
Applicant:
5435 Timber Lane
Mr. Mike Jorgenson
[attachment #9a - Planner's Report] /' /
[attachment #9b - Planning Comnission Recorrrn~dation]
[attachment #9c - Letter's from Citzens] v/~
10. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-2:
Location:
Applicant:
11. REQUEST FOR SEI'BACK VARIANCE:
Location:
Applicant:
Lot #11 & #12, Woodhaven 2nd Addition
Mr. Mike Halley
[attachment #lla - Planner's Report] v
[attachment #11b - Neighbor's letters] 1--'
.
REDUIAR COUNCIL MEErING
-3-
JUNE 13, 1983
12. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED - REQUEST FUR VARIANCE:
Location:
Applicant:
4540 Enchanted Point
Mr. Robin Woehnker
(Refer to May 23, 1983 Council Agenda Packet, attachments #5a, & #5b
as well as minute surrrnary found in this packet)
13. COUNCIL ACTION - REQUEST TO REZONE:
Project Name:
Location:
Applicant:
Shorewood Condaniniums
5620 County Road #19
Tingewood, Inc.
(Refer to May 9th Council Agenda Packet, item #4 as well as minute
surrmary found in this Packet)
14. COUNCIL ACTION - REQUEST FUR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENINENT TO THE C-l ZONING
DISTRICT:
(Refer to Council Agenda Packets dated May 23, 1983, item #4 - and dated
April 11, 1983, item #6 , as well a Minute summary found in this packet)
15. PLANNING CCMvITSSION RRPORI':
A.
B.
16. PARK CCMvITSSION REPORI':
A. Review of 1983 Park Corrmission goals and objectives.
(attachment #16a] \../'
B.
17. ATI'ORNEY' S REPORI':
A. Report on Gas Franchise Resolution
B. Boulder Bridge Sewer equalization charge
C.
18. ENGINEER'S REFORI':
A. Johnsen Report - 6055 Lake Linden Drive
B.
19. AIMINISTRATIVE REPORI':
A. Review of Kennel License application
B. other items
~
CITY OF SHOREWO~' .
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, ~illY 23, 1983
'\.. . ~
"
...,. ,
COUN CHAMBERS
5755' .. OUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SROREWOOD, 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 Acting Mayor Kristi Stover at 7:32 PM, Monday, May 23,
1983, in the Council Chambers.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER:
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Acting Mayor Stover, Councilmembers Haugen and
Shaw. (Absent: Mayor Rascop and Councilmember
Leonardo)
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Mittelsteadt, Planner
Nielsen (approximately 8:45), Adminstrator
Uhrhammer and Deputy Clerk Niccum.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 9, 1983 - Regular Council Minutes - Moved by Haugen, seconded
by Stover, to approve the minutes as written. Motion carried.
May 9, 1983 - Board of Review meeting - Haugen moved, seconded by
Shaw, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried.
May 12, 1983 - Special Council Meeting - Haugen moved, seconded
by Shaw, to approve the Minutes as written. Motion carried.
CITIZENS FORUM: (Matters from the Floor)
Bob Reutiman of 5915 Galpin Lake Road was present to express
his appreciation to the Council for the article in the news-
letter that informed.residents of the City's financial standing.
He also suggested Council participation in neighborhood surveys
on other issues, such as the sewer assessments mentioned in
the newsletter.
Bob Gagne of 24850 Amlee Road asked the Council if they had
received any information on the latest Watershed Meeting due
to a mixup in meeting locations. Administrator Uhrhammer
remarked that he had just heard of it "this afternoon".
TAX INDEXING:
Haugen reported that the tax index will remain in effect unless
the state runs into a deficit.
\
\
#~
REGULAR COUNCIL ~TING
-2-
MAY . 1983
LEVY LIMITATIONS:
Haugen reported that cities with a population of under 5,000
are no longer under the levy limi ta tions .
BUDGET HEARINGS:
Haugen strongly suggests holding "Budget Hearings" for the purpose
of public information and input.
REZONING AND SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST:
Mr. Harold Johnson - 6055 Lake Linden Drive
Councilmember Shaw, liaison to the Planning Commission, reported
that the Planning Commission had voted 6-0 in favor of Council
approval with three suggestions:
1. That the division occur as close to 25 feet south of the
garage as possible in order to make the South lot as large
as possible.
2. That future work on Lake Linden Drive take into consider-
ation the use of some type of retaining walls to minimize
the loss of trees on the lots in question.
3. That the additional right-of-way be platted at this time
for future road improvements.
Haugen inquired about road width and was told by Engineer
Mittelsteadt that the width would remain the same.
Mr. Johnson objected to the 3-1 slope easement (1 foot rise in 3
feet) stating that it would be too close to the house and would
remove his buffer.
Court McFarlane, Mr. Johnson's son-in-law, stated that removing
foliage would lower Mr. Johnson's property. value.
Engineer Mittelsteadt agreed with Mr. McFarlane. He also explained
to Mr. Johnson that in order to have a line of sight, the bank
would have to be shaved. He is going out to take a look at the
property and will report his findings at the June 13 meeting.
It was also suggested that a retaining wall would take care of
the line of sight and reduce the slope but could prove expensive.
Mr. Bob Reutiman expressed concern on R-4 Zoning, wondering what
would happen if McCartney property requested R-4 zoning. Haugen
stated that while the Johnson property, with a duplex across the
street and another duplex down the block, is suited to R-4 zoning,
the McCartney property, with all R-l zoning across the street, is
not feasible for R~~ zoning.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to table rezoning until June 13
meeting at which time a full Council would be present. Motion
carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL4laETING
-3-
MAY., 1983
PARK COMMISSION REPORT:
Community Picnic
Shaw reported that plans for a Community Picnic are still in
progress - Mr. Steve Frazier is working on it.
Approval of Baseball Agreements
Review and approval of Tonka Babe Ruth Agreement and South
Tonka Little League Agreement.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the Tonka Babe
Ruth Agreement and the South Tonka Little League Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
Shaw reported:
Johnson Rezoning Request
Planning Commission recommended Council Approval (6-0) with
3 suggestions (see page 2 of these minutes).
Amendment to Outlot E -Boulder Bridge
Planning Commission liked driveway change from circle drive on
Preliminary Plat to a U shape with two turnarounds because it
would leave the pondingarea intact.
Teske Variance
This variance was not heard because ~t was discovered that no
variance was needed.
Burger King
City Staff was requested to obtain additional information on
background history.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8:00
REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 77 REGARDING THE C-l ZONING
DISTRICT
Mr. Bob Reutiman of 5915 Galpin Lake Road wanted to know why
all people owning property in same zoning were not notified by
mail. Administrator Uhrhammer explained that a legal notice was
published in the paper and that mail notification would run into
excessive expense for the City.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:07.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that the first reading be
approved with the addition of II and" between words ''right-of-way''
and'rrom"- second line - #5.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that the request to amend the
C-l District of the Zoning Ordinance be continued at the June 13,
1983, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL ~ING
-4-
MAY . 1983
COUNCIL ACTION - REQUEST TO REZONE - SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS
5620 County Road 19 - Tingewood Inc.
Mr. Scott Harriof Schoell and Madson, Mr. Adrian Johnson and
Mr. Jim Morss, the architect, were present. Mr. Scott Harri
gave a presentation. He stated that they had worked on three
areas.
1. The cost effect of a reduction of units i',r-om 39 units to
33 units.
Using the same foot print - at 33 units - their quick
figuring came up with additional cost of $8,500. per
unit. In the long run, this could result in an
additional possible $10,000. to $15,000. added on to
the selling price by the time everything is figured in.
2. Relocation of the driveway
The driveway was moved south, entering on the north side of
the office building, through the parking lot and entering
an underground garage on the east face of the south end of
the bUilding. (A 50+ foot setback from Mr. Borchart's line)
3. Relocation of the Building
The building had been moved west 30 feet, which will make
it 2 feet lower. It is now an L-shape with the long section
parallel to County Road 19 and the short section parallel
to ~M~. Borchart's property line. There is now approximately
a 50 foot setback on the north, leaving a larger screening
area on Mr. Borchart's side.
.In the 39
leaving:
unit plan, the
12 2+ starting
27 1+ starting
39
1 bedroom was completely omitted,
in the high $90,000's
in the mid $80,000's
The parking spaces went from 42 to 39 underground and
34 to 39 above ground, an
70 78 increase of 2.
Mr. Borchart raised a question about the present height difference
between his driveway and the roof of the building. Mr. Harri
informed him that the peak of the gable roof would be 35 feet
higher than his driveway.
Mr. Joseph Finley, Mr. Borchart's attorney, urged smaller density,
suggesting 3 units per acre. He also suggested that around 17
units would cut down on size of the structure.
Mr. Donald Peterson, 32 Interlachen Court, a contractor from
Tonka Bay, stated that, having been involved in several similar
projects, he felt that the planned 6.4 units per acre was
extremely reasonable and that he was interested in investing in
Shorewood Condominiums.
REGULAR COUNCIL ~ING
-5-
MAY 2.1983
SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS continued
Mr. Robert Gagne of 24850 Amlee Road brought up the drainage
problem. He felt that:
1. In case of a 1% rain, the water from the shopping center
and Tonka Bay would create a problem.
2. The Watershed District would not accept the excessive flow
of water into Lake Minnetonka without holding ponds, settle-
ment ponds and possibly a dike between Shorewood Condos and
the lake, calling for large areas of land for this purpose.
3. Possible legal problems between Shorewood Condos, IMDEC,
and the City of Shorewood.
4. The City should look into setting up a storm drain system.
At 7:50 Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to table this Council
Action on "Request to Rezone" until the June 13, 1983 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - SWIMMING POOL
Robin Woehnker - 4540 Enchanted Point
8:53
Mr. Woehnker is requesting a setback variance to construct a
swimming pool approximately 24 feet from Lake Minnetonka.
Acting Mayor Kristi Stover read a letter from Mr. John Dow of
4530 Enchanted Point objecting to:
1. The environmental impact on spawning area the property
borders-
2. Mr. Woehnker and his guests must cross Mr. Dow's property
to get to the pool - he was concerned about peace and
quiet of area and safety of his child and dogs.
Mr. Woehnker explained to Council that:
1. Pool will not drain into lake but will be filtered and
eventually ~raininto yard.
2. The place that they cross Mr. Dow's yard"is a granted
easement, Mr. Dow also has an easement on Mr..Woehnker's
property to get to the lake.
3. The pool will be .fenced creating safety for child and dogs.
The public portion of this meeting was c.losed at 9:04PM.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to table this Public Hearing
until the June 13, 1983 Council meeting, at which time a full
Council will be present. Motioned carried. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL~TING
-6-
MAY., 1983
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE:
Mr. Walter Teske - 20645 Radisson Inn Road
Acting Mayor Kristi Stover made an announcement that this hearing
will not be held.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST - BURGER KING
Mr. James Winsted - 19425 State Highway #7
Mr. Winstead requested joining 3 parcels, PID #25-117-23-41-0009,
PID #25-117-23-41-0018, and PID #25-117-23-44-0009 and part of
a fourth, PID #25-117-23-44-0010 into one parcel - leaving the
rest of the southerly parcel, PID #25-117-23-44-0010, to be
used as Residential in compliance with the deed restriction.
He intends to continue to use the northern part of PID #25-117-23-
44-0010 as a parking lot per conditional use permit.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve a Simple Subdivision
Request. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL :
Robert Shaw - 5745 Echo Road
Mr. Mike Mulvaney of Custom Pool gave a presentation.
Planner Nielsen suggested that the Engineer take a look at
the grading requirements.
Stover moved, seconded by Shaw, approval based upon review by
the Engineer to make sure there are no grading problems. Motion
carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL:
Wendell Ellis - 2~100 Woodside Road
Mr. Mike Mulvaney of Custom Pool gave a presentation.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, approval of pool subject to
re-combination of two lots, permit not to be issued until all
fees are paid and lots are combined on a County Level, no fees
previously paid to be refunded. Motion carried unanimously.
(3 ayes)
PARK COMMISSION REPORT:
By Carol Chapman:
Manor Park
The Park Commission wishes to do whatever is necessary to
finish Manor Park, primarily the softball field.
Administrator Uhrhammer had an estimate for the outfield from
Don Zdrazil - Black dirt 4 inches thick, delivered, regrading,
grass seed, fertilizer and application - $12,950.
Picnic Tables
The parks now have 20 picnic tables - a little fixing and
painting and they'll be in good shape.
REGULAR COUNC~EETING
-7-
IVIAY. 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 37-83
ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
Attorney Larson presented a Resolution for Denial of a variance
request by Floyd Larson, on behalf of Jim Johnson.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, approval of Resolution Denying
Variance Request. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
Engineer Mittelsteadt recommended final payment of $3,755.68
for the Amesbury Back-up Well, stating all necessary papers
have been received.
Haugen moved, Stover seconded, that a final payment of $3,755.68,
Project 82-1, Voucher #4, be made. Motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT;
Approval of Liquor and Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses
Minnetonka Country Club
Howards Point Marina
Driskills
American Legion
Tom Thumb
Skipperette
* Fortune House
*Wine License still to be approved on State Level
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, approval of the Liquor and
Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses, and Wine License
when approved by State, that are on the list subject to
verification of insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
( 3 ayes)
Councilman Shaw requested Administrator Uhrhammer to draft a
letter to applicants stating any violation, revocation, etc.
of insurance means instant revocation of licenses.
Minnewashta Church Parking Lot
Administrator Uhrhammer quoted prices for repairing parking lot.
123 yards of rock at $113. a ton
grading at $35 an hr.-6 hours
hauling rock
$482.16
210.00
516.00
$ 1,205.06
Administrator Uhrhammer suggested that the City buy the rock
and do the grading and that the church pay for hauling the rock.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, that the Council authorize the
City to buy the rock and do the grading, and negotiate with the
church to pay for the hauling. Motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR COUNCIL ~TING
-8-
MAY. 1983
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT continued
Financial Reports
General Fund-Administrator Uhrhammer suggested this report
be postponed until a full Council is present.
LGA(Local Government Aid)-Administrator Uhrhammer reported
that LGA will decrease $27,000 and a tax levy may be
necessary to recapture funds.
Manor Park-Administrator Uhrhammer reported that a $15,000
donation for Manor Park is no longer available, having been
used.
Release of Tax Forfeit Property RESOLUTION NO. 38-83
Administrator Uhrhammer suggested that the property- Lot 2,
Block 2-Balls Addition-PID #34-117-23-31-0035- be returned to
the County to be auctioned off, due to the fact it is costing
the City $150 a year and is too steep to serve as parkland.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, to return Lot 2-Block 2-
Balls Addition-PID #34-117-23-31-0035-to Hennepin County to
be auctioned off. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
Meeting Announcements
Zoning Ordinance Review Meeting
Meeting scheduled for May 24, 1983, is cancelled due to lack
of full Council. Administrator Uhrhammer will set a new date
and contact everyone concerned.
Second Policy Setting Meeting
Administrator Uhrhammer will set a date and contact involved
parties.
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
The Annual Meeting of AMM will take place Thursday, May 26,
from 6:30 - 7:30, at a cost of $15.00 @. Anyone interested
contact Administrator Uhrhammer as soon as possible.
Amesbury Deep Well - Pump Rebuilding
The pump in the Amesbury Deep Well is approximately ten (10)
years old, its life expectancy, and needs rebuilding at a
cost of anywhere from $2500 to $7500.
Council requested Administrator Uhrhammer to send letters to
Amesbury residents announcing that during the second week in
June, the 6th through the 10th, they will be requested to limit
their water usage.
Twin City Federal Savings and Loan-Second Depository S-/2 ~
At Administrator Uhrhammers request-Shaw moved, seconded by (~ .frA\
Haugen, to amend Resolution No. 1-83 to include Twin Ci ty ~Cy-.7';' J
Federal Savings and Loan as an official second d. eP.ositO. ry.. .~ ~/n
O-dLl. ~11/~/ /(~
Street Light-Eleanor Goodman-5570 Shore Road ~~ ~
Mrs. Goodman has maintained a light near her home for several
years and felt it benefited the whole neighborhood. As she
can no longer afford to maintain it but feels it necessary
to have a light, she is requesting the City to take over the
expense of maintaining it.
REGULAR COUNC~EETING
-9-
MAY~, 1983
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT continued
Street Light- Eleanor Goodman-continued
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that Administrator
Uhrhammer contact N.S.P. and have a street light put
where they deem it most necessary. Motion carried.
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Review of the Proposed Ordinance
Haugen moved that the review of the proposed Ordinance be
tabled until a full Council is present.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT:
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve claims for payment
followed by adjournment at 10:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
General Fund [acct # 00166] Checks 27153 -
Liquor Fund [acct # 00174] Checks 1055-
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor
SUSAN A. NICCUM
Deputy Clerk
"
II
.
.
GENERAL FUND
CIAIMS PAID AND APPROVED SINCE MAY 23, 1983
CHECK # TO WHCM PAID
27173
27154
27155
27156
27157
27158
27159
27160
27161
27162
27163
27164-
27165
27166
27167
27168
27169
27170
27171
27172 Midwest Asphalt Corp.
27173' Minnegasco
27174 H.C. Mayer & Sons
27175 Mueller, & Sons
27176 Mtka. Community Sere
27177 NSP
27178 Orr-Schelen-Mayeron
27179 Sun Newspaper
27180 Brad Nielsen
27181Robert Quaas
27182 Village of Tonka Bay
27183 Village Pump
27184 Renner and Sons
27185 Greentree Engraving
27186 League of MN Cities
27187 Brad Nielsen
27188 Evelyn Beck
27189 Roberta D,ybvik
271~ ~nnis Johnson
27191 Sandra Kennelly
27192 Sue Niccum
27193 Dan Randall
27194 Doug Uhrhammer
27195 State Bank and Trust Company
27196 Kathy West
27197 Don Zdrazil
27198 Minnetonka State Bk.
27199 Mn Women Elected Officials
27200
27201
27202
27203
27204
Cash
Key Leasing, Inc.
Henry W. Thurnau
Assoc. of Metro Munic.
Assoc. Asphalt Inc.
Acro
Bergerson-Caswell
Bacon Drug
Coffee System of MN
Greenscape
Gross office Supply
Hydrotex
Itasca Equip. Co.
Long Lake Ford Tractor
Louisville Landfill
L.J. Rubber Stamp Co.
Leef Bros Inc.
Director of Property Tax.
State Treasurer
David M. Goodwyne
PURPOSE
Petty cash-Spring Clean-up
May Lease Contract
Teske variance request
Annual meeting
VOID
Road materials
Office supplies
service-Woodhaven Well
Receipts-Spring Clean-up
coffee
shrub replacement-plow damage
office supplies
2 drum pumps-garage
repair-sweeper
digger oil-backhoe #19
rubbish
notary stamp-Sue
Laundry service
VOID
road materials
gas service
shop supplies-gas purchases
Binder rock-Cty Hall Drain
City Share of services
electric service
Engineer Services
public hearings
Salary
"
Lift Station #2
Gas-April
Amesbury back-up well, Vo.#4
Nametags for Conference
IMC Annual Conf.
Mileage
salary
IRA
salary
"
FWH taxes
Years membership
void
property
Soc Sec
VOID
draft. wk. on playground equip.
AMOUNT
150.00
223.30
76.25
30.00
-0-
251.58
163.80
362.88
2.88
48.00
63.00
11.47
43.10
42.28
59.34
8.00
9.10
154.00
-0-
234.96
126.94
802.42
59.57
2,0~.OO
882.24
4,871. 71
36.73
583.06
663.11
54.05
461. 07
3,755.68
15.00
273.50
37.59
538.01
377 . 74
558.00
4~.62
342.33
580.29
694.21
112.02
326.53
601.46
1,099.~
50.00
-0-
303.71
2,236.18
-0-
35.00
"
.
.
.
GENERAL FUND-PAID & APPROVED SINCE MAY 23, 1983
page 2
CHECK # 'ID WHavI PAID PURPOSE
27205
27206
27207
27208
27209
27210
27211
27212
27213
27214
27215
Directors of Property Tax.
Colonial Ins. Co.
Central Life
Mary Kennelly
Sandra Kennelly
Brad Nielsen
Roberta Dybvik
Canmissioner of Revenue
State Treasurer
Dennis Johnson
Dan Randall
property
June premo
June. premo
Cleaning
Mileage
Mileage
Mileage
State WH
PERA
pay for grievance case
pay for grievance case
"'"
AMOUNT
1,501. 56
119.50
1,606.06
24.50
62.50
17.38
15.00
1,157.00
865.34
45.15
45.15
$ 30,451.75
.. . l . .
LIQUOR FUND - BILLS PAID Sn~CE MAY 23, 1983
CHECK # ro WHa.1 PAID PURPOSE AMOUNT
1056 Harry Feichtinger salary 616.27
1057 Russell Marron " 407.70
1058 Don Tharalson " 166.02
1059 Steven Theis " 249.72
1060 Sue Culver " 77.00
1061 Pat Amundson II 46.20
1062 Pat Pfeffer " 129.75
1063 Mary Skraba " 77.00
1064 Mark Wilson " 256.66
1065 Dean Young " 311.92
1066 VOID -0-
1067 Minnetonka State Bank. FWH taXes 311.20
1068 Hance Hardware light bulbs 7.98
1069 Minnegasco gas 186.29
1070 Village Sanitation Inc. sanitation service 54.00
1071 VOID -0-
1072 Northwestern Bell phone service 155.90
1073 Griggs Cooper Liquor 2,446.00
1074 Twin City Wine Wine 367.75
1075 Johnson Bros. Wine 574.91
1076 VOID -0-
1077 Eagle Wine Wine 389.11
1078 Prior Wine Wine 484.36
1079 Ed Phillips & Sons Wine 112.64
1080 Old Peoria Co. Inc. Liquor 659.02
1081 Pogreba Distrib. Inc. April Beer 2,918.03
1082 State Treasurer Soc Sec 455.60
1083 Ryan Properties Rent 2,540.83
1084 Harry Niemela Rent 882. 50
1085 MEA Feightinger-June premo 10.85
1086 Central Life June premo 336.53
1087 Griggs Cooper Liquor 2,222.73
1088 Johnson Bros. Wine 1,278.55
1089 Ed Phillips Wine 965.48
1090 Quality Wine Wine 1,077.90
1091 Old Peoria Co. Liquor 1,685.85
1092 Minter-Weisman Cigarettes 628.61
1093 NSP Electricity 224.26
1094 Comnissioner of Revenue State Wh Taxes 325.00
1095 State Treasurer PERA 380.64
1096 Harry Feightinger salary 605.42
1097 Russell Marron " 407.70
10gB Don Tharalson " 144.00
1099 Stephen Theis " 249.72
1100 Sue Culver " 98.00
1101 Pat Pfeffer " 113.00
1102 Mary Skraba " 98.00
1103 ~ark Wilson " 258.06
1104 Dean Young " 311.92
1105 Minnetonka State Bank. F)VH 301. 70
$ 26,608.28
~
. .
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
R obert 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: 12 MAY 1983
RE: BOULDER BRIDGE - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE REQUEST
FILE NO.: 405 (83.12)
BACKGROUND
Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat for the second addi-
tion of their Boulder Bridge project. The property is the easternmost portion
of the project and is located at the northwest corner of the Smithtown/Howard's
Point Road intersection.
Although a preliminary plat for the entire project was submitted and approved
as part of the original P.U.R.D., the second phase was left as Outlot E for
purposes of the final plat. The applicant has now requested to modify the pre-
viously approved preliminary plat. The proposed plat is shown on Exhibit A,
attached, and the original is shown as Exhibit B. In comparing the two plans,
it can be seen that the loop roadway system has been severe~ creating au-shaped
cul-de-sac arrangement. A ponding area in the northeast corner of the site will
be enlarged.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Although it should, the development agreement for the Boulder Bridge Farm P.U.R.D
does not contain provisions for future plan modifications. As such it is sug-
gested that the proposed change simply be processed as part of the normal plat-
ting process. Since a public hearing is required for the preliminary plat, any
affected parties are notified of the request and have an opportunity to present
their opinion regarding the modification.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
i*=l/~
.
