1977 pl mn
-
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: Planning Commission
DATE: 1/11/77
Mr. Earl Nielsen of 236 Barry Avenue South, Wayzata,
called Vern Watten and asked if he could come before
you this Thursday night to informally inquire your
opinion of his proposal to divide his property at the
corner of Wild Rose Lane and Meadowview Lane into
two parcels and build double bungalows on each parcel.
(See Sheet 15 of your half-section maps -Parcel 0260
at the intersection of Wild Rose lane and Meadowview
Lane.)
It is in an R-l zone, right across the street from
an R-2 zone and very close to some double bungalows
(East on Wild Rose Lane) and across from some smaller
lots. It seems to be a similar situation to Mark
Taggatzts request.
Mr. Nielsen wants youropinion on his proposal. If
you discourage two double bungalows, would you approve
one single family dwelling and one double bungalow on
the corner lot? The total parcel contains 78,000 +
.;Z:
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
January 13, 1911
Minutes
The Shorewood Planning Commission met on January 13, 1911, at Minnewashta
Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Vern Watten, newly appointed chairman for 1977
presided. Commission members Cole, Reese, Stover, and Council Member Haugen
were present.
K. Stover moved, J. Cole seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 9, 1971
meeting as submitted. Motion approved.
.
Mark Taggatz of 6075 Apple Road appeared for a second time regarding his request
for division of property and granting of variance in square footage for the
resulting two lots. (R. L. S. 463, Parcel B). Kristi Stover moved, Jane Cole
seconded, to send a recommendation to approve this division and variance to the
City Council with the following conditions attached:
(a) that the engineer review the proposal, verifying that wetlands
are not part of the divided portion of Parcel B;
(b) that the city attorney examine the road easement agreement with
Mr. Garaghty (owner of Parcel A) and your plan to extend that
easement to the new owner of your divided parcel and that such
an arrangement is legally feasible;
(c) that Mr. Taggatz submit a letter from Mr. Garaghty and Mrs.
Farrell (owner of property at the corner of Mill Street and
Apple Road) stating they would not object to the variance in
required square footage for the lots resulting from this divi-
sion.
The planning commission indicated that this is not to be considered a precedent
setting opinion because they base their approval on the following conditions:
there is a sizeable wetlands area to the east, adjacent to the Taggatz property;
the topography of the area indicates that a sizeable portion of the area is not
buildable, hence the density will not be as great; there is an R-2 zone right
across the street from the property; and Mr. Beckman and Mr. James, immediate
neighbors have indicated that they do not object to this division and variance
proposal.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Kr. Earl Nielsen of 236 Barry Avenue South, Wayzata requested the division of
his property at Wild Rose Lane and Meadowview Lane (Sec. 32, 'r 11 7, R 23) into 2
parcels. His property is in an R-l zone, across from an R-2 zone. He indicated
he would ask to build single family dwellings. The estimated lot sizes would
be 28,000 and 21,000 square feet and therefore would require variances. Consid-
erable discussion followed regarding drainage problems in that area. Commission
members indicated great reluctance to grant such a considerable variance and
were not willing to make such a recommendation.
.
Will Stageberg who operates a product design business out of 23505 Smithtown
Road (site of the former Shorewood Nursery and Moore Sign Co.) sought the plan-
ning commission's opinion re a zoning change from R-4 and R-5 to Commercial
for his property. He recognizes that it would be undesirable to drastically change
the character of the area, but he would like to sell some of that property to
people who would conduct a low traffic density business.
Shorewood Planning Commission
Minutes-l/13/17-page 2
.
He was advised that if it were rezoned Commercial, Shorewood would lose control
of the area. It would open an opportunity for anything to go in the area. If
the building remains on the site, it is possible that a new business could get
a special use permit. Mr. Stageberg was urged to get as much information about
any proposed business such as: how many people would be employed; level of
traffic flow in and out of Highway 19; attitude of Hennepin County Highway De-
partment re access to #19, etc.
Discussion turned to Boulder Bridge Farm Public Hearing on January 21th. The
commission requests the opinion of a professional planner regarding the proposal,
which they would like to have before the Public Hearing. Suggested agency was
Wehrman-Chapman Associates, which company has done work for the city in the past.
Vern Watten is to talk to Steve Frazier about this request.
It was also suggested that the Planning Commission seek the op1n1ons of Morton
Arneson, former landscape architect for Boulder Bridge about the development of
that property.
In reviewing the proposals received from planners re Comprehensive Land Use for
Shorewood, it was decided that the commission would like to have personal inter-
views with the planners.
-
It was also decided that members should attend the Park Commission meetings and
by attending attempt to coordinate the developing plans for the parks with the
emerging Comprehensive Plan. Vern Watten will attend in January and Jane Cole
will take the February-March meetings, with other members taking turns in succeed-
ing quarters.
Kristi Stover reported that the South Shore Planning Commissions quarterly meeting
is scheduled for January 31st at Minnewashta School at 1:30 p.m. David Slipey
of the St. John's Center for Local Government will present a multi media program
on Intergovernmental Cooperation. Shorewood council offered funds up to $125
to pay costs of the program. It was decided that both councils and planning com-
mission members would be invited to participate.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
.
.
ORR.SCHELEN.MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
...'
CO'lsul!/i7g Engineers
Sij"veyors
January 24, 1977
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Attention City Council and
Planning Commission v
Re: Property Split
R.L.S. 463, Parcel B
Mark Taggatz, Owner
City Officials:
.
