Loading...
092280 CC Reg Min . . e CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER The last regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called by Mayor Frazier at 6:10 P.M. on September 22, 1980, in the Council Chambers. PLEIX;E OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER Meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer. ROLL CALL Council members present: Mayor Frazier, Keeler, Naegele, Haugen, and Shaw. Staff present: Engineer Jim Norton, Planner Nielsen, Attorney Kelly, and Clerk Wiltsey. Also present: A capacity cro\\U. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by: Naegele, and seconded by Haugen to approve the minutes as suhnitted. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING (not published) - PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE The Mayor, with the approval of the Council, called a special hearing in an effort to further explain the provisions of the proposed P.U.D. Ordinance and to answer further questions raised by the citizens. Acknowledged receipt of a questionnaire, dated September 16, 1980, and which was signed by eleven residents (representing seven properties). Answers to this questionnaire were covered by the planners in their report dated September 22, 1980 (questionnaire and answers are made a part of the records relative to the hearing). Councilwoman Haugen gave a brief history of the Comprehensive Plan and its purpose. Planner Nielsen further explained the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, explained the provisions of the current zoning and the differences between the new P.U.D. Ordinance and the existing P.U.R.D. Ordinance. The following citizens were heard: Robert Chapman Judy Marshall Oliver Wang Ibn Bruning Mary Marske James Westby Ibnald Willis Naomi Myers Steve Gregg Mrs. Al Reid, Jr. Kris Gregg Jay Venero Al Leonardo Rachel Leonardo Paul Swanson Wilson (Yellowstone Trail) Ben Cunningham REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -2- SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 4It Stated concerns: .What is the Comprehensive Plan and its effect on the future of Shorewood? .What are the population projections? . Is Shorewood losing local control due to Metropolitan Council? .Concerned that rrnmicipal water is being considered when the majority of the residents opposed it two years ago. .Does the City have capabilities to operate a rrnmicipal water system at such time that theCity takes over the various community wells? .Suggested that the P.U.D. Ordinance be tabled until more financial and social studies are done. . Opposed any developments as they favored the open areas. Affirmative Statements from Citizens: .Means of taking care of the basic needs and to plan for the future of all residents of Shorewood. .P.U.D. can be used to control and improve developments based on the Comprehensive Plan. Council then recessed at 8:15. Council reconvened at 8:30. . P. U.D. ORDINANCE - 2nd READING - FUR'lliER DISCUSSION Council reviewed the P.U.D. Ordinance, Amendment No.2 (yellow copy) which included the changes previously recorrrnended by the Planning Comnission and the Council. There was considerable discussion on scheduling public hearings. .How many public hearings should be held. .Should all public hearings be held by the Planning Comnission or by both the Planning Corrmission and Council. .At what stage of development should the residents be involved in the process? At the recorrmendation of the planner and attorney, the Council agreed that the initial notification to the affected property owners could be made by the developer but should be part of the original application as a policy rather than a part of the Ordinance. Moved by Haugen, seconded by Naegele, to hold the public hearing at concept stage: the first one by the Planning, the second one by the Council, and then add to page 2, paragraph 2, item 3 - "or call for another public hearing". Motion carried unanimously. . . e . REGUlAR COUNCIL MEEI'ING -3- SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 Moved by Frazier, seconded by Keeler, that the Planned Unit Development must be no less than 20 acres if conmercia1 use is involved. Motion carried tm.aniIIDus1 y . Cotm.ci1 then directed the planner to incorporate these changes and bring back for final review. . MATTERS FROM THE. FLOOR as to Mr. Edwin Smith of 27944 Smithtown Road questioned the Cotm.cil^the status of his request for property division. He was advised by the engineer that no . recorrrnendation could