The URL can be used to link to this page

1972 pl mn . }.uu~...;>..,),'x ;:rW;~l~o ~::~1 "tl:i~. 't!b-iitM'I. J ArJAit l:7 ,1 ;J11: 1.)0 p... ';'0; :__avecA n....., ~Ht.GD f,~ &j A.rTlrClt ~1~. ~ lh...... h. Soe ';';1... Jobu ~J"' fGH ar. 'u. ~U' __~ ot .... ~h.I'~)d F~~~ '.~1..don 'lii'.. .~ '~".i.:l .O<le. j'l~, Ja~tI .t.). 1;;i12. #;\ ;::!a.....q.cata :>.fS~~ i LiM'-;;.tr'f -tt't 1.)"- ~.Ill).. l;.q~l1t .to. fl... Ol..-n ~ J'~+<t' l.~'n lJJi.:.!i4cl"<;"" ~il'('lJi:"';Jt..).,rll:,i$,~..L.:.,{>~'tt;.y ~1..,u.Qtl )) - ;.lat -J:* -k,"'li ::,~ ,ftrd )t ~~, 2..., :'14t,ilu' ,o\.\ ~i.,\'tll.~.. . ;:. ,i1.1lr~ ..... J"*m Jii1lj,w ~'t N~"'~~,..4.t~ ;.';;..."'..\.,""....U..l \J:~ r",\'lr.A.~~; ~ _ ...... ~ (&ppl"OlK.tJaa".l~t" Iil.~"t>ilt t>.j~~14'~ ..t.\f; (;: ru..\':.f ... .. .ti~ 1f. ~_ 3! - ;;,>~t tl",::t;'I. 3. Jr. ant ;,;%,.... ~ r~:. ~et~'t:t .,~ ~~. ... .,..Uor" 2' ~t ~'!.i,'.;-~ ;;1'YH..ir;.:.:.. J1 .. ~,r)t;.. ?;.~t ~'il;.I$". ;, itt:.i.; , ~:~.o\",. ...; .;~. iW.-. "'LJ.l16..t" ~,:.*"~. ~.r :~t~; <l.~l',i ;~i...i,~lr:OIfH~'., ;)$"lIIllt~~!{t r.~.L:.'.. ('~t.1,~ ~',;l...it :.-v1"4t ",U\'l.'%o.~io Q1tI \.:~f'l~,t; ..i\.",-..c".,. .~.'t)~'t;:( - :*'" at ~ 21.._.~.l,J) - .~4",,~,?. ~I..)..j,,;::... 5. .l.:i-Wa il-..u.lr.... - P1NPO~ ~~. on .\"-(j .~;'J.i ~. :'J1ravr~ ~~Jui1tt Itt..~ f...... ~ pro~'). .~ A".'Z"'Ij,lLJU 'dfJ..~' ;M~<j.~,rt .t\t ),:I'l(;:, ,.i;.~.L\.:\t.:. CCiNi11u-a1Ot'l. ..t1~' d. 'oIll.4,..:.h 1;,1IH..~"'Q"~,Ji~~,u ;'l~a.t.., he WO',h(;. lloU.V.., ~a'tlOtl t. ,,~l~f~;I.X~;jilj~i~~ $"t .J-:l~.J".l d,l/74:. '~i~. j ~~.~:.lIi. ii"lilo1i ,:~l:$~ ';~t~~. 1;O~ ':'"i~ ;[.. HO.........N\, >';l.i.JOt' ~.alMA.t ?ll.~ ';$Vt~. l.U. ".!4f\...., , ~~li&4~ ,/u.a.11 1". ;;"'l~;j. ...'$1.0"..1 . ~, . . . . . . MINVTfS cF THI PLANNING COMMISSION M~~TING Of JA~UAHY 13, 1972 Pr~Hlttn; we r'} ell;", intl<:,n, I'rEJI,j.;(iee se, Ed AbralDson, Bob Naega Ie , Jr. John ;.).,rt, flndIorf~ Cram. In add! tion George Gibeau :ind Williafl! f. heLly were pr~~Ant. 1. \<.illtum MArtu. <;1nd John Miller were present for the purpose 01 IJre:s",r".l tl1i' PIByming Commission the pr~lilDinary proj:'o"'Pll f'H' t.ht', USt. ::)f Lot ~;:', ),uditor'. Subdivi8ion No. lJJ for multi if: U:5e.' repl~t)enntl;;jt:ivf" of' Hickok 6; ~..ociate. was al",o i.!r<:!-i nr',) 6<1., l{ tn t:~hnlf ,)f ~hf' presentation. Mr. Mertin st."(l:d~ \.... '-.H; ~h~v,,~loper~ \.nuJd be wilLing to accept any appro- priat6 dt'lHSi ty <.5 d,etcn:'U1illad by the village. He f'el't"4hat the land Wd!J :U" J'g~.:i",lIl1(1 W<Hl1.d not lend i t.elf for construction of ,d,ritle ;.,\.e.,()' h:"uet! ,.:),d t i 1. only through development for mul- tirL: \'."';,,1<; "112' ti nd !ldVf~ dny value. He lluggested four units \,('r ;f" i. ,..;r:}a.;HJ."e ~ ap"rtmar;t construction. , \ W / av"dJatde. find ",(,'U d IV.,t 1;:, ble and Wi] tar lpproximately eleven forty units. co\: 1 d be made f'.cres in size < e'~ ~ r 1. 8 r.r' f~ s f~' n t 1 Tt>.e 1'1" )i,i~( tj is ccommodHtu rlbout (c) "j",r\ in conc"'f t, (.rJl: rid r;('( mAttpr wa r~C0rr€d 1 j n ted ,u r: tndt the pre8ent~ ticn i8 A 'fi r\?) dn:wing. A.:ft~r di6cussipD the Ita.:: ; I nn"?r lor his report. 2. ~h'. FJoyd 2.60n ...WE' r'\r(;~~ent requesting rezoning of u portion (t Lot ;.::11, udit r':,; Subdivi:3ion 'JJ f"or multiple uee. Thie r(::.(~rt.\ " !lfdst!~ (f .hout tow,", ,:Hld ,)ne-half' acres. The report 0:1" the planue r w,;:'\ ['C8 d . "I t I' ('roved mul tip-lea to be loca ted in thJt;. ,.:1'c.. !'L,(,€,pdtinl':'; ;lOW~VTI~ thet the project "'l!li~ until both !nunicil~;l seWf."r ,'nd W,.tt~I ",,(.re ,)v~j1lhble. ^t that time the plann(',l' fel t that 1'ewer'LTd t!:' loIould be recommended. Mr. Olson Liler. ("(iU<,;, '.fd th, r lf1unin,:: commission to designate thAo, property r')r ;'n.it Vi, ;, .,) t:o dp.ctdo!" it. apartm.nt conetruction or 't,)"'nt10U~" C:CJflstru' tlon would be permi1:ted. l'e Buggested l:hut f;;[l j" lei drd.t1': '\'nuld le ,'PI roprlHte. S~vernl neienbors wert. e,' ....nt ii" t. ~il'. .J'Jrnt~8 O. flor'ctwrt ....at, rerl'f.HH~nted O} ),)hIl L.f'( 1J nell.b.b()Is ('xpres",ed oppoeition to multi...lt1s J'l 1,"1 (:~'(". '<(-"i.on h) ~'i,lrty, eecondt-d b) Cr,.ru tabled tht. Cf~yU."'C qJ \\-11', .. 1 ULi ff}:" tht. present. l'a8t!~c.i unf.niwoue;.ly. ."Ir. uf..t hi,yej It, t 1)( hI r.cttfi~,d 01' ;;.ny .furtt.('r h('<triH!~C3 on ,; L S l"f:,'{ tlP ~< t " ...'~~ :--~J.:-. t'fJ~>1.Jf-~(j d. t ~:.r'!Ilnl1, \itl~; iLill, WV.L;";, r}l'f-;~ellt I--equest.1Ilg LIs l;l't'rprty" b"'in., apprnxlm:ltely four acres alon{l. Vine Hl11 \lOHd, be dlvir1ed into three pi1rCe18. e,h..h purcel meeting . . . . cl \";,rr,Il ,.",('r.,ol' 01 burn hui lct;rs Wi:l8 i-'I't'l!'cnt to J"< *'1 tI liH; rL,nn.inp; CC;.nfill!lli' j on the U!'If:' of h p~rt II,. ,,,Jlt.:J, ~'::-l.IlH:l "i51:,., i)) for multiples, specit'- "unl.t HIJ,'il".-nHrt tu~lcinf lIItth 20 ghrCJgf!S Pond 20 1,\,1"'''':''1: st"..ls. Tht: ,.rc', o!>E:d ~I',',rtll'letlt~ would \\'0 t,.!(;rV0m~> il\(, lnLd Itdilable "'H8 b7,OOO 'iter' <<('>!tH' d'scusedon upon Motion of' Naegele, 1"( \1\': ill erinI' <,l'tnmission decided to re- I.l ;~ "l<'vnr' (,1 H speciul uao permit n L: It; ild10,.' 01 1 ~ :,0 !6 unitB, top qualit)i l. J h~ 'wen I ': j (":':; ;dud 1 imi t(Hl to two 'Ii;,tttn' tJ.(; r('l!t:ll'f;:c! to tho plnnner () U b 1 U C '~', L) n (:. G CJ n l' ide I dr i ve W iJ Y /!', 5 t r fJ e t .., tb.. minimum size of t,ht or'dinances ot the vt tlug() ot' >Lol"c'A!,_od ('V,t,> tlth,r..~ "~ie, ,"lquc,re 1'eet). jt was poi.nte-d (jut tn..( no ..:<Jl]llliut~j\fe <I(tion w..t$ required for the request tl{; I"~ \i.1' '," ,t, v:": 1 i ,'i'_ "s j"l 8 IH~ f: n XfiHflH! b te d.. iJn mu t j en 0 f ,. ~il'!{. )~'H u by ....1urty, it Wi'H" moved thAt Mr. Herman's reql..lt,at b~ a!'prov~~d. Passed uClrluimously. I . c~ .J ~ '{ 01 !..." 1 iCHlly C1(\l, '-1 "n Of' ,)Of"' s C \.~ 8~ 1 t: f I l' t ':.' i r. "~~ :-;; U,;-, ~.J lJ ~ >~ j ~ f,} ! '" (~ fD ~_ -j. L. 1" :,., ~ ll';;_~ 't 1'1f% t" ki _l -~ . \f "0-'" 'J . : .4 - ~ ~ ~ :; ',\ u\( '__;", ::. 't.). t-... \I:;o:1.~;;; Ero~- con:!' 1 r\,.l '. i 1"(">110\',:} n/., I H ~ b; \-, i (! J {--; a/l ~: , ! . , t } X ':., ~-, l.. 1,. t: (1;:l t I1H", !'ilH'b.'Y,:'" f'llf.iIHH't' from Clark Oj1 Compilny wue '. , :..1 .l:- ) " he j 'L h ' "m } U" j (> n r f' que 8 t to b u j 1 d .. "" hw. ' '; 'Lh.; :"re ~en t loe;, tion of Lur:,.; ,l"Oi 'L~ ('r ('U1l5id;;:rdble dJ..scu~~sion it .' ".~..t).l ,'(:(""ldl", br;,lmson ilRo f'ollows: Tht. n .l os ii,; lot 1..1YOli j be nprrov,"d wi th the .\~_..lrilfn\_~l;d :,'ll,;.(}IJ.~i.r(j:~ ';.i. ;,)f~- ~,(1d.rdl ;'t J\(_"! t)~-, (' 1i !H! ;"I)t be L rildec on a t tile arca be cOlDplt~t~,l) .1.' 18 P088:..b1. and Hdvia,- urticll to .r, ~r u (.1 t..-'. L...r.j \.. j t{ ~ ''''l',;td ','x'eI i'" J ~ t II S (j d . lr~'-l i -'. ~ '( t; i_' iit;:: ,..I.J'c," ; en e '3 tr, be ') f'ent redwood ba~kct; "'l:~ u \t e .. rH;~ ~ushes to be located along rear fence J'{.l LJ l,ds C:~'tpinE ;}Urp05es. L~ i..:c1,. .c'~u, l'('et, high be! con~tructed 8~gn, the post to be ,.It le","lt i.),', 5f tht r,o nJ c t} pe \..\., fli:,l.:~te.;; whl te. ,e} \0 c:i,:.si1g lit:.t~t.8 to be 'permitted on the sIgn. . ~f) Si~n to be lOC8ted at the Northwest edge of th~ property, -2- . . . . (g) T~H~ b1~'k nOi"tion of the f'enfJe to be redlo;ood feet rcq;n. No displH} t),:>ardg to be lO~1:lted ,..: tbe ft~ll<:;;. () . n mo t l( ~ n I ing re!" f. \.ut i drivf">iey'.cces!'! and eeconded by ALnltQson th~ follow- un., ni mou$l Y fin 9ser:J concerning the prore'!"'ty. \].... rt.}' ,(\ Wi~l!l to the d~ .~<)i,V; 'I, "n~d tl\1b .'1 ,rulin~ ommission of the Village of ~horewood ~nv1n~ herlrd the request of Clark Oil Bnd H.."fltdTlp:" Cornpnny f<.r a t:.f\nnit to locate a @ill!l stfltifJO ('D Q,:r1. of Lot i \uditr',,", ::'uhdivJ8ion No. IY3 in the Vil- 1;1:~e ,,1' n:,j.,...(,yj ','lvlng irontege of 15(' feet along Hennepin COUl,t, H. :'1(1'/."" 1 fl, ..'.vi,n,', oncurred in tlHl.1d request, del. S ,,,":) ,'r1 ,,:,,(,If ., Li)'ini" 1n :tavor of' the prop.t't}' ll)'in r '.''-'~, ~,r.t ern':: .f'f Htghw~\y ~,lo. ,q for the rw ':' ", '" '.id.! lI'f.rt.,~~: and et7reee to l'tuch &l!"r'Vice ~. t t "L u ~J l u ~ , \ ",lOJ) F ,nu- ttvt. t.his Hf.:solution is adopted {or th2 ,tiTL se of pxpreesing to ~be ,li,' !)H1\ld ~.l',."H>;r,~ tit> " in10;"1 Jf ti t1 ~"',hOr(lWOod . f {, '..~ Ti-f' '., '<- t.'.."'"..." l n, ,';;\;.1. ::) J:4 J;' ;1': ~'1:~ '1. r t t~ .i ,~,.' ,-. ~ ~'.,H} . ) tll: .\ ,~~ ~ fj " f- t 1 ; ;;:~ ~'Ut :t""--.., 1 " ...~ . \ . -)- . . . . . . .. January 13, 1972 MEMO NASON associates WEHRMAN roya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture To: Shorewood Planning Commission From: Nason, Wehrman, Chapman Associates, Inc. Re: Shorewood Population Estimates The number of residents Shorewood will have in 1980, 1990, 2000 or even beyond is an important consideration in structuring a useful development guide plan. It is true that new construction starts are guided by the approved plan, but the plan in turn is tempered with a sensitivity to what development demands will be. Real izing this, the anticipated population must be cal culated in as accurate a manner as possible so that future housing, marketing, services and public facilities demands will be ade- quately met. Forecasting the population by any method is, at best, an evaluation of past trends with adjustments for factors such as a changing birth rate, economic indices, school projections, migration, I ife styles and longevity. The figures presented in this paper represent computer projections with staff modifications drawn from 1967 demographic activity of the Joint Program, seeking to predict population occurrences for any number of reasons. If the results are viewed as an indication of probable occurrence, rather than a positive statement of fact, then they become a useful tool in formula- ting development guidel ines at the community level. Shorewood: 1970 4,223 2,000 13, 110 1975 5,216* 1990 9, 172* 1980 6,209* 1985 7,203 *by interpolation The Metropol itan PI anning Commission, forerunner of the Metropolitan Council, had been the one agency generally responsible for political jurisdiction population pro- jections within the Twin City Metropolitan Area. They participated in the Joint Program with the purpose of analyzing population and marketing factors. The out- come, designated as the Constell ation Cities Study, included a series of projections which have become the prime resource data at the Metropolitan level. The basic unit for model information input was the traffic assignment zone -- a series of 756 defi ned areas for wh i ch data was tabu I ated and p !"Ogrammed . offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415/i1ac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . . . . To: Shorewood Planning Commission Re: Shorewood Population Estimates Page 2 January 13, 1972 It must be recognized that the projections presented in this paper were made some years ago; however, the results are the most comprehensive available, and are to be used until current modifications by the Metropolitan Council are completed. A tentative date for these modifications was given as February, 19720 With specific regard to Shorewood, analysts at the Metropolitan Council advised that the 1967 projections were relatively accurate, and major changes should not be anticipated. In addition, it was indicated that computer results of the modifications would be reported by re- gions formed from .specific traffic assignment zones, and would not initially be "split out" into political jurisdiction boundaries in all cases. Shorewood was an area within a region rather than a single corporate entity for programming purposes and so pro- jections would relate to more than the community itself. Given the above rationale, it is recommended that the population projections, as presented, be adopted for the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Modification of the figures should then be structured into the plan as available when policy revisions and/ or plan updating activity is undertaken. . . . . . '.. - . ,;\ \JL~.. ',.},J!..; ",,"'"..In Il.a :X.l9'.ta .d;U {)N TUl.i1iDDAY, )"J~UAl4t 10,1912 1 ~." n. ". . .;;..' ~ ..... lo: ;)h0l'~ Plan,nil1(;; ~C'JII'Ilm1tN1Qll k.:~1) '>iU ,'i<.lJ>!:ll'''1i'~:''; )~\rin .doo\" Z:kib J~Mlgsl",) Jr-. 30',;.; ~jj.e~ot. Jo)\), li!a.l'ty !'<)3"ot !"k'~ the ,..,i.:\Uw' fti"tl:'~ of th(: 5ho:r~;\jQoo. H~'~ oc.d.M1cm wlU be belli l)n 't'hur9d.ii\h l',,~:"'~..i.8.);'.i i.e. 1972. .~t>'..it>>__..h,\a SOhool l.i.b1ru7 at 7.)\,;. p."'. !i.~ 1" .Fl~'yd ~"llwon P""l'l.1 r.......::...il1.t1: )0 lInU apG"UIl&t.\ lmi.~ lC'opoeal (rior"'k: h ;~lon 33 - :pla.t -Pil- Ld)'\ 23 and. pal"tot Lo'l 24. .....1;_ caw). . .. .. 't$N"2".en, J;ndOl'$OD pre.um ne;;t~rl& NYiMCl plua t_ propoeed "pu'~nt ~ .;;In !~W'" Xio."{ D9lU" 1J.r'Qve ;Jt1'f)t)t (~ to:"lMn" RaDll pn.,...~). }~ RgeM ,-.!1~ \';0))1.. ",0 I '!UOGIA8E. if.oll__,t~ aeorae at M.>*, Pleantr.r .~. m \1;el.lI'Madt. ~R't'" "1.111.. F. Kel.ll'J At'tOl'Ml' . . . . . . . . . -...-..- MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 1972 The following were present: Chairman Reese and Tore Gram, William F. Kelly and the planner. A regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on February 10, 1972, at the Minnewashta Grade School library at 7:00 P. M. A quorum was not present; therefore~no formal action was taken on any matter brought before the commission. 