PLANNING COMMISSION,
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
12 MAY 1983
.
Page Two
Design Review
Despite the creation of two cul-de-sacs, the proposed change is considered an
improvement over the previously approved design. First, severing the roadway
loop allows the developer to enlarge and enhance an existing ponding area in
the northeast corner of the site (note: this is not a designated wetland
area). Secondly, the cross street between the two primary streets has been
lengthened, improving circulation and eliminating lots with street right-of-
way on three sides. In changing the plan, the developer has reduced the num-
ber of lots by one, from 19 to 18. ~
All lots meet or "exceed the lot size and width requirements prescribed in the
Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that in the original approval of the
P.U.R.D. the developer was given design flexibility for a number of lots. He
was allowed to reduce the front yard setbacks as much as 20 feet for seven of
the lots. He has requested the same consideration for lots 17 and 18. The
reason for this is that although the lots tend to orient toward the cross
street, the houses will eventually orient east and west. To avoid unnecessary
delays at the time building permits are applied for, the applicant has asked
for approval of 30 foot front yard setbacks on lots 17 and 18.
Cul-de-sac Variance
The Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance currently requires cul-de-sacs to have a
120 foot r.o.w. diameter and 100 foot paved surface diameter. In order to
reduce the amount of paved surface the developer proposes a roadway diameter
of 80 feet with a 100 foot r.o.w. diameter. In discussing this request with
the City Engineer, he indicated that the Ordinance is too restrictive. I have
asked the Public Works Director to inform us how much room the street crew
needs for a cul-de-sac turn-around. This information should be determined
prior to the public hearing. I also asked the Fire Chief how much room they
need. He commented that they can get by with whatever Public Works can. If
in fact the requirement is too restrictive, the variance request should be
approved and the requirement reduced when the Subdivision Ordinance is revised.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities
These itffi5 have been ~uJm:ttec ~y the developer and should be subject to review
and comment by the City Engineer. The Engineer has expressed interest in the
possibility of providing for future connection of the ponding area to the desig-
nated wetland east of Howard's Point Road. The intention of such a connection
would be to alleviate drainage problems which ultimately result in deterioration
of Howard's Point Road. Prior to final plat approval, the plat should be subject
to review and comment by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
.
'ff
.~
..
...
.--.-
~
if
, f
~ ~
,\ ~
\'. :~ 0
, \ i:
. \-
i . ~
~
:!
l
(
~ -.- ...---.
~
c\
r!:.A
~, .,--
...
~ .......
~ ~rli ,.. '?
. ~
@ l,; iU~
@~ i r--
4'
00 \
~
9 II
...
~ ~
~~ ...
.
// l- ....1....,
----
<>
L
'"
~ ~ ~,; \ .
~
.
~.. r& 1
~ ~
N'; -..VVI '.' L'\',':'~ _2J W g ~~~~ L'
e:r"". r,:-:'l~ -=:- -:--:-,~,-:," f .J.J r . ..
~,Q)&:c...~"j:~'~J__'~'...! ~l,.)"_:' ;!. f!~".. .~
I
"
'" '. .
I ~ ~ I~"" ~JI
. .... .- '..
J . :~:~.;. ':'" :~:
~ .....cnb.C""_.-..cu.~ _.. 6_. ..... ............ .
J
..
!
I f 1
"- ~l I'"
/~ ~. It~
'0. 2.: Ii
III
_-= J )
\
Exhibit B
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAT
~
~~
~~
:r
.t\
ri.~
.-, .
.~
..1 ,~
.~I ~:
.:1 :
-
...
. .
.. .
. .
. '
.
.. ,
.
. -
~
\ ~.
.' !
.- :1
it i',
:: T'
- ..
~. J
- ':
,i
-.
~
.'
~ !~
v ....
, ~~
.~ . r
" .
~~ >>:
..
.
.
'~
f ) ( .1
I \ 1\
'.. i '\
II )i \
ORR.SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, IN&.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
June 1, 1983
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Attn: Mr. Doug Uhrhammer
City Administrator
Re: Boulder Bridge Farm
Second Addition
Shorewood, Minnesota
Dear City Officials:
We have reviewed the proposed second addition to the Boulder Bridge
Farm Plat from an engineering standpoint and have the following com-
ments. Basically, we reviewed the preliminary grading. drainage and
utilities plans.
1. GRADING
From the reV1Slons to the contour lines on the grading plan it is
apparent the developer is lowering the ground elevation in the
vicinity of the new street "Boulder Bridge Lane". This should not
cause any problems and will allow for better drainage from the ad-
jacent lots. The excess dirt material can be used to fill in the low
spot north of Boulder Bridge Drive on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 of the
first addition. With the proper filling and grading the pocketed
low spot adjacent to the street at this location can be eliminated.
2. DRAINAGE
The proposed preliminary grading plan has changed the site drainage
somewhat. While the plan shows a proposed storm sewer layout, with
catch basins, more detailed plan/profile drawings must be submitted
before this project is put out for bid. From the preliminary plan
it appears additional drainage facilities are needed at the inter-
section of Boulder Bridge Drive and Boulder Bridge Lane.
Additional work appears to be proposed on the "PondW in the north-
east corner of the site. The catch basin from the southern cul-de-
sac will discharge into the ponding area. Unfortunately no relief
(overflow) pipe is proposed for theponding area. This is not any
different from what currently exists. However, with the development
of the adjacent land on this second addition, the storm water runoff
will have a greater influence on the ponding elevation. This could
increase the detrimental impact on the integrity of Howards Point
Road at this location.
~,v!J
2021 East Henn
.
~ .
.
.
Page Two
Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, Administrator
Re: Boulder Bridge Farm 2nd Addition
June 1, 1983
If the pond is continuously at a high elevation the subgrade on
Howards Point Road would always be saturated. This simulates the
condition which exists at the spring of the year when the street is
subject to its greatest deterioration from traffic loadings on a
saturated subgrade. While this is no different from the existing
condition as stated previously an easement should be established
across Outlot C to provide for future drainage of the ponding area
to the east. This coincides with the proposed drainage plan shown
in the Comprehensive Storm Water Study adopted by the Council in
1975.
3. UTILITY PLANS
A. Sanitary Sewer
The proposed sewer plan appears adequate, however a more
detailed plan/profile drawing will be required in the future.
B. Water Main
A 6N line as shown on the proposed plan appears adequate, how-
ever one additional hydrant may be required. This can be better
defined on the final plan/profile drawings which must ultimately
be submitted.
4. STREETS
While nothing has been submitted on the typical street section we
are assuming the new street section will be the same as the old one
except that the minimum blacktop width is 24 feet. The concrete curb
and gutter is adjacent to that.
The street grade proposed, 7%, is greater than the subdivision ordi-
nance allows. However, this may be acceptable providing a "landing
area" is provided at the intersection of Boulder Bridge Lane and
Roulder Bridge Drive.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ P.1~
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engineer
JPN :mln
cc: Mr. Tom Wartman - BOulder Bridge Farm, Inc.
Mr. Scott Harri - Schoell Madson, Inc.
.
.
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1983
PAGE TWO
Commissioner Reese questioned whether the setback restrictions on the south lot
would allow building. It was noted that the R-4 requirements were less restrictive
in terms of setbacks. Reese also suggested that some of the trees along the road
might be saved by constructing retaining walls.
There being no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend to the Council approval of the rezoning
as requested. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend to the Council approval of the simple
subdivision with the following suggestions:
1) That the division occur as close to 25 feet south of the garage as
possible in order to make the south lot as large as possible.
2) That future work on Lake Linden Drive take into consideration the use
of some type of retaining walls to minimize the loss of trees on the
lots in question.
3) That the additional right-of-way be platted at this time for future
road improvements.
The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE TO P.U.R.D. (Boulder Bridge)
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order at 7:57 p.m. by reading the
legal notice as published May 4, 1983. Staff explained that the property, located
at approximately 28000 Smithtown Road, had been rezoned and the project approved
previously by resolution rather than ordinance. The hearing was scheduled in order
to amend the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and map.
There being no comment from the public, the hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Shaw
moved, Benson seconded, to recommend that the Council adopt the rezoning by ordi-
nance. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - BOULDER BRIDGE OUTLOT E - PRELIMINARY PLAT, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order by reading the legal notice as
published May 4, 1983.
Tom Wartman was present to explain the proposal. He noted that the original plans
for Outlot E, showing a loop road, had been changed after studying the topography.
The road now has a horseshoe configuration. The number of lots remain the same'.
19, all meeting the minimum square footage requirements. He added that the alter-
ations fit the contours better, there will be less asphalt, but some grading will
still be necessary. The proposal includes plans to move the existing pond 40 to
50 feet back from Howard's Point Road. This would allow a greater buffer and the
trail system, Outlot C, would go around the complete area to follow the perimeter
of Outlot E.
Wartman said they were attempting to stay with the same drainage patterns as shown
in their initial watershed studies. He outlined runoff and drainage from the site
noting that th majority of the water is directed to the pond area, as well as
draining across the Outlot and eventually into the wetland which acts as a settling
pond and then overflows into Lake Minnetonka.
ij~
. .
.
.
:es <(..~
-
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascep
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
~1EMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
3 JUNE 1983
RE:
RAND, LUCILLE - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
FILE NO.:
405 (83.20)
BACKGROUND
Ms. Lucille Rand, 5950 Grant Street (see Exhibit A, attached), has requested
a variance allowing her to expand her existing house. Since the house is
too near the rear lot line and the side lot line which abuts Grant Street,
it is considered nonconforming in terms of current zoning requirements.
The property is zoned R-2 and contains 10,560 square feet in area. As
can be seen on Exhibit A, the lot is fairly consistent with lot sizes in
the surrounding area.
The proposed addition shown on Exhibits B - D is one story measuring 15' x
32'. According to the applicant the bathroom in the existing house is in
the basement and the bedrooms are on the second floor. She has difficulty
negotiating the steps due to her age. The addition would allow her to have
a bedroom and bath on the first floor.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Section 10 of the current Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits the ex-
pansion of nonconformities. As you are aware the new Zoning Ordinance, if
adopted, allows expansion of nonconforming structures as long as the non-
conformity is not increased. The following items are considered pertinent
to the review of this request:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
54-/
..
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION,
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
3 JUNE 1983
PAGE TWO
1. The house technically fronts on Park Street resulting in a rear yard.
setback encroachment of approximately 36.5 feet. Since the lot is on
the corner the house is 21 feet too close to the Grant Street r.o.w.
It should be noted that the house was built prior to any zoning re-
quirements. It was obviously oriented to Grant Street rather than
Park Street.
2. The house and proposed addition will be approximately 78 feet from the
house. Also, a 50 foot wide parcel (poss~ble r.o.w.) owned by the City
separates the two structures.
3. The proposed addition lines up approximately with the rear of the
structures.
4. Current zoning for the site and area immediately surrounding it is
questionable. The Comprehensive Plan has suggested a residential den-
sity of 2-3 units per acre is appropriate for the area.
5. The Grant Street right-of-way is 66 feet wide. Current standards re-
quire only 50 feet. Dividing the 16 foot difference between property
owners on both sides of the street gives each one eight additional feet.
In effect this reduces the nonconformity of the Rand house to 13 feet.
In order to bring the lots along Park Street into conformance with
zoning standards, they would have to be zoned R-4 or R-5 similar to
nearby lots in Excelsior. While it is not suggested that rezoning be
addressed at this time, it must be realized that if it were, resulting
setbacks would be decreased, reducing or eliminating the need for
variances.
RECOMMENDATION
In study sessions on the new Zoning Ordinance we have discussed the idea that
where setback variances are granted, the distance allowed is made up on the
opposite side. For example, if an applicant wants a five foot side yard set-
back, they would be required to provide 15 feet instead of 10 on the other
side. If the City is inclined to grant the requested variance it is recom-
mended that such a condition be imposed. In this case nothing can be done
with the setback on Grant Street. However the front yard setback on the
Park Street side should be maintained at 71.5 feet (35 foot required setback
plus 36.5 which is being granted for the variance). It should be noted that
the garage already encroaches into that area and that only future expansion
would be so restricted.
BJN:kw
cc: ~ug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
Lucille Rand
Kathy West
,
'e
~ -.J
,
~l
'10,
"./~'"
..."" ~
. .
.
"..:
~
.,:
..
~
~
~
I
c
t-
o
~
0- ,
! .:'. ... ': :
'.. ~ :::
~~
--..
CD
...
I
. .
.
"..,
'"'I
,
,
.. I ',-
...
.~
~,
", ., ...
. ., . .
c: J
,~. ~
e-:
en
,.-- ..
.::::J
,
I
· " I
o
,~
<
...... .
~
. .
.,
..~ :....
i <<'
1:--. ., #" .. ,. \.~
r ::- . . ,,~
;-
"1-
~
.
-l
.~~
a
S
~
,
.
':
/
,";1"'.' ..
CD
III
~ "
,'> <-
~ ~ - ~ .......
o
N
~
,~
" '.,$\ \,
'\ ' . '.
\.:
(....)
"'o~
. - _.<P:I
-~-
I I"
I_~ 1
I_~' ~ I
I '.J,N I
I ,-
'-\
<
~
. !~..
-- l~
4-=~ ~
-
<:-
"
'''"'
;;.
'. .
~ .....
.: .~~ \0
3 . ·
7"' ~~.
c ,') \ \ ~ \ \ S6"/'Z'
~ Exhibit A ',,~ \ \ "
~ITE LOCkrrON ~ \ \ - '3' ·
_!?.!. and varian .- - \ \ ":!'.' ·
ce request
r-~~~~, ~ \ - -~~~---~
\ . ~
:;
.
~
"
"0' ~
.
,oS
~
.
"':'" _ ...1.
o
~
-.""
7_
r;;..)
,..,
III
C"
.,
7'~~~,...
c
'-...
~"
'---
".' ~-.~'"' ':~)""
, ..i>T~t{~St,-
.
:.
c:~:
i
. .
~
'. ,:;",;"c
\,.~;
~:-'"
.'
::''''.
-.. '
'.'
..
--
.
~-'-""'-"---'----"'"
...,. .',..'
.
.
~~:,- '.
~f,~: ....
.--...,
~,
<.". .
~
~-~
~~ "
~:~ l<
~ ,
,~
"';'.
:
''',-
.~
.....
......
." .' ,
1:,";-~'>_:2::
~:':~:. '.'
. . ~~~~.~. .!:c~: .
.;.~..:
._._._-
.>-.' .
< ;.',
'2:~:;'~.. ';>'~':~:~~'~i{ ';" ",
...~,....~ . ,"/!,'
'.'~ t.: 'i' , . " ""r'.':,,:~<, . ,':: ;0:
I if";. t. i"' ?'H'i'
~, ;0 :,';:<C',
<", ,...... .',; '. :'
fI;'~~~ -
v "<';\' D>; .... !.:... _
ii"'.-"""," 'j: '."-
;'. '. ..., ,.
',:;'" .
}'.. .
"'_">;";~;;;~~~U
~ 'f,;
':':r' :l
r~..
;.I~~
.it~
.~
';;;:'.-.3.
,<. .'~
L: .""<
~.
~'. .
"
;i~;' ,,~::}~ ~::, "
"-;~':::a, '-'?'~;'~_>"_~'
, ':q3!~:';~.~L~
.;/~~. I'" --_Il.
, /.:~,:.~:
..;1".,."
..' . ,.;.,
:~'--;
-
.
Exhibit B
SITE LAYOUT
---
I .,::
-'-
.;
....
.~ ....
.
,;;'
< .'
"
3::;:[:-~'..
'''-':",:7,
J.,.
i". _..
.~~
".'~
,
.;j
.. ,.... ~~t
At _~-(:~
. ----\-. --~ --
---,-~-~--
" ~...
-II.
~ ..,
~ :\ --- ----
"'"
~~-
~\!)
,
.. '
---=----r-- - "
, '
--C-' "'-..
.,
--+--"";",'r--,,,
'." ,". "
-. --------.--- -----l-..-
.A- _
~ !.-.-,
.... 1 .i"
- .-,'t::',
......
,
l ..!
: ,:'?~
,
...::..:l --- ---.-.
~ 1- ~_ ~ -~
].
~
.:
,
,.'
.i~
" -
;"
,
.
r---
I'
"/L
~r:,
, \n":...
.' J:"
, j"/~~
:~;
..
. .'
-..-- ...... .
.
..
--
-~
CD'
-
'.-
-...
.,.~~. .
"
.
.
..:.:.
-~
~.'S
~-A...
~.~
-~
.~~~
t-' ~~~.
. "'" 4' f- \l
'.
....I~
..
],
.
,it' "'- 1
- .
,
.,
'.
--~._- .
..
,.
-
-.- -
"1
-,..-~ . ,.' --
..
~
C"\
II'J}!
. ---" 16.__
~ ...~ ...l
--~-
,
,-
--'-
\
f
Dtd-l r
0'
j.t:r,
alii' (j1
.
'~_..:::=:. ---
._----
~
~
Q~
.....w:
~~
.
.
.
-I
-
..
--
,
,
..:.
t
....
..
~
f
-
.'.
-'
~
----v\
l
~
-A.~
,-
---~
~-_.-
____--..Iiiio.
0. ----..
~":t
~ \\.l.;----
c....__
- -
)
Il~ 1?---
-----
1 --_ ----- -.-
~.,-~--~-~
"
I
~ .
. . ~. ~
,
"'0
..: ,.
---r'-
1
I
,
I
r
~ I
I .
\. - 1
I. T
~'~'J :J:.:-..*......f;..:
o I
'i I
. I .
.. f t '-f"'~
1 f . .
. I !.'
~o ~;
;~ '
J t I'~
t 0
, I '1Il
I -,
"1.
. .~J....
",-.- ."" ~. ~ ~
....
j ...f
. .
, 0('
- ~,
-<L~
,
.,
:
.. J .
,
.
k
1
.~
~...
.t-
,
.-
; ..
. ~. t
'- ..
,
,
'.' f':
........
:t
"... .
.~: ',- :-
.
.... "
, -
..;....
-.
{
o
. -:t
<~
i
1-
'.' . \!J
,
o
~ ~
''fl ~
.\
. ~
..' . .' . ~::
...
.~
~
,
,
'..
~,' "'-' -'I
,
'".!.";
)5.1'. ...:-.... --- H
. . . ~ .;
.. ..'
" .
I
'j
.....--
!. o? .. 'f
>-
)
. ~ ,.
, , ~ .,
. ~
~
~ ... ~---~O,9 -".,
.
,. .
. .
:. .'~ ~.,;'t,..~
,..' ~
';!'. t'S.
. . # t-A _.".
?.c-.. r' 'Ij..'
"'''-'": .' I' :..~. :
... :
.' - . /.~;. "~'
., c : ~ '.: ~~.;J;:I 'Wf.,. ...,'.. .~(':.
"1'\ ~.~,,--l~1l "l:"",' . "ij;:oe ~o'
",.. ....,..U..-.f\.; . . 'r'
t -?,:. f.~;~t~i~\.~" ~. - .
. .:':...~~~;t...~~
, . . . ,." .'.~. ',' ;;',il....~'..
..... , ~. "J '''~,' f '~.~.,. ...{~~.~1;.:~;~..
. . . I ....~ . .,>. . ..... ,J ..1. . .. .
. .~. '. . . . .. ,..'"\...~;.:~~\.. t'.'
~-- .. ' '.' ..', ,. ,"'-.' ".~. "'"=',w::;r.....r.. \~ '..
.0,". .~. ~ ..~. .'Of '. _ '"', ~'.-'
1'.}. :. . ~..' ,,'7r,. '.~! itJ .~~..", ., :~..t r, .)
. '_. ~':- ~'... ":~ 'I,:' ~ ... --~:...}..~.-:.;..".J..l.. ;~:. '.. .
o ta. . ...... 1...; ~ .-.. pOl r.:t. .,,,. .: ;_'..5.~.,
.. ..' I, ~ . . \ - ., ~ "~-' , ~--
. '. t..;~t:;;,f:
. . ~ .
....
"..'.
.... .1,:' ~ " -....
"..tf.' ".
.. \ ..
/. ;.'
"..'J
~A
~ , ,"r
'0
"Q
:t
-,
.'
~
" .' l
~
..
,.
.. ..
r. .1\& i
_.~..1_ ~14k";Oao:---
, . ~ . .f
. ..,t ~ :'r ,+-". ',/ ;"
.."';i="' . i .. , "
..,. I.... ....
r .'
j
I
. ~,._. "..~ ..~...
Exhibit C
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
.,'
.....
.'
.:~
:,
-'
'i;"'j
.~'~., ..
".
< 9.
, ,.:1. f. .. .. .
.':'.~;;.,""_,..4'~ ....,1"'~.........~ .'-~..
"",-
..
; ;...t.
".,
t
. .
..
'\, :
...;
..\
..,'
Jl
9
~
. :.
",.
...
" -'. ,:"
I. .
...- .
----- -........... ..' ...
. ."r,:....,--.'J'~ ..;.-..~...~.
. :~~,:)~" .,.' t:'-'-,';:f1:
. .. "'."" i ..A:"
~'- "", . '.'-., 'f'!'.''''
',_ :~'~"~' . or
.,.'.
....
..:";.t. .
r #'
.;
.,'.
~
.tf'
~
...
"
,.
:.
u
'.
~
. ..,'. -
..~, .. ,~... .-,
..".. " .
~'!'
<-:,..,.~,-~--:-. ""
,
I
i"
, I
, : I
; ~ i
t i : i
: ' j
D
D
. - ' !
.'$
~ . I
.'
~
Exhibit D
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
, .'
.
I ,
i I . ; ,i i
I
I
j
!
i
: I'
lit i
, ,. .
'.1
, . I
. .
z
9
~
'"'5
III
~
W
o
'Z
t1
t
.2
.~
~
,
tl
I
~
3
,&1. ;
~
r
..,
~
'-
CJ
o ~o
10 "_
'" ..
ID
~
'.
\-
June 8, 1983
.
.
r
.k /j.
f
shorewood Village Council
Shorewood City Offices
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
JUN ~
1983
Subject: Rezoning Petition for the Johnson Property on Lake Linden
Dear City Council Merribers:
Sane weeks ago, our planning corrrnission approved the rezoning of the
subject property. This entailed allowing a duplex to be built on
the Johnson I s property on Lake Linden. We have no particular objection
to this rezoning since there is a duplex directly across the street from
where the new one will be built and this is consistent with previous
decisions. However, the second part of the rezoning is one that we are
extremely opposed to. This involves the deeding of twenty-five feet of
land of the Johnson's property which would enable the Village of Shorewood
to straighten out Lake Linden.
We are opposed to straightening out Lake Linden for two reasons. The first
reason is that it will allow a direct line of sight view fran our home on
Yellowstone Trail to Highway 7. Secondly, in the future it will allow a
direct line of sight view to the back end of Driscoll's new Super Valu
store which is not known for any particular cleanliness. We do not wish
to look upon the back end of this store with the inherent trash and errpty
boxes and we do not want to either look at or hear the noise from Highway
7. This would have a direct inpact on the value of our property. This
would also be another step towards continuing the other long standing
problem we have which involves the traffic. Sorrewhere along the line we
are losing touch with what is going on with the Lake Linden/Yellowstone
Trail/Country Club Road traffic problem. The problem is one of extremely
heavy traffic for the condition of the roads. Most of this traffic has
no business being in the neighborhood to begin with since all they are
doing is taking a short cut off of County Road 19. The only steps that
have been taken to alleviate the problem have been to put up "Local Traffic"
signs on Country Club Road, which was a small positive step, and to increase
the speed limit on Lake Linden from 25 to 30 miles per hour which is a negative
step. What we need is sorre posi ti ve direction towards controlling traffic
flow in this neighborhood. Straightening out Lake Linden will only encourage
rrore traffic and higher speeds.