In a memo to the city engineer and the city attorney January 8,
1977, from the planning commission, regarding the aforementioned
property, we were asked "to verify that the wetlands is not
part of the proposed division of Parcel B."
On the enclosed topographical map we have shown R.L.S. No. 463
and the wetlands area as indicated in Ordinance No. 70, the
city's wetlands ordinance. As you can see, the wetlands area
is totally outside of R.L.S. No. 463.
We have also received a phone call from Mr. Taggatz directly.
As part of his property split, for the lot he sells, he wanted
to know if the sewer line from that lot could be connected to the
sewer line serving his house.
Normally, combined sewer services should be avoided if at all
possible. However, in this case, another easement would be
required for another sewer service and the connection in the
street would mean tearing up the blacktop.
In this case a combined sewer service appears hydraulically and
economically feasible. The sewer in the street is sufficiently
deep (12.5 feet) to accommodate a combined flow.
<.
The legal implications of a combined-sewer should be explained
to Mr. Taggatz and made a part of his sale agreement. In
addition to the written assurance of a safe combined sewer
service, a clean-out manhole should be installed where the new
sewer line ties into the existing house service.
;~t i-I, ii'. i_il Avenue. Suite 238 .. iiiJinni,apo/is, Minnesota 55413 . 612/331- 8660
cc: Mr. Frank Kelly
.
City of Shorewood
Re: Property Split - Mark Taggatz, Owner
January 24, 1977
Page 2
A final item, as clarification of this property split, is that
in our engineering review when we showed the Taggatz Property
(Parcel B) on the topographical map, our descriptions correspond
to the planning commission descriptions in their letter dated
January 17, 1977, to Mr. Taggatz.
As you will note, however, on thehalf-section.drawingtl!f;
original R.L.S. No.-463 was dIvided into-Parce:Cs A,--B-,-and C.
These original parcel descriptions should not be confused with
the parcel descriptions shown on the topographical map.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Respectfully,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
.
~P1~
James P. Norton
JPN/jet
Enclosure
.
~
. - ....,.. - .. ..p .... _._.'p. .____...'-... 'p'. .._..........__. .' _P..- ......._.. .._...._ __,_.....__._w__' ..n
." , ~
..if
..
.
-~~ .'
~,
!
I
To €-
&,. .
q r-~~Ir
Ro
A ' 1f>rfy
C{rceL.
KJ
:3 ~ 351 ~, FT
, /V.. ../fuFh._ .
~.I.iN~l>
/l .~.~
./ t/ < . fl(;:A
1/,/:>-. ~ i
1 / .. ". ~ "'-: ,,)'
j'\l!-r. ~~S)" ". .
I. L ......-
/ 'FRo. '
I \ .. t.t::;;...~;,
'. -<=
/ . P>f6F~. ..........--...
I , vy '/
I'
'I ' ~_o
o '...../1 !9
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
..
In
-
-
~. ~J foto ~~. t+
'zoo'
..-
p
I'IJ.
/lYf\
~.~
PROPOSED PROPERTY DIVISION
BY MR. & MRS. MARK TAGGATZ '
PREPARED BY
TOM HARTLEY
reer60 ~" 4 ~..
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: Planning Commission
DATE: 1/8/77
1. Bring your Ordinance Book so it can be
updated with the newest ordinances.
2. Please be advised that there is a
PUBLIC HEARING ON BOULDER BRIDGE
Planned Unit Residential Development
before the Planning Commission on
Thursday, 7:30 p.m. JANUARY 27, 1977.
3. You are asked to return the booklets on
the Boulder Bridge PURD to City Hall.
We will need to pass them on to the
Council after you have made your recommen-
dation on their request.
4. Joint meeting of the Planning Commissions
of the South Shore is scheduled for
Monday, January 31st. Kristi S. may want
to talk with you about the program inves-
tigation. Very likely it could be held
at the Unitarian A-frame on Glen Road near
e the NSP buH ding.
IMPORTANT COMMENT I
Our three hole puncher has left the office for the
weekend (today is Saturday), so you will find that
your papers are shipped to you unpunchedl Sorry
to start the new year like this.
Shirley
.
e
.
./
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PUBLIC HEARING-BOULDER BRIDGE PURD
January 27, 1977
A public hearing was held on January 27, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. in the Minnewashta Ele-
mentary School on a ~lanned Unit Residential Development proposal for the Boulder
Bridge Farm located at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Howard's Point Road.
Vern Watten, chairman, presided and present were commission members J. Brecke,
J. Miller, F. Reese and K. Stover; Council member J. Haugen; City Attorney Kelly;
City Engineer Norton. Commission members J. Cole and S. Larson were unable to be
present.
Chairman Watten requested that people who wish to speak to the issue of the hearing
sign their names. He indicated the developer had prepared information as required
by the ordinance, fees paid; that the city had public notices printed in the Maverick
and the ~ and notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property
in question; that reports had been submitted on the proposal by the city attorney
and city engineer and at the request of the planning commission, by the city planner.