1. Floyd Olson was again present and filed with the commission a revised plan for use of his property on Highway 19 as and for multiples. The property is 2 1/2 acres in size. The revision calls for apartment construction of 30 units, being approximately 12 per acre. Each unit to carry with it one garage and one additional parking space. 20 one bedroom and 10 two bedroom units proposed. Adjoining neighbors were again present objecting to use of the land for multiples. The planning commission informed Mr. Olson that the commission was in the process of attempting to reduce the overall density of the village and will continue to look for future reduction of density. The plan was filed with the planning commission to be left with the village clerk. 2. Mr. Warren Anderson was again present to discuss use of land at or near Highway 7 adjoining the Village of Excelsior for multiples. He presented to the planning commission a new proposed plan for the development reducing the number of units and relocating the same on the lot. The proposed plan was referred to the planner for review and report. 3. There followed a discussion of the village's desire to reduce the overall density from that which previously had been presented to the public. There being no further matters to come before the commision the meeting was adjourned. ~ . . . . . . ~~~m Pt.6litiI:rtQ ~,1..tj;'111,,;1~ ~,~t. iUWcttc 9. 1.,}7_ T/~ P". Tel _."fu4 n'l1~t~ ~.._ ~~. .. tll... ........ .... .. *-..... h. .... fWQ ~:~- 1-. ... , \1Ie .....,.. ...... ., .. __Iuut Pl-ahlfZ ~... will.. .U Oft lllP.wt"'V. ... ,. .911. .t Nau r ....:~l l.4brtirs at 1.30 P'" ..... ....... 1.;.... .u" U ~ ...... .,,,..,, {h.. 47"'97'3 .. .rtt_ ~-4~)). ~m~ ,~ 0..... ;aUld1 ~ ).J wt.a....~ ~U.1I ......1 (Jtw\b t. JiMt1cMa )3 - ~ -.ptt - !oA'\ .3 .. ..,., of Lot 24, bal."-:........ ."~~ .fl.""", P""-- ~ ....M4 ~ t. ~ ............... - u.:t 1J.7 __ t'INW ~~ (".. I'.... 1\iN14 ~t.Y;. .n.... OIl' "0111." ........ 0, L. ~~_a (~ of ""'" .lv. .'16:.1..... ~ ~.t.31 <.... ~\i'12 - J~_.:)l;. .... fa.... itA u.. ~ ~. 1'1 e;ad Jlf14.r)lM11. 2, ~l'. .....-. to Iiaoal... <..... tt'lC). TileM ,... l.ft. ..... "1f;I.ft&l~ ~l."'_ h .. 1.... .. .. .... u_b&.Mc1 ~ _ ~ - ;\,... .t1.1.. ....... t. luWWit ..... let .. l\OW .. .~ "'a\~'_ le\a O't "~l _.. ,. ... XIIhlM .. aaa ......., ......... ~~ rf.v~."" ......,.u..1 tel 1~J7]r.l.l ..1ft ...-1 ., lII'O~ (~,\'l ... i~' .p' 'fit ~)1 - rap #19). 6. ,......., J.MIIl ... '1M .. ~lW>>~ ~. . 1. 2. ). .. l' 1. ~t .~h ., ,'~..,. ..nt.r~" ~ I~~ft M"'!i j:II'u.~t ~t \nt.. ...U~ - _ ..... .hwIk ..... q~t.._ . ~_.. 'N' ~- -, .. tatl4.... ...,.. __II' 1JUM~ 'l..... .... .,~\. ~~ ~.. Willi,_ ,. *-1""."""" . . . . February 10, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN roya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture MEMO TO: Shorewood Planning Commission RE: Shorewood land Use PI an Data ZONING DISTRICT ACREAGE/ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES Acres Maximum Allowable Densities(3) District Gross(l ) Net (65%)(2) Gross Net R-1 (4) 2,242.5 1,457.6 8,499 5,525 R-2 1 , 082 . 8 703.8 8,206 5,334 R-3 145.9 94.8 1,658 1 , 077 R-4 17.2 11.2 391 255 R-5 9.8 6A . low 446 291 High 594 388 C-1 8.6 C-2 3.7 C-3 32.7 Total acres: Gross Net Total P ,. Gross Net opu1ation: Residential 3,498.2 2,273.8 LON 19,200 12,482 High 19,348 12,579 Commercial 45.0 If all residential Village 3,543.2 acres or areas zoned R- 1 : 13,384 8,684 5 .54 sq. m i. . offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . . . . . . MEMO TO: Shorewood Planning Commission February la, 1972 (1) Gross acreage includes total land and surface water aCJ'eage (see footnote #3) in the Village. No allowances for public use areas or undevelopable areas have been made. (2) Net acreage reflects area adjustments for streets and thoroughfares, parks and open spaces, required dedications, water areas and undevelopable land features. (3) R-l acreage computations exclude surface acreage of Christmas lake. (4) Based on 3.79 inhabitants per dwelling unit tor Vi!lage of Shorewood -- data from 1970 U.S. Census of Housing. . . . . ;N ;;v ;:o;:() . . . . .J:Wp-J- -.-J ::-I V) In r' ~ J. c:i. ~ - - ;r- (\ ~ ~ 7' -;'dl 0 .. ~ . .:t ;!. - . f'u:-~~ ~ 'Ii' "'5' ~ - -:.T () . ~ ~ .tJ ~ \ < ;~ C\ ('). f' :;u , , . G- w p - \ h\ p 0 :t " ~ -1-) t l. ~ - 0 =--r . (' :I ". .... " ~ \J P p - -- c.. 7- ~ n " Q- 0 (t f) rl E J 0 z. !!- 1 .1 t:I ~ 1: ~S "" p .- ~ -. '" p " . . - . t - P ,. - - . '. ,.4.. ; if) 11- 1fT ~) , ~\ /~ -- ...~::. // e- .... \ \~~]L /\ ~X\ /~~ r~~~ <f~:l~ ~~;:If. \i . Dt .~ ~-I L- \\ 1. ....L '1>"'. --cf~~" . -"- .~ ~I 'VI I '...~. g\ ! __"r--.~t i \ ~ i I ! - IJ..--, I .J. ~~ ! L_ ''"-, ;ii~~.!', ~~N:'- [ilT1.. r?(= \ !~ I '-~I,\~\ _ J \,,,," A' !~\\~:t\ ,'~'if r'~<~ ~. f\ ; ~~- ii= j[ ,cc -1 " ~....... ~ ,\ce , W-\~ ~-j ~S~~:8~ ~" __ )'l ~- --D--~f~=-1~~"I"'-- II ", !,..i,'fu,O - i =/~ i.i.....~. ....p.......('~\.,\ .... ,....: ....://; ; I~)>' '1-1=ln[!f' I.. :~E!I-~ l'f'~P. . J !~ .'.~. -.:r~I.-.-.lM Ir. ';;'-J' /~-I.,~,~,..'~'-.._~._.~.t._---_'~-~.'.~ I. '., 1 ~ pc: . .-:...~~ -;~ ;S~i /~C/( '0. /] ,or;) .~ ~~'-f"* (\~J -- , ~k,"~ . \\ ~... '.$"..' :J1[\'A.- ~;~ nY".' \, r-.. - lL'i.,?Y"'--.- --. N.~L!.~.~:...... ~ \'/ j1- ..\>'l ,:.~i!'rL-LJ., , ~ . .~_U_"\ . r.. \ 'l--~u! A- I \ i.' j, . 07" ~-1""~J": k1 , "f: \~~ -i~.-V!'~ '~Tl," \ . \\...: ~, ,\./ - n-f-t.7~~' 1'.. ~./.-'1:~ lY(j~\l e..'?f.".JJ' '-~ ~"'" > ; ~.,'~=--:\~1~ t~;>'1fIQ- \ ''''] I ,1-1 i i j 1--\ ' , '_v Al : ~\ .J \\~~L I~' !1~J,~~ ~ ~tI1: 1~~i}I;!," ~'" (0 ~~' ... ~/; & Q -- 311.\. - r ~. ~.?--:)/'~~)'" / -~ ,- --r" \ ?~~ '0 I i ~lJ~y~~~\,~~(\~~ . I< ~, ,. tn, I'\_/~\ \. '-----7,:::~ ~. /f ! ~/':~ .' cr-~ ""'\\__~~I)\\-Z' ~-"=>~~~ <'" +... ..,. ...... ....... 0... "';, c-+'..,....S',>: .......... \ I \ \ I I . 1'1 '<'~ _ --....~_ 11- . -=: -- r- r- 2:a ~ r=PI (;;) ~ ~ =c Q ~g FVl cc.= ~~ c;:) Q ~, !!. =- - - : = -;~ ~. , ~ -I- e _ ; ~ I ~ ~ i ;; 1 I - - - - ,.. - r>o . . ~. .r< . February 10, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN raya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d, fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE NUMBER 8 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood APPLICANT: Floyd B. Olson PURPOSE: Site Review of Proposed 30 Unit Apartment Building by Dorn Builders County Road 19 and Glen Road The prel iminary plat for Planning Commission consideration describes a tract of 2.68 acres which includes Lot 23 and part of Lot 24, Manitou Glen. Under existing zoning ordinance requirements this proposal will require a special use permit and variances as described under PI anning Considerations. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The subject tract is bounded on the north and east by Glen Road and County Road #19 respectively. Frontage for this tract consists of 335 feet adjacent to County Road 19. Lot orientation for this proposal is subject to interpretation, but using standard evaluation techniques would be the entrance facing north. This being the case, the rear yard requirement is not adequately s,atisfied. Twenty percent of lot depth giving the building orientation would be -'101 feet; 45 feet are provided. This being the case, a variance would be required under the ordinance. Also, given such building orientation, the parking as proposed in the plat application is situated in the front yard. This situation would also necessitate appl i cation for a variance under the ordinance. Side yard setbacks as presented are satisfactory, as are the grading and landscaping proposals. Sufficient parking spaces have been provided under both existing and proposed ordinance requirements. Thirty garage spaces and thirty-two parking spaces are shown to service the apartment building. The structure itself is a three-story building having thirty units (20 one bedroom units and 10 two bedroom units) for which the existing ordinance would require 78,000 square feet of lot area. Actual lot area is 116,984 square feet. The over- all land use density works out to 11.2 units per acre. offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415/i1ac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 .",. . . . 4 ,j~ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE NUMBER 8 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood February 10, 1972 Page 2 Under the existing ordinance the zoning for this area is R-1 or one unit per acre. Under the proposed zoning ordinance the zoning would be R-5, having a density of from 12 to 16 units per acre. The relationship of the tract in question to adjacent land uses (i.e.: commercial to the east and commercial zoning to the south) vali- dates the higher intensity use. It should be noted that existing ordinance requirements stipulate a water system satisfactory to the Village be approved before a special use permit is issued. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Although the use concept for this tract (i.e. multiple family apartment) is acceptable from a planning standpoint, it is recommended that the building, siting, and orien- tation be reconsidered. Recognizing the I imitations due to topographic features, an alternate provision for parking may be required. One option would be to provide underground parking for at least a portion of the total required number of spaces. This would retain the generous percentage of green area now provided, provide a siting satisfactory to ordinance requirements and increase the aesthetic values of the tract. It is suggested that a correction additional design be given the proposed use, and a second preliminary plan be submitted for planning commission consideration. NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Phone Frank l:ee::5f' onl.y if .you cJ.nnot nttend (homf' 941-43U) 4714-97: 3 or offi ce i I I . SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1972 7.30 p.m. To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members Ed Abramson Marvin .i3oote Bob Naeb'"ele,Jr. John Marty Bob Siegler Tore Gram The regular meeting of the Shorewood PlaWjlng Commi~sion will be held on Thursd"y, April 13, 1972, at Minnewashta School ~lbrary at 7.30 p.m. . AGKillA l. Joint Meet lng wi th Shorewood Go,^-nc: L to discuss ILand Use Plan and I, Zoning Ordinance and '~cI:edule pub lC hearing. . Frank HeeEe Chairman Copies to: I Thor"las E. Hal.oran, Mayor and Council ~mbers Geori-:,'"e Gibeau, Plarmer Berm.e ~:i ttelsteadt, Engineer fiill1am F. Kel J, Attorr~ey . . .' . Village of Shorewood HENNEPIN COUNTY THOMAS E HOllORAN, MAYOR MURIEL J WHOWHl, VillAGE CLERK "ON MINNETONKA'S SOUTH SHORE" PO BOX 307, EXCELSIOR, MINN. 55331 PHONE 474-7501 OFFICE OF: Clerk i,iay 15, .L'Ji' 2 JOliJT ~;E::::illI:W G.? COUNCIL AND PLA.jjL~G COhmSSION '.20: l(~AYOP c~_,,;1) G(n;l~CIL PLA.1\:'~ e; C01<1,:IS3101~ 1,'~EVJ3S1iS 'Yet: ,jo:nt ;\.eetlngbetNeen Share'Wood Hiayor and. Council and ).ore'/100'c, ~Yl.allL.l.ljgJommission scnedu...ed for K,",.y 18, 1972, ToY' the p\il'pose or discussing Lar.d Use Lap and Zoning Crdinc"nce nas been cancelled due to Board of Heview meeting beH1iS held i,;ay 18, 1972. 'l'he JOlnt Leeting is scheduled for Wednesday, f.lay 24, 1972, c:.t j. p.m. at l'hrll'.e,^Jashta. School. ~"uriel ~J. iv~-,-o>;el... -..J 1 e!'t~ 7.30 p.m. .' SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION TliURSDAY, . prlAY 11,1972 To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members Ed Abramson Marvin Boote Bob Naegele, Jr. John filarty Boo Siegler Tore Gram The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, May 11, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at 7.30 p.m. Phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend (home 474-9753 or office 941-4313). AGENDA . 1. Chester Norman present regarding building of double cungalow on part of Lot ~17, Aud~tor's Subdivision #135 - corner of Acadamy and Glencoe road (Map #10). 2. Proposed subdi~ion, by Frank Kelly, of Lot #55, Auditor's Subdivision #133 (Map fi13). 3. Discussion on informal basis of populatlon trends as proposed by Metro Councll. Frank Reese Chairman Copies to: Thomas E. Holloran, ~layor . W~- George Gibeau, Planner - ~I Bernie Mlttelsteadt, ~~neer Will~am}. Kelly, Attorney /k, ~ U-- -~- Iff if ~ 9t 3 d 7;/~/71- . Ed Abramson I4arvin Boote Bob Naegele, Jr. Frank Heese, Chairman John IvIarty Bob Siegler Tore Gram riJrs. Stephen Cole, Secretary . SHOREWOOD PL~~fING CO~IMISSION THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1972 7:00 P. :M. (NOTE: Time change from 7;30 to 7:00 to accomodate those who have conflicting graduations, etc) To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, June 8, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at]: 00 P .Iil. RE~rrlf.DEH: Joint meeting with the Shorewood Council on June 5, 1972 at 7:30 p.m. Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend. (Home - 474-9753 or office 941-4313) . AG~l)A 1 . Roland Larson to be present regarding proposal to build double bungalows on Aud. Sub. #133, Lot 7. (Map #12) 2. Jim Dutcher to be present regarding replatting of Lot 5 and 6 Shorewood Terrace Addition, into 3 lots. (Map #12) 3. Request from Albert and Lenore Johnson to sell Tract C, of Lot 113 Aud. Sub. 120, containing 44,!120 square feet, and retaining Tract B which has a double bungalow occupied by the Johnsons. C7tt1tf fI:. B) Frank Reese, Chairman Copies to: Thomas Holloran, Nayor George Gibeau, Planner Bernie Mittelsteadt, Engineer William F. Kelly, Attorney . George Gibeau, Planner . MI NUTES Vi lIage of Shorewood Planning Advisory Commission Meeting of June 8, 1972 Present: Frank Reese, Chrmn. Marvin Boote Tore Gram Bob Naegle, Jr. The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on June 8, 1972 at the Mi nnewashta Elementary Schoo I Library at 7 :00 PM. Old Business (1) Mr. Tore Gram requested confirmation on the Zoning Distri ct change from R - 2 to R - 1 for the area situated north of TH #7 and east of Manor Rd. This change had been discussed and recommended at the May 18, 1972 joint Council - Commission special meeting. The planner advised the change wds noted and would be reflected in the zoning District Map prepared for the coming informational public hearings. . (2) Mr. Chester Norman was present for Planning Commission recommendation for a proposed subdivision of part of lot 217, Aud. Subd. #135 (Map 10). The subdivision request was submitted at the May 11 regular meeting. Development Rev i ew #9 was presented, and the need for fu II, 20,000 sq. ft. lots was eXplained to Mr. Norman. A request by the Commission for a sketch plan of the entire tract showing prepared lot divisions and access will be complied with. No formal action was taken. (3) Development Review #8 was distributed to Planning Commission members. This case relates to the development of double bungalows adjacent to the golf course in an R - 1 District. Applicant for a Special Use Permit, W. F. Kel~, presented the request for property development of part of lot 55, Aud. Sub:!. 133 (Map 13) at the May 11 regular meeting. The special Use Permit was recommended at that meeting subject to environmental and design concerns stated in Develop- ment Review #8. Such recommendations have been forwarded to Council. New Business . (1) Mr. Roland Larson was present regarding the proposed zoning of Lot 7, Aud. Subd. #133 (Map 8). The tract, approximately 9.8 acres is currently proposed for R - 2 (20,000 Sq. ft. lot area) zoning. Mr. Larson was so informed and the purpose of the R - 2 District was explained by Chairman Frank Reese. Request was for information only; no action was taken. " . . . ~/ 3/7~ (2) Mr. Jim Dutcher was present to request information on a proposed replatting of lots 5 and 6, Shorewood Terrace Addition (Map #12) into three lots. The area in question is in a proposed R - 3 zoning District (two family; 15,000 sq. ft. lot area per unit). Lots 5 and 6 consist of approximately 80,000 + sq. ft. combined, and the developer has in mind the construction of two double bungalows between and adjacent to two existing similar structures (on lot 4 and lot 6). Mr. Dutcher was advised that, although the use concept was appropriate for the area, a minimum 100' frontage requirement is applicable, and the total lot area falls short of the stipulated 90,000 sq. ft. for 6 units (one double bungalow existing on lot 6 and two proposed under the replatting proposal.) Mr. Dutcher felt that the necessary adjust- ments could be made to meet existing and proposed ordinance requirements. Request was for information only; no action was taken. (3) Mr. Albert Johnson was present with a property conveyance request for Tract C of Lot 113, Aud. Subd. 120. No replatting was involved, and Tract C has 44, 720 square feet to be developed with a single family residence. Mr. Johnson was advised that his property is a lot of record and no Planning Commission or Counci I action is necessary to authorize the conveyance. No formal action was taken. (4) Mr. Russ Lindquist was present with a request for property conveyance in- volving Tracts 1 and 1 of Government Lot #7. The property owned by Mr. Robert Woods involves no replatting or use change. Mr. Lindquist was also advised that, as these were recorded tracts, no Commission or Counci I action is necessary to complete the conveyance. No formal action was taken. (5) The planner presented Commission members with the most recent zoning text amendments to study. A tentative joint Council - Commission to discuss zoning regulations was set for 19 June 72. Written notices will be forwarded with date and time confirmation. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. . SHOP~WOOD PIJUiNING COYIT{[SSION ~rlURSDAY, JULY 13, 1972 7.30 P.M. To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members Ed Abramson Harvin Boote Bob Naegele, Jr. John Marty Bob Sieg"ler Tore Gram The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, July 13, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at 7.30 p.m. (Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend - home 474-9753 or office 941-4313). AG:EII:TDA . 1. John Ryan present (cwner of Lot #1, Lee Circle - Map #11)regarding subdivision. There is presently a double tlongalow on the property with connecting breezeway - he wishes to remove breezeway and have two separate houses on the property. 2. Mr. S.R. Child present regarding vacation cf 66' roadway and division of lot into two parcels (Lot #3, Grantville - Map #11). 3. Jim Dutcher present regarding replatting of Lots #5,6,and 7, Shorewood Terrace (Map #12) into 4 lots. 4. Final review of proposed land use planning and zoning. Prank Reese, Chairman Copies to: Thomas E. Holloran, Mayor George Gibeau, Planner Bernie Mittelsteadt, Engineer William F. Kelly, Attorney . Present: Ed Abramson, Acting Chairman John Marty George Gibeau, PI anner . Meeting of July 13, 1972 The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on July 13, 1972 at Minnewashta Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Old Business Old business, in the form of Planning Commission review of final text changes in the pro- posed zoning ordinance, was suspended by agreement due to the I imited number of mem- bers present. New Business . (1) Mr. John Ryan was present with a request for information regarding the subdivision of lot #1 in Lee Circle (Map fl). This tract, slightly less than one acre in size, is situated in a proposed R-2 District (20,000 sq. ft. lots). Mr. Ryan was informed of the pending ordinance revisions, and he decided to postpone any action on his part unti I the new zoning revisions have been presented. The eventual intention will be to divide the tract into two roughly equal lots for single family residential development. (2) Mr. Child was present regarding the subdivision of Lot 3 in Grantville subdivision (Map II). Mr. Child had a threefold request for Planning Commission consideration, as follows: a) A question on the amount of his property which would be needed to real ign the jog in Birch Bluffroad at First Street. Mr. Child indicated he had been contacted by the Village Engineer regarding a possible agreement to effect this. b) The feasability of vacating the platted but undeveloped segment of First Street, north of Birch Bluff Road. This segment is designed in part as an access road to the lake; however, topographic features would prevent this function, in that the North terminus is a bluff. The road reservation is a 66' R.O.W. at this time. Mr. Child suggested that some exchange of property (i.e. - Trade of land re- quired to straighten Birch Bluff Road for part of the vacated street reservation) might be worked out. . c) A request for the Planning Commission to advise on the possibility of subdividing Lot 3 in Grantville Subdivision. This lot is approximately 150' x 310' and would be divided into two lots roughly equal in size. Although this property is in an area which is classified as R-1 under both existing and proposed zoning or- dinances, Mr. Child submitted an exhibit (see enclosed) describing dimensions . and areas of neighboring lots which were less than the minimum standards re- quired. Mr. Child was advised to check with the Village Engineer regarding information on property necessary for road real ignment; also, that the road vacation and property subdivision requests would be considered at the next reg- ular Planning Commission meeting following preparation of a Development Re- view by the pi anner. 3) Mr. Jim Dutcher was present with a request for concept approval on the replat- ting of lots 5 and 6, Shorewood Terrace Addition (Map #12). Mr. Dutcher had presented a similar request (for information only) at the last regular meeting (see minutes of June 8, 1972). However, since that time the Village had contacted him regarding sewer easements across these lots, and he felt he would like to have a response from the Village on this replatting request concurrent with his agreement to allow the publ ic easement. Mr. Dutcher was advised that the Planning Com- mission could make a recommendation to Council if an appropriate plat of the pro- posed land subdivision was submitted for review. Following discussion, Mr. Dutcher indicated he would file a plat with tbe Village Clerk prior to the next (regular or special) meeting of the Planning Commission. It was agreed that a de- velopment review would be prepared, and the Commission would take action on this request at the next meeting. No further business was brought forth, and the meeting adjourned at 10 p.m. . . . o . .s, .. :'i' .. '" \.; . IiI CYU-( _Vj .. . .. Q) - - . .- 0 > LL. "j"."-- "51 +- LL. I C ~ ::l "' \ .' ~ ut- , ..J , 0 a:l Hi '1 :~ N "- <.!) , . '::. ... . 'Sl :5' -.'.. l ... '~i = Q) . - - .- > .... C o "- (.!) ,( .....1 .. '..- ~ \.../ .:-;2 ~_.J .'!. .. -. t' i - -,' J.S~IJ .qf::': .\ ~~ ~.. ~ v N .. .. O~,'H ,.z ~ _f.....: '. 4913 aSl] -rBi' .'213 " \, ... ... 33 II II 34!! :i Ii iI " II , 3511 .- , ~"6d_ i AVt:RA6-S"A -, _~-_. :,1' Y\Df 11'\CLUdn~ r ~ d.l .(Jj:Il.~erT'Y) I 3~ I' L i --tr---~i " ---t 39 ,) i --+t--- , jl ;1 40j! Ii ---t+---f---~; 41 il " ~ 12 i r , i I ...L ! I I I i IT I I. , , I I , ! i I '" I I I ! i i i I ) ..; I ., !! ! I , i I I ! . " i i '. ! I I ! I '. " I, I ! I : II i ' : ! !+ ! I , ! I Iii i ! I 1++-- '+rq...--.- i i ! I , , I i I . 'I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE # 9 NASON associates WEHRMAN roya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture . June 8, 1972 CLIENT: Vi II age of Shorewood Appl i cant: Chester Norman PURPOSE: Review of land subdivision request for part of lot #217, Aud. Subd. # 135 (Map 10) The subject tract consists of 5 acres abutting Excelsior to the north and bounded by Glencoe Road to the south and east. A request to plot three lots of 1.94 acres, 2.0 acres and an approximate 14,500 sq. ft. respectively, was submitted at the May II, 1972 regular meeting. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The layout of the sketch plan accompanying the subdivision request describes one major tract division into two roughly two acre parcels, and one lot plotted in the northeast corner with an 85 foot frontage on Glencoe Road and a mean depth depth of 163 feet. The property division line of the two major parcels suggests the possibility of future plotted lots by resubdivision. . Two or three considerations should be noted in anticipating future development, even though that may be several years away. Property division will allow development to occur any- where on a plotted tract. It would be well to plan for resubdivision at this time, and include easements for eventual access roads. Without such land reservationsu it is necessary to either condemn or plot around obstacles when new development occurs. In reviewing the plotted lots to the west of the tract in question" it is conceiveable that they will eventually be resubdivided, halving their depth. This would necessitate a street for access along their east property line and the west property line of the Norman tract. A minimum 25 feet (half street) easement might be made at this time along the north-south west boundry of the Norman Tract. (The land would still be included in all area computations,: it could not be developed, however). Another arrangement would be to provide for a 50 foot street easement running north-south in a central position within the Norman tract. Lots could then be plotted both to the west offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 .. ,J -2- . and east of the easement. EV ALUA TI ON In both the above situations, the proposed lot in the northeast comer of the tract should increase its depth in an amount sufficient to meet the proposed 20,000 sq. ft. lot area requirement. If other lots are plotted at a later date, an odd sized 14,500 sq. ft. lot wot'Jld not have to be coped with. Also, it may be appropriate here to suggest that a tentative sketch map be submitted by the subdivider showing possible future parcelling thoughts. Although having no bearing on the present plotting request.!' it would show the relationship of these divisions to an orderly lot division for the entire tract. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDArJONS The proposed plotting arrangement should not be recommended unless a logical division of the entire tract into lots with appropriate access can be proposed. This sketch would be prepared by the subdivider and would be attached to the file to show his thoughts for future reference when resubdivision requests come in. The sketch would not be binding.!' but would be a means for assuring orderly land division by having applications which differ from the former plan provide a suitable sketch plan to justify the new proposal. The small parcel in the northeast corner should be enlarged in area to a minimum of 20.!'000 sq. ft. If so doing would create unreasonable hardship.!' then the varience procedure should be employed. . NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN, ASSOCIATES INC. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #8 NASON associates WEHRMAN ray a, anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture ... ..... . June 8, 1972 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood APPLICANT: Wi lIiam F. Kelly PURPOSE: Use concept evaluation for development of double bungalows" in Residential District on part of lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision # 133 (Map 13). An informal and preliminary request for a Planning Commission recommendation regarding issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow increased density development in the southwest part of Lot 55 was submitted at the May II", 1972 regular meeting. No sketch plan was available. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The subject tract abuts Yellowstone Trai I to the south and the golf course to the east. Development intent is to utilize a portion of the Yellowstone Trail frontage nearest the golf course for construction of a minimum of two double bungalows for rental purposes. Individual lot areas of approximately 20,000 square feet would be provided. One access road serving the units for ingress and egress was described. . EVALUATION The tract is in a proposed R-I zoning district (single family 40",000 sq. ft. lots). However! the Planning Commission has recognized the desirability of effectively utilizing residential areas situated near public or quasi-public open spaces. This is stated as an appropriate objective for Shorewood in the comprehensive planning program. The case under consideration presents a request for higher density residential use adjacent to an area which offers sufficient light.. air and aesthetic qualities to justify such development. Although design quality and the placement of structures and accesses cannot be reviewed at this time, the concept of a more intensive residential use adjacent to an open area appears acceptable in this instance. It is essential to retain sufficient vegetative and tree cover to maintain the natural environmental qualities now existing. Additionallyu an undesirable impact on the character of the area could occur through excessive grading or poor structural design, placement and orientation. . offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415/i1ac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 -2- .'f ~ ,.f . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The concept of increased density for the subject tract is appropriate from a planning stand- point . Subject to the submittal of a sketch plan indicating the locaf'ion Clnd type of structures to be developed, the issuance of a Special Use Permit is recommended. Conditions should be attached to such permit as necessary to protect environmental qualitjes.ltshould be noted that the tract will not be subdivided; the dwellings will be rented, cmd th~.tract remains intact. Sufficient lot area for each unit has been indicated in the development request. NASON,WEHRMAN;CHAPMAN,ASSOCIATES, INC. . . Nr. S.R. Chi...d present regarding vacation of 66 toot road., .;~nd division of lot i.nto two parcels (Lot #3. Oran,vi.lle - Map #11), Jim Dutcher present regard-..n~ repla:tt~~ of Lots 5.6 and 1 t Shorewood Terrace ~nto 4 lots (Hap #12j. Mr. David Wagner present, architect for firm of B.....'...t, Wahlberg & Bergquist, regard1.ng construction of new ohu.t"oh - Excelslor Co';enant ChUl'ch - (Pla+>446(), Parcel 0500 - Map 112 Part Lot 29 and Lot 30, Aud. Sub. ~ 41). .- '~; ., . SHOBEWOOD PLANNING COIOfiSSION ThURSDAY, AUGUST 10.1972 7.3C P.g. To: Shore~ood P1annir~ commission Members :Ed Abramson v'Marvin Boote Bob 1~aege1e, Jr. lrobn Marty rlob Sieller ~ore Gram 4 The regular meeting of the 3horewoo(~lanning CQlllniatuonwi1.1.- held on Thursday, August::'v, .~ 972, at ::Iinnewashta 5011001 U...,. at 7.jC p.m. (Please phone F1'an1: Reese only if you Ct.:--not att... - AOIae 41~53 or office 941-4313). AGEtl1lA 1. :. " c.. . . 1 @3. 4. i,rs. -':;1"J10rn ?HC,ert l'egardin,; Oivlsion of Lot 2U, A.uditor:- St,.Gd:'V..~;1{)d;i/.~6/;' --.(J"ap iy,"J. ),_:~.::t(' 2 lots. ~d P{-.Rd,~ ~~Rd.- s: Jo~n b, ~(elson. Jot- Slce. : ./-:,lr-a!llc t~e e::.l8 :;Lo 0 ~+-. 2cf-rf .p+-. ~o r+, baeL C~},;.2..... T';nc JjJ., ~ ':-.''''1 ",.....~ ... , 'O.t l;c?ies to: "thomas /George 13err 1 .~ ':J'; -")e :) ..L ;:..n",", BY' ~ t 1. e ,'-:J~ ~ Will'~ :'J\; L. ..\..<~. j,;~ or'Lf.::~/ . ..........0...... . . . ;.,,,..."'" ....l .~: I): il:l.A.t;;a. t ...~.. ~ .n '.!.. ;~'f<.lIiIn\: :";i'~ .i....M. ..~ .vfJJZ'YUa MO'M '1'... ON& J.... *""" 0Mr.. ...... Pl.' n I' .1_ 001., ~, 'ih. 1"<<it"...'" /illlftl.A4 ., ,. n. IIllI'G6 i'~....4.. C~..,... '4IINI _44 Go ~m ~\'" 1~12. &t ~iV11RY"'Q .:ll~ $OhMl .'& 1.~ .... ~ ~~It 1. t'...~~.;;(. ;';bild WIIloG ;C-M.t With . OIllK'" llI'oJOM', of " ~wo-tow. reqalilln\ wilt_ M.4 blMGW__.U.., ;,.mr........ a' t_ ~ 1), 19'12. ,",)"h..~ ,If '\M ?~ i}OI:ITaiaa1_a fA. ,'-.atd..l.1 V fIIC.....'Ut4r Firn $tS"M'\ ".1-''''' .aar~ III ~ iLw't kCrNt. ~. ~"'.OlaIlleQ;,j&U" oa &OOItpD_U~ lit ..............1iIIc i..," ;fl, ~~&.;dVil.l. ;,~.i:n..i.. U... d.~w .. OOIMlU....t1(M'( .", lb-. ~1' 'a ~n b.1 ttM ~Qion ~,~.. ......., ~. ~~ ...... tlwtUw 'l~ :;,..__ OIlit1, .... ,...;. .&',~~.'U.I 1>.) tM ,~.;.. 'iNt: ..... C...U baa to .... thlt ".~;."\. '-"'31&1_. "CIlIW\). ~\l1.U._ ..t .. __1'\'tAld ,. tM C~1. ,';". Jj.oo,. l1li4. . MUM "-1. ~ Co.a.__ ....p' IT. \)i'MMa'. J lJ...lI-J7 ''1)COI':,lI'i;\4....~ioa. "'* eta,.. ia \_ ;1...... t. ~...." l\.~_ ~ '12 dl\t,.~~.~~ 4V, 1912, 11\ 7tIr. Ch1l4'(Oj 1Mbl.lt .. u.." the r.C'~ lfl~'j... " .1~U~ '\0 ~ GOUIN1:". Ia'. ~_ .........d ~ A.o'tl.. ...- oeJT'1e(.. Hr. 'hiul. *_ ~1'\iO'leC. \OM ,........ at \M raD.' ';WDiI:l1 ...uaa with · tAf~?1 ~.~ fv \~ ~n__ .r;4 ~ .J. GlWit.,,'~lla ~.i.__. .. l" tonu.l &;~UOd:1o.n t?7 noat~ ~~ .~ ClAId.1.U(U) -- '" ~- ;ll.w,('t'h~. 2. ~,.. Jf'!fI!f!!l; !'Ue1~1' \lB. ~ ~ ",,~t~ c' :..0\11 ~.6 ~Qd. i. ...t~l)%~l""'{;~~, un. 4 .4..... ,.U..... __ u......a.- .. ":1ewa.'1ou, ~.;". ~~ ~"*' . ............ flit .. ....,... let u.. ...... ";1". ..(01"..... ~\j iIIyV'.o \hat Hr. ~'. ".,"11, tn. ... -.1.... 1ft line ~~~ ~. >>.. G4..... .. ...,.. " .... P1.....-.. c-...... ... ..ut wen ,,,rt.>c~~":.on " ~ 'to '\lie O4NM11 ;;:. u-.. .....~ Qft .~ "'~t 1')7 ~. Mot i.., lftlI4 _00DCl_ tq )iao. JiOOW. l<<O\1_....s.eI. ir. ,;...ut.OO6!' WIl ~..r.," "Q eppl.r ., '\he VUa,. .,11 t. a ftriaaoe :;"",Jl.u'Cll,~ ),'.;.(.t.;{; fQO't lot. .. '\0. ~ ,...1"--, ,1"-_ .:A the .....po~. .,"-'ril ",,,,iAoiV1UO!"!, iN' ,..n.w q :;~l. ~~ ~j.~...- .. ~.;';aV\.e ~<:;.;t\e1'~ ,~l"Chitsot fer 'the !1J:"s of :307$lI$t~t,,.a4LlH4'i ~ jfi~ ~,:quin. Wi1)iSU"I"u:,tfnt N~l1nc ~lOft tit & qev ohu:-ob (l'~xwl:o;i.Ol' O'lrMlt;,.n\i'lW"cl~) t>!, ~~l'r" of L.ot ;111'29 &~ :m.'il')O, Aud.1 "or.* ;~uW1v1il1C)u .' ~4... '3:'" ~t.'..;:MJ'.~f',~":~t~ti N"Mi t.nu.ral cI:r"a~ of '\..w dlII'W ~W'ch. The~.. 1n .<wtarhonhoo'bi8e1.l:l1d. ~o~hti10l' iHvc.. .... itlq -.7. J~ ....... ~ \Tine ~Ul .~~. The ~.i.~ '01 'he \1'3(;' an vh.\:.>h \be oburCIb 1. '\0 be 1NiU 1_ ~t G ..'U):"t"ltJ. i, tlWM <Wl1Ii ~... are now ~ ~ It1t., IN& wi1. De r~. 'l'he . - 2 - \~..at,tOio!~ ',1"..;.\ ;~~t\i.~ '~ t~. Pannin,r CcJt:fA1....1o.n .. to ...,.. or _ 'lw land i. ~~~., .~ ~ /. 1).,~l.lt'(Ar;,. J, _MI" or 'tM ~_ rat.... \~ ;I01zrt t.h1t\ 'tb. ~'O?it:i";'i naa~i. t~ tNb \be. ;.~, ...~. ~ thI .........anc ., 1t ~ ~he ~.. <9 ~..a t.h'h. wai~ 1_1_" __t tM )II'O~ ..... a.lnta4.r tMtcIIl ci4\SU"fJ'{.l.. ~t".. Cl-;~ i4't:'l". ~,~ I. ..~al OJ'IIU~ CIll ox'\-'1l1s ~u, 3~~ CUUil be- ww.nd QQ.'. A ~ .. '\be !'l"'lI!III~~ ~...1..1oa wfJ.. lJ<<; M1<>>~7J lf1 tk> 1~ H..~.. t~ ,. ... C..i1rnU.. .fi, ;~ bLIY.I ..U,_(N..~ 'llUJ,' '\retfiQ at.I ~ a JlHW._. 1!aen 1. an ex1niJ. fJdh'f'~'it;:.4 1.0 ~ ?H~""J .n ittt; ,r7 (i.::roe..fli.OI' .lW) tlhJ.cb 'UMl ~ ....... r.\";:;...._~~ tQ i_v-. wA1.. .l:io"" ;'.>"'j 1. ~...... ". MUI _~ \Q tM ,~..h vid:' ~. t~ liv;( ",7. _~ . pMMtu.. ....tY,Y ~ "... \.be ~- fit... ~ ~ U ~4JTT" \0 ..t )'" ,..pl., .... wll1 '- ~.~ f'roti; ...11 ~1~" 1i~ 'tM ..a. ":t.,. \i~ '*~_. 1.I',(."...ntld ,. ..MY. ~ ......1...--..l. ~ t_ ,lie VUh.., "lint. ;-M ~.lr~ wiU ~ MV1_. ., ~ ~l.~Di C~.._ ...,... .-n ~b;;oo ,,,,"1;~. v. i(...- wi".. n.lII"n to \ba:t .....~ . ;I.. 'X'~.'.~ 'loIt". p&.._~ ~.. ....YS.-'_.t JAt IIC, AwU\..'s '~~.<l..UI. ~367 1D~(l 2 l..... 9M 1llIWJ.4 U.. W Mft .. -s.~ ft". the iAW!mlllll1w4 \Mt tM 10" 4iMII&lcl " ..-.a1YUM ia tM r.... ,. "lte plW9O" of .r.av~ t.!fC (2) iMW ~ ~J.". ...... to .... .... ...... .... put l.n }"V.'lW 14:1"'9;A.i'&''t1.~ln..itr. 2,_$~ n,....... M .... ~ tea, .. ......4 \lMft prGb';..iJi.'y '" ......... ttoWJte tOIl' ...... l'ze. ~;:i..0l-1I .... d.i.ft,iRtIIt. '"' QbeQk w1.~ 'the ~J'U' et ..... \Mnri\h the '''1 L.. ~ ;;:n....M,t. to .... ~w her u.cr\ f4 .laIad. .......... tie v.aM4. j.1.o a.be -. iAil~.~e(. ia ~ 1I1:t\'& '\he .H....p1a,~,. ~ ,. ...11' b.er lMSd ~.r~ ~f 1U'ii~ tat. 2. :p..'. .. ;:. ~.t. "'. /1'. Joha U. Jel_ .. J1ftt..... ...,..ti.ac .. pl.... fit t.... (a~.O(Xi *l.tt.) 'lIM.ColIb h4 tJiWM _ ,~ ...~ ..... of Galpin~. ............ w tiV'!a. t~ lliOd. ftQ t~t M ftlIIIq' ..n Mil c4 1\ -.wi "- !'Iad.l... __ *lcift la ... 'that b.alt.l4. ;ie.l.!iJOf,1 1oIf.),e MvlMd. 't. ...aai\ .. J)llI'_ till __ ......... Un_. an4 & w:rUe-~ of ,., apeoUA. -.-. '- _ .... ,..... YUu.,. e1.... 'fM i_au. :1.t '\;} _ NY1..... .. the G.-1altm .... ,.. _ .. ...... t. tAe ftJIIft. ~ MoOh,1tJ. 4. fr. J~.~ H41Nti.tM8 .. ~ to ~ ...." .. !o'l,wi... ;;;.-t.*Qt, ~ fa~bl1 '\0 ~ '~ o.......lUal __ M al. __ fit "tJ 'I " .. __ n AnI~ \;o..t,tl..#41 OClII'J81ftiAI ~ 3..... laIlI.,U". 'tbI ee.1__" off..... I! ~:r.JmIlR..".U-1 raYO:l"a.ble OlJIIIII.__ .*". ....iMD.1I ....-. ~. Qi.Mtu ViU :~~ ~AI Oft \he ."..... ~.*j, Ua 1,je"too...~.. 11.. i:~~~.. ... RM..1"".... .... BcMJh ..... t. ~. ~ecl. oi;:t" '.;i2I.~.. ~'U.@ ocrri..... .~t':1 ~:'~ .hlj~, ~t. ~5 ,... oJ i<jO,,:Q.u~ ....nl'te:P8 . . , CLIENT: Village of Shorewood NASON associates WEHRMAN roya, anderson CHAPMAN john 0, bergly ASSOCIATES richard d, fredlund INC charles a, wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture . August 10, 1972 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #12 APPLICANT: Mr. S. R. Child PURPOSE: 1) Feasibil ity of vacating First Street dedication north of Birch Bluff Road. 2) Recommendation on acceptability of subdividing lot #3, Grantville Sub- division. Mr. Ch ild1s requests are in the form of concept proposals rather than actual development applications at this time. The proposals are inter-related in that a subdivision of lot #3 would be affected by any increase in lot area through the vacating of First Street. The recommendations presented in this review are in discussion form, and both Planning Com- mission and Council action should come only after submittal of a formal application. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS . Vacation of First Street: This dedicated but undeveloped roadway has a 66 foot right-of- way width from Birch Bluff Road to the lakeshore. It was platted as publ ic access to the lake; however, topographic features prevent this function, in that a bluff along the lake exists in the area. At the present time, Birch Bluff Road serves the lakeshore lots, and no future resubdivision of lot depths is anticipated. Mr. Child indicates that the dedi- cated area remains generally unused by the public. Development of First Street above Birch Bluff Road as a 66 foot roadway would not be necessary to serve traffic or access demands in the area. An option presents itself regarding the disposition of this land: 1) Vacate completely the dedicated right-of-way 2) Retain a reduced width for public access (ie~ 25 feet) Of these, it is the opinion of the Planning Staff that a complete vacation of the roadW€lY would best serve Village interests. Access for emergency services is provided on Birch Bluff Road, the area is of low density residential character and the terrain generally un- suitable for public lake access. offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . . . . r Division of Lot #3 in Grantville Subdivision: A second and related request involves the resubdividing of lot '3. Taking into consideration the meandered lakeshore, lot dimen- sions presently are 150. x 250., or 37,500 square feet. Subject to the determination regarding the vacation of First Street adjacent to lot #3, (and assuming an equal divi- sion of vacated land reverting to adjacent property owners) the following situations could prevail for a replat to two lots: With no street vacation: With 4]1 street vacation: With total street vacation: 2 lots @ 18,750 square feet (751 x 2501) 2 lots @ 21,313 square feet (85.250 x 2501) 2 lots @ 25,620 square feet (91.50 x 2500) Although this lakeshore area is designated as R-1 (40,000 square feet single family resi- dential lots) on the proposed zoning map, a provision has been included to permit 20,000 square feet lots following special evaluation of the character of the area and impact on adjacent uses. The exhibit submitted by the applicant indicates that adja- cent uses to the east and west average roughly 26,000 square feet lot areas (this aver- age would be somewhate lower when computed from the meander line of the lake). Given the existing character and density of use, it is our opinion that a division of lot #3, Grantville, which would achieve a minimum of 20,000 square feet lot areas would be acceptable. SUMMARY 1) It is recommended that that dedicated portion of First Street north of Birch Bluff Road be completely vacated and revert to adjacent property owners in equal parts. All administrative and land value costs should be at the discretion of the Village Coun- cil. (It will be necessary to reserve an appropriate area of dedicated right-of-way for the realignment of the "jog" in Birch Bluff Road.) 2) Following verification of the Child exhibit, the subdivision of lot #31 Grantville, is appropriate and should receive Planning Commission recommendation subject to the drafting of a formal, detailed request for this purpose; and subject to the minimum lot area requ i rement of 20,000 square feet. NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. The site plan should be considered from different design aspects to fully evaluate the p!O- posal. These aspects include: .,{~ 'II"" .