Please consider this letter a fornal request for a reconsideration of the
rezoning given to the Johnson property if it involves the deeding of the
twenty-five feet of land.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Yours very truly,
Jt.... / r'")--r-----
,~ '.' /( / ---
_. -"L~:.-~-L . """'- //'~ '- ,.....- '" .... (_~.
Steven R. Turner
23980 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
41=70-
'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
INFORMATION:
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BRAD NIELSEN
10 JUNE 83
HENDRICKSON - SWIMMING POOL
404 (GENERAL)
Kathy Hendrickson, 6065 Eureka Road (see Exhibit A, attached) has
requested approval of a permit to construct a swimming pool. As
shown on Exhibit B, the pool will be 16 feet x 40 feet in size
and approximately 40 feet from the existing garage and 90 feet
from the house. The pool will be over 100 feet from the southerly
lot line and 400 feet from the easterly line. The pool, as
proposed, conforms to current zoning standards.
The pool will be enclosed by a six foot high chain link fence
which must be at least eight feet from the property line unless
agreed to in writing by the adjacent property owner(s).
Both pool and fence require approval by the City Council.
BN: sn
CCj Doug Urhrammer
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
80-
\
, .... ... J
;;
, ,
~?" Yl~ ()
",f. rv .;
~s f,. ')- ,
, ~..:-
[~'VJ ~
V)~ \ '!.
~c r.J.
-~e
5 ~~)
f, (). '0
\:2-"')
Z~ "ctIf
~
75
ttW-tk
It I
J/~ 2..0
/
/
lJ)
74
~~~, ~~~t
(01
l..'''.'
.
ZD r.J.
ZD,...
lJ
"\4,,,,)
~ ~"tJ \..
- - - .----''''',..-.--c
l'
~ ,p - 3 ~1) . ~
: S~U,\O'S
\0 2
0~)
""
I z# ..,,~
..;......._-_. .'- +" ,,- --'~--r'-~--.
7 (JO)
..
.
.
~
Q
...
.w t
I
(~) I'; ~
v,'
-1'1~~ 11) S l~./()
'" ,', I
~ r./~) :
~ \: I
I
- - - ~N:l.,iVi 7~ "Tt1-;; NeAA:fltS -;';;'5 w
, I , ~
~ 761, It) "Ir "
4 (,0' , \!.
",.' \: J
....
~
?o1z.. rr
(2-5) ~~ll
v\ C. vv
p~~\R\t.~ ~'J
.. (0)'> ocP
L 4,lIfSJ tJ
3 c-S
ES\~T~
(~', ,<
I
18
r' 19
. I.')
\'~
l('
~
ZOro.", .
Z" ~c '$
~
~
~
(11\
.-
.
~
0)
26
'"
--- -- - -,
\o\~
O\l'\
o I
.) ~ ,
!I~ ,,\
e t ~ Q~) ~ I
I
.
ZI '...
'Of
~ce\'\ .
i
C!~
2' .,,01'
" ,r,11r;
t?
69
0)
.
(
( !~ C1-)
~
'"
,
-'-..,--- ---
. - ..., ~
,
~ f,)
~) I r..,. l~
---78----:..
. -.. '1",,\
....
, /i:(':t~)
"J '~ "'/1'
I
I
I
I
(!'V) 24 . ~t
.-' \~\
\i .7~.... eel
. () ..,.. I
IY
~L 24..J.s_~----....
.- ", ,.-\. . 1- 1"-
:-\1P-~ :\ ^'
~ \ \ ~. l ) ..
.,. \ I \ ~ s
'; , I f4t'\'...
., ~) ,
~ (\~), 2~ I \ ~~
\.:. 4 \ I \ ;~., ~
<, / ! I. .
I ", I \ (;'1 ..
\J \ 'f
l~ \ \
. \
,
ll' ')
-. -- .-1-" ,. - ,
....,. "
Il ro,( I
62
60
~)
l\'
..........
'~\
~
. \
I.
63 \
,
,
,
~ ..\
'-'0
~"\
~\
,.\
t=- f\
- -<
If- -1- ~\
_::S
8_.. \
'"
L ....
001.0'
"
~..--....
, '
, 16.5_, \
I' '. '......
~1I4-
l13.9'
\ .
\ . lIIR'
T
"0-
p.p.
(7050 )
s
IIU'
II
La..
...-
'T
~
1'1 1'7
~-
J....~.
.
TO
I I
~ ~.\ ~\ '\
t;
.
.
r
EUREKA
sus'o
EL.972.'5 EL.971.55
L .IS' LoiS' .
00..0' O:S.O'
LoiS'
Oc7.7'
EL '71.74
Lois'
0:'.0'
(4005 )
,
12&2'
4S'
t, .-r46'
· \ , f
, \ .' ,
, L' ,
/ Tit'.
, . fC'l a.,'
. T2~--~ fC'l ....
" 40', ~ t.. ~70'
., ,..." '\.
'u."" '. " ~.....,I "',
. 7n" '-...,1 . "",,'
. . - -
_ ...L _ _
:- \ ~\n~ '/LIO.t
~\ '~,/ ,
. l.'
~
\ .~;~~..
\ Doe'
1 AU o.
\ 1
,..
P.P.
..0 1":--.. , p.p.1 T
,.. ~ /i6
U(\0
( 451 0) 1 /~.::6~l/1 ',/
q,.., I 0...5' .
EXCELSldR 0
J:~ ~L. 40' 1'.... \
'~
NO.
I EL. '71.94
LoiS'
,'" D.'.S'
It
I ~
~
, j.u J
It f~ ~
~" ,-~56'
~ L"
I . 21L-
1
~~., .}.,2t4"1
Pop. -",' \ '
l "
,,'J!
....
I
'j. EL. .74..4
LeIS'
0".0'
l-
I ,
. -:-
~ ~
IDA 0
Q 17 'l.Oi. r ~
'''''' I ,~ '" '" "" J 'I. '""oJ ...-
... .- ... .... -
"'nl n
- .-
..... - .
~ r. V.\
., ,
'"' ."
nn .
-_,
.
.
~
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
2 JUNE 1983
RE:
JORGENSEN, MIKE - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
FILE NO.:
405 (83.21)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Mike Jorgensen, 5435 Timber Lane, has requested approval of a variance
to allow him to build a deck on the north side of his existing home. The
reason the request involves a variance is that the attached garage is closer
than 10 feet to the easterly property line, thus making the structure non-
conforming. Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance precludes the expansion of
nonconforming structures.
As part of the request, Mr. Jorgensen has offered to remove a lean-to type
shed which was added to the easterly side of the garage. While this will
not quite bring the structure into conformity, it will reduce the noncon-
formity resulting in a setback of approximately five feet where there pres-
ently is little or no setback from the property line.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate hardship in the case of a
deck. Nevertheless two significant factors suggest that a variance may
be appropriate in this instance. First, the new Zoning Ordinance contains
a provision which allows expansion of nonconforming structures as long as
the nonconformity is not increased. The proposed deck conforms to all set-
back requirements. It is on the opposite side of the portion of the house
which is nonconforming and is over 100 feet from the shoreline of the lake.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
qtL/
J . '
('
j
1.JJ
~ (f)
-
- -
~ .. ..
..
-
-
-
...
~.,.. -.,.
~
~
"':)
,;,'"
o
""'l'
~ .....
,.
c
-
.
~-@
~ ~
o ...
- ...
... .
~
@
+-
i.,:JJ."
of t,+ 'f/POO
..c-." ,~t; I
...,,-'- Of .,.~. \
..c-."
...,....'-
,<
.~
'Z.
()
\-
\il
'Z.
'Z.
-
2.
-
'>- -
ct
CD
U\
'Z.
C)
W
Q
-
Q)
-
i-
!
~t.
'"
~
...
...l
-z
-
. '" "I'
'5'('".,.
,. - 7c':
~:. "i"
Exhibit A
SI'rE LOCATION'
Jorgensen va .
r~ance
request
(' - . \ I '
,/,n ;I\':'r,-"",,'---
~ . I J .., Y ,) ~S
.
.
.
.
..
LA.(LE:.- h'\ IN~0t-4 KA
O.c.vf..
-Jo "~~~t\
~'''-O~f.I ~~:r.", tlh4.~
d "',.~ )'Z'ilo6jfA" ~."'c.
,.
--~
r-...
"
""7 ~.
'-~
~
~
tN.'~
Exhibit B
SITE S18rCH
I
.
.
COMMISION RECOMMENDATION
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MEETING DATE:
MOTI ON :
MOVED:
SECONDED:
VOTE:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 7, 1983
JORGENSEN, MIKE - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXPAND A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
To recommend that the Council approve the request for
variance subject to removal of the nonconformity (the shed).
Vern Watten
Frank Reese
Unanimous, 5-0
Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie,
Mary Boyd
none
none
r..-._.(.
Jo"^ ~p', '
EP~.--: ~~S,,~.. Ed Yaeger
~f < TJ~"- .-~
:IF-;Y~ .. ,'~~'
.
~~
j~
5445 Timberlane Rd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
fjv~ / 13
Hz 9'-- H/U M(K~ :fc~fR.!tI~.
,we tfA1J6 ""0 &~.:rcQ;~".J -r" 4- IJbUC IM;)~
1:0 'laVA- (1#-<-1} 'Tlk ftz.c AI~oN~ To cJj~
(/~'fJ+') iJeA-IF../J oA/ LAJ~ r/o~ of Cj~J/'-
I-fcJu l~ .
WE lj/JlJf.l s(M1J I Cfov vJi/..L U.AoVG -r/I1=. J ~
R:rrAA~ ID CjOVll.- ~~;=.
~ou^'\ rJ>>L~
4d-r:.. y~
P'J ,/IH.ACI-
1t-1J1 ~\J~\1i01J.l fLPHG. - ~l'f'- U1(,
,
9~
.,
J
,
.
~!
~o wLlU- :)~ .~~
)il /dL ~ W "r' v-+- ~ P
o-k u,~ cL. ~I(k~ ~d cflA- r~ 7 ~
oc ~~ ~ ~.13 0-1 ~~/U~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~iCL 12'1-4~
d"l< ~ ~(~)4, 5"'i3S~~/~
ux:d~~'
U4 .~..~ ~-~ ,fl.. r ~
~ ~. LJ~ ~ Ac ~,-"S~
~td4- ~
/It/ilJ> r ~~
d~~~
6/3//g,3
i'
.
5465 Timber Lane
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
June 3, 1983
Mr. Brad Nielsen
Planning Department
City of Excel sior
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
Our neighbor, Mike Jorgensen, has informed us about his plans
to construct a deck on the lakeside of his home at 5435 Timber
Lane in Shorewood, Minnesota.
I understand that his variance request for this deck will be
considered at your Planning Board meeting of June 7, 1983, and
your City Counsel meeting of June 13, 1983.
This is to let you know that we fully approve of Mikels plans
for his deck and hope his variance request will be approved by
the City.
Very truly yours,
'l~\Q;~ Q.Uu. ~. \-lvi.~
.'~
Maryann C. and Cordon H. Hull
sjh
(~
.4r'
!
.. ./"'.
,.
I
.~ / ...---,
.
.
.
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Krist; Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 2 JUNE 1983
RE: POKORNY - PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-2
FILE NO.: 405 (83.18)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Wayne Pokorny, 24275 Yellowstone trail has requested that the City
approve a zoning district amendment (rezoning) for his property located
on the south side of Yellowstone Trail just east of its intersection with
Country Club Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). The prop-
erty is currently zoned R-1 and contains approximately 5.24 acres. Mr.
Pokorny has asked that the zoning be changed to R-2 in order that he be
able to subdivide his property with lot sizes similar to the area which
surrounds his on the east, west and south sides.
To illustrate how his property could be developed under R-2 zoning, Mr.
Pokorny has submitted a sketch plan showing nine single family residential
lots (see Exhibit B, attached). Exhibit C shows approximately how the ap-
plicant's proposed lot layout would relate to lots in the surrounding area.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Club Terrace Addition which surrounds the Pokorny property on three
sides has long been recognized as being substandard in terms of its exist-
ing zoning. The majority of lots in the area are well below the 40,000
square foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 District. Based upon a
lot size analysis prepared by the City Clerk in 1978-9, lot sizes in the
area bounded by Riviera Lane, Yellowstone Trail and State Highway 7 average
35,887 square feet in area. Excluding one very large parcel of undivided
property the average lot size is reduced to 31,843 square feet in area.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
:if I () a.-
PLANNING COMMISSIO~
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
2 JUNE 1983
.
PAGE TWO
Besides the Pokorny property, lots fall in the following size ranges:
3 over 40,000 sqaure feet (one of which is an undivided
parcel 201,683 feet in area)
2 30-35,000 square feet
16 25-30,000 square feet
11 20-25,000 square feet
2 15-20,000 square feet
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the discrepancy between current zoning
and existing development. The Proposed Land Use plan for the area in ques-
tion suggests a density of 1-2 units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION
The preceding analysis clearly indicates that the Pokorny property as well
as the entire westen half of Planning District 10 is inappropriately zoned.
As such the rezoning request is considered reasonable and consistent with
the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. In addition to approving the applicant's
request, it is also recommended that the zoning of the entire surrounding
area (westerly half of Planning District 10) be addressed at the time a
new zoning map is prepared in conjunction with the revised Zoning Ordinance.
As a final note, it should be realized that the applicant's sketch plan is
for illustrative purposes only. Approval of the rezoning should not be con-
strued as an approval of the subdivision design. Review of a preliminary
plat will occur once the rezoning is resolved.
BJN:kw
cc: vnoug Uhrhammer
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Wayne Pokorny
Kathy West
.
.
\
FFI 'oN
::t
NO/SM/08ns
.
.
.
~
~
.
~
"so\!' co,'!" M: .0-
A.IJ~"
i
.,.. ~
.5 N
r.:: -'
"
--
. .,~
. /1"-. 1. .
o --__T-
· t':...--,ca-- .
:.. ~
I,.. '" ;" ,...:.. l"
.. ~ . :::\
~ .. ..t!€.:__ .'.'
- I'" r--- - I.... __~. ~
: ~ '& ~-- f
I. ~l 's.U .L _ _-, _~. ' "\_
~ ~ -- I ,'.
N - . ... ~ . ..i.-
· '. -:::J
':J I - ,
.::!. Jk., .--+-
.... ::!
S,IJO.l.IOn~ ..- -
.
"r
.
~
:.
3NVl
-
,
"
. '.
.. .'1..',
~ t~. '.
1',11
lD
. t-
.0:.,
'. ,
.. ,
,
~
W) /'.
~_o., W) /
-"1. - '--~i
.. I
2. ~ I
....:.. I .
~.!J- .. I <) ~
I /
.!""...
~I" ':II!:
. 7 ",: .-
1.-
~'L- I , , ,i'
'i.,
~
..\.
~
.;..
.:' -
.' ..".......
.. ..1i
..
,;:-rf
:y .
..
~
r.
~
::
/:'
l
........:;...
l~
-
I.
0, l.
I
.:
@
~
t - t)
- -.\.. - -- ......
<I)
.......
::.
......
Q
CQ
~
<I)
~
~
J
4-
-
()
~
.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i--r
.8.xhi bit A
SIrl;; LOCA.rION d rezoning
Pokorny propose
-
""
1;..
,,,
I .
~ ;.
t! !
o. '-.
.0 ~ __.4 ~.
. '. - ~ .. :.; @
".' -- -f -:..,
-- ~;A2 ..
. '~-
r ~. ..' :p
".. .'- ". ..,
-- \ .
I c: ~ ,lOll
".S .::
'~ .., ". I
;0"
~ I
- I
. '-.+. 0 ..
f E. to
!Ji;!- .
. .
a ~
. -1-. f
. It r I If lil
4...__ I !
1 ...
-"~I._ _....k ..
.O'
---
'3
~
r
,
It! \
It! \
\l
\..
\
\
,
J ,..u.- -
.!-l.f. .
<;
--
.,'
-
;
::
N
.
1,
\
\
. )
~
q
./.
,/
-\
,/
...-
Scale: 111 = 100'
--
~~I .oN
.
I
!
,.......
...:=J
N
N tt)
OIS/I\/oe
nS
~L-
;.,
.
.rtJ
,
, ,
::'''
... ..
-::~ ~
I
~ c-f
..
",I ...-
;1--
--~
--- ~ ~
:!:;/
.,.,
- I'.
-<I~
I
~xhibit C
101' SIZ~ Cor.:PA..:USO:"J
...
.., -!.\
..'
\
\
\
." SJI L, '", Z
i. LJ'
~~I .ON 'p,qnS
"
./;-
~......~
... .:;- '.
..!l ,,~:
,;7;
s"i
..
"to.
, "
(
.
r:
AI:~
r.
Date:
June 2, 1983
To:
From:
Re:
Shorewood Planning Commission
Paul L. Swanson
Re-zoning of Wayne Pokorny property at
24275 Yellowstone Trail
The people of this area of Shorewood have spoken clearly,
loudly, and at great lengths on the issue of property zoning:
put simply: ltYou buy Rl, you sell Rl.lt
~
We have no desire to see the identity of the area eroded
with higher density housing, single homes squeezed on sub-
standard lots. Such housing begets still higher density housing,
which begets commercial/residential, which begets commercial:
it never, never, never begets Rl.
Secondly, although this property is adjacent to R2 property,
it is also adjacent to Rl. It shouldn't follow that this also
should be R2, simply because of the other R2 in the area. Hope-
fully, we can learn from past mistakes and are not committed to
repeat them again and again.
Thirdly, our local streets are currently over-used, mis-used,
and generally assaulted daily by the mindless, thoughtless, and
lawless commuter who is hell-bent to shave a few seconds off his
or her home to work to home trip.
As a homeowner living on this local "interstate," it is
difficult and always dangerous just leaving my driveway - this
drama is repeated by most of my neighbors who live on Yellowstone
Trail, Country Club Road, Tee Trail and Wood Drive.
An R2 zoning would unnecessarily further burden our streets
with unneeded additional traffic, not to mention the danger of
adding four more driveways on Yellowstone Trail.
At the public hearing for the infamous medical, medical/
professional, professional building, the city engineer of
Shorewood described these streets as "narrow, winding roads
having poor sight lines .-" He concluded his report by saying
"additional traffic would be dangerous."
Since that time, the council has approved the professional
building and approved an Rl subdivision of the McCartney property
on Yellowstone, both of which have added or will add additional
traffic. An R2 re-zoning would further accentuate the problem
and test the limits of safety.
J()e
" ,
..
,
Shorewood Planning Commission
June 2, 1983
Page 2
Finally, as a Planning Commission you must ask yourself
if the immediate pocketbook gain of a landowner outweighs the
long term consequences of this irrecoverable change in property
zoning with its inevitable effects on surrounding future devel-
opment, not to mention the additional "traffic-straws" on the
backs of the area residents.
~
Unfortunately, we gain nothing with higher density zoning,
but are left in future years to pay for the trappings that
higher density brings - we have only to look to our Badger Park
$250,000 fire hydrant to see the folly and the on-going price
of high density.
;t~L~~
cc: Bob Rascop
Al Leonardo
Area Code 612
Office: 474-5222
M~ e~~~
P. O. BOX J
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
r
47:~~:~~i9650
June 6, 1983
Plannin~ Con~ission
Ci tv of S~10rewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, l"1;1.
Ref: ~ayne Pokorny request to rezone from R-l
to R-2, property at 24276 Yellowstone Trail
rentlemen:
We wish to re~ister our 2pproval of this request to reduce the
lot sizes from hO,OOD to 20,000 s~uare feet, based on our in-
tention to also apply in the future to have our entire property
rezoned from R-l to R-2, even a hi~her density.
A study of the history of the zonin~ chan~es in our territory
will show a checkerboard pEttern that cefies lo~ic wherein we
are z.oned R-l 'across the street from a commercial intersection
that is B dis~race and the continuin~ approvel of zonin~ re-
quests deviating from the R-l status on our basic perimeter.
We have B ~es station, a car repair shop, B transmission shop,
8 used car dealer, a liquor store, e freternal order's saloon,
not to mention the Vil18~e's Reneral workin~ and storage yard,
all within a five hundred foot radius of our property.
If you will check our perimeter you will note that we have ~one
to considerable expense to c row a green hedre to b lock out
the adjacent scenery.
We are realistically plrnninp for our futu~e when the costs of
operetinrr a Golf Course at our location makes it impossible to
continue. ~Jhen thet time comes, ane we co not think it will
be too far distant, then our property would be subdivided for
buildin~ sites. Our "rreen acresll atmosphere will be a thing
of the past. We woule then sell 20,000 square foot lots along
with Hr. Pokorny end the other developers in our territory, and
possibly plan for e hirher density 8S is currently bein~ done.
So pleese apDrove Hr. Pokorny'S request.
YOUi'S trllly,
I'nW\ETo~rKA COU'l,1Y OL'13 AS3H., IHO.
/>~~
B. It"i trak
President
bw.xx
.
.
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: DATE:10 June 83
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
The staff report for Woodhaven 2nd Addition -
Setback variance has not been completed in
time to be included in your agenda packet.
The report should be in your mailboxes by
5: 00 fl.1 on Monday.
BN: sn
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
//~
--' -iIi
,
.
,
/'
Case No.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FORM
,
I
Zoning District Amendment
C,,"ditional U. Permit
)( Vqrianc. ~~-t ~~5 .r e0
::tF BOar 511 ~.
Subdivision ~l.L.1f:. tOJ 8
Planned Unit Development
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Text Amendment'
Applicant Halley Land Corporation, 3140 North Harbor Lane, Fox 3 -
(Name) Plymouth, &iN ~~441 (Address) 559-7300 (phone)
Halley Land Corporation, 3140 North Harbor Lane, Fox 3 - Suite 103,
~er Plymouth, MN 55441 559-7300
(Name) (Address) (Phone)
Property location (Street Address and legal Description):
Lot 11, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22035 StratfQrd Place)
, Lot 12, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22015 Stratford Place)
Lot 1, Block 1. Woodhaven Second Addition (22020 ::strattora .t'laCe)
Lot 2, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22040 Stratford Place)
Lot 3, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22060 Stratford Place)
Description and/or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections):
Lot 11 - Rear yard setback from 50' to 10'
Lot 12 - Rear yard setback from 50' to 30 '
Lot 1 - Front yard setback from 35' to 25'
Lot 2 - Front yard setback from 35 '. to 25'
Lot 3 - Front yard setback from 35' to 25'
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the
applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative
procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outlined in the application
procedures. and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to
additional application expense.
\
~ ,-
(~ '~~~ . c~:=:> r-~ j ~-
~~.. , .;-~ c:,.-- .~ - s---'
~ _ ~--, EGAN. PI ELD & NOWAK --:1ii1
_~ " .! ~.-'). SURVI!VOR. g~~~.-.. Ci.!-
~ --- liU
l~YZATA ILVIl . II "I~","I" ..'....unA .'
.:" II
--- -~.__.
.
Cla'I'lca,. O' IUaYIY
,_ HAI.L~ LAND CORPORATtOJi
~ srHArl'd,4l()~ P~AC~~
... 9U.3 ;' "- ,80. .. \I)
AC n. H'''S~.
~;:'';,9 . N.tJ(J - ~Z;!
1'14 ~~.,,~. ' ..._
vt:/:~ "~$~"""~'-- ~
~ 1..1' .
:~, '.f~ I ,~
.~ ~ ,~ to , 9\ .
; I ~ II ~s
, ~
I :"'s..
~..