Dick Larson of Larson Associates, architect and planner, represented. the owners,
Mr. and Mrs. Duane Little and Thomas B. Wartman. Legal description of the Boulder
Bridge property follows:
Registered Land Survey No.8, encompassing Tract F, except that part thereof
embraced in Registered Land Survey No. 740 and
That part of Tract G lYing south of an extension easterly of the north line
of Tract H, except that part included in Registered Land Survey No. 435, and
Tracts P to V inclusive, and
That part of Tract W lYing North of North line of Tract N extended East, and
Tract X, all in Registered Land Survey No.8, Files of Registrar of Titles,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Tract A except that part of the Southerly 165 feet thereof measured at right
angles to and parallel with the Southerly line of said Tract A lYing Westerly
of and measured at right angles to and parallel with the Easterly line of
said Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 435, Files of Registrar of Titles,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota together with easements of record.
The right of ingress and egress over Tract U, Registered Land Survey No.8.
This property is also described as the "Boulder Bridge Farm" located on the
north side of Smithtown Road, running west from Howard's Point Road to just
north of 27910 Smithtown Road.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING - BOULDER BRIDGE
January 27, 1977 - page 2
Mr. Larson described site location, topography, drainage, vegetation, existing
buildings and road system, agencies that control the area, zoning, and climate of
mortgage market.
The project consist of 80 acres of property to be divided into 46 lots, most of which
will be over 40,000 square feet, the largest lot being 75,000 square feet. There
is some common open space and some wetlands. Plans are to keep existing roadways,
trees, a number of buildings and topography in present condition as much as possible.
Internal circulation of the development will be by foot or possibly by golf cart.
There will be no roads to the lake. There will be a neighborhood association, which
will exercise a review process of architectural plans for proposed homes and also
will own and manage common area property. Request will be made for 46 docks - one
docks for each of the 46 lots.
Mr. Larson presented information on tax revenue to be gained through this project
by reviewing 1976 tax revenue from $125,000 and $150,000 homes in Shorewood.
He concluded by stating he feels this development is in keeping with the Shorewood
density and housing character-- single family dwellings on separate lots -- espe-
cially in that area and that this would set a fine precedent for the use of open
land.
The following people made statement to the planning commission: John Baird; Eliza-
beth Baird; Jack Chandler; Tom Skramsted; R. L. Sampson; E. A. Post; Bob Dunn.>
They expressed general approval of how the develgpment of the land is
proposed, but objected to the "overuse" of the lake shore lot to provide
access for the 46 lots because --
a) it would establish a dangerous precedent, allowing unlimited lake
access from off-shore lots to be "funnelled through" a lake shore lot;
b) it would be in violation of Section 11, Subdivision 7f of Ordinance
No. 77;
c) it would introduce,in reality, a marina into the area;
d) it would create a dangerous situation for swimmers, skiiers, etc., at
that spot;
e) the homeowners' association may depart from plans of developers and make
it a public launching site;
f) it is damaging to quality of life and environment of area.
The following residents asked questions or expressed concerns: Jo Cunningham; Ray
Merz; Win Drews; Dick Leavenworth; Daryl Droba; Margaret Holmberg; John Adams;
Margaret Ohrbeck; John Thomas; Jean Raby; Dick Thompson; Dick Jacobs; Dick Ohrbeck,
plus several who did not identify themselves.
Their concerns were as follows:
a) What is location of docks?
b) Expressed doubts as to whether existing streets can handle traffic.
c) What recreational facilities are being planned? How many acres of common
ground is being left and for what purposes?
\.
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
1)
m)
n)
0)
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING - BOULDER BRIDGE
January 27, 1977 - page 3
Is dredging planned for the lagoon and the wetlands pond?
Are there plans to connect the development's road system with Woodside
Road? What is the process to do that? Who owns the "turn-around"?
Real estate speculators are constantly trYing to overuse the lake.
Such temptations must be controlled.
There is doubt that boats really have ingress and egress from the
lagoon.
How far can docks extend into the lake?
How soon will this land be developed?
Are the wetlands protected? How much of this development area is
wetlands?
Plenty of lake accesses and fire lanes have been closed off around
the lake without protest; why is the reverse situation not looked
upon in the same manner.
Concern was expressed about a non-professional group reviewing archi-
tectural plans for proposed housing.
Do not let improved tax receipts influence decision to allow overuse
of lake.
Can there really exist a right to use the lake by off shore property
owners through common lot on lake, especially when separated by a
public road?
Who enforces single boat requirement per family?
. Mr. Larson and Mr. Wartman respond:
There are plans for equestrian or walking or cross-country ski trails. Barn
may be converted to use for racquetball or handball; there may be stabling
for fi ve-six horses; three tennis courts and paddle tennis courts plan to
be constructed; options for other buildings left to association. Wetlands
will remain untouched. A permit for dredging the lagoon will be sought from
appropriate bodies. Wetlands south of Smithtown Road are not part of the
development parcel.
Mr. Larson listed other develop ments or multiple housing areas that have
off shore areas but have lake access so he feels precedent is established.
LMCD indicates that docks of this nature could go out 200 feet, but they
do not plan to go out that far. Permits for these docks would be sought
~ addition from Shorewood Council) from the IMCD and the Corps of Engi-
neers.
Mr. Wartman commented on the size of boat and for how long in the past
summer he was able to maneuver in and out of the lagoon.
The project would hopefully get started this year. If things went well
for the developers, the stages would be developed in one year increments.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
.
In response to questions from Planning Commission members, Mr. Larson indicated that
the developers are flexible on allocation of land or facilities for park use and that
plans for a community water system are outlined in their proposal.
Written position statements were filed with the chairman for the record.
Jerry Brecke moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Frank Reese. Motion carried.