~ . December 14, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN ray a. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #llA CLIENT: Village of Shorewood Applicant: Super Valu Stores, Inc. PURPOSE: Review of Shopping Center Development Concept; T. H. #7 and #41 A preliminary commercial development proposal, for discussion purposes and dated 11-22-72, has been submitted by Super Valu Stores, Inc. for Planning Commission consideration. The concept relates to a roughly nine acre tract consisting of lots 173, 172 and part of lots 171 and 170, all in Aud. Subd. #135 (Map 10). PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS An evaluation of the area in terms of its suitability as a commercial zone was completed in Development Review #11, dated 9-5-72. It is sufficient to note at this time that the pro- perty acqu isition recommended therein has been included in this development proposal, and such additional land has been either purchased or optioned. . The task of this review is to comment on the actual development concept, as described in the plan dated 11-22-72. Generally, the proposal is for construction of a neighborhood convenience commercial center including a supermarket, variety, drug, cleaner and hard- ware stores, and four or five miscellaneous shops whi ch may offer specialty goods. Al- though no topography, grading or landscaping plans have been submitted, it is known from avai lable information that the placement of the stores along the north and east lot I ines is the most suitable from a construction standpoint (the central and southwest sections of the tract are low areas requiring fill material). 19.8% of the overall tract is covered by buildings with provision for expansion area of the supermarket. A. total of 481 parking spaces with 900 turning movements are provided Wheel stops (curbing) are provided for the east and west perimeter parking banks. Interior vehicle circulation drives range from 25 to 32 feet in width. Three access-egress points are proposed. EVALUATION . offices In minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . o yehicle Circulatio!1~ External circulation appears adequate on 30' lones (frontage road and portion of vacated Woodruff Avenue). !nternal per:.."eter circulation ade- quate but would s,uggest eliminating one stall nearest corner of building "l" to facilitate right turns and visibil ity at this intersection. . o ~t'"dure Placement, As noted, due to topographic factot<'f placement is ac;:ep'oL' l~ Adequate building line setbacks are provided. o ~.~nd~c~il1g7 Buffering, fencing:. Only minimal intent is reflected in the plan sub- rrcitted, Landscaped area could be increased directly south of the "Miscellaneo'Js Shops'" wing of the shopping center in a manner to discourage traffic flow from cic-c1ing to the rear of the buildings. Any intended screening of loading areas ar:d waste receptacles should be indicated, as should the height and materials of fencing. The character of landscaping (ioe,: grass, gravel, shrubs, etc.) should be designated, o Parking Area; This is a major concern from a planning standpoint. The overall area and number of spoces provided exceed recognized standards; however, the layout could be improved to facilitate ease of access to stalls and better control for inter- nal movement, If the main parking banks were altered to allow 600 rather than 900 stallsJ and coupled with one way traffic control signs, a more convenient and mOle efficient movement could be effected, 600 stalls would require a net loss of 71 spaces in the main banks. (Stall dimensions are computed with 18' depth and 11' width)o Planning standards indicate that 391 spaced would be generally adequate for a shopping area of this designi mok ing the recommended changes would provide a total of 410 spaces and increase the lane widths and landscaped area to the west by a total of 60 feeL o Pedestrian Circulation: Create one central pedestrian walkway (minimum 6' width) using concrete wheel stops, posts and chains or other suitable method, for safety in traversing length of parking 10L The three main banks of parking staib adjacent to the superrrlarket should have a pedestrian walkway along their width to avoid pede- strian conflict at the parcel pick-up area, FinallYI at least one crosswalk ~,hould be indicatedo This should be positioned at the north terminus of the walkway, and lead to the front of the supermarket c o Loading Areas: Located to the rear of the structures, specific dock positions and metl,cd of traffic channelization while in use should be indicated, It may be neces.sary to provide asphalt bays where docks are located to provide for an uninterrupted traffic ci! ClJ it, c General Comrrents~ Sign area, pylon design and height, and methad of illuP'1inotion shOZ)-ld be indicated. Park ing lot I ight standards and heads dlOUld be d;'ected to eliminate glare, especially towards T.H. #7, Building facade!' should be uniform 'n design, l11aterial and generally in themethod of identification of shop~. . NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION This review is made on the basis of the site plan submitted and other information avadob1e fO the planner. The commercial use concept as a cluster convenience center is appropriate, The design concept should be modified as indicated above, with additional information pro- vided (signs, landscaping, traffic controls, etc,) as a courtesy to the Village, before :::on- structiong if other administrative procedures are satisfactorily met. . . . . September 5, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN raya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #11 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood APPLICANT: Robert Reutiman PURPOSE: Review of proposed rezoning of lot #172 Auditor1s Subdivision #135 (Map 10) from residential to commercial. Mr. Reutiman presented a verbal request at the August 10 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to rezone the subject trad from its present residential classification to a general commercial classification. The request was for concept approval, and no sketch plan or formal rezoning appl ication was fi led. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Lot 172 of Auditor's Subdivision #135 is situated immediately north of an approximate four acre tract (lot 173) which is zoned commercial at this time. The area of the subject lot is 87,000+ square feet, or roughly two acres. No access or dedicated R.O.W. serves the lot. . The described purpose of the rezon ing would be to provide a total six-plus acre area for convenience retail shopping and service uses. The general character of lot 173 abutting TH #7 is service commercial at this time. The subject tract would be desired to provide additional depth, facilitate parking and vehicular circulation, and provide expansion area for the commercial node. To the west of the general area, Woodruff Avenue, for- merlya platted R.O.W., has been vacated so that Linden Drive is the nearest public north-south route. EV ALUA TI ON Given the expansion plans for this commercial node, the additional acreage that would be provided by lot #172 is both appropriate and desirable. Service commercial and shopping plaza type uses require sufficient acreage to accommodate the vehicular traffic generated by them. It should be noted, however, that the north property line of the subject tract abuts directly on R-2 (proposed) residentially zoned property. A rezoning action should ac- knowledge the need for suitable buffering and/or screening to protect the adjacent sin- gle family areas. (Topographic features may accomplish this in part). A second concern offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415/i1ac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . . . . . from a planning standpoint is the "jogil in the property line of residential lot #170. It would be sound planning to extend lot #172 west for an additional 52 feet at the mini- mum and an optimum measure wou Id be to extend west to the former center! ine of vacated Woodruff Avenue. The reason for this suggestion is to avoid having single family resi- dential tracts abut on both the south and east property lines. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The request to rezone lot #172 from residential to commercial use is appropriate and should be approved, subject to the concerns noted in the evaluation above. Efforts should be made to minimize the impact of commercial uses on residential areas and squaring proper- ty lines will help in this regard. NASON, WEHRMANv CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. f.I Ilk. . ; ... IOc,,_~ ,. ',(","i~l,';' -"!~,,~~. ": ;;-",~~~' : ~, ~...,/.. ~'~ '~ ~.lLt.__._..____ . -:---: ~-- '-]~-".'> . . 0 ". cPo ",.". ~ o tP ~ r<) lD (\,,\ -,-~~~\i~,~: c~. C:l ~:~:~,~~) ~ ~ .. .. ~ ... "-'\' ~~:~...: ,....(1) o ~:.:~(-... \ \ \ I. \ ~, ^ -~~:""'} ;t~~~O~~~ 0 (- - ,-....... rr>. ~) I' ,,) "".::' -.;. ~~~ t ...~ ...J __ tC'L'-~__..0.~r-_____,_ '" I '\ t~ ~:i \ ;@ ;:;\ . : C--\ ~ ~.~ t:i.~\ '0-r ~\ , ';,.\ , . . CLIENT: Village of Shorewood NASON associates WEHRMAN roya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture . August 10, 1972 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #10 APPLICANT: Mr. James Dutcher PURPOSE: Replat of lots #4, 5, 6, & 7; Shorewood Terrace Addition (Map #12). A sketch plan submitted by Mr. Dutcher showing a proposed replat of lots #4, 5, 6 & 7 of Shorewood Terrace Addition has been submitted for review and comment by the Planning Commission. The replat is intended to provide one additional lot for resi- dential development by altering existing lot lines. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS . The subject tract is bounded by railway trackage right-of-way (100 ft.) to the north, County Road 19 to the south and unsubdivided lands on the east and west. The lots in question form the east half of Shorewood Terrace Addition. The proposal would split lot #5 into two lots and alter property lines on lots #4, 5, 6 & 7. The area is suggested for R-3 zoning under the pending ordinance (two-family, 30,000 square feet lot area). One access road, Shorewood Lane - a cui - de - sac - serves all lots within Shorewood Terrace Addition. EV ALUA TI ON The intended residential use of the lots in this proposal coordinates with suggested zoning changes under consideration by the Village. The character of the developed area is two family residential structures on adequately sized lots. The replatting re- quest is drawn in a manner to ensure a minimum of 30,000 square feet for each lot. Although this sketch meets zoning requirements, it sacrifices good subdivision design principles, especially for lot #5. It is recommended that the IILII shape for this lot be redrawn when the preliminary plat is prepared and that the south property line be a straight connecting line between the cul-de-sac and the east property line. As the sketch now stands, lot #4 has lost all east frontage abutting the natural area and pond situated in Auditor's Subdivision #135. This property line adjustment may require a varience to allow a sl ightly smaller area for lot #5, but will simplify future land con- veyance, util ization, setting of fence lines, ownership problems and so forth. Such varience is recommended from a planning standpoint. . offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 ~ . A second suggestion, more of a procedural nature, is that when the plat is submitted, a renumbering of the lots (in a clockwise direction) be effected so that there will be a se- quence of from one to eight rather thdn platting a lot 5 and 5A. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The sketch plan is an appropriate request for use of land. The resulting increase in resi- dential density from 14 to 16 units will not affect the existing character of the area, ex- pecially considering the naturdl lowland and pond to the east. It is recommended that the use request be approved subject to alterations on the prel iminary plat as described above. The plat should, in addition, show all required data itemized in the Subdivision Regulations (preparation date, Topography, adjacent ownership, utility and street ease- ments and dedications, vegatation, total acreage, etc.) NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. . . . SBOREWOOD PLAlfNING OOJ4MISSION 'l'HURSDAY, SEPl"EMBER 14, 1972 7/30 P... To: Shorewood Planning Oommission Members Ed Abramson Marvin Boote Bob Naegele, Jr. John Marty Bob eiegler Tore Gram The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Oommission will be held on ThursdJq, September 14, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at 7.30 p.m. (Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend - home 474-9753 or office 941-4313). AGENDA 1. Mr. John G. Nelson present regarding division of property (Lot 198, Auditor's Subdivision #135 - Kap #10). . 