NOTE: Beal'ina. ShOW1l al'e assumed.
SCALE: 1"-50'
DESCRIPTION: toe 11. Block 1. WOOD HAVEN SECOND ABDtTI
,\'
3: o-II"~'I':
-'4. /~~$'" .
T--__ '"
~ I ",_
~__"" I."
I II
. /~..~ \~
- - /
..... '..~
,". ")
\ ~ "I."U 1'~.s-
,. J,
'~
.f l
f,~ f
~.f
~~ ~
.!\ ,
.\~ /'
It
Itf
W. h.~.by certify that thl. f. .
the bounda~f.. of the 'and 8bove
if any. th.~eoft. 8nd 811 vi.ible
Oated this 2Dd day of
JU1Ie
. 1983 .
2297-43
. --
.
)
HALLEY LAND CORPORATION
,~ '
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
.:.';
~~: < "",",,~.:,; '<-.. ":
We are the owners; 01. Lotg.~I'; 2." 3'. 11. 12 and 13, Block 1.
Woodhaven Second AdditioD~
',.;'
We are aware- o:four variance:- reques't for Lot 11, Block 1.
Woodhaven Second Addition,,", which will. be reviewed by the
Council on June 13 198a!~.',.'
MAH/ss
',"-.
/).!J
3140 Harbor Lane . Fox 3 - Suite 101 . Plymouth, MN 55441
. 612/559-73Oe
.
June 6, 1983
J\j~~ 'j
~
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
.
l""'>
'.{,) "'~.~(~~,u...-,
We have been informed by Halley Land Corporation that
they are seeking a variance for Lot 11, Block 1, Woodhaven
Second Addiition, and that the review of this variance
by the Council will be made at a meeting to be held on
June 13, 1983, at the City offices.
We mayor may not be in attendance.
We are the owners of Lot 9, Block 1, Woodhaven Second
Addi t ion.
Sincerely,
,-1 .. r-/1 '
~fr~7' .~,.~~~--Pe~~
\/ Ray and Jeanette Plets
23080 Stratford Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
l., t:.
.
t
.
HALLEY LAND CORPORATION
Pursuant to our conversation, I have reviewed the whole development
and I did find some handwritten notes from the Council meetings.
Not only were Lots 11 and 12 discussed re~ardinyrear yard setbacks
as to how the house would be orientated but we also discussed Lots
1, 2 and 3 as far as the front yard setback variance from 35" to
25' .
June 8" 1983
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, 1m 55331
Re: Lot Variance Request for Woodhaven Second Additio~,
Dear Brad:
Again, I thought all of these were covered in the minutes and were
part of the approval of the total subdivision. Since our discus-
sions were mostly with Mayor Steve Frazier and Councilman Robert
Nae~ele, Jr. the night we received subdivision approval and since
neither of these gentlemen are on the Shorewood Council anymore,
I would hope that the current Council members would honor their
previous discussions.
I will plan to attend the meeting on June 13, 1983, and if you,
cannot personally attend the meeting. I would hope that one of
your associates could be there to reassure to the Council that
this is nota new request but one that was unfortunately and
inadvertently left out o~ the official record.
Sincerely,
~
Michael A. Halley
President
~.
~'t.~
MAH/ss
P.S. I also sent notice to Steinel.':' Koppelman, the 'owners of
Lots 4 and 14, which would also be in the perimete~
control of Lots 1, 2 and 3.
~~
3140 Harbor Lane . Fox 3 - Suite 10];' .. Plymouth, MN 55441 . 612/559-7_
.
.
1983 PARK COMMISSION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1. Manor Park
A. Complete ballfield
B. Add passive play equipment and picnic tables
C. Investigate and resolve apparent drainage problem
2. Freeman Park
Establish new entrance drive-way, complete as much as funds allow,
seek donations
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Design and build an attractive entrance
Establish walking and ski trail system
Continue planting of trees
Monitor vandalism in and around the park
3. Badger Park
A. Level the hockey rink and replace boards
B. Add tennis backboards to the courts
C. Level low spots on football field
4. Funding Sources
A. Complete booklet of desired creative play equipment
B. Seek donations for passive equipment
5. Interaction and Good Communication
A. Continue to attend Council meetings
B. Increase the communication with City staff, Planning Commission and
City Council
C. Attend Planning Commission meetings
D. Maintain a liaison member to each organized sport
1) Monitor the evaluation reports turned in by each league chairman for
possible problems (with regards to the condition of the park fields,
etc.). Improve communication with user groups
6. Public Relations
A. Establish regular park information column in City newsletter
B. Sponsor the first annual community event for Shorewood using neighbor-
hood groups (community picnic)
7. Trail System for Entire City
A. Establish city wide trail system
8. Improve and enforce the ice rink management policy drawn up in 1982
A. Encourage better attendant cooperation
/ 0 t:L-
/.
,
i
I
\
.,
'I
'I
'I
:,
:i
,.
!I
;'
:1
H
::
\!
;1
"
Ii
"
,.
.
~.. ~~"4
.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 82-03
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO &ISINESS AND
TRADE REGULATIONS: AMENDING THE CITY CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 1155 RELATING TO ALAR~' SYSTEMS
'~
il
!:Sectlon 1.. Plymouth Ci ty Code is amended by addinq a new section to
IChapter XI to read as follows:
Section 1155 - Alarm Systems
I 1155.01. Statement of Policy. The City Council of the City of
I Plymouth deems it necessary to provide for the special and express
l\,regulations of alarm systems which are designed to siqnal the presence of
i a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which public safety personnel
i\are expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and
: welf are. . .
:i
il The City Council finds that the requlation of alarm systems is
:Inecessary in order to reduce the increasing frequency of false alarms in
:\Plymouth. The great number of and increasinq frequency of these false
~ialarms requires intensive, time consuminq efforts by the Department of
'!Public Safety and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services
I'
;\available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of
qthe City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the
\!community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to
I: 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
:ithe alarm systems shall be regulated throuqh the permit process descrihed
below:
..
:1
.: the
d
ii
~ I
!\
:1
il
I.
ii
;1
II
II
\\
\\
1\
1155.03. Definitions. As used herein, unless otherwise indicated,
following terms are defined as follows:
Subd. 1. "Alarm System" shall mean an assembly of equipment 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.
Subd. 2. "Alarm User" shall mean the person, firm, partnership,
association, corporation, company or orqanization of any kind on
whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm User,j shall
include persons occupying dwellinq units for residential purposes.
"Alarm User" shall not include persons maintaining alarm systems in
automobiles.
-dJ::M a..,;
,
I
I
I
I
I
.
.\
;i
),
d
Ii
\1
I
i
.
t
I
;1
i
'I
I
"
Ii
:1
:i
ii
.;
:j
\\
"
:1
I
"
.i
;j
:1
:\
'1
;1
Ii
:\
iI
il
I'
tl
AI!
t \i
XI'~ J\l
V' rl
{IV ~.~ !I
~IJ' ,I
l!) r b-& i
YJrY\ I
I
I
.
.
Subd. 3. "False Al",rrnc:" 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 by
utility company power outages or by climatic conditions such as.
tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, other violent conditions of
nature, or any other conditions which are clearly beyond the control
of the alarm manufacturer, installer or owner.
Subd. 4. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership,
corporation, association, cooperatiye 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 review
the issuance of all alarm permits.
Subd. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt and
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) workinq 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 durinq each calendar year.
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 address,
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 by
conditions beyond the control of the alarm user, the alarm will not
.
.
Subd. 2. "False Alarms" will be excused If they are the result of an
effort or order to upgrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm
system aDd If the Public Safety Director is given notice in advance
of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance.
1155.09. Prohibitions.
I
Subd. 1. "Alarm Systems Utilizinq Taping or Prerecorded Messaoes."
No person shall install, monitor, or use and possess an operative
alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messages which deliver a
telephone alarm message to the polic~ or fire department.
;,
"
ij
H
iI
I
!
i
I
i
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 during the next calendar year.
"
'.
,
I
I
"
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 following 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
alarms;
c. That the alarm user has knowingly made false statements in or
regardinQ his application for an alarm user's permit;
" d.
I
,I
.,
That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, within a
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 peace, health,
safety or welfare.
.
.
.
,I
Ii
:1
"
Of
:1
'I
:,
II
;i
I'
\\
:1
:\
"
;l
q
II
~ I
All alleged violations defined above shall bp investiQated by the
Public Safety Department. The alarm user shall be given notice of the
proposed revocation of suspension and be provided an opportunity to
informally present evidence to the Public Safety Director prior to the
final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aqarieved by the
decision of the Public Safety Director may appeal that decision to the
City Council.
1155.15. Criminal Penalties.
Subd. 1. Any alarm user who conti~ues 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) days.
Subd. 2. Any person required by this ordinance to obtain an alarm
user's permit who knowingly fails to do so shall be Quilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a
fine of not more than five hundred dollars (5500.00) and by
imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days.
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.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective April 15, 1982.
Adopted this 1st day of March, 1982.
:\
,
:1
:i
:i
I
i
\ ATTEST:
i
fl!J4~1
~ :X:J
City Clerk
-HS <--_
-
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
.
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
l'iEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
3 JUNE 1983
RE:
RAND, LUCILLE - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
FILE NO.:
405 (83.20)
BACKGROUND
Ms. Lucille Rand, 5950 Grant Street (see Exhibit A, attached), has requested
a variance allowing her to expand her existing house. Since the house is
too near the rear lot line and the side lot line which abuts Grant Street,
it is considered nonconforming in terms of current zoning requirements.
The property is zoned R-2 and contains 10,560 square feet in area. As
can be seen on Exhibit A, the lot is fairly consistent with lot sizes in
the surrounding area.
The proposed addition shown on Exhibits B - D is one story measuring 15' x
32'. According to the applicant the bathroom in the existing house is in
the basement and the bedrooms are on the second floor. She has difficulty
negotiating the steps due to her age. The addition would allow her to bave
a bedroom and bath on the first floor.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Section 10 of the current Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits the ex-
pansion of nonconformities. As you are aware the new Zoning Ordinance, if
adopted, allows expansion of nonconforming structures as long as the non-
conformity is not increased. The following items are considered pertinent
to the review of this request:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
PLANNING COMMISSION,
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
3 JUNE 1983
PAGE TWO
1. The house technically fronts on Park Street resulting in a rear yard.
setback encroachment of approximately 36.5 feet. Since the lot is on
the corner the house is 21 feet too close to the Grant Street r.o.w.
It should be noted that the house was built prior to any zoning re-
quirements. It was obviously oriented to Grant Street rather than
Park Street.
2. The house and proposed addition will be approximately 78 feet from the
house. Also, a 50 foot wide parcel (possible r.o.w.) owned by the City
separates the two structures.
3. The proposed addition lines up approximately with the rear of the
structures.
4. Current zoning for the site and area immediately surrounding it is
questionable. The Comprehensive Plan has suggested a residential den-
sity of 2-3 units per acre is appropriate for the area.
5. The Grant Street right-of-way is 66 feet wide. Current standards re-
quire only 50 feet. Dividing the 16 foot difference between property
owners on both sides of the street gives each one eight additional feet.
In effect this reduces the nonconformity of the Rand house to 13 feet.
In order to bring the lots along Park Street into conformance with
zoning standards, they would have to be zoned R-4 or R-5 similar to
nearby lots in Excelsior. While it is not suggested that rezoning be
addressed at this time, it must be realized that if it were, resulting
setbacks would be decreased, reducing or eliminating the need for
variances.
RECOMMENDATION
In study sessions onthe new Zoning Ordinance we have discussed the idea that
where setback variances are granted, the distance allowed is made up on the
opposite side. For example, if an applicant wants a five foot side yard set-
back, they would be required to provide 15 feet instead of 10 on the other
side. If the City is inclined to grant the requested variance it is recom-
mended that such a condition be imposed. In this case nothing can be done
with the setback on Grant Street. However the front yard setback on the
Park Street side should be maintained at 71.5 feet (35 foot required setback
plus 36.5 which is being granted for the variance). It should be noted that
the garage already encroaches into that area and that only future expansion
would be so restricted.
BJN:kw
cc: ~oug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
Lucille Rand
Kathy West
"
\ I~ -
\l-~P~~ ;
L'~
I ~ 1- LP, I
I -S): -,
I I
-.J (Jl
...
~~
..
"
I
':~:
1/, .
~'I' ~} /
~ "'I ___' ~. .,... I
,,: I /~) ':.~ ~ '. 0
-"~. .' ~,g~.
u .
, c:( c:(
. = ,~"
o
'" r~"
I crl~ 0
~Ir;; ~f"'I ~
~ 4'", N,A
__ -' 1- 7. -
/~~
.~
ro.. ;
:~.
...
..
ll'j-
~~ I
Qr:..... ...,.,
~l:) ..
~~
o /~_ ~ I
N __ I)
~j ~
.,,/ ,-
I 1'1'
1....-' I
I ~, cr> I ~ I 'i
I -- ~~2 I ~.I ,_,:.~
,,-, .,j , --. -,
I.... \" I ~-
\{' ;j,I~':':;
.
0" 'Z.
_ ~7 !..
\ '0 \ \ 56'6/7:'
lr-t:;:: \ \ ( .
~ \\ -"3' ..
._ _ \ \..~J ..
~ \ - -~~---~
0, -.
\ _. :
'~
, ,
~
...
!:::
.--,
...'
..:
..I
.....'
......,
'90:-
~./ -\".i~
.
-(
,~~
Gl
~
~
<
~
-c{~~~
,-
-
....l
00~~~1'
~" (.'
"f
;!
o
-"'-
~
"
7_
....
----.J
/
I
~i
~.
.. .;::-
t,fl....
.....;
l....
~.
c
t-
o
~
-.....
.~
I
~-:;
Gl
...
I
. ,
,
~:
I
,.. ~
<
'""" -
~
o
D
~
/
C'C
~
,~
, "<'d"
" . . '..
'.:
(:.)
<;"
"
..>.
~
~
"
0.' ~
.~
"
~)
~ ("
';" '" ,':- ,',:-:::, ,,' \,"
" "
, "'C-,, '"
:' ", ' :- '
, ,'" ,,\
i ' ,', ",,"':''
, ~"'" ,', , ',,' ',' :
, " " ,;
, ,
: '" ~,' '," ;'
':, '
" "" """ ':
,
" ','
, -~ .-'--1- .. ...
1 ,I .
" -~--':-,/" ' '~
" \ , .,-----,~ "".. .' " " ,
'--~ ,--------- ,- -----~_._- ," " , -, ,'," -, ---"-', ----. ------ ,-~. .._-------
'} , '. "'~ 1. .;i ~_ .; ',,:
. '7-l E" .:f%~ ,~:<' >
,'.'~ " ' .-' ' . ",' ' I, "
"~' .
_ !. _ ... _1 "., ,-
'~,~_I .~ ~~.... ., D~ itf( "'"!. "_
,~- ."
'1
C' ..",.....
"', ','."l!
'. .'
i'
~ \"",' ,,-.,
", ~'.' "",,', . ""~., '~" ',:> ,"'. I
. ;', ",,"j'~ ":'"
. ~"."", '. """
< "~,' . .., \- \II.l
:" . ," > ", ", '. .'~ --..
,- .'" ,. ,,',., ':,'\ "~~'~
. '. " " , ..',.' .,' '" ." 'r::. . .
,'..' .~ ~,.-:,;"::-" i....'
..", , ': ',' , :." 'c..
'i ':'. ", ". ", ". ".' .",'
. , , " ,"". ,'.' II ,"',i,::'
. " ,',' ,.... " :". ;:':'i. . , '
, ,;l... "~I .' '.. u - ,'.
:'~ It ' , ',' ,_n.:, .' "
^""'!' "~"~,',
~~._- - ... .
. ,ttq
"..--------'------+ --~' . , ,
' -4
'<< -~------
~. ..---------,--
;, .'
.
"'..
.
,
',"'".],
'. ". .
" .-'
,,~~ . .' ';" .",. '.', .
1:--.-----
, ">'- . .,
, .
.' ;.
.',' ,
'. .,
','
~-~~
i"
,
. "
,
. .
,
"'"-',
,
'-
.
, .
. "'..
<,'~ .'
. -........---
.,' 'V.
".~~..
',""- "h
"',~~
','
,
- -~
,',.n..,
'. ' .
,
-.
.',
.:
, '
" " '.'
.': ',.;'
: '"
;
. .
"
, .
,
"' ,
"C'
-:~~ ii,~t:
~.
>.e
. ".
.
;:1,' ,"
:;"~"_<,,, .
~--,,,- '.. " -.----
, : ' ,.', ,. ,'1
,
. ::
~~..'.~
".'
,
.
"1'
.
',\ ,
,
.
-9
~
.
\
""",,-
.~ -____.t._
t)f7!
.,
"".11:1"1
\\<lglY~ 1?
,
.
: '
.. ,,. . .. ",' . -
. "';:""
.;.....
'.A
~
\ '
j
~
~..J 17
,'-
~_~- ' i-: -
.., --.
">--;':"';':':-C';
:1,''" d""',-,,,,_
"
,\" ,
",' ,e', "
.
'--
-
-
,\
C '"~
'~
'.
ExhibitB
SITE LAYOUT
....,
~
V"
,Co) ~
....w:
~~
'-
I
,
, "
"
"
.;
,
" :
.', ";
, ',.' "-',11
, :
..
'.'"
V\
,
.-
.
, ,
,
1
~
~.",
~.
.'\0
:- "
t
,
-;,l'
. ,,'
. .. ,-..~t
-'.~.--
,.",.:,;,~ -:it ,~-
'.'~~,,~
.'~ ,.
.,~ -
,
- - ....,.;.
)
,
~~
,
.,
,
.... ~
"
;
-c~..._-',-
"
. .'
'.'
;.. ~
,~ ,"
',~
.
'" ,,%,
'.,<
.~,
.,~
:4S
~
.~
o
~ ~
.~ ~
, t I: "~
I
,,~-.
"
I
~~
i..
y'
~- ,
, . ~"xe" ..-:,,;,-+.,.-c-- -....l
~)oji.';'--'-~.f":' . ':':~". !
c,; '. '". ' ~:
.t-:
I
,
;,
---r>-
1
, .
I
t
..... -........
-!
:
0
0 '(i
! ~ I
-<15 r
')
j ) ,~
, ',I
f ,u..
'J
I
I
I
I
I
I t ~ iii
, L.CIt M
_.._.:L ~1 ,l~ -'~,....---
" :,~' "t.-' !
;.! 4 j::' .,~
C', . ~~
i
'.,!
t" '.0.<(;:'
'j
I
, -l
t .
'H"~i,l'~ .'t.!~~',l'
o I
- tit, I
i I'''f-,~'P
t .
1 i ·
i 1 ! 1
i :, ,4"
a ,
,4a
1T'f
I
I
.1
I
'1
'J
",.t-.;!l
~t~.
, ,',' ,;,"'(1
i:,~/.:,.,!;;.,...~.;.~ ....)f;..~..:~.s
...~, ~
. 1
o
.~
-.
..
"';/
..
1;"
~~,._.. ...--.,~,~
'. ~. .] '\, .~t. :l~,"_:;~
.' ! '1 ../; ,
. '-~ .{., :';,'
.o,,,.,.,--,-~.~, ':f ";,.
l ,~).;~ _ ~ J .,';t,;>",:t II
" ..0. Qt -;-r--. . . .:- 'r ;~ " .~ ' \},\ ~:' ,
.~ .
J ;.'
"",",;:,*,,,,,
'" '
-~--'" -~ .... -,"-'
. ',~"<tf""1l"""'; ...:.-.,.. 't ~..-
'~"~*'k~~:L-. . '. .,
~
- ~ '
Exhibit C
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
u
::
,~- '. If-,''\-''''~;,''''
(,
~.:" .-...o.....:;.,'l'...'".-..~
;.... ~
'{
;, i
: I
, : j
: ! 1
I: !
D
lCl
i ~"
j' i
, ,
~
Exhibit D
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
. '
,
; ;'
. '
I
,
. I! 'J'
I
i
,
I
I
, !
; . ;. !
L:l t i
, J;,
III
.,
j
. I
z
q
~
'"5
..
~
dJ
o
!
LL
i'
~
r
~
l.-
C5
o ~O
10 o_
f!) ..
o ..
'.
\.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, ~~Y 23, 1983
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SROREWOOD, 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 Acting Mayor Kristi Stover at 7:32 PM, Monday, May 23,
1983, in the Council Chambers.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER:
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Acting Mayor Stover, Councilmembers Haugen and
Shaw. (Absent: Mayor Rascop and Councilmember
Leonardo)
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Mittelsteadt, Planner
Nielsen (approximately 8:45), Adminstrator
Uhrhammer and Deputy Clerk Niccum.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
May 9, 1983 - Regular Council Minutes - Moved by Haugen,..seconded
by Stover, to approve the minutes as written. Motion carried.
May 9, 1983 - Board of Review meeting - Haugen moved, seconded by
Shaw, to approve the Minutes as corrected. Motion carried.
May 12, 1983 - Special Council Meeting - Haugen moved, seconded
by Shaw, to approve the Minutes as written. Motion carried.
CITIZENS FORUM: (Matters from the Floor)
Bob Reutiman of 5915 Galpin Lake Road was present to express
his appreciation to the Council for the article in the news-
letter that informed.residents of the City's financial standing.
He also suggested Council participation in neighborhood surveys
on other issues, such as the sewer assessments mentioned1n
the newsletter.
Bob Gagne of 24850 Amlee Road asked the Council if they had
received any information on the latest Watershed Meeting due
to a mixup in meeting locations. Administrator Uhrhammer
remarked that he had just heard of it "this afternoon".
TAX INDEXING:
Haugen reported that the tax index will remain in effect unless
the state runs into a deficit.
\
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-2-
MAY 23, 1983
LEVY LIMITATIONS:
Haugen reported that cities with a population of under 5,000
are no longer under the levy limi ta tions .
BUDGET HEARINGS:
Haugen strongly suggests holding "Budget Hearings" for the purpose
of public information and input.
REZONING AND SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST:
Mr. Harold Johnson - 6055 Lake Linden Drive
Councilmember Shaw, liaison to the Planning Commission, reported
that the Planning Commission had voted 6-0 in favor of Council
approval with three suggestions:
1. That the division occur as close to 25 feet south of the
garage as possible in order to make the South lot as large
as possible.
2. That future work on Lake Linden Drive take into consider-
ation the use of some type of retaining walls to minimize
the loss of trees on the lots in question.
3. That the additional right-of-way be platted at this time
for future road improvements.
Haugen inquired about road width and was told by Engineer
Mittelsteadt that the width would remain the same.
Mr. Johnson objected to the 3-1 slope easement (1 foot rise in 3
feet) stating that it would be too close to the house and would
remove his buffer.
Court McFarlane, Mr. Johnson's son-in-law, stated that removing
foliage would lower Mr. Johnson's property. value.
Engineer Mittelsteadt agreed with Mr. McFarlane. He also explained
to Mr. Johnson that in order to have a line of sight, the bank
would have to be shaved. He is going out to take a look at the
property and will report hi~ findings at the June 13 meeting.
It was also suggested that a retaining wall would take care of
the line of sight and reduce the slope but could prove expensive.
Mr. Bob Reutiman expressed concern on R-4 Zoning, wondering what
would happen if McCartney property requested R-4 zoning. Haugen
stated that while the Johnson property, with a duplex across the
street and another duplex down the block, is suited to R-4 zoning,
the McCartney property, with all R-l zoning across the street, is
not feasible for R-4 zoning.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to table rezoning until June 13
meeting at which time a full Council would be present. Motion
carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-3-
MAY 23, 1983
PARK COMMISSION REPORT:
Community Picnic
Shaw reported that plans for a Community Picnic are still in
progress - Mr. Steve Frazier is working on it.