be made tm.ti1 a survey was received certifying to the actual square footage of wetlands in the area proposed to be divided, to detennine the buildable square footage. Amesbury - Water Petition from McNulty Construction Co. Acknowledged receipt of a letter from McNulty Construction in which they petitioned the City to make certain well improvements as a back-up well to the existing well at Amesbury, with total cost to be assessed against the Amesoory West property. Moved by Naegele, seconded by Keeler, to approve the recormnendation of the engineer to approve the back-up well as proposed by McNulty Construction, petition dated September 17, 1980, and to delete from the proposal in paragraph 2, "and any future homes in the Deephaven;,.c.Amesoory. Motion carried tmaniIIDus1 y . Motion carried tm.aniIIDus1y. Kramer Petition for Water - 5425 Timber Lane. Acknowledge receipt of a petition from the recent purchaser of the property at 5425 Timber Lane to pennit connection to the Tonka Bay water system. Moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to approve the request, but to delete the last paragraph of the petition and to require that a waiver be signed by the applicant in acknowledging that the property will be subject to special assessments when and if water improvements are installed to serve the Timber Lane area. Motion carried tm.aniIIDus1y. Property Division - 26785 Edgewood Road. A request had been received from D. Johnson (proposing to purchase property) for tentative approval of the division of the back acre of a t~us site at 26785 Edgewood Road located in the south rear portion with no frontage on Edgewood Road. Moved by Haugen, seconded by Frazier, to table the request because of a lack of planner's recomnendation. Motion carried tm.aniIIDus1 y . REGUlAR COUNCIL MEETING -4- SEPTEMBER 22, 1980 . Railroad Right,-of-Way Possible use of the Railroad Right,-of-Way as a light transit/ conmuter line was brought up. Since the railroad now wants the right to sell the railway, the attorney will continue contacts with the railroad and report back. Budget Discussion Mayor reported that the police department is working on the budget for 1981, \\hich budget reflects an 8 per cent increase for Shorewood's share over what ShorewOOd paid in 1980. - Police coverage comparable to what the rest of Shorewood receives has been promised for the Islands for next year. Police agreed to study the effect that the removal of the Islands would have on Shorewood's share of the budget. Levy Limitations Clerk reported that the loss of local government aid will be $12,938. Levy limites of $348,934 plus the aid loss and allowable special levies combined, will produce a 1981 mill rate below the 1980 mill rate of 14.45. Detailed tax levy will be prepared and adopted prior to October 10, 1980. . Garage Paint Council was reminded that they had promised to paint the storage garage after completion of the City Hall landscaping. Survey Markers - Club Lane A request was received from Ed Bergslein to help in the payment of an invoice from Egan Field and Nowak to reset some markers at his property tl.hich were removed by the contractors during sewer construttion. Moved by Haugen, seconded by Keeler, to approve the payment of the $200.00 balance on the invoice. 1}\ e. U Set Council Meeting - October 6, . 1980 Moved by Haugen, seconded by Naegele, to set the next regular meeting of the Council on October 6 rather than October 13 (which day is a legal holiday). Motion carried unanimously. Approval of Claims Moved by Haugen, seconded by Frazier, to approve payment of the claims as presented by the clerk, as follows: From the General Fund (covered by Checks No. 22870 thru 22895: $ 7,039.96 From the Liquor Fund (covered by Checks No. 6940 thru 6972: 71$ 39,588.33 Motion carried unanimously. .. Adioumment Moved by Haugen, seconded by Frazier. - Respectfully ~Ul:mitted, .[ / . / (.~/ ~-' 7 . ,(;:":l:-<c/,!~; _Llt4A!;:1 Elsa I. Wiltsey, Cl~ ( r NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. p~ . MEMORANDUM " ~ ;~ '..i ' : :-: ,~~ ,,( TO: ShorewoodMaypl"and City Council FROM: DATE: .__'.J....i.:,c..:.,.;..... David Licht/Brad Nielsen :::::rv:~r September 22/1,980 RE: , , ",,,':;..l, Shorewood ...,Z6~i~9 Ordinance Revision - PUD _''', <_<:n:"'::)i,:>~:,i;" ::), - ,".'.,'._ _ ':,,'.' ',. .:--'. -. "'-;-'-',! '.- ""j,",,:' J' - - ',,' - -, . FILE NO, 656o:::,ciJlirllllYk PertheCity's directiyef,;'t?Js.,gl~fuprandlJmrespondstoCJuestions posed by a number of re.s idents c~ncemi~gJh~re~op~S~~,;;!