3. Mr. Arthur Hankinson present regarding sale of the rear portion of his property (Lot #59, Aoademy Addition - Kap #10) to owner of Lot #201, Auditor's Subdivision #135 which. is looated in the Village fI Exoelsior. (Owner of property in Excelsior wishes to build garage on Shore.ood propert7). KehoePlat - moving of right of .q - (Plat referred. to Bernie). Jim Dutcher present regarding platting of Lot Ifl ,Auditor's Subdivision #133 into 10 lots for 2 family dwell~ (Map #12) 2. 4. Frank Reese Chairman Oopies to: Thomas E. Holloran, )(qor Bernie Mittelsteadt, ~..er Willi. F. Kelly, Attorney . . .s l4-o RELt)ooJ) P LANN I N6 ~M fvtl SS IC) t\L ~ 3-(q~+€VV\ber /4/ Iq7~. Fr-o-."1 Ie- Rees€-) Ch"",V)- Ed A6r-o..mSQ n.. Bob I~~) ~ NC\.~e.l€- I h "- ~e<5 ",I,,^- ''">e e.k II '* +l.. "- Sho CeL<! ooJ Plo.~ ~ " "',9t (lo '" M ,'ss ,'0 "--" w OJ:> held en s,.ep+-e~~r 1'-1-) /Cf7:J.. I eA+- M,'v..neWOtSkh ~fevYtet)ra(j $~ keo I cd- 7: 30 p.rr,. f'II e e+I'V) 1fJ of- Pr--e S-€-V'I +- .: G~or-3-€- G,' be.ALL/ PI 0.. v, r)er- J Q.V) €...- C:O Ie) S'..e cJ . (Dr d 13u..SI'Vless I. tv1r. ~hr') G. NelsDvv lUQS prQSR'1+- r-ec3Ctr-d;i"'l(t +k€-dt'VI'SI'OV} ~ h~S prcper-.{-cr (Lo+ lq~) A-u.d;+-()~S .3u..bdIVI'StOll\.....- ~/3S - Mup-rFIO) of'ld ';:,u.bmi++:eJ D- s.kdd'\ q.. ~e pV'opod d,'v,'skNl. Q~ r€-qu.eSf-€-d ~ +k~ 0o~Y\m; S.S('DVv o...+- +h.~ ~ee.:l--('d o{l Au..ctu..s-?- 10, /Cf7::<'. MI'. i\/elsoh WQS ~v~s€-d ~Qf-) ~~~~A~~ ~'i~ rev,'ewd ht'.s I"E:.Cfu.esf-; 'l-tt.e.. p{OV)t')/'Vl! {'(')vv\VY1,' SS l'~ -r-.ee.l"6 ;.("J- tlL PV'OP(!)~ ~r~ ~ hO~ ~9~ CL ~~~ ~J ft4~' ~~ ~ i-lL ~cJ! Off'^~ ~ .J-L- Q.~~. ~ ~~ Off^~ u}~ 3~' ~:fl-Q~___n~5j~n~.~ (Lt..L'~ will m(X(J k ~d ~ I-~ O-~J~ ci- 'l--L ~d VcJl~ C~r.J). '-(Yf.. ~ScNL ~~ fWt~ ~ f-Ita:fr- ~ ~ (WlCh-1'f.L + +-kL c~J ('rVto.Av::;, d;;. ~ ~.~~cJ ~ CL J\}k<LkL ~ <1-0 ~ ,~d ~ ~ VJQagL ~l. N~ Lat.LSines s ,. Mr. ~i~ K-e.~oe.-. WQS pl'ese'\.+--t'e.OCll'ol,'Yl~ fit€- VVLOVI'o-~*~6lJ-+ weer ~ i-lL. K~~ ~ l~ ploJ- '-Ao.cl ~ ~ "-c . B~ lYifkld-e.ctdi-, lIill.o.rr- ~.,'~~.) ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~a.Q ~&V-d fe ~~ /'1r.l1r#e/sk~dJ-' o.v,d Mr. -Kek~s ~ ~ ~~~~ y-L- dQ.svf>I-;~ ~ ~ ~kt ~ w'd {.o c-~~CM.d wili1 wl~ ~.A0oJ oE:u.~ lb lO~aiul. '-' . O-hd CL fo('I\e.~ d,'SCM.ssiOvL AII~ed. SIV'lC--€- 1-1-- wO-SM€V\+-iD->1ed &+- -+k~ V,'I/~e- QeiAl1Ci I ho...ol o..Q~~ o..cJe.d 0..pUVL -t-kL- I S s~) h 0 Il!>..e'P t>VL W0..J~ ~ ~tt fu._ ~W\i s~ t'0Yl.. 45 4ec-e- W~ hO ~~ b~ 1-0 --k-~S!dthwt ~ . . . September 6, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN roya anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #13 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood APPLICANT: Excelsior Covenant Church PURPOSE: Evaluation of proposed site plan The applicant has submitted revised site plans for the purpose of constructing a church and accessory uses north of TH #7 on the west parts of lots 29 and 30, AuditorRs Sub- division #141 (Map #2). PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The subject tract is situated adjacent to the north frontage road of TH #7, The Village of Deephaven abuts the north boundary, and tracts abutting on the east and west have a proposed R-3 zoning classification. A definite variation in topographic features is evident, with a 30 foot elevation range (980-1,010). A number of mature trees enhance the site. The proposal describes two access and egress points, at Excelsior Boulevard and the TH #7 frontage road. Excelsior Boulevard would provide the major access facility with a 241 road-way leading to the parking lots and building entrance. The secondary access road approximates a 15 foot width, exiting south of the development onto the frontage road. This road would be gravel surfaced. Drainage patterns for storm runoff is to the southwest for most of the site, with the east parking lot draining to the sou theast . EVALUATION The use proposed for this tract is appropriate and acceptable under the existing zonirng ordinance without application for a special permit. The site plan is logically laid out and relates well both to terrain and adjacent land areas, Some specific points should be mentioned, however, regarding the mechanics of the plan: . The proposed grading plan indicates a gentle slope occurring just east of the north access road at its point of intersection with Excelsior Boulevard. There may be some interruption of a direct I ine of sight for cars executing a left hand turn onto Excelsior Boulevard due to this slope. To prevent this possibility, a reshaping of contours to form a more gradual rise at the critical corner would be suggested. offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415/i/ac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 ~ . . . . The secondary access road to the south could be an important factor in traf- fic dispersal during peak periods. Although the intersection with the fron- tage road is an existing roadway at this time, it might be well to adjust and widen the last few feet to approximate a 900 intersection for a more efficient and safe traffic egress. Subject to traffic flow patterns, this road- way may require improved surfacing and widening at some later date. . Surface water runoff from the north park ing lot flows to the southwest cor- ner and appears to continue in a line which would intersect with the re- taining wall west of the building. Unless storm drainage facilities are to be provided, it would be appropriate to design a sl ight swale or depression in contours to carry runoff around rather than over the retaining wall. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The use proposal and site plan submittal are acceptable from a planning standpoint. Suggestions advanced in the evaluation above are minor techn ical design problems and do not affect the overall recommendation that the plan be accepted by the Village. NASON, WEHRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. . SHOREWOOD PL.AN.NING OODISSIOli THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1912 1.30 P.M. To: Shorevood Planning Commission Members Ed Abramson Marvin Boote Tore Gram John Marty Bob lfaegele, Jr. The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission vill be held on Thursdq, October 12, 1912, at Minnevashta School Library at 1.30 p.m. (Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend - home 414-9153 or office 941-4313). AGENDA . 1. Jim Dutcher present regarding platting of Lot :/f1 , Auditor' s SUbdivision #133, into 10 lots for 2 family dwelltr (Map #12). J_~: Frank Reese Chairman Copies to: Thomas E. Holloran, Mqor Bernie Xi ttelsteadt, Engineer William F. Kelly, Attorney . . SHOREWOOD PLABNING COMMISSION Minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1912 Present: Ed Abramson Bob Naegele, Jr. Tore Gram George Gibeau, Planner Jane Cole, Secretary The regular meeting of the Shorevood Planning Commission was held on October 12, 1912, at Minnewashta Elementary School at 8 p.m. Old Business Mr. Jim Dutcher was present regarding the platting of Lot 1, Auditor's SUbdivision 133, into lots of 2-family dvellings. Three different design concepts vere presented by Mr. Gibeau and Mr. Dutcher: Plan A: Plan B: Plan C: Cluster concept - common open space provided. Full tract utilization - caried placement. Conventional platting - deep lots of linear arrqgement. . Mr. Gibeau offered the thought that if Plan A is used, some provision or agreement must be filed at time of approval and deed recording so that the common open space will retain common use when the lots somedq revert to multiple ownerships. A covenant approved by the Village Attorney might be the best means to assure this. Also, Mr. Gibeau suggested a lot adjustment of reducing the number from 10 lots to 9 of about 130'x200-; making the access road 50' wide centered on the corporate limits of the Villages of Shorevood and Tonka Bay and having an approximate 1000' access length with a terminal cul-de-sac of a 50' radius; and resolving the water supply prior to any approval for the development. In addition. Mr. Gibeau recommended that some variation in structure placement should be provided. Mr. Dutcher stated that the natural topography of the area should take care of that. Both Mr. Dutcher and the members of the Planning Commission present agreed that the above mentioned features of concept Plan A should be altered before submitting the final plat, but that the overall proposal of Plan A prOVides the most beneficial use of land and best design elements. The commission members present approved the concept. Mr. Dutcher was advised to draw up a full preliminary plat and file it with the Village Clerk to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and to be passed on to the Council for approval. There was no new business. The meeting adjounned at 8.45 p.m. Jane Cole Secretary . . SHOREWOOD PLABNING COIOiISSION THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 9,1972 7/30 p.m. To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members Ed Abramson Marvin Boote Tore Gram John Marty Bob Naegele,Jr. The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission will be held on Thursda;y, November 9, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at 7.30 p.m. (Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend - home 474-9753 or office 941-4313). AGENDA . 1. Public Hearing requested by Jim Dutcher for a permit to construct two family dwellings on each of 9 lots located on Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision #133 (Map #12). 2. Riparian Rights and Non-Riparian Owners (See letter from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 10/10/72). Frank Reese Chairman Copies to:- Thomas E. Holloran, Ma;yor Bernie Mittelsteadt, Engineer William F. Kelly, Attorney . SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION . Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 1972 Present: Frank Reese, Chairman John Marty George Gibeau, Planner Jane Cole, Secretary The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on November 9, 1972, at Minnewashta Elementary School at 8.30 p.m. . New Business Mr. Frank Reese introduced the matter of Riparian Rights and Non-Riparian Owners and offered a brief explananation of the same. Since a quorom of commission members was not present, this subject will be reintroduced at the next planning commission meeting. Old Business A publio hearing was held as requested by Jim Dutcher for a permit to construct two family dwellings on each of 9 lots located on Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision #133. Mr. Frank Reese presented a brief history of what has taken plaoe in the development of ideas for Mr. Dutcher's request at previous meetings. Mr. Dutcher then presented his request before the public and stated that he does not want to develop the whole area as in the con- ventional manner, but wants to leave most of it in its natural state. Bill Keeler and Mary Marske raised the question of how would Mr. Dutcher assure that the natural area would remain natural over the years. Mr. Dutcher stated that this would be filed in a covenant. The five members of the public each in turn raised further questions pertaining to keeping the whole area in its natural state (totally undeveloped) or the possibility of the railroad being vacated in the future and the area being presevved for trails. Mary Markse posed the question regarding the cost to the Village for the new access road needed to serve the development. Mr. Dutcher said that the owner of the development property would be assessed for the road, also that the road would be properly constructed and on solid soil so that maintenance should not be excessive. Bill Keeler raised the question of the number of children per family unit that this two family development would bring into the schools and increase the tax-payers' responsbility. Mr. Dutcher said that because the property is not homesteaded, this type of unit has been averaging less than two children per family. There being no further questions, the planning commission will reconvene with a quorom before the next Council meeting to consider Mr. Dutcher's request as well as the public's concerns as reoorded in these minutes. A recommendation will then be made to the Council. Mary Marske questioned the closed commission meeting at which this issue will be decided. Mr. Reese stated that only a recommendation is to be made at that meeting; that it is the Village Council who will make the final decision. He stressed that the Planning Commission will oonsider equally the questions raied by the publiC and the request made by Mr. Dutcher. Mary Marske also raised the question of why the minutes of all Village legilative meetings are not made public; i.e. oopies mailed to all residents of Shorewood, or the minutes printed in the newspaper, or posted in an easily accessible public place. This question was outside th realm of the Planning Commission and, therefore, was unanswerable at that time. . - 2 . A special meeting of the Planning Commission was held on November ll, 1912. Present were Frank Reese, John Marty and Ed Abramson. The two items on the November 9, 1972, agenda were disoussed as follows: l. Public hearing - Jim Dutoher. Motion was made by Ed Abramson, seconded by John Marty, to acoept the petition of Jim Dutoher to ereot 2 family dwellings on each of ~ lots located on Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No.133, subjeot to conditions as reoommended by the Planner in Development Reviews No.14 and No.l4a. Motion oarried. 