Submitted by, Shirley Rei, Secreta:'y
I
i
i'
,I
.1
",>
..
I i
'~ '
",' {
r
^
'"
/
'"
\, ; ,
,.....) . ""~--:-~; - -
. -.....', ',"
-'J- .
/ ,""'r,,., ,/
, . \--..: .
/ " /,"" "
'" [-HI'"
. I ~ ''-',
0/" I ;,
,/ ".
'.. ",/ /j
"-- '. . /, , '
"'; ,":'~ ,;' ,',' ~/ /
'. ~. >
(
I
i
\
\
!
I i
:J'.
L
~ :
i ~i~!
.1
i 'I
~Ja
E
..r"-,
l'i
"
'"
o
.. . <
X n ...
e JC' .
. . ~
,. ,. ~
!: ~,.
~;~
...!4-
8" -
.. eo"
i ~!
;:.. It
. .. ~
H.
.. s ..
l~
,...-
"./ /' ..: -.
/ ~I; i ~
.... : a
~j
Ii
Ii
.~ ;
'"
j~1
I
.....
\-, >~~~l- ..
" - ;-:\~\.~
~ \ ~_.- \~~;~~~\7~J~.,!:
,.
~
~
.
.
.
~
January 26, 1977
To: Members of the Shorewood Planning Commission
and Shorewood Residents
From: Dean and Carol Spatz
Re: Proposed development of Boulder Bridge Farm
There comes a time in the growth of every small community when a
decision as to long term priorities must be reckoned with. The short-
sighted view is always to obtain a better tax base because all of us feel
that we are over-taxed. Invariably, however, history judges those decisions
harshly. Just as we as a Nation are fighting to reclaim our lakes, rivers
and air from pollution that,for!the sake of expediency, our fathers allowed,
so will our children judge our errors if we begin a premeditated rape of the
standards this town was founded on and has grown to love.
Certainly the addition of 40 new houses with values 20% higher because
of lakeshore rights would help the tax base. However, I doubt it would be
that noticeable. What would be noticeable is:
1. FoDW to eighty new boats on the shoreline,
2. Forty new water Skiers,
3. Eighty to 160 new swimmers,
4. 4 to 6 lifeguards that someone, probably the town, would have to
supply,
5. Extra water patrols to cover the higher concentration of boat activity.
These are but a few of the most noticeable changes. And what makes these changes
stand out is the fact that the use density of the proposed 250 ft. of shoreline
would be 20 times greater than Shorewood now allows.
I ask you, is this due ,process to those residents of Shorewood who had to
work hard for their shoreline privacy? Is it fair to those residents who sit
one block back from the lake now and do not have lake rights? How can a home
over a half mile from the lake have 'lake front rights?
If we, the citizens of Shorewood, allow this proposed development to be
accepted, we are opening the door to every other speculative scheme that the
short-sighted and short-minded men such as these developers can conc~~ve.
What is to stop a man with 140 ft of lakeshore from sub-dividing a parcel
of land adjacent to his property and using 40 ft of his 140 ft as comm,on land
for the subdivision to use as a marina? Certainly some of us might argue that
as long as the home off the lake was within 200 or so feet from the shoreline
it would be okay. And, we acknowledge that there must be some reasonable number
of feet from the shoreline that would still be considered lake property. But,
I ask you, is it reasonable to consider 3000 ft from the lak~ as lakeshore, or
even 1320 ft.? It is absurd to consider such a distance to Qe lakeshore and yet
this is what Mr. and Mrs. Little and Mr. Wartman would have us accept. Are we
such fools as to accept such an abrupt change in our way of life for the sake of
some short term tax savings? Will we really see tax savings?
" ..
..
.
.
.
DDS to Shorewood Planning Commission
January 26, 1977
Page 2
Are we prepared to be judged on the wisdom of such a decision by our
children?
We should take example from one of the wealthiest and nicest area in
the East, Greenwich, Conn. Greenwich had city fathers with foresight and
keen judgement. Yes, Greenwich is little further from New York City than
Shorewood is from Minneapolis, yet it is still zoned four acres per home.
It's financial affairs are very much in order and it is a close and active
community.
An orderly development of Boulder Farm is reasonable, but to tie in
40 or even 5 extra docks to only 250 ft of lake shore is paramount to asking
for a shoreline of marinas.
Sincerely,
Dean and Carol Spatz
e
e
e
~
PLANNING COMMISSIO~
CITY OF SHORFdOOD '
PUBLIC HEARINc-;.BOULOERBRIDGE)PURD
January27,1977
A public hearing was held on January 27, 19?7, at 7 :30 p.m. in ;th~ r.tumewas~ta ,E1;~
mentary School on a Planned Unit Residential Deve10pnent proposal' for the Bo.uJder1
Bridge Farm located at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Howard's Point Roaci~
Vern Watten, chairman, presided and present ,were commission members J. Brecke,
J. Miller, F. Reese and K. Stover; Council membeX; J. Haugen; City Atto:rney Kelly;
Cit:r Engineer Norton. Commission members J." Cole and S. Larson were unable to be;
present. '
Chairman Watt en requested that people who wish to speak to the issue of the ~ear~g
sign their names, He indicated the developer had prepared information as required
by the ordinance, fees paid; that the city h;ad public notices printed in the Maverick
and the Sun and . notices were sent to propertiY owners within 300\ feet of the prope!tY
in question; that :reports had been submitted' on the proposal by: the city attorney;
and city engineer and at the request of the planning commissiont by the city,plani)er.