~.IBn~ee,~ni t. Devel~p~e.nt (PU D) Secti.on to the CIty'S Zonrng, Ordrnan~~.i;,J9.1:)~,~~ptrn mInd IS that. thIs IS, but one section of a comprehensive revisiorli,tgj'the'o;'~,~dance. It is felt"however , that the PUD provisions can be, enacted at thi~t!~e,'~jr~()ut!djf~iculty being encountered . A CJuickreview of the~lJe~fi()R~it('Jisedindicatessomebasic points of confusion and mis- understanding relativetl;)thePU9cI;)ncept and its use,. As part of the totally updated ordinance, PUDwillb~>anp~~il;)naLde\lelopment procedure which ,can be pursued in two forms. First, it will.~e\~,f~tiditional use permit alternative in a majority of the zoningdistricts. .' This provis}~,n;\~JII!allow, for example, the clustering of single family housing or two principalstrl!ct8s~~.pnonelot. In this instance, the base zoning district governs the uses,allowed,?sw~ll'~sthe density or intensity of uses permitted. The second option which, in fact is'how the PUD provision will be utilized until the compre- hensive revision is enacted,isPUD as a separate zoning district. In this case, a mix of uses is allowed andw.ill be regulated primarily by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and especially .the writtenp'olicies. These are applied and evaluated based upon the specific location and land use being proposed. A representative of our firm will be present at your meeting to more fully discuss the PUD concept and its application. In the material which follows, we have listed the twelve questions which have been . posed and provide our comments and response to each. 1 . Why is it necessary to amend our current zoni ng laws? Ordinance No. 77 which is the base zOning ordinance currently in effect was enacted in late 1973. Since that time, there have been a number of amendments established to, c.larity and expand upon the base regulations. A part of the 'j; . '-,.. :',.>,' 4820 minnetonka boulev~rd, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 . . -". Shorewood Mayor and City 'Council September 22, 1980 Page Two revision is intended to consol idate the regulations into one document. Another factor leading to an ordinance update is a change in technology, as well as more encompassing considerations to be taken into account in development. To a significant degree, many ofthese items have been legislated by the State or are imposed by State administrative agencies. Environmental and pollution factors are primary examples . The base ordinance therefore needs updating to apply these considerations to Shorewood. Finally, the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act stipulated that in undertaking required comprehensive planning, a community is also compelled to update its development regulations and bring them in line with establ ished City plans. 2. Is it true that there is no minimum overall land size or lot size for a PUD? If not why shouldn't there be? ":.,',;t/(\:,\:' It is recommendedthatno>lofsize be imposed on either PUD as a conditional use permit or zoning district.;:T~~ main rationale fofthis position is that at any time if there are two pr..i(lcJpal~s7siona parcel of land, a PUD is required. Zoning ordinances arede~igned/to',g~v~~none use on a given parcel of land. To allow for instances wheretwovse~(]reconsidered acceptable, the 'PUD procedures must be followed for,theprotectjonofthe community,'Prime examples where such situations have existed in the past are -marinas existing or proposedmwithin -the City . 3. ,:',',':,:/' Is it true thatPUD provides>l'nixing commercial use with residential where our current zoning lawsmakenOsuch provision? If so, why do we want this? . The present ordinancecJo~'r~rallow mixi ng of commercial. and residential use. In fact, there is no provision provided for anytype of commercial PUD. Under the proposed change in the ordinance, the mix of residential and nonresidential uses would be all~wed only as airezoning and typically not as a conditional use permit. To be emphasized is the termunonresidential" as opposed to commercial. It is believed that there areinsta(lcesalready considered acceptable in Shorewood where a mix of residential and nonresidential uses have been found acceptable. The Boulder Bridge project exemplifies this point. Other such projects are seen as possibly being proposed in the future. The mix of use provisions of the PUD zone provides the City with procedural requirements to address these possible positive additions in the community. The lack of PUD provisions regulating commercial use is also seen