2. Riparian and Non-Riparian owner rights were discussed. Motion was made by John Marty t seoonded by Ed Abramson, that riparian and non-riparian rights be recommended to Counoil for adoption. Motion carried. Respeotfully submitted: Jane Cole Secretary . . . . . October 12, 1972 NASON associates WEHRMAN raya. anderson CHAPMAN john o. bergly ASSOCIATES richard d. fredlund INC charles a. wittenberg planning engineering landscape architecture DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CASE #14 CLIENT: Village of Shorewood APPLICANT: James J. Dutcher PURPOSE: Evaluation of residential development concept plan: (Map 12) Lot 7, Aud, Subd, # 133 The applicant submitted, at the 9-14-72 regular Planning Commission Meeting, three sep- arate concept plans for proposed development of ten 2 - family rental units on a 9.8 acre tract in north central Shorewood adjacent to the Village of Tonka Bay 0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Lot 7 of Aud, Subd. #133 isdtuated along the north corporate limits of Shorewood, boun- ded on the south by the Minneapol is and Sto Louis Railroad. The tract contains 9.77 acres of wooded land developing a gradual slope to the north. A contour range for the mean depth of 375 feet is approximately 15 feet (9500 to 9351), The tract has a gentle and heavi Iy wooded knoll in its southwest.. quarter, forming a natural buffer area to the rai Iway, The subject land is suggested for an R-2 zoning classification under the proposed ordinance (Two - Family, 20,000 square foot lot area). The developerls intent is to construct ten double bungalow units for rental purposes initially. Anew access road would be provided to serve the un its. EVALUATION: Lot 7 has a north orientation towards a natural wetlands area located in Tonka Bay. This low area is marshy and no development is anticipated in the foreseeable future, The con- cept plans submitted to the commission would provide each, or a majority (Plan B)ff of the proposed structures with a site location facing the natural open area. Mr. Dutcher has presented three different design concepts, each fulfilling a different pur- pose as follows: PlanA: Plan B: Plan C: Cluster concept; common open space provided Fu II tract uti I ization; varied placement Conventional platting; deep lots of I inear arrangement offices in minneapolis and fargo-moorhead-phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422 . . . Under the existing zoning ordinance, a Special Use Permit would be required for Plan A. Plans Band C could be developed without special application following plat approval and recording. However, Plans Band C result in complete parcelization of the tract? which would demand extensive individual lot maintenance and would attach wooded open space for the development to private lots 0 Plan B necessitates greater road construction cost and isolates lots one, two and three between private property lines and/or the rail- way 0 Property I ines form unnecessary jogs with this concept. Plan C provides conven- tional platting concepts to fulfill all ordinance requirements, but eliminates potential design features for innovative land use. Firom a planning standpoint, Concept Plan A is by far the most appropriate for this tract. Certain features should be altered before submitting the final plat, but the overall pro- posal provides the most beneficial use of land and best design elements. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDA TI ONS: It is recommended that Plan A be considered for recommendation to Counci I with the fol- lowing notations: o Although proposed initially as rental units, it must be recognized that the par- cels may be sold in the future. A basic and desirable feature of Plan A is the availability of common open space for use of from 18 to 20 families. Some provision or agreement must be filed at time of approval and deed recording so that such common area wi II retain common use when the lots revert to multiple ownerships. A covenant approved by the Village Attorney may be the best means to assure th is. o The access road proposed to serve the lots should be a cul-de-sac rather than the straight 500 RoOoW. shown. Two variations are possible: A) a mid- point turn-around with roughly equidistant road lengths on either side; or B) an approximate 10000 access length with a terminal cul-de-sac of a 500 radius -- recommended. (This should run to lot one rather than to the tract boundary 0) o If feasible, some variation in structure placement should be provided 0 (Al- ternatives are front yard and landscaping or a variation of architectural de- sign and building materials.) o The road way should have at least one-half platted within Shorewood cor- porate limitso This will result in either a 250 adjustment in lot lines (to the south) or the el imination of lot ten and the widening of lots one through nine (recommended). . SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY,DECEMBER 14 1972 7.30 p.m. To: Shorewood Planning Commission Members Ed. Abramson Marvin Boote Tore Gram John Marty Bob Naegele, Jr. Jack Huttner The ~lar meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission will be held on Thursday, December 14, 1972, at Minnewashta School Library at 7.30 p.m. (Please phone Frank Reese only if you cannot attend - home 474-9753 or office 941-4313). AGENDA . 1. Mrs. Carson present regarding division of property (Lot 71, Auditor's Subdivision 133, on 2nd avenue - Iw1ap #13). (THIS matter was aiscussed at Planning Commission meeting of 8/13/1970 and Oouncil meeting of 2/22/71. Minutes of 8/13/1970 are attached). 2. Reviewing of proposed rezoning from residential to commercial of property owned by Robert Reutiman. Frank Reese Chairman Copies to: Thomas E. Holloran, Mayor Bernie Mittelsteadt, Engineer William F. Kelly, Attorney . . . . ~~ -&~L ~~._-_..,.,. Minutes of Shorewood Planning Commission December 14, 1972 Minnewashta School Auditorium Members Present Frank Reese, Olairman Ed Abramson Tore Gram Joh n Marty Jack Huttner Others Mr. Verle Poffenberger, Super Valu Mr. D. H. Mickelson, Realtor George Gibeau, PI anner Meeting opened at 7:50 with Olairman Frank Reese call ing the meeting to order. First agenda item called was Mrs. Bjorn Carson, requesting permission to replat lot 71, Aud. Subd. #133, (Map 13). Mrs. Carson had previously appealed to the Commission for lot division at the meeting of 8-13-70, and again informatlly in the winter of 1971. The request involves the division of the 51,401 square foot lot into two equal parcels, each having approximatel y 80 feet of frontage on 2nd Avenue. Discussion centered on the variance that would be necessary to plat lots smaller than an acre in size, and with less than 100 feet of width at the front setback line. Planning Commission minutes pertaining to th is request presented at the earlier date were reviewed. The suggestion was again made that an effort to acquire additional land to the north or south be made by Mrs. Carson. She indicated that there is a problem with an inaccurate lot line survey on the tract to the south owned by Mr. Semen, and that he was reluctant to sell land until a new survey has been completed. She will check with him again regarding a possible sale. After a thorough consideration of Mrs. Carson's request, the motion was made by Tore Gram, seconded by Jack Huttner that the request be tabled. Motion passed unanimously. The second agenda item involved a review of the rezoning request from residential to commercial for lot 172 and parts of lots #170 and 171, all in Aud. Subd. #135 (Map 10). Mr. Verle Poffenberger, Super Value Store Development Manager and Mr. D. H. Mi ckelson, Real tor were present to present and discuss a cluster commercial development concept which is proposed for the area in question. Development Reviews 11 and l1A, relating to rezonif'l3 and design considerations respectively, were distributed by the consultant, Concerned residents present regarding this proposal included Wm. Keeler, Mrs. John Millet and Melvin W. Johnson. Informal discussion ensued focusing on noise and traffi c concerns that could be generated by the shopping area. Mr. Johnson requested some assurance that the hill bordering the north tract line would not be cut away for development purposes thus reducing an effective buffer to TH #7 traffic noise. Mr. Poffenberger responded that some cut would be necessary; however, an adequate grade would be maintained to provide the bufferi ng effect. Ed Abramson noted that, as far as rezoning is concerned, it is better to have a larger tract that is well designed rather than small unrelated commercial uses. Mr. Keeler stated that nearby Li nden Street has onl y a narrow surfaced roadway, and is not adequate to carry traffic filtering from the shopping area. Mr. Poffenberger indicated that it might be possible to control traffic flow through signing, access redesign or other methods. . . . Additional discussion followed with the suggestior, made that the Planning Commission should make special efforts to get out and see the parcel in person in order to evaluate topographic and drainage concerns. Mr. D. H. Mickelson offered to show the Planning Commission around the area if a satisfactory meeting time could be arranged. He stated he would con- tact members to arrange a convenient time 0 It was agreed that George Gibeau should meet with representative of Super Valu regarding design alterations in the proposal. A motion to table any recommendation on rezoning until the January, 1973 meeting was made by Ed Abramson, seconded by John Marty. Passed unanimouslyo Motion for adjournment at 9:50 P.M. by Tore Gram, seconded by Ed Abramson. Passed unanimously. o,airman Frank Reese adjourned with a reminder the next regular meeting would be 1-11-73 . SECTION 9 PLANNED UNIT RESIDENT!AL DEVelOPMENT (P.U .R.D.) Subdivision 1. Purpose. The provisions of this section of the zoning ordincmce are intended to provide residen- ticl! areas which can. be developed with sOme modification of the stlf'id application of regulations of the RFJ, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-5 Residence Districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein. P.U.R.D.ls canbedeveloped within any Residence Dh,triet with the overall popula- tion density or number of living units permitted to be constructed in general confor- mance with the provisions of the basic: zoning district in which it is located. If a P.U.R.D. is proposed in an existing single-family district, higher densities may be allowed than. those permitted in the R-1 zoning district with the specific density deter- mined by the Planning Commission and Council. . However, rather than strictly en- fqrcing the concept of uniformity of housing types in each district, this provision will encourage: 1. Flexib!l ity in residential land development to benefit from new technology in building design and construction and land development. . 2. Vqriety in the organizotion of site elements, building densities and housing types. 3. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced Land Planners, Registered Architects and/or Landscape Architects to prepare plans for all Planned Unit Residential Developments. 4. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics and open-space. 5. fv10re efficient and effective use of land, open-space and public facilities. Subdivision 2. Permitted Uses. Within a P.U.R.D. no land or buildings shall be used except for one all' more of the following uses: 1. Dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached", multi-storied 5tructull'es or any combination thereof. . . 2. Educational, religious.. culturql or recreational facilities that are designed and intended to serve the residents of the Planned Unit Residential Development. The burden of proof shed I fest upon the applicant to show that such non-residential uses are designed and intended for the primary use of the residents in the P .U.R.D. b' provided further that no such stated uses shall be cel1structed until 50 percent of the total dwelling units contained in the entire project are c(j)mpleted. B'CompletedB' to mean qual ifyingfor a certificate of occupancy as regulated i!1l Section 4 of Article X of th is ordinance. . Subdivision 3. Area", Setback, Height and Lot Coverage Regulations. 