Dick Larson of ,Larson Associates, architect and planner, represented... the owners,.'
Mr. and Mrs. Duane Little and Thomas B. Wartman. Legal description of the EQuldelt
Bridge property follows:
Registered Land Survey No.8, encompassing Tract P, except that part thereof
embraced in Registered Land Survey NO. 740 and
That part of Tract G lying south of an extension easterly of 'the north liqe
of Tract H, except that part included in ~egistered Land Survey;No. 435, and
Tracts P to V inclusive, and
That part of Tract W lYing North of North line of Tract N extended 15e.st, and
Tract Xi, all in Registered Lan.d Survey No. 8, Files, of Registra:r of Titles;,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
Tract A except that part of the Southerlyj165 feet thereof measwed {it right
angles to and parallel with the Southerly line of said Tract;A lYing,Weste~ly
of and measured at right angles to and parallel with theEaster~y1ineof ,
said Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 435, Files of :Registra:r of ',rUles"
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to~etheI' with easements of record. ,
The right of ingress and egress over Tract, U, RegisteredLanci Slirvey'No. 8,.
This property is also described as the "Boulder Bridge Farm"logateci on the
north side of Smithtown Road" running we:su from Howard' sPoint ~oad to just
north of 27910 Smithtown Road.
...
'.
SHORE\olOOD PLAmUNG CC>>1MISSIQN
pUBLIC HEARING.,'" 130ULQER BRIPGE
JanuarY 27, 1977 .... page '2
e Mr. Larson described site location, topograpl1y, d+ainage, vegetati<)!l, ~:x:isting
buildings an.d roa,dsystem, agencies that control the area, zoning,'andc1imat,e qf
mortgage market.
The project consist of 80 acres of property ~o be divided into 46 lots,. most of
will be over 40,000 square feet, the largest lot being 75,Q()0 square feet. There,
is some common open space and some wetlands.' Plans are to keepe:x:isting roadways[
trees, a number of buildings and topography tn present condition a:s much a:s possiqle.
Internal circul,ation of the deve10pnent wiJ.1' be by foot or possiblY by golf carl,
There will be no roads to the lake. Therewtll be a neighborhood .association, wh1ch
will exercise a review process of architectural plans for propo:sed home's and also ;
will own and manage common area property. Request will be made fat 46 dOGks... on~
docks for each Of the 46 lots.
Mr. Larson presented information on tax revemue to be gained through tris projec~
by reviewing 1976 tax revenue from $125,000 ~d $l50,000 homes in Shorewood.
He concluded by stating he feel$this development is in keeping with the Shorewood
density and housing character__ single family dwellings on separat(il lots -- espe....
cia1ly in that area and that this would set .a .fine precedent for t~e llse of qpen :
land.
The following people made statement to thep:lannil'lg commission: . John Baird; 'Eliza;r-
beth Baird; Jac)c Chandler; Tom Skramsted; R.L, Sampson; E).A,. Post; Bob Dumh
~.' They expressed general approval of how ihe development of the) land is
.. proposed, but objected to the "overusetl;of the lakeshore lot to provide
access for, the 46 lots because --
a) it would establish a dangerous preceqent, allowing unlimited lake
access from off-shore lots to be "futlIlelled through" a lakeshore lot;
b) it would be in violation of Section 3..1, Subdivision 7f of Ordinance
No. 77;
c) it would introduce,in reality, a mar~na into the area;
d) it would create a dangerous situation far swimmerp, skiiery, etp., at
that spot;
e) the homeowners' a:ssociation may depart from plans of developer:s and make
it a puplic launching site;
f) it is damaging to quality of life and environment of area.
The following residents asked questions oreJ!.:pressed concerns: J>o ~utlIlihgham;' Ray ;
Merz; Win Drews;. Dick Leavenworth; Daryl Droba; Hargaret Holmberg; .. John AdamS; ;
Margaret Ohrbeck; John Thomas;, Jean Raby; Diqk Thompson; Dick Jacobs; Dick Q~bec~,
plus several who did not identify themselves,!
e
Their concerns were as follows:
a) What is location of docks?
b) Expressed doubts 3:S to whether eXisting streets can hanqletraffic.
c) What recreational facilities are being planned? How many acres of common;
ground is being left and for what purposes?
#'
, .
e d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
I)
m)
n)
0)
e
e
.
iSHQREWOOD PLANNING CQ.1MISSION
PUBLIC HEARING- BOULDER BE.:IDG];
;Janu~ry 27, 1977 - page .3
Is dredging planned for the lagoon and the wetlands pond? .
Are there plans to connect the developnent's road systemw:i(th Woodside
Road? What is the process to do that? Who owns the"turn....around"?
Real estate speculators are constantly trying to overuse the lake.
Such temptations must be controlled.
There is doubt that boats really haveingr'ess and egress from the
lagoon. .
How far can docks e:x:tenci into the lak~?
How soon will this land be developed~
Are the wetlands protected? How muc~ of this development area is
wetlands?
Plenty of lake accesses and fit'e lanes have been closed oft aroUnd
the lake without protest; why is theweverse situation not looked
upon in the same manner. ., .
Concern was e:x:pressed abollt a non-pt'ofessional group reviewing archi-
tectural plans for prpposed housing.