as an undue limitation on City control. There are many instances where existing commercial development, constructed on a piecemeal basis, could have been better c.ontrolled and better development produced if planned as a unified and coordinated project. The PUD provision will facilitate such control on the part of the 'City. "'~' ... e Shorewood Mayor and City Council September 22, 1980 Page Three 4. What specific reference within the Comprehensive Plan describes the allowable density within a PUD? 5. : .......,,,.,,:.' Pages 56 through 8~ofthegFomprehensive Plan discuss density and intensity of use as now envi.sionedwit~in.the community. In cases wk'ere further clarification is required, pages 19 through 49 of the Policy Plan provide guidelines for inter- pretation and determinatiol)of development proposals. "., . ...... ... .CX'I..I>'~'~Jjll;:}oi'oi'.i, Since it is .suchCJ.::~igQ,!~i.c~?Q!;S~~parture from our present zo~ing la~s,:,hy wasn't PUD explaanedto.f~~:P'lbfl~,'If'lthe form of a I etter or public hearing an front of the Ci ty Council?',',; 'f'\j,~;~;;:, ' "s;.i'>";\':\/~M{.t);.::..;:. ;,1.:'.:'::..:,..i...".','/':.'..:':-,.::..,i.'..:.....,'...co",",' .... '. . : First, it i.souropil"liOtlthCJ!i,theamendment presently being proposed is not a significant departut'efromthe present ordinance. The Shorewood Estates project could, as a caseil"l}point,:beconstructed under present regulations. The proposed ordinance, however, gives" the City more encompassing authority, plus provides more detailed criteriauponjv.,thich to determine concept, as well as site planning suitability. . , Relative tothehearingp':odedure, the City has followed its. historic established rev ieV{f()rm(]t wh i(: h.is .st iptJl afecl bys tg t.el egi s I Clf ion. Under. MS 462, . the Planning Commission is charged with the public hearing responsibil ity for zoning ordinance text and map am'endment. 6. If a developer brings a PUD plan to the Council which is within the criteria of the PUD ordinance and the comprehensive plan, on what basis can a council or planning commission deny or reject. the plan? . Do you have to accept all of this? On what basis can a citizen challenge the accept.ance of a plan? 7. Can the Council legally reject a proposal without the basis of predetermined criteria without being arbitrary and capricious? (refers back t.o question 6) These two related questions go back to the introductory comments t.o this memorandum. A distinction must be made (IS of PUD as applied through a conditional use permit. and as applied through a re~oning. ~ a conditional use permit, the burden of proof falls upon the City's shoulders. . The conditional use PUD must be remembered as the most tightly regulated of the two forms as the base zoning governs use and density. Additionally, criteria are I isted within the PUD provisions which guide the City in ,. . Shorewood M.ayor and City Co~nctl "' September 22, 1980 ' Page Four ,:', . . , ;',,' , ,; ~~'~!":;1-: f , . . . what is to be:const~ered'lnd'~termining acceptability of a PUD proposal. These criteria aresufficlel"ltly,g~neralto allow the City considerable latitude in re- "quiring 'ameniti,es~prote~tl6h'and accepting pr~posals. Given sufficient grounds, based upon proven factors,Cthe ,City therefore has the capability of rejecting development proposals or portions thereof without befng arbitrary or capricious. '.',' "";/<':,:;n:{:1",,:, In the case ,of P,UD os:~,r~~oning, the burden of proof rests with the applicant. The City need ~tstate.\.v~y~ntacceptso'r rejects a given rezoning request. In practice, however,' it rs.,,~c9mmeooed that in fairness to any and all who may apply for anyrequestfora "ii-their property, the City as a policy should explain its po,sition and ratiOr'lal~ 0 ritlyrequired as part of the proposed PUD ordinance. be called at the discretion of the City Council. A ,request at the~estipulated review points. To be '"e,,:however,is.'that it must be on some substantiated bjecttoa proposeddevelopment on unfounded claims tyrights whichth~City is charged with protecting 1 ,','0 ,,' ,',' 'unacceptable decision by the City, citizens also 'lion to have the c'ourts resolve improper decisions. ';;,...;-< 8. Since PUD meam:hi9h~~,d.", . yand more commerc.ial devel~pment, what impact studies relative to;~Qter,~~~~U.ity, Minnetonka Lake) pollution, sewage treatment and Excelsior comrilerciat',""".vity have been performed? By whom and what were the results?' ,.