1. Lot Area Regulations~ a. The minimum total lot area shall be not less than 10 ac::res. lots of less than 10 acres may qualify only if the applicant can. show that the minimum lot areqrequirement should be waived because a P.U.R.D. is in the public interest and that one or both of the following conditions exist: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood are such that development under the standard provi- visions of the Residence Districts would not be appropriate in order to cO!Jserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighbor- hood or community. . (2) The property is adjacent to or across the street from property which has been developed under the provisions of this section and will contribute to the amenities of the neighborhood. b. A P.U.R.D. may provide for a variety of housing types in any one of the basic residential zoning districts. The total number of dwell ing units allowed in a development shall be determined by either: (a) the area standards of the zoning district in which the proposed development is to be located, or (b) the density specified by the Planning Commission or Council i consistent with the intent of the Shorewood Land Use Plan. A plan may provide for a greater number of dwell ing units per acre than would otherwise be permitted by the regulations otherwise applicable to the site, but if the density or intensity of land use exceeds by more than 10 percent that permitted by the regulations otherwise applicable to the site, the applicant has the burden to show that such excess will not have an undue and adverse impact on existing public facilities and on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property. !n no case shall the density . . . . of Dwelling Units per acre (DUlAc) exceed 100% of the standards stated for the originol zonlngdistrlet. General guldel ines to be followed in meeting this requirement insingle-family districts <:Ire. as follows~ R-1 -- 4 DulAc; R-2--4 DUlAc; R-3--DU/Ac. The Planning Commission and Coundl,in determining the reasonableness of the increase in the authorized dwell iog units per acre, shall recognize that nncreased density may be compensated for by additional private amenities and by increased efficiency in public facilities and services to be achieved by: (1) the IQcation, amount and proposed use of common open-space, (2) the loca- tion.. design and type of dwell ing units! and (3) the physical characteristire:s of the site. 2. Front, Re<:lr and Side Yard Building Setback Regulations: Building setbacks from all property lines which form the perimeter of the total property in the P.U .R.D. or from all interior and exterior dedicated street right-of-way lines or from the paving of any' private interior circulation. streets shall be 25 feet or the height of the building! whichever is greater. 3. . Building Height Regulations: There shall be no height limitations for any buildings in a P.U .R.D. except that all buildings shall observe the setback requirements and densities in Paragraphs one and two of Subdivision 3 above. 4. lot Coverage: a. The total ground area occupied by buildings in a P.U.R.D..shall not exceed twenty percent of the total site area in the project. If the total project is to be staged as regulated below! open-space shall be provided so that the ground coverage of each stage shall not exceed the maximum allowable coverage. b. There shall be a maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.5. Flc::>>or area ratio shall be determined by dividing the sum total of the gross area of all floors of the principle structures on a site by the gross area of the total site. . Subdivision 4. . Buildi!)g and Site Design, Construction and Maintenaoce Regulations: 1. Jv40re than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in any P .U.R.D. Areas for single-family detached dwellings must comply with the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance in all respects not specifically noted infhis section as appropria e variances or waivers. 2. A P..U.R.D. which nly involves One housing type, such as all detached or all attached units, shall not be considered as inconsistent with the stated purposes and objectives of this section and shall not be the sole basis for denial or appro\\7al. 3. Architectural style f buildings shall not solely be abQsis for denial or approval of a plan. However, the overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development will be primary consider tions in the review stages of the Planning Commission and Council. 4. No building permit hall be granted for any building on 'and for which a plan for a P.U.R.D. is i the process of Village review or which does not conform to the approved final Ian. . 5. Staging of Develop a. Any P.U.R.D. plan proposed to be constructed in. stages shall include full details re ative thereto and the Village Council may approve or modify where necess ry, any such proposals. b. The staging s all include the time for beginning and completion of each stage. Such iming may be modified by the Village Council on the showing of go d cause by the developer. c. The land Ow er or Developer shall make such easements, covenants and other arr ngements and shall furn ish such performance bond or bonds as may e determined by the Village Council to be reasonably re- quired to assu e performance in accordance with the plan and to pro- tect the public interest in. the event of abandonment of the plan before completion. . . . . 6. Open-Space: A primary function of the P ..U.R.D. provision is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance the worthwhile! natural terrain. characteris- tics and not force intense development to utilize all portions of a.givensite in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. In evahJOIting each indi- Yidual proposal the recognition of this objective will be a basic consideration in granting approval or denial including but not limited to the following: a. The amount and location of common open-space shall be consistent with the stated purpose and intent of this section. b. All common open-space shall be labeled as such and as to its intent or designed functions. 7. Covenants, Easements and Restrictions: The final plan shall contain such proposed covenants, easements and other provisions relating to the bulk, location and density of such residential units17 non-residential uses and public facilities as are necessary for the welfare of the Planned Unit Residential Development and are consistent with the best interests of the entire Village. Allor any of the covenants, easements an& other provisions, if made part of the final plan may be modified, enforced! removed or released as deemed necessary by the Village Council for the preservation of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of all Vi II age res i dents. 8. Streets, Uti! ities, Services and Publ ic Facil ities: The uniqueness of each proposal for a P.U.R.D. requires that specifications and standards for streets, uti! ities and services shall be subject to minor modifications from the specifications and standards establ ished in this and other Village ordinances governing their construction. The' Cound I may therefore, waive or madify the specificatians or standards where it is found that they are not required in the interests of the residents or of the entire Village. The plans and profiles of all streets, utilities and services shall be reviewed, modified, if necessary and approved by the Village Engineer and Building Inspector, prior to the final approval of the P.U.R.D. plan by the Council. All P.U.R.D. projects shall be served by public or community water and sewer systems. . Subdivision 5. . Appl icationi' Review and Administrative Procedures: 1. The general procedure for application, review and action on a P.U.R.Do shall be according to the following outl ine, with more detailed requirements found in the remainder of this subdivision: a. Applicationi' filing fee and six (6) copies of the preliminary plan are to be submitted to the Village Clerk at least 14 days prior to public hearing date. b. Planning Commission staff reviews Preliminary Plal1s and transmits copies of review to Planning Commission members, Professional Planning Staff and Engineer, Building Inspector and applicant at least five days before public hearing before Planning Commission. c. Planning Commission holds public hearing on Preliminary Plan. d. Planning Commission sends recommendations for action on ~reliminary Plan to Village Council. e. Council acts on Preliminary Plari. f. If Council approves Prel iminary Plan, appl icant submits Final Plan within 90 days of Council approval and 14 days prior to Final Plan review at Council meeting. . g. Village Clerk transmits copies of the Final Plan to the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, Village Engineer, Building Inspector. h. Planning Commission and Staff review Final Plans and make recommendation to Village Council at least five days before Council meeting. i. Council reviews Final Plan and takes action 0 I_ If Council approves Final Plan, Zoning Administrator changes the zoning classification on.the Official Zoning fv\ap if a zoning change was made and further designates the district or portion of a district as a P.U.R.D. .2. Applicatian procedures for a P.U.R.D. generally follow the procedure far Amend- ment, Article X, Section 6, with more spedfic application. requirements in the fo II owi ng paragraphs. . . . . . ' 3. . Application for a P. U.R.D. shall be made by the owner of the property except that an option holder may apply for a P .U.R.D. provided his application. is accompanied by a signed statement indicating no objections from the OWner or owners of all pro- perties involved in the application. 4. Application for a Preliminary P.U.R.D. Plan shall be filed with the Village Clerk and shall be accompanied by 6 copies of the following plall"!s and information~ a. Location maps showing location within Village all'id more spedfic location on a half section plat map showing all surrounding property lines and ownershnp within 200 feet of the proposed P.U .R.D. as the same appears on the records of the County Auditor of Hennepin County. b. All information required on a Preliminary Plat as outl ined in th~ Subdivisicm Regu lations. c. General development plan indicating: (1) All types of uses proposed (2) Density of each type of use (3) Height and bulk of all buildings. d. Summary sheet indicating: (1) Area of land in each use or each separate intensity of use. (2) Number of units proposed including number of bedrooms in each all'ea ind.]) above. (3) Number of acres of common open-spac:e. (4) Modifications of any provisions of this ordinance or any other ord i nance, codes or regu I ations of the Viii age of Shorewood. e. Phasing Plan indicating geographical staging and approximate timing of the Plan or portions thereof. f. Written statement by the applicant 1!"ldicating how his proposed devel- opment conforms to the stated objectives and purpose of this section and why his proposal would be in the publ ic interest. g. The fee for filing a P"U.R.D., which includes the fees foil' subdivision; newspaper publications of the public hearing; mailing of notices to OWners within 200 feet; and staff reports shall be $100.00 plus $20.00 for each. residenticd unit up to a maximum of $500.00. . . . " 5. Planning Commission Study and Review of Preliminary Plan. a. The Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to the Village Council for project approval; approval with conditions; or deni(;d. Such recommendations shall be made within 60 days of the iniHal hearing unless the applicant files a written request to the Planning Commission for delay. If the Planning Commission does not make its recommendations within the specified time period and a delay has not been requested by the applicant u the Council may take action on request by the applicant. b. The Planning Commission shall forward to the Council its recommendation based on and including but not I imited to the following: (1) Compatibil ity with the stated purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Residential Development. (2) Relationship of the proposed plan to the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be located, to the Shorewood land Use Plan and to other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. (3) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities; circulation and parking facilities; public foci I ities, recreation areas and open spaces . 6. The Planning Commission and Council may from time to time amend or vary the application and review procedures and the amount and type of documents to be presented. 7. Final Plan Review ao A Final Plan shall be submitted with an application for Final Plan approval within 90 days after Council approval of the Preliminary Plan unless a written request for an extension is submitted by the applicant. If an application for final approval or a request for an extension is not received within 90 days, the Preliminary Plan will be considered abandoned and a new application for a Preliminary Plan must be submitted following the Preliminary Plan procedure. There shall be maximum of extensions of not more than one (1) yeor 0 . . . 'I' ~ Of" b. The Village Council shall review the Final Plan at its first regularly scheduled meeting which occurs 14 days after fil ing of the appl ication for final Plan approval. c. The final Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved Preliminary Plan. Substantial compl ianceshall mean~ (1) The number of residential I iving units has not been increased, (2) The floor area of non-residential uses has not been increased, (3) Open-space has not been decreased or altered to change its original intended design or use. (4) All special conditions prescribed on the Preliminary Plan by the applicant or any of the reviewing bodies have been incorporated into the final Plan. d. If the final Plan involves the platting or division of land or the platting of public streets, the procedures for approving and recording of plats shall be followed. e. If the zoning change or the final Plan is approved as a P oU.R.D., the plan is attached to and is a part of the ordinance establishing the zoning change. The Zoning Administrator shall then change the zoning classification on the Official Zoning Map to a PoU.RoD. designation and indicate appropriate reference to the ordinance authorizing the rezoning and development agreement.