Do not let improved tax receipts inflllence decision to allo~ overuse
of lake..
Can there really e:x:ist a right to us~the lake by off shore property
owners through common lot on lake, especially when separate~ by a
public road?
Who enforces single boat requirement per family?
Mr.. Larson and Mr. t'lartman respond:
There are plans for equestrian or walking or cross-country ski'trails. :.earn
may be converted to use for racquetball pI' handball; there may be stabling
for five-six horses; three tennis courts' and paddle tennis GOutts plan tp
be construqted; options for other builq;ipgs left to association~ Wetlands
will remain untouched. Ap(ilrmit for dredging the lagoon will be sought from
appropriate bodies. Wetlands south of ~ithtown Road are not part of the
development parcel.
Mr. Larson listed other develop mentso~multiple housing areas that have
off shore areas but have lake access so he feels precedent is establishe~.
LMCD indicates that doc:ks of this nature, could go out 200 feet, but they
do not plan to go out that far.. Permitsj for these docks would be sought
~ addition from Shorewood Council) from\ the U4CD and the Corps of'Engi-
neers.
Mr.. Wartman commented on the size of boat and fot' how long in the past
summer he was able to maneuver in and out of the lagoon.
The project would hopefully get started this year. If things went 'well
for the developers, the stages would be pevelpped in one year~cr~ments.
There being no fllrther testimpny, the public hearing was closed at 9:20'p.m.
In response to questions from Planning Commisf5ion plembers, Mt'.. Larson indicated
the deyelopet's are flexible on allocatio:p.Of land or facilities for: park use and
plans for a community water system are outlined in: their proposal.
Written position statements were filed with the chairman for the record.
, i
Jerry Brecke mOVed to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Frank Reese. Motion carried.
Sl.ibm'ttCQ 1 ShL' Rc
"'i'
Sou.th Srore pJ.Ann.H 'no
~Unr ~
REPORT ON JOINT MEETING OF SOUTH SHORE PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND COUNCILS-Jan. '3l. 1977
.
The meeting was convened on Monday, January 31, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. at Minnewashta
Elementary School. Present were: .-
Excelsior Planning Commission:
Greenwood Council:
Tonka Bay Land Use Committee:
Tonka Bay Council:
Shorewood Planning Commission:
Shorewood Council:
Also present:
Terry Kelly, Jim Olds, SUe Dunn, Lynn Cowles
Glen Olson
Gove Laybourn, Jim Penberthy, Cathy Sackrison,
Fred Phelps
Mayor Glen Froberg
Jerry Brecke, Jane Cole, Frank Reese, Kristi
Stover, Vern Watt en
Mayor Steve Frazier, Jan Haugen, Jack Huttner
Bill Keeler
Jim Daly, new representative from l6th District
to Metropolitan Council
City Clerk Elsa Wiltsey and Secretary Shirley Rice
Jane Cole introduced David Slipy and Gregg Phalen of the St. John's Center for
Local Government at st. Cloud who had been asked to direct the participants in an
exercise on Intergovernmental Cooperation.
. Mr. Slipy began by stating the following assumptions about this group:
l. Group will gain most by working on a "real" issue.
2. Knowledge and skills to accomplish cooperation already exist in group.
3. For facilitators to be most helpful, they should provide a structure
for group to discover their own solutions.
Since the group accepted these assumptions, all agreed that one crucial issue all
present could discuss with equal involvement was as follows:
There is a need amon2 South Shore municiualities for coordination and
communication concerning: Park Develoument. Residential Develoument,
Lake . tJsa2e. and Commercial Develoument.
Mr. Slipy outlined the following devopnental process to explore the above stated
issue:
DETERMING INTERPERSONAL
ADVANTAGES ~ A'll10SPHERE
>- INITIAL
ACTION
) COMPATIBLE ---?"- MECHANISMS FOR
GOALS ACCOMPLISHING
He asked participants to come up with advantages and disadvantages to the stated
problem.
ADVANTAGES
l. All would work toward same goal
2. We would function on a geographical basis
instead of a political basis.
3. We would avoid duplication of programs
and services
4. Reduce overhead costs.
5. Avoid conflict in zoning districts.
6. Develop a sense of community and better
.
DISADVANTAGES
l. There would be difficulty in
financing.
2. Ethnocentrism
3. There would be loss of individual
identity.
Decision making would be removed from
eople.
communicatio .
JOINT SOUTH SHORE PLANNING C<J.1MISSION MEETING - page 2
~ Mr. Slipy offered these advantages and disadvantages to cooperation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
~ 5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
. 23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
1.
Advanta2es
Combined efforts may utilize greater
resources for greater results
More involvement means more support.
Cheaper
Satisfy more needs.
Structure of organization conducive to
cooperation
Save time
Disadvantages
More autonomy separately.
Cooperation involves greater risk.
More involvement with others can
create hostility.
They don't want to cooperate anyway!
There are differences in goals.
Competition is one means of
accomplishing results.
Not enough time.
1.
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
Because the next two steps of the "developnental process" had already been accomplished,
the participants divided into two groups and set about listing compatible goals for
the South Shore.