-.' . . . ';0:. " '~:'~::;c:i'V :~;~r _' 1,' . " ';~'.'; .;~. ,', : . An evident misundetsta . .ns.)fthat PUD mea~ higher density and more commercial. This is not a true state me nf,A 'I The present PURDordinance, for example, allows a, doubling of density~ NO':~~FWprovision is provided in the proposed regulation . PUD as a re%oni~g..isgover~~by the Comprehensive Plan which indicates use type and relationships,as'wella$density and intensity of use. ':'<'i -'~",'" ;',' .r.; The second part of the question refers to a specific project which is not the question at this point. A review of .the Shorewood Estates project should be handled as a separate and independent consideration following a determination on the PUD amendment. . . Shorewood Mayor and Ci ty Counc i I September 22, 1980 Page Five 9. In providing a general response to this,quest,ion,the items of concern are specifically listed as information and submis,sion requirement of the applicant at his costs. The. extent of study and .accep'tance of coverage lies with the City Council withrecommel'ldations prQvided from the City staff and Planning Commission . Additionally, other portions of the City's codes, such as the Wetlands Ordinance, are applicable t,()Cnd,proyide a review and decision-making foundation for PUD or, any,(>ther form of d~velopment. , .. .. ',' .. ",.:.,. ...... ".' ',.' ....' J :,{;L;:<^;;~' '~: ~ 'j Have you considered hOVly()t.l.'.will'.mana~.")he City's. respo~sibilities during the development of an approved PUD? D()'Wehave adequate full time city staff to represent the City's and citi,zen's i~terests?': A technique which the Cityinstituted,abc)ljf two to three years ago and which we recommend COritinuing(Jnd expand i ':lg is: the ,use of performance bonds or other securities posted by the developer to assure, and guarantee compliance with City regulations and any stipulationappl ied by the Council to a given project. Throughout constrtJctionancl.at the conclusion of a project, the City holds sufficient funds.or protection,to undertake modifications which will bring about the results demanded by the City CounCil. In terms of adequacyofstaff,rti,s believed. that present resources available to the City are suffi~ient to,rne~t and protect the City's interests. ,e ..~. '>~, ; '\. ..... .i" ;1. \ '.,0 i . ~ :(~. . .' Shorewood Mayor 'and City Council September 22, 1980 Page Six 11. Why shouldn't this ordinance contain requirements for the City to perform impact studies on the environment, financial and other impacts prior to acceptance of a PUD proposal? . , , .1 Provisions arecontai,ned within the proposed ordinance for the City to request or to make any and all studies necessary to evaluate and make a determination on a request. Additionally, it should be pointed out that such information is at the expense of thE; applicant and not the City's general fund and taxpayer. 12. If commercial begets more commercial and higher density begets more high density, does it not follow that vacant land near a PUD site will be considered more suited for higher or commercial density in future "comprehensive plans "; and that the vacant lot near the vacant lot will likewise follow? Is it really possible to contain commercial and high density? It is believed,that thls question is predicated upon false assumptions. A detailed review of the pol icies of the;Comprehensive Plan provide guidelines for develop- ment and placeme,~t~factJxiJies. Additional market demands are seen as a limiti!'lg factor. FollowingtheilogfA',;~'~ggested by the question, one would assume the entire metropolitan area some'day>\yould be all commercial in development character. ,.,...., .. , ' Hopefully the responsesprC)vid~i(]bove address theconce:rns which have been expressed. A point to be taken intoac,cou~tii..,considering the PUD Ordinance is that it is a long established and proven procedur~r~roughout the country and within the Twin Cities area as well . Anotherfactoristhatthe\',P.UD Ordinance is part of an overall planning program undertaken by the City of.Shor~,;,~9d.To understand the ordinance not only requires that it be read in detail, but~~pt:.~st~glJshedplans and the process inwhich they have been' formulated be taken intoClccountg~r'ldrecognized as part of a logical, progressive and rational decision-making~fforti;B~';;i> 1, ... . ,~.>,..~ , Planning Commi~sio~t-:]/ . Elsa Wilts~y ,,;' Frank KeJly:: i Jim Norton .' I ~ ,\ . ~ ' " -V?~ i: ! 'f i . ':';l' 1 ..'}:.':;ti .;,;!::>., ,,',,:.....:.,.....,;.,...,., '.:...,.,......;:.;.....,:..'1.:'::., : !li>,:'~1~l'l ! i',:> 1:; : ~: ,.':_:;C,! . ',-'.,