Approval of Baseball Agreements
Review and approval of Tonka Babe Ruth Agreement and South
Tonka Little League Agreement.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the Tonka Babe
Ruth Agreement and the South Tonka Little League Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT:
Shaw reported:
Johnson Rezoning Request
Planning Commission recommended Council Approval (6-0) with
3 suggestions (see page 2 of these minutes).
Amendment to Outlot E - Boulder Bridge
Planning Commission liked driveway change from circle drive on
Preliminary Plat to a U shape with two turnarounds because it
would leave the ponding area intact.
Teske Variance
This variance was not heard because it was discovered that no
variance was needed.
Burger King
City Staff was requested to obtain additional information on
background history.
PUBLIC HEARING:
8:00
REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 77 REGARDING THE C-1 ZONING
DISTRICT
Mr. Bob Reutiman of 5915 Galpin Lake Road wanted to know why
all people owning property in same zoning were not notified by
mail. Administrator Uhrhammer explained that a legal notice was
published in the paper and that mail notification would run into
excessive expense for the City.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:07.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that the first reading be
approved with the addition of "and" between words ''right-of-way''
d "f" . #
an rom - second llne - 5.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that the request to amend the
C-1 District of the Zoning Ordinance be continued at the June 13,
1983, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-4-
MAY 23, 1983
COUNCIL ACTION - REQUEST TO REZONE - SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS
5620 County Road 19 - Tingewood Inc.
Mr. Scott Harri of Schoell and Madson, Mr. Adrian Johnson and
Mr. Jim Morss, the architect, were present. Mr. Scott Harri
gave a presentation. He stated that they had worked on three
areas.
1. The cost effect of a reduction of units .f.r-OID 39 units to
33 units.
Using the same foot print - at 33 units - their quick
figuring came up with additional cost of $8,500. per
unit. In the long run, this could result in an
additional possible $10,000. to $15,000. added on to
the selling price by the time everything is figured in.
2. Relocation of the driveway
The driveway was moved south, entering on the north side of
the office building, through the parking lot and entering
an underground garage on the east face of the south end of
the building. (A 50+ foot setback from Mr. Borchart's line)
3. Relocation of the Building
The building had been moved west 30 feet, which will make
it 2 feet lower. It is now an L-shape with the long section
parallel to County Road 19 and the short section parallel
to 'Mr.. Borchart' s property line. There is now approximately
a 50 foot setback on the north, leaving a larger screening
area on Mr. Borchart's side.
In the 39
leaving:
unit plan, the 1 bedroom was completely omitted,
12 2+ starting in the high $90,000's
27 1+ starting in the mid $80,000's
39
The parking spaces went from 42 to 39 underground and
34 to 39 above ground, an
70 78 increase of 2.
Mr. Borchart raised a question about the present height difference
between his driveway and the roof of the bUilding. Mr. Harri
informed him that the peak of the gable roof would be 35 feet
higher than his driveway.
Mr. Joseph Finley, Mr. Borchart's attorney, urged smaller density,
suggesting 3 units per acre. He also suggested that around 17
units would cut down on size of the structure.
Hr. Donald Peterson, 32 Interlachen Court, a contractor from
Tonka Bay, stated that, having been involved in several similar
projects, he felt that the planned 6.4 units per acre was
extremely reasonable and that he was interested in investing in
Shorewood Condominiums.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-5-
MAY 23, 1983
SHOREWOOD CONDOMINIUMS continued
Mr. Robert Gagne of 24850 Amlee Road brought up the drainage
problem. He felt that:
1. In case of a 1% rain, the water from the shopping center
and Tonka Bay would create a problem.
2. The Watershed District would not accept the excessive flow
of water into Lake Minnetonka without holding ponds, settle-
ment ponds and possibly a dike between Shorewood Condos and
the lake, calling for large areas of land for this purpose.
3. Possible legal problems between Shorewood Condos, IMDEC,
and the City of Shorewood.
4. The City should look into setting up a storm drain system.
At 7:50 Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to table this Council
Action on "Request to Rezone" until the June 13, 1983 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE - SWIMMING POOL
Robin Woehnker - 4540 Enchanted Point
8:53
Mr. Woehnker is requesting a setback variance to construct a
swimming pool approximately 24 feet from Lake Minnetonka.
Acting Mayor Kristi Stover read a letter from Mr. John Dow of
4530 Enchanted Point objecting to:
1. The environmental impact on spawning area the property
borders-
2. Mr. Woehnker and his guests must cross Mr. Dow's property
to get to the pool - he was concerned about peace and
quiet of area and safety of his child and dogs.
Mr. Woehnker explained to Council that:
1. Pool will not drain into lake but will be filtered and
eventually drain into yard.
2. The place that they cross Mr. Dow's yard is a granted
easement, Mr. Dow also has an easement on Mr. Woehnker's
property to get to the lake.
3. The pool will be fenced creating safety for child and dogs.
The public portion of this meeting was c.losed at 9:04 PM.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to table this Public Hearing
until the June 13, 1983 Council meeting, at which time a full
Council will be present. Motioned carried. (3 ayes)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-6-
MAY 23, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE:
Mr. Walter Teske - 20645 Radisson Inn Road
Acting Mayor Kristi Stover made an announcement that this hearing
will not be held.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST - BURGER KING
Mr. James Winsted - 19425 State Highway #7
Mr. Winstead requested joining 3 parcels, PID #25-117-23-41-0009,
PID #25-117-23-41-0018, and PID #25-117-23-44-0009 and part of
a fourth, PID #25-117-23-44-0010 into one parcel - leaving the
rest of the southerly parcel, PID #25-117-23-44-0010, to be
used as Residential in compliance with the deed restriction.
He intends to continue to use the northern part of PID #25-117-23-
44-0010 as a parking lot per conditional use permit.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve a Simple Subdivision
Request. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL :
Robert Shaw - 5745 Echo Road
Mr. Mike Mulvaney of Custom Pool gave a presentation.
Planner Nielsen suggested that the Engineer take a look at
the grading requirements.
Stover moved, seconded by Snaw, approval based upon review by
the Engineer to make sure there are no grading problems. Motion
carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL:
Wendell Ellis - 2elOO Woodside Road
Mr. Mike Mulvaney of Custom Pool gave a presentation.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, approval of pool subject to
re-combination of two lots, permit not to be issued until all
fees are paid and lots are combined on a County Level, no fees
previously paid to be refunded. Motion carried unanimously.
(3 ayes)
PARK COMMISSION REPORT:
By Carol Chapman:
Manor Park
The Park Commission wishes to do whatever is necessary to
finish Manor Park, primarily the softball field.
Administrator Uhrhammer had an estimate for the outfield from
Don Zdrazil - Black dirt 4 inches thick, delivered, regrading,
grass seed, fertilizer and application - $12,950.
Picnic Tables
The parks now have 20 picnic tables - a little fixing and
painting and they'll be in good shape.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-7-
MAY 23, 1983
ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
RESOLUTION NO. 37-83
Attorney Larson presented a Resolution for Denial of a variance
request by Floyd Larson, on behalf of Jim Johnson.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, approval of Resolution Denying
Variance Request. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
ENGINEER'S REPORT:
Engineer Mittelsteadt recommended final payment of $3,755.68
for the Amesbury Back-up Well, stating all necessary papers
have been received.
Haugen moved, Stover seconded, that a final payment of $3,755.68,
Project 82-1, Voucher #4, be made. Motion carried unanimously.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT;
Approval of Liquor and Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses
Minnetonka Country Club
Howards Point Marina
Driskills
American Legion
Tom Thumb
Skipperette
* Fortune House
*Wine License still to be approved on State Level
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, approval of the Liquor and
Non-intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses, and Wine License
when approved by State, that are on the list subject to
verification of insurance. Motion carried unanimously.
( 3 ayes)
Councilman Shaw requested Administrator Uhrhammer to draft a
letter to applicants stating any violation, revocation, etc.
of insurance means instant revocation of licenses.
Minnewashta Church Parking Lot
Administrator Uhrhammer quoted prices for repairing parking lot.
123 yards of rock at $113. a ton
grading at $35 an hr.-6 hours
hauling rock
$482.16
210.00
516.00
$ 1, 205 .06
Administrator Uhrhammer suggested that the City buy the rock
and do the grading and that the church pay for hauling the rock.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, that the Council authorize the
City to buy the rock and do the grading, and negotiate with the
church to pay for the hauling. Motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-8-
MAY 23, 1983
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT continued
Financial Reports
General Fund-Administrator Uhrhammer suggested this report
be postponed until a full Council is present.
LGA(Local Government Aid)-Administrator Uhrhammer reported
that LGA will decrease $27,000 and a tax levy may be
necessary to recapture funds.
Manor Park-Administrator Uhrhammer reported that a $15,000
donation for Manor Park is no longer available, having been
used.
Release of Tax Forfeit Property RESOLUTION NO. 38-83
Administrator Uhrhammer suggested that the property- Lot 2,
Block 2-Balls Addition-PID #34-117-23-31-0035- be returned to
the County to be auctioned off, due to the fact it is costing
the City $150 a year and is too steep to serve as parkland.
Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, to return Lot 2-Block 2-
Balls Addition-PID #34-117-23-31-0035-to Hennepin County to
be auctioned off. Motion carried unanimously. (3 ayes)
Meeting Announcements
Zoning Ordinance Review Meeting
Meeting scheduled for May 24, 1983, is cancelled due to lack
of full Council. Administrator Uhrhammer will set a new date
and contact everyone concerned.
Second Policy Setting Meeting
Administrator Uhrhammer will set a date and contact involved
parties.
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
The Annual Meeting of AMM will take place Thursday, May 26,
from 6:30 - 7:30, at a cost of $15.00 @. Anyone interested
contact Administrator Uhrhammer as soon as possible.
Amesbury Deep Well - Pump Rebuilding
The pump in the Amesbury Deep Well is approximately ten (10)
years old, its life expectancy, and needs rebuilding at a
cost of anywhere from $2500 to $7500.
Council requested Administrator Uhrhammer to send letters to
Amesbury residents announcing that during the second week in
June, the 6th through the 10th, they will be requested to limit
their water usage.
Twin City Federal Savings and Loan-Second Depository
At Administrator Uhrhammers request-Shaw moved, seconded by
Haugen, to amend Resolution No. 1-83 to include Twin City
Federal Savings and Loan as an official second depository.
Street Light-Eleanor Goodman-5570 Shore Road
Mrs. Goodman has maintained a light near her home for several
years and felt it benefited the whole neighborhood. As she
can no longer afford to maintain it but feels it necessary
to have a light, she is requesting the City to take over the
expense of maintaining it.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
-9-
MAY 23, 1983
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT continued
Street Light- Eleanor Goodman-continued
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, that Administrator
Uhrhammer contact N.S.P. and have a street light put
where they deem it most necessary. Motion carried.
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Review of the Proposed Ordinance
Haugen moved that the review of the proposed Ordinance be
tabled until a full Council is present.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT:
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve claims for payment
followed by adjournment at 10:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
General Fund [acct # 00166] Checks 27153 -
Liquor Fund [acct # 00174] Checks 1055-
Respectfully submitted,
Mayor
SUSAN A. NICCUM
Deputy Clerk
_ 0
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Govemment Center
300 South Sixth Street
HENNEPtN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
May 24,. 1983
Shorewood City Council Members
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Council Members:
Re: Contract:/#
Shorewood
N/A between Hennepin County and the City of
for Assessment Services (Pricing Policy Change)
It is Hennepin County's desire to fu11fu1 its responsibility under the
above referenced contract by providing you adequate and timely notice
of a price change for the 1984 assessment services. It has been the
policy of Hennepin County to recover labor costs and miscellaneous
expenses that are incurred by the County when performing the statutory
assessment obligations for those taxing districts that are under contract
with Hennepin County.
The Hennepin County Assessor's appraisal expenses are reviewed annually
for the purpose of keeping abreast with increased labor and miscellaneous
costs. This analysis has now been completed and we find a need to revise
the rate structure. Please be advised that the most significant cost
adjustment will apply to residential properties due to cost incurred
variations attributable to the mix of residential properties, typical
versus expensive, within a city.
Upon approval by the Hennepin County Board, the following rates will be
charged municipalities contracting with Hennepin County for assessment
ser;-vices.
Apartment, Commercial and Industrial $102
Residential 0 - $100,000 27
$100,000 - $200,000 40
$200,000 - $300,000 75
$300,000 - $400,000 100
Over $400,000 125
Farm 42
Land 10
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an ~ual opportunity employer
. ~
t..
May 24, 1983
Page 2
Applying these rates to the parcel count in the City of Shorewood
estimated cost to perform the assessment services for the 1984 assessment
wi 11 be $ 18,500
,
If you wish to discuss these new rates with the County Assessor, prior to
County Board Action, please feel free to call this office prior to June 14,
1983.
Very truly yours,
Az~tff~/
DONALD F. MON K
Hennepin County Assessor
DFM:jb
P.S. The above estimated amount will continue in effect for each
subsequent assessment unless changed by future notification.
;
:
~
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: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 12 MAY 1983
RE: BOULDER BRIDGE - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE REQUEST
FILE NO.: 405 (83.12)
BACKGROUND
Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat for the second addi-
tion of their Boulder Bridge project. The property is the easternmost portion
of the project and is located at the northwest corner of the Smithtown/Howard's
Point Road intersection.
Although a preliminary plat for the entire project was submitted and approved
as part of the original P.U.R.D., the second phase was left as Outlot E ~or
purposes of the final plat. The applicant has now requested to modify the pre-
viously approved preliminary plat. The proposed plat is shown on Exhibit A,
attached, and the original is shown as Exhibit B. In comparing the two plans,
it can be seen that the loop roadway system has been severe~creating au-shaped
cul-de-sac arrangement. A ponding area in the northeast corner of the site will
be enlarged.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Although it should, the development agreement for the Boulder Bridge Farm P.U.R.D
does not contain provisions for future plan modifications. As such it is sug-
gested that the proposed change simply be processed as part of the normal plat-
ting process. Since a public hearing is required for the preliminary plat, any
affected parties are notified of the request and have an opportunity to present
their opinion regarding the modification.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
t
PLANNING COMMISSION,
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
12 MAY 1983
Page Two
Design Review
Despite the creation of two cul-de-sacs, the proposed change is considered an
improvement over the previously approved design. First, severing the roadway
loop allows the developer to enlarge and enhance an existing ponding area in
the northeast corner of the site (note: this is not a designated wetland
area). Secondly, the cross street between the two primary streets has been
lengthened, improving circulation and eliminating lots with street right-of-
way on three sides. In changing the plan, the developer has reduced the num-
ber of lots by one, from 19 to 18.
All lots meet or exceed the lot size and width requirements prescribed in the
Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that in the original approval of the
P.U.R.D. the developer was given design flexibility for a number of lots. He
was allowed to reduce the front yard setbacks as much as 20 feet for seven of
the lots. He has requested the same consideration for lots 17 and 18. The
reason for this is that although the lots tend to orient toward the cross
street, the houses will eventually orient east and west. To avoid unnecessary
delays at the time building permits are applied for, the applicant has asked
for approval of 30 foot front yard setbacks on lots 17 and 18.
Cul-de-sac Variance
The Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance currently requires cul-de-sacs to have a
120 foot r.o.w. diameter and 100 foot paved surface diameter. In order to
reduce the amount of paved surface the developer proposes a roadway diameter
of 80 feet with a 100 foot r.o.w. diameter. In discussing this request with
the City Engineer, he indicated that the Ordinance is too restrictive. I have
asked the Public Works Director to inform us how much room the street crew
needs for a cul-de-sac turn-around. This information should be determined
prior to the public hearing. I also asked the Fire Chief how much room they
need. He commented that they can get by with whatever Public Works can. If
in fact the requirement is too restrictive, the variance request should be
approved and the requirement reduced when the Subdivision Ordinance is revised.
Grading, Drainage and Utilities
These iteffi have been 5uomitte~ DY the developer and should be subject to review
and comment by the City Engineer. The Engineer has expressed interest in the
possibility of providing for future connection of the ponding area to the desig-
nated wetland east of Howard's Point Road. The intention of such a connection
would be to alleviate drainage problems which ultimately result in deterioration
of Howard's Point Road. Prior to final plat approval, the plat should be subject
to review and comment by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
..
I
I
I. '
..
!
i
.:
.
~ul.
t\
...
.
..
on"
\
~.
.p
~ I ~s
~r-.
... I @
@
~'l
\!oJ
.A ,
~
f ~.
~
~
lI'
# , \
@ \ I
.. I
\ I
I \
9
~
~?
~
~
~
N
..
...;.......;----
./ t-
." Q
~ I "
~ ,.",.J \'
'It .'
~,'J . I
~, 9,
'\"'4.01
:)-
l
,.;,
.-
~l.
~S
...
~..
~g
'V~
~
to
iU~
r'
It
..
(,
~ ~
\ \ ~
\ \..,
\ I
\. \
\ .
00
.~,..
:~
f
CJ
!
~
(
-. .'- .-------
'?
~"."'l
~
..
c& l
t
I
. , I
, .
. .
r' _~a. ftOaai' =-~--( '= LJ
i . .:~; ~.::.: ': ::-::, ::.~:
~ W'R&Z>.CtUi_ "w<<JJ.J~.... ~::'':.":''',,,~:,;'.:.:.;.:'':
. ~~
! ~~
~~ :;OO~~~OJ . G:~~': WI i ~ i 12UI.)
E~GJ~ &~.:_',8 cJ ~.Q~, ,I f ~ ~ v :.
6 .~. ~~..
I
0;
I
Exhibit B
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAT
5
~r
~~
:r
.!\
r,7
"','
r'
.t
"
~ t,
~ ~.
-4. L.
-; ~:.
- ~
": ~.
~ ~
, .
. .
,,'
.
)
;,:
~, --
L
. ..
4 ..'
., .
*' ~ ~
...... :,
V' :.
- .;
;:. T
-- ..
:: J'
_, .-t}
,
~' t
!.
~
. .
~: i~
.......;
V '"
I
I
,
.. ....,
I
#~
ORR.SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
June 1, 1983
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Attn: Mr. Doug Uhrhammer
City Administrator
Re: Boulder Bridge Farm
Second Addition
shorewood, Minnesota
Dear City Officials:
We have reviewed the proposed second addition to the Boulder Bridge
Farm Plat from an engineering standpoint and have the following com-
ments. Basically, we reviewed the preliminary grading, drainage and
utilities plans.
1. GRADING
From the reV1Slons to the contour lines on the grading plan it is
apparent the developer is lowering the ground elevation in the
vicinity of the new street "Boulder Bridge Lane". This should not
cause any problems and will allow for better drainage from the ad-
jacent lots. The excess dirt material can be used to fill in the low
spot north of Boulder Bridge Drive on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 of the
first addition. With the proper filling and grading the pocketed
low spot adjacent to the street at this location can be eliminated.
2. DRAINAGE
The proposed preliminary grading plan has changed the site drainage
somewhat. While the plan shows a proposed storm sewer layout, with
catch basins, more detailed plan/profile drawings must be submitted
before this project is put out for bid. From the preliminary plan
it appears additional drainage facilities are needed at the inter-
section of Boulder Bridge Drive and Boulder Bridge Lane.
Additional work appears to be proposed on the "Pond" in the north-
east corner of the site. The catch basin from the southern cul-de-
sac will discharge into the ponding area. Unfortunately no relief
(overflow) pipe is proposed for the ponding area. This is not any
different from what currently exists. However, with the development
of the adjacent land on this second addition, the storm water runoff
will have a greater influence on the ponding elevation. This could
increase the detrimental impact on the integrity of Howards Point
Road at this location.
2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 · 612/331- 8660
. \ t
Page Two
Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, Administrator
Re: Boulder Bridge Farm 2nd Addition
June 1, 1983
If the pond is continuously at a high elevation the subgrade on
Howards Point Road would always be saturated. This simulates the
condition which exists at the spring of the year when the street is
subject to its greatest deterioration from traffic loadings on a
saturated subgrade. While this is no different from the existing
condition as stated previously an easement should be established
across Outlot C to provide for future drainage of the ponding area
to the east. This coincides with the proposed drainage plan shown
in the Comprehensive Storm Water Study adopted by the Council in
1975.
3. UTILITY PLANS
A. Sanitary Sewer
The proposed sewer plan appears adequate, however a more
detailed plan/profile drawing will be required in the future.
B. Water Main
A 6" line as shown on the proposed plan appears adequate, how-
ever one additional hydrant may be required. This can be better
defined on the final plan/profile drawings which must ultimately
be submitted.
4. STREETS
While nothing has been submitted on the typical street section we
are assuming the new street section will be the same as the old one
except that the minimum blacktop width is 24 feet. The concrete curb
and gutter is adjacent to that.
The street grade proposed, 7%, is greater than the subdivision ordi-
nance allows. However, this may be acceptable providing a "landing
area" is provided at the intersection of Boulder Bridge Lane and
Boulder Bridge Drive.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
~~ ~ rJ~
James P. Norton, P.E.
City Engineer
JPN:mln
cc: Mr. Tom Wartman - Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc.
Mr. Scott Harri - Schoell Madson, Inc.
~~~~./ ~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1983
PAGE THREE
Val Gregerson, 5735 Howard's Point Road, noted that tiles used to drain the area
and tqat the pond near Howard's Point Road had not been a wetland. Staff noted
that the pond is not a designated wetland according to the City's Ordinance. The
Commission discussed the desirability of adding it to the list. Staff added that
another Dossibility would be to incorporate protection of the pond into the devel-
opment agreement~
It was suggested that old drainage tiles had probably been broken when the sewer
went in.
Bev Sikorski, 5815 Howard's Point Road, stated that her basement has been wet as
long as the pond has existed. She expressed concern over the effects of permitting
the pond to remain, adding that it is stagnant during the summer and mosquitoes are
a problem.
Staff remarked that in speaking with the City Engineer (regarding the ponding area
in general) that arrangements could be made for an overflow, perhaps a culvert
underneath Howard's Point Road, which might possibly require easements along the
east side of the road. The Engineer will be addressing the issue, and grading and
drainage plans will be required in the final plat stage.
Wartman noted that they plan to clean up the pond and increase the depth from 18
inches to 3 to 4 feet. he hoped it would be an amenity to the area. He intends
also to fill a 40 to 50 foot section between the road and the pond to drain the
ground water away from the blacktop and to landscape the area for the trail system.
He added that the drainage area plans were basically the same as when the original
P.U.R.D. plat was approved. The pond has been enlarged and an additional cul-de-
sac directs overflow into the first holding pond which flows into the lake. Wartman
noted that they would have no objection to an overflow from the pond (in Outlot E).
There being no additional comments from the public, the hearing was closed at 8:20.
Commissioners asked if overflow would go to the swampland east of Howard's Point
Road. It was noted that the Engineer would have to comment on the drainage concerns
in greater detail.
The Commission also raised the issue of the cul-de-sac size requirements. Shorewood's
Ordinance requires 120 foot right-of-way diameter and 100 foot paved surface diameter,
and the preliminary plat for Outlot E shows 100 foot r.o.w. and 80 foot paved surface.
It was noted that the Engineer suggested the 100/80 dimensions were adequate and the
Ordinance requirements were too restrictive. Staff commented that the Public Works
Department had not had the opportunity to determine the diameter necessary for equip-
ment turn-around. The Commission suggested that the Ordinance be changed if the
requirements are too restrictive.
Wartman explained that the request for variance to the front yard setback require-
ments for lots 17 and 18 is to gain flexibiltiy and avoid potential delays at the
time of construction. The request is for 30 foot setbacks.
Leslie moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend that the 'request for approval of
Boulder Bridge Outlot E preliminary plat be granted with a variance to the front
yard setback requirements for lots 17 and 18, and subject to the following:
"
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1983
PAGE FOUR
(Motion continued...)