GROUP I
GOALS
Improve coordination of trail system;
Get most for each dollar spent;
Achieve a more balanced park system-that governmental requirements can be met
but not overused;
Improvement in the rendition of public services (police, fire, water, etc.);
Improvement or elimination of the possessiveness of respective cities;
Effectively plan the residential use of our communities so that governmental re-
quirements can be met but not overused,
Understand the advantage of resolving common planning issues on an area-wide basis,
Improve vehicle and pedestrian patterns throughout the area;
Coordinate zoning in areas regarding commercial useage;
Avoid misunderstanding;
Improve appearance of cities (create common sigh ordinance (regulating billboards),
junk ordinance, etc.)
Provide coordinated use of the south lake shore that would be most beneficial to
ALL the residents of the south shore communities;
Create a greater sense of the larger community;
Coordination of need for services with location of services;
Wise use of natural resources;
Develop a uniform policy regarding marinas and docks;
Improvement of public transportation;
Identify a common amenity and develop needs with that amenity as a catalyst;
STRATEGIES
Investigate where and what kind of new housing is being built or planned;
Provide for non-lake shore residential use of the lake;
Distribute written notification of intended action such as zone changes to
neighboring communities;
Derive a policy regarding high rise developIlent;
Study lake useage;
Determine population density standards for communities;
Provide copies of minutes of meetings of councils, planning commissions and
park commissions and other communiques of interest to other communities;
Determine number of acres or parks per unit of population;
Improve newspaper reporting;
Devise uniform ordinances concerning traffic control, animal control, snowmobiles.
.
.
JOINT SOUTH SHORE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - page 3
1/31/77
GROUP II
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Joint trails plan
Coordination of uses provided in parks.
Provide lake shore useage to other residents besides lake shore owners.
Seek compatibility in zoning at borders of municipalities.
Minimize overlap of facilities.
Cooperate but at the same time maintain autonomy.
Strengthen existing commercial areas.
Improve parking and access to park sites.
Establish structure to coordinate common goals.
Provide for joint uses of special equipnent like street sweepers, etc.
Develop a commonly agreed upon plan for Highway 7 - to prevent strip commer-
cial development.
Establish uniform ordinances.
Establish specialized parks - like nature park, quiet parks as over against
heavily used ones for competitive activities.
Improve communication
Develop and use Minnetonka Community Services more.
Establish common population density. ceiling.
Establish a more open zoning climate.
Keep lake accesses open.
Coordinate plans for elderly housing.
Plan for commercial blocks rather than strips - especially in retail sales.
Preserve natural beauty.
Coordinate traffic patterns and flow.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Parks Group:
1. Balanced park system would include:
1. joint trails plan
2. decide number of acres per unit of population
3. decide number of parks per unit of population
4. appoint managers of parkland in each city
5. establish joint meetings of park commissions
6. select a task force to work on joint trails plan
In order to continue this process and provide a means for action to come about, it
was decided that the goal "Establish a structure to coordinate common goals" should
be started. Each planning commission at its February meeting is to appoint two
people (one suggestion: one rep from planning commission, one rep from park commission)
who will then meet in March. They will decide their goal at that time and send
their action goals to the council.
WHAT
Get list of goals out to everyone
Select task force.
WHO
Shirley Rice
Each planning
commission
WHEN
Feb. 21st
February
Refine lists (combine, clarify,
eliminate, etc.)
Involve councils in disucssions
Coordinate next meeting to continue
process
By May 1st
By May 1st
May 31st
Task Force
TaskForce
Glenn Froberg
The next meeting of the joint planning commission of the South Shore communities
is to be May 31st, place and time to be announced, Glenn Froberg in charge.
.
.
.
To: Mayors and Council Members, Planning Commission
and Land Use Committee Members of Excelsior
Greenwood
Shorewood
Tonka Bay
Last September the Excelsior Planning Commission invited representatives of
the Planning Commissions or Councils to meet together for a get acquainted
and discussion session. The consensus of those attending was that the
evening had been well spent together and that we should try to meet on a
quarterly basis. Shorewood agreed to be responsible for the January meeting.
Therefore, we have arranged to have David Slipey of the St. John's Center for
Local Government at St. Cloud present a program on Monday night, January 31,
at 7:30 p.m. at Minnewashta School on Intergovernmental Cooperation. It is
a multi-media program involving participants in actively exploring the reasons
individuals have difficulty cooperating, and then developing ideas on how to
overcome those difficulties.
You are all cordially invited to participate in this program. Shorewood
council has agreed to fund the program in the sum of $125, which would cover
the fee for Mr. Slipey, travel expenses and materials for up to 30 people.
This would allow six representatives to attend from your city council and/or
commission. If more than that number would care to attend, then you or your
municipaltiy would be asked to pay $5.00 for each person over six.
It is important that we know exactly how many are planning to attend from
your community since any number over thirty will require the need of another
facilitator and thus incur more expense. Please call Shirley Rice at Shore-
wood City Hall (474-3236) indicating how many members of your planning com-
missions or council will attend and who they are. Please call by January 26th.
We are looking forward to a stimulating and fruitful evening together.
Signed,
~~
Kristi Stover
Shorewood Planning Commission
January 18, 1977
.'
.
.
~~,}~,..OF T"!:1E ,Jon~I:W1N~~LfOMtt!~r.ON MEET:tNG 1l;1L71:
"In orde!' to continue this process and provide a It.eans tor action to come about.
it was decided that the goal 'Establish a st:ru~ture to coordinate OOlllllOn goals'
should be started............. will then meet. in March....... They will decide their goal
at that time and send 'their action goals to the councils." '
1'l"'ffAT WHO ,,~.