The approval by the City Engineer as to grading, drainage and utilities
Review and comment by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in regards
to the ponding area and drainage levels
The cul-de-sac variance is considered adequate by the Public Works Dept.
The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Wartman stated that he would try to work with the neighbors and the Engineer to
solve drainage problems.
REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE - TESKE, RADISSON INN ROAD
Application withdrawn - it was noted that a survey showed that the variance was
not necessary.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION REQUEST - WINSTEAD, BURGER KING
Mr. James Winstead explained that he wishes to combine the four separate parcels
(located at 19425 State Highway 7) involved for tax purposes such that Burger
King is all one parcel, and the lot to the south, a second.
It was noted that the zoning line does not match the property lines. A concern
that in the case of a zoning boundary dispute, the entire parcel might be consid-
ered one zoning district or another, was mentioned.
The Commission agreed that further study was needed and that no recommendation
should be made. The following areas were suggested for discussion:
History of the site
access considerations for the south lot
The Vine Hill Road intersection problems
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE LAKESHORE
Planner Nielsen explained the request by Robin Woehnker, 4540 Enchanted Point, to
place a swimming pool 23 feet from Lake Minnetonka. The lot size was noted to be
9,720 square feet. No one was present to represent Mr. Woehnker.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend denial of the request. The motion
carried unanimously, 6-0.
The Commission noted that the proposal was too close to the lake and that no
hardship was demonstrated.
REPORTS:
City Council - Councilman Shaw reported that the Board of Review had finished
for 1983. Items covered at the Regular Council meeting included:
Shorewood Condominiums - decision to be made at the next meeting
Shorewood Professional Center has become the Sullivan Center
Ordinance regulating "False Alarms" was reviewed
Variance request on Oak Ridge Circle was denied - memo from Frank Kelly
was passed to Commissioners for information on variances
Zoning Ordinance Study Session - next meeting set for May 24th, 6:00 p.m.,
Home Occupation section
(
q~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 17, 1983
PAGE TWO
Commissioner Reese questioned whether the setback restrictions on the south lot
would allow building. It was noted that the R-4 requirements were less restrictive
in terms of setbacks. Reese also suggested that some of the trees along the road
might be saved by constructing retaining walls.
There being no further comments from the public, the hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend to the Council approval of the rezoning
as requested. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to recommend to the Council approval of the simple
subdivision with the following suggestions:
1) That the division occur as close to 25 feet south of the garage as
possible in order to make the south lot as large as possible.
2) That future work on Lake Linden Drive take into consideration the use
of some type of retaining walls to minimize the loss of trees on the
lots in question.
3) That the additional right-of-way be platted at this time for future
road improvements.
The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONE TO P.U.R.D. (Boulder Bridge)
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order at 7:57 p.m. by reading the
legal notice as published May 4, 1983. Staff explained that the property, located
at approximately 28000 Smithtown Road, had been rezoned and the project approved
previously by resolution rather than ordinance. The hearing was scheduled in order
to amend the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and map.
There being no comment from the public, the hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Shaw
moved, Benson seconded, to recommend that the Council adopt the rezoning by ordi-
nance. The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING - BOULDER BRIDGE OUTLOT E - PRELIMINARY PLAT, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order by reading the legal notice as
published May 4, 1983.
Tom Wartman was present to explain the proposal. He noted that the original plans
for Outlot E, showing a loop road, had been changed after studying the topography.
The road now has a horseshoe configuration. The number of lots remain the same,
19, all meeting the minimum square footage requirements. He added that the alter-
ations fit the contours better, there will be less asphalt, but some grading will
still be necessary. The proposal includes plans to move the existing pond 40 to
50 feet back from Howard's Point Road. This would allow a greater buffer and the
trail system, Outlot C, would go around the complete area to follow the perimeter
of Outlot E.
Wartman said they were attempting to stay with the same drainage patterns as shown
in their initial watershed studies. He outlined runoff and drainage from the site
noting that th majority of the water is directed to the pond area, as well as
draining across the Outlot and eventually into the wetland which acts as a settling
pond and then overflows into Lake Minnetonka.
MEMO: DATE: 5/19/83
TO: DOUG UHRHAMMER
FROM: EV BECK
RE: ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES
The following is a listing of Financial
Institutions that we will be using
throughout 1983 for investment purposes:
1] MIDWEST FEDERAL
2] TWIN CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN
3] F & M (Marquette National Bank)
~
rJ
~6 DP
V
(1~
~~'
\/
.... l M
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Govemment Center
300 South Sixth Street
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
May 249- 1983
Shorewood City Council Members
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Council Members:
Re: Contract #
Shorewood
N/A between Hennepin County and the City of
for Assessment Services (Pricing Policy Change)
It is Hennepin County's desire to fu11fu1 its responsibility under the
above referenced contract by providing you adequate and timely notice
of a price change for the 1984 assessment services. It has been the
policy of Hennepin County to recover labor costs and miscellaneous
expenses that are incurred by the County when performing the statutory
assessment obligations for those taxing districts that are under contract
with Hennepin County.
The Hennepin County Assessor's apprai$a1 expenses are reviewed annually
for the purpose of keeping abreast with increased labor and miscellaneous
costs. This analysis has now been completed and we find a need to revise
the rate structure. Please be advised that the most significant cost
adjustment will apply to residential properties due to cost incurred
variations attributable to the mix of residential properties, typical
versus expensive, w1thin a city.
Upon approval by the Hennepin County Board, the following rates will be
charged municipalities contracting with Hennepin County for assessment
seY;'vices.
Apartment, Commercial and Industrial $102
Residential 0 - $100,000 27
$100,000 - $200,000 40
$200,000 - $300,000 75
$300,000 - $400,000 100
Over $400,000 125
Farm 42
Land 10
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employC2f
...' ..
t.;,
May 24~ 1983
Page 2
Applying these rates to the parcel count in the City of Shorewood
estimated cost to perfonn the assessment services for the 1984 assessment
will be $ 18,500
~
If you wish to discuss these new rates with the County Assessor, prior to
County Boar~ Action, please feel free to call this office prior to June 14,
1983.
Very truly yours,
~C{tff~/
DONALD F. MON K
Hennepin County Assessor
DFM:jb
P.S. The above estimated amount will continue in effect for each
subsequent assessment unless changed by future notification.
"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1983
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO REZONE FROM R-1 TO R-2 (POKORNY)
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. by reading the
legal notice as published. Mr. Wayne Pokorny was present to request that his
property located at 24275 Yellowstone Trail be rezoned from R-1 to R-2. Pokorny
explained that he wants to sell the property but has not been able to as one
parcel. He felt that rezoning to smaller lots would make it more developable.
He noted that most of the surrounding properties south of Yellowstone Trail were
one half acre lots. Land north of Yellowstone was described as large parcels
and open land, and property east of Riviera Lane as one acre zoning.
Mr. Keith Bedford, 24375 Wood Drive, noted that most of the lots south of Yel-
lowstone Trail have large lot frontage. He reference a comparison of 34 lots
in the area (see Planner's report, Attachment #1) notingthat according to his
own calculations, two thirds of the existing lots would be larger than Pokorny's
proposed 20,000 square foot lots. Bedford felt the plan was contrary to the
housing pattern in the area.
He noted that a large neighborhood meeting had been held and he presented a
signed petition (see Attachment #2) against the rezoning. He also identified
a letter from Paul Swanson, 24460 Yellowstone Trail, (see Attachment #3) op-
posing the request.
(See also Attachment #4, a letter from the Minnetonka Country Club registering
approval of the request.)
Bedford noted that it might be difficult to hook the lots up to the sewer lines
which run between the pond and the residences along Wood Drive. Bedford added
a concern that Pokorny's lot sizes would make up their square footage in depth
but would be inadequate in width.
It was emphasized that, although any future lots would have to meet the zoning
district standards, the potential division sketch provided by Mr. Pokorny was
not under review, but rather only the rezoning issue.
Mr. Bedford added that the neighborhood was worried about municipal water lines
going through the area with additional developments.
Ms. Nancy Turner, 23980 Yellowstone Trail, noted that she was concerned about
additional traffic on Yellowstone Trail, Wood Drive, Tee Trail and Lake Linden
Drive. Road improvements and increased traffic speed were listed as concerns.
Ms. Dian~ Anderson, 24415 Wood Drive, agreed with Turner's comments. She added
that the higher density and small lots might make the area seem "junkie" and
lower the property values.
Mr. Bob Reutiman, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, questioned the potential number of lots.
It was noted that Pokorny's sketch showed 9 lots. Considering only the square
footage of the parcel in question, 10 lots were cited as possible under R-2
zoning. Reutiman stated that he felt Pokorny had not asked for anything unusual
or unreasonable. He noted that fewer lots might be preferable.
Waldeen Willis, 24835
under current zoning.
5.2 acres, allowing 5
Yellowstone Trail, asked how many lots would be permitted
The property was descr~bed as containing approximately
lots at R-1 standards.
Audrey Heinsch, 6100 Riviera Lane, asked of additional roads would be added.
It was noted that according to the proposed sketch, access to the property would
be from Yellowstone Trail and Wood Drive.
~h
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
PAGE TWO
Rachel Leonardo, 5845 Country Club Road, also asked about the number and type
of structures allowed under current and proposed zoning. It was noted that only
single family residences would be permitted under R-1 or R-2 zoning.
Ms. Leonardo commented that the Planning Commission must consider either the re-
quest by the single property owner for a change in zoning, or the opinions of
the neighborhood - 95% opposed.
Gene Clapp, 24115 Yellowstone Trail, noted that the recent subdivision on his
property (by Larry Bader) had been kept to R-1 one acre lots. He felt that if
Pokorny's property is changed to R-2, Mr. Bader would be back for rezoning.
Don Willis, 24835 Yellowstone Trail, stated that he felt that as with past pro-
posals in the neighborhood, this request was not in his best interests or the
best interests of the majority of the people who move to Shorewood.
Jim Baskfield, 24355 Wood Drive, said that he had bought into an R-1 neighbor-
hood and wants it to stay that way. He felt Wood Drive is too small to support
additional traffic and he noted concern for children in the area.
Joel Capesius, 6120 Club Valley Road, agreed with Baskfield as to buying and
staying in an R-1 area. He felt the Commission should take into consideration
the people who will continue to live in the area rather than those who might be
selling.
Mr. Pokorny noted that the people who bought homes in the area for open space
don't pay for it. He felt that he should be entitled to split his land into
the same size parcels as those surrounding him. He stated that R-2 zoning seems
logical. The Comprehensive Plan was reference as to density suggestions. It
was noted the lots surrounding Pokorny's property are zoned R-1 but are not
40,000 square foot lots.
Keith Bedford reiterated his concern over small lot width. He suggested that
a cul-de-sac in to the property be considered.
Mr. and Mrs. Skreen, 24295 Wood Drive, questioned whether fill would be needed.-
The expressed concern related to drainage. The Skreen's and Mr. Pokorny disa-
greed as to existing drainage patterns. Mr. and Mrs. Skreen stated that Pokorny's
property drains into the pond along Highway 7 via a culvert running across their
property. Pokorny felt the drainage was natural and not,ed that there had been
no water problems during heavy rains. It was noted that no drainage easement
exists.
Rachel Leonardo questioned Mr. -Pokorny's intentions as far as subdividing and
overseeing the sale of the lots. Pokorny noted that he plans to s~bdivide the
lots and sell to several builders.
Ms. Leonardo and Gene Clapp questfOned the need for R-2 zoning versus R-1.
Pokorny noted that he wants the same rights as those owning the lots surrounding
him on three sides (zoned R-1) - lots smaller than one acre.
Mr. Bedford reiterated his previous testimony.
There being no additional public comments, the hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m.
The City Planner reviewed his report (See Attachment #1).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - UNAPPROVED
PAGE THREE
The Commission asked for the density levels suggested in the Shorewood Compre-
hensive Plan. One to two units per acre density was noted.
Zoning districts in the proposed Zoning Ordinance were discussed. Some Commis-
sioners suggested that the intermediate zones, such as R-lb (30,000 square foot
lots) might be more appropriate in this area. The possibility of a compromise
was discussed. It was noted that few of the existing lots in the area could
meet the 30,000 square foot requirements.
Shaw moved, Benson seconded, to recommend that the Council deny the request to
rezone to R-2. The motion carried, 6-0, on a roll call vote.
Pokorny requested reasons for the Planning Commission's vote.
The Commission noted that they were not respnsible for the way lots were divided
in the past. They felt looking at the future is important. It was suggested
that Pokorny should work with the City Planner and the neighbors. Proposing a
P.U.D. for the parcel was suggested, along with lowering the density.
The following comments were made by the individual Commissioners:
Frank Reese noted that he felt 20,000 square foot lots were inappropriate in
this neighborhood.
Janet Leslie felt the Commission can't take responsibility for what may have
been too dense zoning in this area. She noted that she would have been willing
to look at a compromise but that giving a flat R-2 rezoning for this area was
inappropriate.
Mary Boyd agreed that changing a neighborhood from R-l to R-2 was difficult.
She noted a significant difference between a 40,000 square foot and a 20,000
square foot lot, but felt a reasonable compromise might be okay.
Vern Watten commented on the efforts that had gone into preparing the new
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, noting that he felt rezoning the
property was not in keeping with the intent of the plans.
Bob Shaw and Bruce Benson agreed with what had been stated by the other Commis-
sioners and had nothing to add.
Respectfully submitted,
1\Cf(JJLu-,-,)(j~i tci
Kathleen West, Secretary
~4_ ~/s
IAMOS S.OEINARD
SIDNEY L-ORBER
SIDNEY BARROWS
HAROL.D O. FIELD.JR.
"L.LEN I.SAEKS
THOMAS O. FEI NBERG
MORRIS M. SHERMAN
GEORGE REILLY
DAVID N. COX
STEPI-4 EN R. PFLAUM
CHARLES A. MAYS
NANCY C. DREHER
LOWELL J. NOTEBOOM
GEORGE F. McGVNNIGLE...JR.
FREDRIC T. ROSENBL.ATT
BYRON E. STARNS
STEVEN C.OERUYTER
ALAN ..I. WILENSKY
STEPHEN ..I. DAVIDSON
STEPHEN R. LITMAN
OAVIO C. ZALK
EOWARD M. MOERSFELOER
ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS
HUGH M. MAYNARD
KENN ETH H. PROCH NOW
MiCHAEL.... NEKICH
MARTHA C. BRAND
"IltO,,"E..IONAL. COfllt~OIlt"'TIO"'.
LAW OF"F"'CES
M. PATRlC1A SCMA"F'ER
JAM ES V. ROTH
ROBERT L. DeMAY
ANGEL-A M. BOHMANN
ROBERT O.ARKIN
ROBERT P. THAVIS
.JAMES G. BUL.LARD
.JOSEPH M. F'INLEY
LAWRENCE J. FIELD
.JONl MARIE: KELLY
....ARCIA HENNEL.L.Y MORAN
RICHARD RAPSON
ROBERT D. GIL.BERT
GEORGE B. WYETH
NANCY A.wELSH
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
"" PARTNERSHIP O~ ~"O"E..IONAL CORPORATIONS
1200 NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
510 MAROUETTE AVENUE
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
TELE~HONE AND TELECO~'ER
(612) 339-'200
June 9, 1983
GEORGE e. LEONARD (US?2.18Se)
ARTHUR L. H. STREET (1877.1861'
BENEDICT DEI NARD (188..-18e8)
IREN E: SCOTT
O~ eOUN.E.L
Members of the Shorewood
City Council
Shorewood City Hall
5755 County Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Tingewood and ImDec Development
Dear Members of the Council:
I write, again, on behalf of our client James Borchart.
Because Mr. Borchart perceives that Shorewood is now
basically committed to allowing the Tingewood and ImDec devel-
opments to go forward, he has recently purchased a new home
in another city. Several weeks ago, Mr. Borchart had his
home on County Road 19 appraised, and of course he has now
listed that home for sale. Mr. Borchart's listing agent,
Coldwell Banker, is of the opinion that the imminent develop-
ment of the Tingewood and ImDec projects has substantially
adversely affected the value and marketability of Mr. Borchart's
home on County Road 19.
In light of this, we renew our strong objection to both
the Tingewood and the ImDec proposals. Both of the proposed
developments are inordinately large and both will have signifi-
cant detrimental effects upon the Borchart home. Accordingly,.
we ask that Shorewood place meaningful restrictions upon both
projects so that the detrimental effects they may have on
Mr. Borchart's property will be minimized. If Shorewood
does not take care to minimize the detrimental effects these
projects may have on Mr. Borchart's property, his home could,
as a result, be rendered virtually unmarketable and the damages
the Borcharts would suffer will be great. It must be kept
in mind that Mr. Borchart has owned his home on County Road 19
,
Members of the Shorewood
City Council
Page 2
June 9, 1983
for over 11 years, has maintained it in top condition at all
times and had compiled quite a bit of equity in it. It
is possible that, if you do not place meaningful restrictions
on the Tingewood and ImDec developments and the value of Mr.
Borchart's property is thereby significantly diminished, a
court might find that Shorewood's actions resulted in an
"inverse condemnation" of Mr. Borchart's property.
With this in mind, we request that, at a minimum, the
following restrictions be placed on each development: With
respect to Tingewood, the 50-foot setback now proposed by the
developer should be retained and possibly made even greater.
In addition, an effective buffer in a form satisfactory to
Mr. Borchart must be placed upon part or all of the setback
space. Finally, the height of the condominium building must
be reduced on its north end (facing the Borchart property)
so that the building does not loom above the buffer to any
great extent. To accomplish this, the density of the project
might be reduced without allowing the developer to increase
the size of the units now proposed.
With respect to ImDec, the proposed apartment building
must be shifted away from Mr. Borchart's property line as far
as possible. If this is not done, Mr. Borchart's home will be
virtually imprisioned between the massive Tingewood structure
and the ImDec structure. Also, the further the ImDec building
is from Mr. Borchart's property, the less likely it is to be
the cause of flooding on the Borchart property. As you know,
the prospect of flooding on this property is of great concern
to Mr. Borchart. An effective screen or buffer must also be
erected or maintained between Mr. Borchart's property and the
ImDec apartment building and parking lot, or the visual
encroachment upon the Borcharts will be oppressive.
If meaningful restrictions such as these are imposed on
the Tingewood and ImDec projects, it is possible that the
detrimental effects of these projects on Mr. Borchart's property
can be diminished. I hope your City Council will keep these
considerations and Mr. Borchart's plight in mind. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
JMF:mes
cc Brad Nielsen
Doug Uhrhammer V
Gary Larson, Esq.
James Borchart
LBEONA~' STRE~ AN~~f~ARD
Y cf-..'7J~, ~.~
:;=;;~. F1nley ..~
.d~4..
. .
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BRAD NIELSEN
DATE: 2 JUNE 1983
RE: POKORNY - PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-2
FILE NO.: 405 (83.18)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Wayne Pokorny, 24275 Yellowstone trail has requested that the City
approve a zoning district amendment (rezoning) for his property located
on the south side of Yellowstone Trail just east of its intersection with
Country Club Road (see Site Location map, Exhibit A, attached). The prop-
erty is currently zoned R-1 and contains approximately 5.24 acres. Mr.
Pokorny has asked that the zoning be changed to R-2 in order that he be
able to subdivide his property with lot sizes similar to the area which
surrounds his on the east, west and south sides.
To illustrate how his property could be developed under R-2 zoning, Mr.
Pokorny has submitted a sketch plan showing nine single family residential
lots (see Exhibit B, attached). Exhibit C shows approximately how the ap-
plicant's proposed lot layout would relate to lots in the surrounding area.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Club Terrace Addition which surrounds the Pokorny property on three
sides has long been recognized as being substandard in terms of its exist-
ing zoning. The majority of lots in the area are well below the 40,000
square foot minimum lot size required in the R-1 District. Based upon a
lot size analysis prepared by the City Clerk in 1978-9, lot sizes in the
area bounded by Riviera Lane, Yellowstone Trail and State Highway 7 average
35,887 square feet in area. Excluding one very large parcel of undivided
property the average lot size is reduced to 31,843 square feet in area.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~
+ .
PLANNING COMMISSION,
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
2 JUNE 1983
PAGE TWO
Besides the Pokorny property, lots fall in the following size ranges:
3 over 40,000 sqaure feet (one of which is an undivided
parcel 201,683 feet in area)
2 30-35,000 square feet
16 25-30,000 square feet
11 20-25,000 square feet
2 15-20,000 square feet
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the discrepancy between current zoning
and existing development. The Proposed Land Use plan for the area in ques-
tion suggests a density of 1-2 units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION
The preceding analysis clearly indicates that the Pokorny property as well
as the entire westen half of Planning District 10 is inappropriately zoned.
As such the rezoning request is considered reasonable and consistent with
the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. In addition to approving the applicant's
request, it is also recommended that the zoning of the entire surrounding
area (westerly half of Planning District 10) be addressed at the time a
new zoning map is prepared in conjunction with the revised Zoning Ordinance.
As a final note, it should be realized that the applicant's sketch plan is
for illustrative purposes only. Approval of the rezoning should not be con-
strued as an approval of the subdivision design. Review of a preliminary
plat will occur once the rezoning is resolved.
BJN:kw
cc: !/I>oug Uhrhammer
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
Wayne Pokorny
Kathy West
. ..7-
-0' !------wr:. ,
o ~~-.car '.
~ I -;;;
I~ ~
...:Ji.
I'" ___
I ~r ~
I '~
I, 'l '5.1.1 J. - --,- --r..
~ ~---
..J
\,. ~
'-J
.
AIJ~"
~
.,..~
~ ;;j
'::. '--"
"
...
. '.
"
CD
, I"-
"':.,
'., ,
#""
~
= ~ I
- "'i :- '; :
-': "--~7
2. - I
..:.. I .
'.!.l-",' /' f'IllI. ~
..r-..... ~
-,.. ~
lr3, ",t " ___
: 'r I .' "..
.. 'i.,
~
~~
'<
~
t
~
~..
l.~
-
~
~
J
4-
-
()
~~
--,\---- -~
<I)
.......
~
.......
Q
~
~
<I)
~
..'6.... Co.,:",:,:
rrl 'ON
.
.
.
..
..
.
..
N
'"
NO/S/III09ns
.
....t'...
..
..
>>
"r
-
~ :'l'~
....)
'"'1(1'
~
;...
.:' -
.1...,.."
---1;
..
~..-r
~ '
..
~
r.
~
~
\
"Of
AM N
i.
L-
I
.'
@
EEl
I
./
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.' i-- r
:: .!fi:!:-'
t ~
'-r~ .. f
... r I !,
'-~ I J I r--.
I ...1 ~
-"-!L- _...k.. -
."
...
i....
~..
I
,L;
f
lr
~:.
..
Ip
@
.
;:
r
I
In ,
In ,
\"
\...
,
,
,
J Ip&IJ- -
..!.I". '
~
If,
..
" ~
" ...~---\.-.~
-- ~ 0
- ..;::~
\- ,~' ,-'
"--"~' . ...
\ ..
\ C::~
~.~ .::
.~
oS
..
. I."~
~---
Exhibit A
srTE LOCA'frON rezoning
Pokorny proposed
-
-
;0:'
~
;
:;:
N
'"
f\
\
\
'"d
J ::0
0
'"d
~ 0
Ul
/. L-j
t)
/"
-\
/"
Scale: 111 = 100.
....s~~ 0/'" L Z
I
f
~~I .oN
.8
N
ro
NO/S/lI/Oens
.r~
V~31^IH
'-S~
~ . .J
--~(iijTI - ~ ')-..". "-
o I 'i:. n
~ %- L ~~~\ ~~ ~ \
'-J (\ ..-t'" - ~ _0 '--'
____.7!L-+ ~ i ~! -~~\
-C- ?----.- f ~ ~
~ I :o-i'7 ~ t".'
!O~'-
---r-~-t-- ;~
I ~'Z 0 ~ : ">
10 ~ L ~ ~ ..-
J: <:") 1 f- ~~\ -:-~.~t-
~ ~~. (':' ....
~,. ~"t ..
{> ~ -. ~ ~:. ~ (!) "t ·
~ --~-- ~: :~~
- - -.-<: J. " ."
:!;:/
3NVl
co'
.",
t'tZ
..
....
~
~
CIO~
:t:
~.
I
~ ~ S
'2:>~ ~~~lI'l
~ ~ ~
~ .
"',of
~I~
I
...
Kxhibit C
LOT SIZ~ COKP~~ISON
."
"" SII W L, ...f Z
.;. '2,," '" eLS'
Sl.
~~I .ON 'p qns .pn~ ..
,
A
:# /~<--
Area Code 612
Office: 474-5222
M~ e~ elMA
P. O. BOX J
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
Golf Shop:
474-9571 or 474-9650
June 6, 198J
Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, rID.
Ref: Wayne Pokorny request to rezone from R-l
toR-2, property at 24276 Yellowstone Trail
r-entlemen:
We wish to re~ister our epproval of this request to reduce the
lot sizes from40,OQO to 20,000 s~uare feet. based on our in-
tention to also apply in the future to have our entire property
rezoned from R-I toR-2, even a higher density.
A study of the history of the zonin~ changes in our territory
will show a checkerboard pattern that cefies logic wherein we
are zoned R-l "across the street from a commercial intersection
that is a disgrace and the continuing approval of zoning re-
quests deviating from the R-l status on our basic perimeter.
We have a gas station, a car repair shop, a transmission shop,
a used car dealer, a liquor store, a fraternal order's saloon,
not to mention the Village's general working and storage yard,
all within a five hundred foot radius of our property.
If you will check our perimeter you will note that we have ~one
to considerable expense to y row a greenhedp:e to b lock out
~he adjacent scenery.
We are realistically planning for our future when the costs of
operating a Golf Course at our location makes it impossible to
continue. When that time comes, and we do not think it will
be too far distant, then our property would be subdivided for
building sites. Our "green acresH atmosphere will be a thing
of the past. We would then sell 20,000 square foot lots along
wi th 1ir. Pokorny and the other developers in our territory, and
possibly plan for a hirher density as is currently beiny done.
So please approve Mr. Pokorny's request.
YOUl's truly,
HHTNi:!;To:rKA COUNI;1 Y CLUB ASSN., INC.
(~~L-J/
B. 1/';itrak
President
bwoxx
IYf() c......
)
\.
.;/~1L; :
i
./
A,I~
Date: June 2, 1983
To:
From:
Re:
Shorewood Planning Commission
Paul L. Swanson
Re-zoning of Wayne Pokorny property at
24275 Yellowstone Trail
The people of this area of Shorewood have spoken clearly,
loudly, and at great lengths on the issue of property zoning:
put simply: "You buy Ri, you sell R1."
.
We have no desire to see the identity of the area eroded
with higher density housing, single homes squeezed on sub-
standard lots. Such housing begets still higher density housing,
which begets commercial/residential, which begets commercial:
it never, never, never begets Rl.
Secondly, although this property is adjacent to R2 property,
it is also adjacent to Ri. It shouldn't follow that this also
should be R2, simply because of the other R2 in the area. Hope-
fully, we can learn from past mistakes and are not committed to
repeat them again and again.
Thirdly, our local streets are currently over-used, mis-used,
and generally assaulted daily by the mindless, thoughtless, and
lawless commuter who is hell-bent to shave a few seconds off his
or her home to work to home trip.
As a homeowner living on this local "interstate," it is
difficult and always dangerous just leaving my driveway - this
drama is repeated by most of my neighbors who live on Yellowstone
Trail, Country Club Road, Tee Trail and Wood Drive.
An R2 zoning would unnecessarily further burden our streets
with unneeded additional traffic, not to mention the danger of
adding four more driveways on Yellowstone Trail.
At the public hearing for the infamous medical, medical/
professional, professional building, the city engineer of
Shorewood described these streets as "narrow, winding roads
having poor sight lines." He concluded his report by saying
"additional traffic would be dangerous."
Since that time, the council has approved the professional
building and approved an Ri subdivision of the McCartney property
on Yellowstone, both of which have added or will add additional
traffic. An R2 re-zoning would further accentuate the problem
and test the limits of safety.
Shorewood Planning Commission
June 2, 1983
Page 2
Finally, as a Planning Commission you must ask yourself
if the immediate pocketbook gain of a landowner outweighs the
long term consequences of this irrecoverable change in property
zoning with its inevitable effects on surrounding future devel-
opment, not to mention the additional "traffic-straws" on the
backs of the area residents.
.
Unfortunately, we gain nothing with higher density zoning,
but are left in future years to pay for the trappings that
higher density brings - we have only -to look to our Badger Park
$250,000 fire hydrant to see the folly and the on-going price
of high density.
/k{L~~
cc: Bob Rascop
Al Leonardo
~
~
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
2 JUNE 1983
RE:
JORGENSEN, MIKE - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
FILE NO.:
405 (83.21)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Mike Jorgensen, 5435 Timber Lane, has requested approval of a variance
to allow him to build a deck on the north side of his existing home. The
reason the request involves a variance is that the attached garage is closer
than 10 feet to the easterly property line, thus making the structure non-
conforming. Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance precludes the expansion of
nonconforming structures.
As part of the request, Mr. Jorgensen has offered to remove a lean-to type
shed which was added to the easterly side of the garage. While this will
not quite bring the structure into conformity, it will reduce the noncon-
formity resulting in a setback of approximately five feet where there pres-
ently is little or no setback from the property line.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
It would be extremely difficult to demonstrate hardship in the case of a
deck. Nevertheless two significant factors suggest that a variance may
be appropriate in this instance. First, the new Zoning Ordinance contains
a provision which allows expansion of nonconforming structures as long as
the nonconformity is not increased. The proposed deck conforms to all set-
back requirements. It is on the opposite side of the portion of the house
which is nonconforming and is over 100 feet from the shoreline of the lake.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
") "...1
( -:
.....1
1..Li '
~ ())
CO
CO
~ .. -:;
..
-
CO I
CO I
....
I
!
,
I
@
~ -~.
~
~
-;:)
,;,""
~
",,",'
-
@
.... ..J.l ......
._ - --: ~ .4.(...."!
.' !t~ ~
~ .~ \
. " \
: ....
,C
c
-
4
~
.......-
"1 \-
-""At.
'1r
.""
~
o ...
- ...
.... ...
.
ot
..~.... ~o"~
~\.......... o~ <;,
..~....
~\..........
:r~
~
~
iet
'~
'Z.
()
\-
\a1
Z.
Z.
-
~
I
,
,
\. .
-
'>- -
ct
en
en
'Z.
()
~
a
-
c.!)
-
s-}
.... -
I !
\\
c
7.
-
\&l
~
ct
...l
. .... "II
'"
~ L -t.~4t--
ii!' .\~ ~,
, ~ ~ ~
I I ~
,_____l-_ _'0..1_...._ j "
.....J. :f!l~'- - --.-:--
,i'
-~
~"i
.r ! r--
."i::J ~ r
~
I ('I'"
Exhibit A (\l .'
+- SITE LOCATION
Jorgensen va .
r~ance request
(' 7 . \ I' : '; j . i '
7,,(! 1'1 . rr",",~--'
_ . I. .1.. ..., "7.. '.,.J.~ S
..
..
LA.(LE... N'\IN~0t-4 ~
O.c.vf..
.)0 '-~~,e,t\
"'(""
a
~ ~~;) ~r'
,~ '..:.. f
o~' - ", C\.::"'-.
--cv.,
~(.'" !
/ .', .~
.~ .. .." ~""<c,
'-.. -
"
B'~','~ ~'i..ej(,f" l-\.>t;~
~)
,#,~
~\~....e,.. ~~:r.", ~h..~
>----
"I\..,.
'~"
'-~
'"
~.
thr,",
Exhibit B
SITE S:KB;rCH
,
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Kristi Stover
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE
10 JUNE 1983
RE:
WOODHAVEN 2ND ADDITION - SETBACK VARIANCES
FILE NO.:
405 (83.23)
BACKGROUND
In applying for a building permit for Lot 11, Block 1, Woodhaven 2nd Addition
(see Exhibit A, attached), Mr. Ed Krumme was surprised to discover that a
variance is required in order for him to build his home as shown on Exhibit B.
Exhibit C illustrates the required setbacks for the property in question. As
can be seen, the required setbacks drastically reduce the buildable area of
the lot. Consequently, Halley Land Corporation, the original developer, has
requested on behalf of Mr. Krumme that the City grant a rear yard variance of
40 feet allowing the house to be built as shown on Exhibit B.
So as to avoid the necessity of requesting future variances, the applicant has
also requested a rear yard setback variance for Lot 12 and front yard setbacks
for Lots 1 through 3.
IS~Q~~_~~Q_~~~~r~!~/ RE~Q~~~~Q~!!Q~
Lots 11 and 12
H;~i~g-b~-n-i~olved in the original review of Woodhaven 2nd Addition, I
recall considerable discussion regarding lot configuration and placement of
homes within the subdivision. In our staff report dated 12 September 1978,
we indicated that due to configuration it would be extremely difficult for
Lots 11 and 12 to comply with setbacks.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
10 JUNE 1983
PAGE TWO
There is no question that the City was aware of the problem when the plat was
approved. Exhibit D is part of the Preliminary Plat originally submitted,
showing the proposed location of building. (Note: At that time Lot 11 was
shown as Lot 14 and Lot 12 was shown as Lot 13.) Besides being specifically
addressed in our staff report, the problem was mentioned in the Planning
Commission meeting minutes of 28 September 1978 (see Exhibit E, attached.)
While both the developer and I recall the issue being discussed at the Council
level, there: is no record of variances being granted in the minutes from
23 October 1978 (Exhibit F) or 9 April 1979 (Exhibit G). Nor do the Council
Resolution (Exhibit H) or the developers agreement, dated 23 May 1979, contain
any reference to variances being granted.
Since Councilmen Shaw and Haugen were on the Council at the time the plat was
approved, they may be able to provide some additional background relative to
any discussion regarding variances.
From a planning and design perspective this situation simply illustrates the
problems associated with oddly shaped lots and gerrymandered lot lines.
While it may be possible to force a structure into compliance with zoning
standards on Lots 11 and 12, the result would be relatively undesirable.
Since the City approved the lots as they now exist, it is recommended that the
City grant the setback variances requested for Lots 11 and 12.
Lots 1, 2, and 3
Lots 1, 2, and 3 were designed with the minimum lot depth allowed by current
zoning standards - 120 feet. After 35 feet is subtracted for the front yard
setback and 50 feet for the rear, only 35 feet remains in which to build a
house. While this is considered adequate, it certainly dictates design
somewhat. The problem is further increased by relatively steep slope on
Lots 1, 2, and 3. In hindsight, these lots should have been deeper than
average rather than allowed at the minimum depth.
While the applicant has indicated that variances for Lots 1, 2, and 3 were
discussed at the same time, I do not recall such discussion. Furthermore,
the drawing submitted with the preliminary plat (Exhibit D) shows buildings
located 35 feet back from the street.
If the Council is inclined to grant the variances for these lots, it is
recommended that the rear yard setbacks be increased by the same amount. By
doing this the applicant will not receive any special treatment not afforded
other lots in the R-2 District.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
10 JUNE 1983
PAGE THREE
Planning Commission Review
Since Mr. Krumme is anxious to begin construction, and since the need for
variance, particularly on Lot 11, is not his fault, we have scheduled the
request for the earliest Council meeting possible. Consequently, the request
has not gone to the Planning Commission for their informal review and
recommendation. Hopefully, Mr. Krumme will not be further delayed for what
is considered an oversight on the City's part. It is therefore recommended
that at least the variance for Lot 11 be granted without Planning Commission's
review. The request should, however, be referred to the Planning Commission
for informational purposes.
BN:sn
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Jim Norton
Gary Larson
MikeH!lley
Ed Krum~~
Planning Commission
Kathy West
s
LO
It)
ff
........
\i
l'l
----"'1D- __
N
~
/
~/
j
~
~,....
\.. '..v
.~
~
~,
~.
\,f\
..;:;::j
\D
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-c.-
US"
.....
~
S
1')-
c
1",
p#t
~ ~
~ ~Ae
Q)
It).
.
,
.r:::
~ID
II
..
.;;
'i-
~
p!
~ _IA
-<:i~
~
~
-
-
-
-
~ - \'.:,...~
. ~..::;; --
'\ -- '.-,
\\ \;. , () .
\~''"' ~ ':
\~\!~ r~-'/
)~~
/jA/~
/~;.."
I'. /'\,.
.... ~'fi'
',0
.~
LO
~
e7SL
....~
N
~
"t)
.l!!
-s
\.I
....
~
'" tSp
-~
. It)
....
.
.
s::.
,~,..
c:;
()
- request for
..,.
'C
~
""
r1'
.
...
.0
o
t:N
'!:j
~
'"
~
~ ,-
~
~ ,-
(~n~l-- . c~~ r-~j:.- ,
f1TT11i _ ~C"1EOAN=: FIELD &=-NOW~-~-~n
_~"'>> 'I ~--, SURVI!YORS ~~-:g .-.:~f:~:...h-
7.ISWAY1ATA ILVD. . P . "'I~~::UOTA
\\tu.
CIRTIFICATI OF SURVIY
For HALLF.Y LAND CORPORATION
~ STHAr~t7~01 PLAC~~
... H3.3/ '-980.9 ~
No "'.H'4S~.
9!~.9 . go,O(J. CJ8Z.J
/~.,.. h~.M
/I.Ii'. ~,.,,~& '
eN:/.'~, E~S''''''if-('''
,
,
~
t
lit
,"l~
~O\
.~
t;)
~
~
~~
CJ\~
~~
,,\)
I.i
NOTE: Bearings shown are assumed.
SCALE: 1 "=50'
DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Block 1, WOODHAVEN SECOND ADDITI
S. h. .,.'
C" '" .I~"'4!':
"""L /., 9. S"4i .
I'I
~I
\.1....
l/
~
.~. af-
t. ~ ~
~. ~
~. ~
~ ~~ I..
c.,. V
~
I o(
,/',
~
I "fI~ ~../9M.Z!I
true and cor'Yec t represen to t i on of a survey of
described and of the location of all bu' Idlng,.
encroachment.. If any. from or on .ald I.nd.
.~~ --
/'
\
""......:
We hereby certify th.t thl. I. .
the boundar'es of the land aboye
if any. thereon. and all visible
Oated thl. 2nd day of
JU1le
. 1983
Exhibit B
PROPOSED SITE PLAN - LOT 11
5783
2297-43
~ ,-
(~n~l-- . c~~ r-~j ':-.
~i _ ~...,EOAN: PIELD &=-NOW-A.K - -~fi1
_~., "~-_l SURVI!VORS I~~~?_~ ~~~ :..i..L
---
7.15 WAYUTA ILVo. . II WINNU~IS. w'NtI&soTA
,,\tal.
c.aTIFlcaT. o. SUaYIY
,_ HAI.LF.Y LAND CORPORATIOH
~ STA'Ar~d,.(1D1 PLACe'~
'9t ~U.3 / '-- 9eo. Q ~
AC "..H'6S"4.
.~,.9 . ~o.lJt1_ "'.z..
/~.", ''''.#1#
", ~ ~,ir~& '
~"I;~ E~S'M'iI~
~
.
%~
0\_
~,
",
'4.
NOTE: Bearings shown are assumed.
SCALE: 1"-50'
DESCRIPTION: LaC tt, Btock t, WOOD HAVEN SECOND ADDITI
~
.~.l
~.-r f
~. ~
~\1, ~
c,-~
, 4~
'I.' "
~
.,,~ $"'/9H.Z~
true a d cor'"r"eet representa'lon of a survey of
described and of the location of all bu' Idlng,
encroae"""en's. I' 'U\V _ I r__ t'\r t'\ft .. J "". ..uL
We hereby certify that t~'s Is a
the bounderles of the lend above
if any, thereon. and all visible
Oe ted this 2nct day of
Exhibit C
REQUIRED SE'rBACKS
.JUDe
. 1983 .
2297-43
5783
'^
I
~
=
~
..
u.J
-I
<C
U
Vl
,
;
~
I \
I
\
\.
\,
\
\
\
\
ft1''r/
\ i /
u.;
<Ii
ON"
o
<t , I
o " I!
'~i i I
i Ii. , I,
I ,. 'i'.l / f,' I !
~ '/:, 1,'/ I 0 "',/:,
'/ , I ,~ f' 'I. I
;' ! , "'/" - I
! '00'0'1'1 I, (j "'~.... ~
I I! ' I \3', "'4:( ....
' 1.1, Q:
/'. ',' ',' A ..,.
../' ~ //'81 1,,1 ~o;J' ~ , ~~
en/,. /;
~/ '/ / / .
' ~ fI)- //'
:/ - / ),~
-<' ~ ''t-
/ lo~
,/ / ~"""
/ " /
,,.. / / /
"../ n"O
)4""::;
~?/
,
- <=>;:<!" C' C' ._;;-
, ..~~ t> ~ I
\~...::...,
~ " -
' "
'\ ,
o " ~~
fqlO\ zW.
<t \
N \
. \
"', ."'~,
...
,
_._~~
" tr-;-~
IJ.: /
"
"
,
,
"
"
'.....
,
Exhibit D UILDING LOGArIONS 1
PROPOSED B art of or1.g:ma
Submitted as p
plat
prelimina:rY
"
,
"
"
00;9{1
vv."e"
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 2 -
MINUTES - September 28, 1918
Discussion issues:
1. Subdivision name - hereafter referred to as Woodhaven Seoond. Addition
2. Corner lots - depth, width problems with 11-12-13 (do not meet required setbaCk)
3. Drainage running through lots 10, 14, and 13 - questiondl..
4. Check conforming cul-de-sao
5. Proposed water ~ste. - Central Well
6. Retaining wall at expense of the developer
1. Conoern of wash to main road for city maintenance; should be controlled.
V> 8. P.C. concern about Murrq road and Apple road connection.
o.JV C Leslie moved, Watten seconded that the Public Hearing be closed.
After further discussion of the members of the Planning COIIlItissioD; Vatten moved,
seconded by Gagne, to approve the plat with the following *tipulations:
a. Concern - wSJ to improve the 8~ slope.
b. Show easements around each lot and divert water before it get. to Apple road.
c. Recommend central well for 14 lots; (10' x 15' space in 1 lot for well)
d. Varianoe to the cul-de-sao.
Motion carried unanimously.
. ~....
-,\..
..:.
Exhibit E
PLAIJNING COt~~ISSION NllruTES
~~ September 197~
/
/
J 'I
/
Legular Council ;,leeting
- 2 -
October 23, 1978
KEN' PASSE - 25895 Smithtown Road (Plat 34420 - Parcel 5550) nESOLU'fION ~ro. 73-78
The planner's report had been received on the proposed division of the Ken Passe
property (Parcel 5550) which property contains approximately 5 acres.
At this time ~~. Passe still wanted to divide into 2 parcels with a possible future
division of his west parcel into 3 lots.
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to approve the division of parcel 5550 as
proposed by ~~. Passe and to approve the proposal #2 as a concept for possible
future division. Motion carried unanimously.
ORLA MIDERSON - 22520 Murray Street
(Part of Lots 84 and 85 - Auditors Subdivision 135)
Orla Anderson appeared before the Council requesting division of his property
(Plat 34440 - Parcel 0300) into 2 parcels; existing parcel contains one single family
plus garage and one double unit dwelling.
~oved by Haugen, seconded by !iaegele to approve the division in accordance with a
survey by Coffin, dated August 2, 1978. ~otion carried unanimously.
~~. Anderson then asked if he would be permitted to divide the north 20,000 square
feet of the South parcel for a single family dwelling. :Ie was advised that he should
resubmit a new application for further division showing the actual square footage.
RESOLUTIon NO. 74-78
3UILDING PERMIT - 5695 Merry Lane - Dr. Olin
Dr. Olin and attorney, ~~. POkorney, appeared before the Council for a building
permit to restore an accessory building on the property located at 5695 Merry Lane.
They assured the Council that the building would not be enlarged nor used for living
quarters.
Moved by Naegle, seconded by naugen to approve the building permits for the building
providing that at no time shall this building be used for residential purposes.
Motion carried unanimously.
STEVE LARSON - RESIGNATIOn to Planning Commission Accepted.
Mayor acknowledged receipt of the official resignation of Steve Larson as a member
of the f,lanning Commission. ~oved by Haugen, seconded by lTaegele to accept the
resignation and instruct the clerk to write a letter of appreciation and thanks for
his services. Notion carried unanimously.
P.ADDE DIVISION - Preliminary Plat
:,:oved by Haugen, seconded by Heiland, to approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve the preliminary plat of the Radde Division (Plat 34400, Parcels
l650=1700-and 1750) into 4 lots subject to review by the engineer of:
~~
Drainage or erosion problems
Sewer service to Lot 4
and further to approve the 5' variance for Lot 3.
~otion carried unanimously.
lat A roved
1,:ic ael alley 0 Hal ey Lan company appeare e ore the Council for approval of
preliminary plat of Westwood 2nd Addition.
l~oved by Keeler, seconded by Haugen to approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve the preliminary plat of Westwood 2nd Addition including a
variance on the size of the lot affected by the location of the well and further
to authorize entering into an agreement with the developer for the installation of
the Co~munity Well; to be turned over to the City on completion.
I.lotion carried unanimously.
Exhibit F
COUHCIL !ilINUTES
Contains preliminary
23 Cetober 1978
plat approval
)
)
)
City of Shorewood
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
April 9, 1979
M I NUT E S
The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to
order by Mayor Frazier at 7:40 P.M. at the Minnewashta School, April 9th.
ROLL CALL
Council members present were: Mayor Frazier, Keeler, Haugen, and Shaw.
Naegele was absent.
Staff present were: Attorneys Sanders and Sloan, Engineer Norton, and
Clerk Wi],.tsey.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & PRAYER
The meeting opened with the Pledge of A~legiance: followed by prayer.
t'l-u.-J.
COMBINATION/DIVISION - Wayne Halseth, 4540 Enchanted Point 33-/q
As recommended by the attorney, it was moved by Frazier, seconded by
Keeler, to approve the combination/division of property (presently
owned by Wayne Halseth) to detach a portion, (shown as x-y-zon survey)
from plat 34920, parcel 3950 and combine with plat 34590, parcel 6150
as described on survey, dated 3/29/79. Motion carried unanimouslY:--
REPORT ON BOULDER BRIDGE - DNR HEARING
David Sloan, ~ttorney with Kelly & Associates, reported to the Council
on the hearings held by the DNR at the Freshwater Biological Institute
relative to Boulder Bridge Development.
_WOODHAVfN - 2ND ADDITION, RESOLUTION NO. 26-79
Final Plat of Woodhaven 2nd Addition
It was moved by Keeler, seconded by Shaw, to approve the final plat
of the Woodhaven 2nd addition, subject to the engineer's and attorney's
recommendations, in accordance with the provisions of the development
contract - including all costs due for sewers, parks, etc.
Motion carried unanimously.
STREET LIGHT APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 27-79
Pursuant to a petititon received from the neighbors, it was moved by
Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to approve the installation of a street
light on Ferncroft Drive, at or near the intersection with Ivy Lane
in Minnetonka Manor. Motion carried unanimously.
DRAINAGE - 26045 Birch Bluff Road"- Arthrur Zahn
Mr. Arthur Zahn, owner of the property located at 26045 Birch Bluff Rd.
appeared before the Council to request some relief from all the water
backed up in his yard. .The public works supervisor agreed to clean out
the drainage culvert in hopes of draining the area.
PROPOSED DIVISION - Gene Ruffenach'- 25725 Birch Bluff Road
Gene Ruffenach, owner of Block 5, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff Road
asked the Council for tentative approval of opening Clara Avenue platted
at 25' from Eureka Road for access to Bloc~ ~ ~~~ ~~..~~~ .~~ ~~.- ~-~-
3 building sites. Exhibit G
It was moved by Haugen, seconded by Keele: COUNCIL KINUTES
advisement to determine if the 25' drivew: Contains final plat approval
Motion carried unanimously. 9 April 1979
'~l~;:'~'. "~
. A~t2'~">i, ,.r-t.
',_.,1' ',<_
t.-
>'~'~., ..;.)~\,:;:>w
~ ~,,t~~.i:~.~~'_-,, ..~.-
.
.....
: .~:.
....f.-.
~
'....
". :~'j. .' .i.,';
.~." ~t~~ ~;+ "
" -~-<'
. ~,'!
._~.;",.~,:-~.'~.~:-.
f"
..~ . ,,' :.~
. ......
.-......
~. ). ~;?/
. ,
-,: -::.'- ;:......;-
, ,.~t~
'}..t
.~(t~; \i~-.~:.l
. <,,, .... .t...,.,
. ....:;;~.:!
, .: ..'~)~./
"/;:~~':'.}:;;~'~':
'". 1:. ".....;.: ..
: ';'{".', ~~~."~
,..;.t
.
.J
-J:
""
'it
. E SOL UTI 0 N NO.' 26-79
--.-.-_----------~-------
:/
:r .:-
"
"........t. .: _' J..1-
. .-' ..:.:~Xl"t.~;
..... '\'''~
:....:/~?1
~ .~~~%$
RES ~ L V I DJ that the final plat of
.~
"WOODHA VEN :SECOND ADD IT ION"
Is hereby approved.
.::,'(11"; ~
.~
...il\'
· A:proved b, ~he c:~~e~ 1 of 'b ',:~~:~I
City of S horeWo9cl,-tbl s 9tb d.'I,~,'~'::~}&i:{:;:~
. . . . -, ,'. . - .' . :,~~.- :-..,' ~.~ !:'~;{t. ~
of AP~i979~'~' . .., ....,~)i'0i~,
" ^ () . rlT, · · . ." .... : .::l'::;~i~
tV( \ '-\,. . ..... '" .: r,~._~.~.:...~:?
.' . . .~. . . . : . ..... . ',: . .:.~
-_____ L __ . .~";.t~~.
.,f;
......:
.'. ~.,'
Kayor
;-;,;,i.
~.Jo! . "'...
"'~;:~';.#
.
,,-
....,.
CERTIFICATION: ,':;:. ;::~~
t. I.
I, Elsa I. Wiltsey, duly appointed Clerk ot the City ot ShorewoOd, Hennepin . '<?}>
County, MInnesota, do hereby certity that the attached RESOLUTION NO.d.'-79"'"'-~- '..:;;t;;:,
. ....' ,.,
::. · c::;:o:;r::::: ::y i:~ .:::::::::O:n .:::t:: n::.:h:t C:t:~:::i ~.:: ~~J~
::t:::~~::.~:'~ 1979. .:~~~_
" ~.
'-
.;". ):
...; . '.:.f
{aistrator
:..;xhibit H
COU1~IL RESOLUTION
9 April 1979
"
/
Case No.
r
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FORM
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
C".,ditional Use Permit
)( Vl1I'iance ~~-t b1L~5 t~
::#= 3081 51 J E'.
Subdivision caure 10, 83
Planned Unit Development
Applicant Halley Land Corporat ion, 3140 North Harbor Lane, Fox 3 - Suite 103
(Name) Plymouth, M.N .00441 (Address) 559-7300 (Phone)
Halley Land Corporation, 3140 North Harbor Lane, Fox 3 - Suite 103,
~er Plymouth, MN 55441 559-7300
(Name) (Address) (Phone)
Zoning District Amendment
Text Amendment
Property location ($treet Address and legal Description):
Lot 11, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22035 StratfQrd Place)
, Lot 12, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22015 Stratford Place)
Lot 1, Block 1. Woodhaven Second Addition C~:,W~u I::)tratlora PlaCe)
Lot 2, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22040 Stratford Place)
Lot 3, Block 1, Woodhaven Second Addition (22060 Stratford Place)
Description and/or Reason for Request (Cite Ordinance Sections):
Lot 11 - Rear yard setback from 50' to 10'
Lot 12 - Rear yard setback from 50' to 30'
Lot 1 - Front yard setback from 35' to 25'
Lot 2 - Front yard setback from 35', to 25'
Lot 3 - Front yard setback from 35' to 25'
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the
applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative
procedures. I further acknowledge the fee explanation as outl ined in the application
procedures. and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to
additional application expense.
{Pl_n(la nttn,.h ellnn""':,,. ~^",,,......".....;^... ......,l ...1.......'
-/ IOJ
\.
~ ,-
(~ A -4l-- . (~~ ,.--~ j ~-.
~i ~~OAN: PIELD &=-NOWil(- ~iil
_~ ,..., , ~ ~ SURVI!VORS ~ -g~~ .:.h
1415 WAVUTA BLVD. . P "::~~:::UOTA 11\1
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
'ow HALLEY LAND CORPORATION
~ STHArFdI(10~ PLAC~~
... ~U.3/ '-'80.8 ~
AC "'~'4S~.
H'.9 . ~(J,IJt:1. ~8Z.~
/~." ~
/I~, ~,;,~& I
vt;/:~ E~s,IIU'''-t'-
\
t
~
,
'"
."'~
~~
. ~
l;)
~
~
.
~~
~,
OOl
~~
~~
~
NOTE: Bea~lnga shown are assumed.
SCALE: 1"-50'
DESCRIPTION: Lot tl. Block 1. WOODHAVEN SECOND ADDITI
we hereby certify that this Is .
the boundaries of the land above
if any, thereon, and all visibl.
~
.f Of
,,~ f
!tt'~
~\~ ~
c,-~
'I,' ~~
~
I ~~ ~../9M.~$
true a"d co""'ect representation of a survey of
described and of the location of .,. bufldlng~
encroachments, If any, from or on .ald I.nd.
, 1983 .
Oated this 2nd dey of
June
5783
2297..43
. "',,
)
HALLEY LAND CORPORATION
June 3, 1983
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
We are the owners of Lots 1,2,3, IT, 12 and.13, Block 1,
Woodhaven Second Addition.
We are aware of our variancecrequest for Lot II, Block 1,
Woodhaven Second Addition., which will be reviewed by the
Council on June 13, 1983.
MAH/ss
3140 Harbor Lane . Fox 3 - Suite 103
.
Plymouth, MN 55441
l';'"
!.{).,.,~.~(I.J.""'4.'......"" ;) ...J}
June 6, 1983
"")
J\j\'~ "
~
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
We have been informed by Halley Land Corporation that
they are seeking a variance for Lot 11, Block 1, Woodhaven
Second Addiition, and that the review of this variance
by the Council will be made at a meeting to be held on
June 13, 1983, at the City offices.
We mayor may not be in attendance.
We are the owners of Lot 9, Block 1, Woodhaven Second
Addition.
Sincerely,
/~ ~ ~ \
~):"._~'- .~~~~~~ec~
,,) Ray and Jeanette Plels
23080 Stratford Place
Shorewood, MN 55331
HALLEY LAND CORPORATION
Again, I thought all of these were covered in the minutes and were
part of the approval of the total subdivision. Since our discus-
sions were mostly with Mayor Steve Frazier and Councilman Robert
Nae~ele, Jr. the night we received subdivision approval and since
neither of these gentlemen are on the Shorewood Council anymore,
I would hope that the current Council members would honor their
previous discussions.
June 8, 1983
Mr. Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Lot Variance Request
Dear Brad:
Pursuant to our conversation, I have reviewed the whole development
and I did find some handwritten notes from the Council meetings.
Not only were Lots 11 and 12 discussed reg-ardinp-rear yard setbacks
as to how the house would be orientated but we also discussed Lots
1, 2 and 3 as far as the front yard setback variance from 35' to
25' .
I will plan to attend the meeting on June 13, 1983, and if you,
cannot personally attend the meeting, I would hope that one of
your associates could be there to reassure to the Council that
this is riot a riewrequest but one that was unfortunately and
inadvertently left out of the official record.
Sincerely,
~
Michael A. Halley
President
~
'b
~~
MAH/ss
P.S. I also sent notice to Steiner" Koppelman, the owners of
Lots 4 and 14, which would also be in the perimeter
control of Lots 1, 2 and 3.
3140 Harbor Lane
.
Fox 3 - Suite 103
.
Plymouth, MN 55441
.
'lIJ::I .:J.1!f> <l
,
i
I
'!
'!
q
q
:,
:i
ii
;.
;1
i\
1;
p
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
ORDINANCE NO. 82-03
"
ii
"
,-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO &JSINESS AND
TRADE REGULATIONS: AMENDING THE CITY CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 1155 RELATING TO ALAR~1 SYSTEMS
~ I
:1
!!Section 1. Plymouth City Code is amended by adding a new section to
Chapter XI to read as follows:
Section 1155 - Alarm Systems
I 1155.01. Statement of Policy. The City Council of the City of
I Plymouth deems it necessary to provide for the special and express
i'lregulations of alarm systems which are designed to signal the presence of
i a hazard requiring urgent attention and to which public safety personnel
-I
jare expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and
,welfare. . '
i
I The City Council finds that the regulation of alarm systems is
\necessary in order to reduce the increasing frequency of false alarms in
I Plymouth. The great number of and increasing frequency of these false
lalarms requires intensive, time consuming efforts by the Department of
jPublic Safety and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services
I available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of
ithe City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the
!community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to
: provide numerous public safety services to all segments of the community,
:without an undue concentration of public services in one area to work to
;the detriment of members of the general public, it is hereby decided that
ithe alarm systems shall be regulated throuqh the permit process described
: below:
I 1155.03. Definitions. As used herein, unless otherwise indicated,
ithe following terms are defined as follows:
1
Subd. 1. "Alarm System" shall mean an assembly of equipment and
devices (or a single device such as a solid state unit) arranged 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 urgent
attention and to which public safety personnel are expected to
respond.
Subd. 2. "Alarm User" shall mean the person, firm, partnership,
association, corporation, company or organization of any kind on
whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm User,j shall
include persons occupying dwelling units for residential purposes.
"Alarm User" shall not include persons maintaining alarm systems in
automobiles.
I
I
I
I
I
I
.i
I!
I'
d
:1
I
I
I
I
\1
1
l
.,
I
!!
,\
I
Ii
Ii
:1
:i
;'
.i
i
.,
11
'I
'I
I
:i
;1
Ii
:i
:\
;1
:i
i!
!\
II
il
II
d
iI
I:
\1
II
II
!
1
\
I
I
I
I
Subd. 3. "False Al",rmc:" c;h;:dl 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 by
utility company power outages or by climatic conditions such as.
tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, other violent conditions of
nature, or any other conditions which are clearly beyond 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 throuQh
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.
.c
Subd. 2. Review of Permit. The Public Safety Director shall review
the issuance of all alarm permits.
Subd. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt and
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) workinQ 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.
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 address,
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 by
conditions beyond the control of the alarm user, the alarm will not
be counted as a false alarm at that address.
:1
;1
:\
ij
ii
:1
II
!!
'.
"
'J
I
" d.
,I
"
Subd. 2. "False Alarms" will be excused if they are the result of an
effort or order to upgrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm
system al:ld if the Public Safety Director is given notice in advance
of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance.
1155.09. Prohibitions.
Subd. 1. "Alarm Systems Utilizinq Taping or Prerecorded Messaoes."
No person shall install, monitor, or use and possess an operative
alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messages 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 during 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 following 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
alarms;
c. That the alarm user has knowingly made false statements in or
regarding his application for an alarm user's permit;
That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, within a
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
I
I
\1
,I
,i
:!
"
:1
'I
11
;i
I'
il
il
:1
"
iI
II
II
l'
All alleged violations defined above shall be investiqated by the
Public Safety Department. The alarm user shall be given notice of the
proposed revocation of suspension and be provided an opportunity to
informally'present evidence to the Public Safety Director prior to the
final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aqorieved by the
decision of the Public Safety Director may appeal that decision to the
City Council. .
1155.15. Criminal Penalties.
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) days.
il
,I
11
,.
Subd. 2. Any person required by this ordinance to obtain an alarm
user's permit who knowingly fails to do so shall be quilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a
fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and by
imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days.
q
;!
;
.1
1155.17. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this
ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or
part; and if any section, provision or part of any ordinance shall be held
invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part thereof.
"
"
.:
,
;,
I'
"
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective April 15, 1982.
.,
!!
"
Adopted this 1st day of March, 1982.
:1
I
:1
;i
:i
:\
I.
i\
:\ ATTEST:
:1
;j
li~d
'1
:I . 2-
:1 City Clerk
II
I,
ii
i
:
,
i
ct?4~
...
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
May 24,. 1983
Shorewood City Council Members
5755 Country Club Road
Shnrewood, MN 55331
Dear Council Members:
Re: Contract #
Shorewood
Nj A between Hennepi h County and the Ci ty of
for Assessment Services (Pricing Policy Change)
It is Hennepin County's desire to fullful its responsibility under the
above referenced contract by providing you adequate and timely notice
of a price change for the 1984 assessment services. It has been the
policy of Hennepin County to recover labor costs and miscellaneous
expenses that are incurred by the County when performing the statutory
assessment obligations for those taxing districts that are under contract
with Hennepin County.
The Hennepin County Assessor's apprai$al expenses are reviewed annually
for the purpose of keeping abreast with increased labor and miscellaneous
costs. This analysis has now been completed and we find a need to revise
the rate structure. Please be advised that the most significant cost
adjustment will apply to residential properties due to cost incurred
variations attributable to the mix of residential properties, typical
versus expensive, wlthin a city.
Upon approval by the Hennepi n County Board, the fo llowi ng rates wi 11 be
charged municipalities contracting wi'th Hennepin County for assessment
seY,'vices.
Resi denti al
o
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
Over
- $100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$400,000
$102
27
40
75
100
125
42
10
Apartment, Commercial and Industrial
Farm
Land
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
/ . '"
t<
May 24, 1983
Page 2
Applying these rates to the parcel count in the City of Shorewood
estimated cost to perform the assessment services for the 1984 assessment
wi 11 be $ 18,500
If you wish to discuss these new rates with the County Assessor, prior to
County Board Action, please feel free to call this office prior to June 14,
1983.
Very truly yours,
~t/f~/
DONALD F. MON K
Hennepin County Assessor
DFM:jb
P.S. The above estimated amount will continue in effect for each
subsequent assessment unless changed by future notification.
'"
4
~
ASSESSOR
A-2103 Govemment Center
300 South Sixth Street
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 5548 t
May 24, 1983
Sandra Kenneily, Clerk
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Ms. Kennelly:
Re~ Contract # N/ A between Hennepi i1 County and the Ci ty of
Shorewood for Assessment Services (Pricing Policy Change)
It is Hennepin County's desire to fullful its responsibility under the
above referenced contract by providing you adequate and timely notice
of a price change for the 1984 assessment services. It has been the
policy of Hennepin County to recover labor costs and miscellaneous
expenses that are incurred by the County when performing the statutory
assessment ob 1i gati ons for those taxi ng di stri cts that are under contract
with Hennepin County.
The Hennepin County Assessor's apprai~al expenses are reviewed annually
for the purpose of keeping abreast with increased labor and miscellaneous
costs. This analysis has now been completed and we find a need to revise
the rate structure. Please be advised that the most significant cost
adjustment will apply toresidentia 1 properti es due to cost incurred
variations attributable to the mix of residential properties, typical
versus expensive, within a city.
Upon approval by the Hennepin County Board, the following rates will be
charged munici pal iti es contracti ng wi'th Hennepin County for assessment
ser,vices.
Apartment, Commercial and Industrial
Residential 0 - $100,000
$100,000 - $200,000
$200,000 - $300,000
$300,000 - $400,000
Over $400,000
Farm
Land
$102
27
40
75
100
125
42
10
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an tlqual opportunity tlmplOytlf
, ~
LJ
May 24, 1983
Page 2
Applying these rates to the parcel count in the City of Shorewood
estimated cost to perform the assessment services for the 1984 assessment
wi 11 be $.. 18,500
,.
If you wish to discuss these new rates with the County Assessor, prior to
County Board Action, please feel free to call this office prior to June 14,
1983.
Very truly yours,
Az~tff~-/
DONALD F. MON K
Hennepin County Assessor
DFM: j b
P.S. The above estimated amount will continue in effect for each
subsequent assessment unless changed by future notification.
.~
:~
~
~.
y
,.... -4--
~."'\~~ ." c. .s:. ~~" \.
",.,.'.. ,.,.__.__,uu_._'________....,
. -.' "'""...;.o."._."...'....'_~,_~
I?a:....
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
.,
0RDINANCE NO. 82-03
;j
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESS AND
TRADE REGULATIONS: AMENDING THE CITY CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 1155 RELATING TO ALARM SYSTEMS
"
:i
I,
!;Section 1. Plymouth City Code is amended by adding a new section to
Chapter XI to read as follows:
Section 1155 - Alarm Systems
II 1155.01. Statement of "Policy. The City Council of the City of
IjPlymouth deems it necessary to provide for the special and express
':regulations of alarm systems which are designed to siqnal the presence of
:Ia hazard requiring urgent attention and to which public safety personnel
jare expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and
; welf are.
:: The Ci ty Council finds that the regulation of alarm systems is
: necessary in order to reduce the increasing frequency of false alarms in
jPlymouth. The great number of and increasing frequency of these false
;alarms requires intensive, time consuming efforts by the Department of
jPublic Safety and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services
:;available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of
ithe City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the
!community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to
provide numerous public safety services to all segments of the community,
I
: without an undue concentration of public services in one area to work to
::the detriment of members of the general public, it is hereby decided that
';the alarm systems shall be regulated throuah the permit process descrihed
below:
;j
:i 1155.03. Definitions. As used herein, unless otherwise indicated,
ithe following terms are defined as follows:
d
I.
I'
~ I
Ii
:i
d
"
Subd. 1. "Alarm System" shall mean an assembly of equipment and
devices (or a single device such as a solid state unit) arranged 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 uraent
attention and to which public safety personnel are expected to
respond.
;1
:1
:i
:1
OJ
:1
'\
II
:1
il
I
I
I
Subd. 2. "Alarm User" shall mean the person, firm, partnership,
association, corporation, company or organization of any kind on
whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm User" shall
include persons occupying dwellinq units for residential purposes.
"Alarm User" shall not include persons maintaining alarm systems in
automobiles.
/i
/ ::
. ,;
i
.,
~ :i
/ ,I
:i
'I
;1
I
I
I
i
"
I'
11
t1
,j
:1
:1
"
;;
:1
I!
:\
!I
il
Ii
il
'i
I:
;il
iI
:1
I
!
Subd. 3. "False AJ('rmc:" c:.h;oll mean the activation of an alarm system
throuqh mechanical failure, malfunction, improoer installation, or
the negliqence of the owner or lessee of an alarm system or of his
employees or agents. It does not include activation of the alarm by
utility company power outages or by climatic conditions such as
tornadoes, liqhtninq, earthquakes, other violent conditions of
nature, or any other conditions which are clearly beyond 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 review
the issuance of all alarm permits.
Subd. 3. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt and
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) working 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 process 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 durinq each calendar year.
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.
i
I
I
I
I
I
i!
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 address,
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 by
conditions beyond the control of the alarm user, the alarm will not
be counted as a false alarm at that address.
...
.
i
';i~,~;i~lt2V~~~~~~--
Subd. 2. "False Alarms" will be excused if they are the result of an
effort or order to upgrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm
system and if the Public Safety Director is given notice in advance
of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance.
1155.09. Prohibitions.
Subd. 1. "Alarm Systems Utilizinq Taping or Prerecorded Messaoes."
No person shall install, monitor, or use and possess an operative
alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messages which deliver a
telephone alarm message to the police or fire department.
'I
:i
:l
11
II
\I
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 during 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 following 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
alarms;
c. That the alarm user has knowingly made false statements in or
regarding his application for an alarm user's permit;
d. That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, within a
reasonable period, violations of this ordinance after receipt of
notice to do so;
.J
e. That the continued effectiveness of the alarm user permit,
constitutes a substantial threat to the public oeace, health,
safety or welfare.
1
.'
.....
J.
.
I,
I
.,
'I
ii
All allegrd violations defined above shall be investiqated by the
Public Safety pepartment. The alarm user shall be given notice of the
proposed revocation of suspension and be provided an opportunity to
informally pre~ent evidence to the Public Safety Director prior to the
final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aqarieved by the
decision of t~e Public Safety Director may appeal that decision to the
Ci ty Council.
d
t ~
"
,I
i!
:j
;1
\\
il
;1
"
I
I
1155.15. Criminal Penalties.
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) days.
'I
;1
,I
'j
Subd. 2. Any person required by this ordinance to obtain an alarm
user's permit who knowingly fails to do so shall be Quilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a
fine of 'lot more than five hundred dollars (5500.00) and by
imprisonl"ent not to exceed ninety (90) days.
'1
1155.17. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this
ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or
part; and if ~ny section, provision or part of any ordinance shall be held
.: invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part thereof.
Section 2. lhis ordinance shall become effective April 15, 1982.
Adopted this 1st day of March, 1982.
.\
I
'I
;i
:1
i\
:i
.,
q
:\
ap/j~
ATTEST:
!\ ~ '-,LJd z:J
'I GX~ City Clerk
!
.~7~,
,;y ..
Jnne 8, 1983
Shorewood Village Conncil
Shorewood City Offices
5755 Conntry Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
'JUN 9
1983
Subj ect: Rezoning Petition for the Johnson Property on Lake Linden
Dear City Conncil Members:
Some weeks ago, our planning commission approved the rezoning of the
subject property. This entailed allowing a duplex to be built on
the Johnson's property on Lake Linden. We have no particular objection
to this rezoning since there is a duplex directly across the street from
where the new one will be built and this is consistent with previous
decisions. However, the second part of the rezoning is one that we are
extremely opposed to. This involves the deeding of twenty-five feet of
land of the Johnson I s property which would enable the Village of Shorewood
to straighten out Lake Linden.
We are opposed to straightening out Lake Linden for two reasons. The first
reason is that it will allow a direct line of sight view from our home on
Yellowstone Trail to Highway 7. Secondly, in the future it will allow a
direct line of sight view to the back end of Driscoll's new Super Valu
store which is not known for any particular cleanliness. We do not wish
to look upon the back end of this store with the inherent trash and errpty
boxes and we do not want to either look at or hear the noise from Highway
7. This would have a direct irrpact on the value of our property. This
would also be another step towards continuing the other long standing
problem we have which involves the traffic. Somewhere along the line we
are losing touch with what is going on with the Lake Linden/yellowstone
Trail/Conntry Club Road traffic problem. The problem is one of extremely
heavy traffic for the condition of the roads. Most of this traffic has
no business being in the neighborhood to begin with since all they are
doing is taking a short cut off of Connty Road 19. The only steps that
have been taken to alleviate the problem have been to put up "Local Traffic"
signs on ConntI'y Club Road, which was a small positive step, and to increase
the speed limit on Lake Linden from 25 to 30 miles per hour which is a negative
step. What we need is some positive direction towards controlling traffic
flow in this neighborhood. Straightening out Lake Linden will only encourage
IIDre traffic and higher speeds.
Please consider this letter a fornal request for a reconsideration of the
rezoning given to the Johnson property if it involves the deeding of the
twenty-five feet of land.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Yours very truly,
xft-~-~ K?~~-~~/
Steven R. Turner
23980 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331