Get list ot goals out 'to everyone Shirley' Mce
Selec't a task force Es.cb~1&.tl1~ ".
CODID:LS~~07:1 '1(,
WBm
:-~ :..-~
Feb.. 21st
_. ,..", ; 1
"Feb~'
Refine lists (combine, clarifY, eliminate, ete..)
Invol va councils in discussions
Coordinate next meet.ing .to cont~process
(4 01 ty planning commissions)
Task Force
Task ForQe
Glenn Freiberg
ByMay' (1st
By May 1st
May 31st
.\
B) .lP)snfi~gotively plan the residential use of our communities, BO that gove~tal
requirements can ~ met but no~, overused..
2) Understand the advantage ot resolving common planning issues on aQ area-wide
basis.
3) Coordinate zoning in areas regarding conmercial useage.
4) Improve appearance of ei ties (create common sign ordinance .. reguJ.a'ting
billboat'ds ~ junk ordinance, ete.)
5) Coordination of need :for services with location of services.
6) Improvement of public transportation
7) Investigate where and what kind of new housing is being bui.ldl or planned
8) Derive a policy regarding high r.ise developmel'lt.
9) Seek compatibility in zoning at borders o'fmunicipali ties .-..... --__
10) Minimize overlap of faoi11 ties.. :)
11) Strengthen existing commeroial areas. . (~ ~
12) l1ei.relop a commonly agreed upon )plan 'for Higbwa~' 7 - to prevent strip
commercial development.
13) Establish uniform ordinances.
14)
15)
Cooroirlcd;e plans for elderly housing.
Plan for commercial blocks rather than strips k.e3pecial~y in retail sales.
C) Park Developme.nt
1) Impl''Ove coordination of trail system.
2) Imp:"ove vehicle and pedestl"ian patterns throughout the area..
3) Date 'mine DUlllber of ;,;,cres 01' X)"1.r.ks per Ulli t of population.
It) Coordinatton of USeS prov2ded in parka.
5) I.mrll"OVt; paI"kil,g and access to park sites.
6) Establish epecialized parks - like nature park. quiet parks as against
heavily used ones for competitive activities.
7) Dete 'mine number of &CY'es or parkS per unit. ofpopu!a.tion.
B) Balmict.=:d park system would incJ.ude:
eo) joint tr-ails pIaL
b) deCide number of.' acres per unit of population
c) decidE number of parke per unit of popu.lation
d) appoint managers c<f parkland in each oi ty .
e) establish joint meetings of park crmmnGsiona
f) seleota task force to ~~~ on joL1t trails plan.
D) loake Usage
1) P~ovide coordinated use of the south lake shore that would be- most
beneficial 'l;O ~ll the residents of the south shore communi ties.
2') Develop a ltni:t'orm pOlicy re5a.rding marinas and dooles.
3\) Identify a comrool1 amelli'l;y lI.nd develop neeO.s wi-ththat ameni't,y as a
ca:talyst
4) Provide for non...1akeshore residential use of the lake.
5) Study lake usage..
6) Provide lakeshol"'e usf-age to other residents besides lake shore owners.
7) Keep lake accesses open.
<--
'~"'...-JC... t.~
f:.~
~T..r'-
u.rt.....cL k.
~ CV\-1. ct.w-~ ::x. b
rL.'-~C
I TU..........:r;...A;' q
f
.
d!
;
-.
e---
.
..... & ...
--
MEMO: ft~ ~ DATE: -14. io,/977.
~_Uf!~~
.
~~:
...... . .. .....fI
.
e
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING-RECREATIONAL DISTRICT
IN RESIDENTIAL AREA - R-23
February 10, 1977
A Public Hearin&, on the amendment to Ordinance #77 known as Section 23. R-Rec
Recreational District in a !residential Area (draft typed by city clerk's office
and dated February 10, 1977) was held on February 10, 1977, before the Shore-
wood Planning Commission at Minnewashta School at 7:30 p.m. Vern Watten, Chair-
man, presided and present were commission members J. Brecke, J. Cole, S. Larson,
J. Miller t F". Reese and K. Stover. Approximately 40-45 citizens were in atten-
dance.
The chairman read the requirement for notification of a public hearing on an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and stated for the record that the notice had
been published in the Maverick on January 26, 1977. He then read the entire
text of the proposed amendment which was projected on a 'large screen for all
to read. Upon completion of this reading, he called for public testimony.
The following people made statements: Irving Turner, Timber Lane; Gordan and
Mary Ann Hall, Timber Lane; Virginia Ridinger, Howard's Point Road; Dean Spatz,
Boulder Circle; John Gilbertson, West Lake Street; Mike Arvidson, Timber Lane;
Bob Zalk, attorney for~Lawrence Ridingers; Bev Plathe, Tonka B~; Clare Snyder,
Laf~etteAvenue; Bruce Thompson, attorney for John Cross; James Thibault,
Enchanted Island; Terry Kehoe, Howard's Point Rd.; Duane Bagdons, Timber Lane;
Je~ry Titrud, Howard's Point Road; and Peter Watson, Timber Lane.
Summary of citizens' concern are as follows:
Where are the people who favor and request this type of ordinance? Can
planning commission or council give indisputable evidence that they
really exist?
Is this not really an ordinance to serve commercial interest only?
Opinions and information has been sought from marina owners, but
has the planning commission sought opinions from residents near
marinas? Changes in the last two years have all been to the advantage
of commercial interest.
Requests that set-ups not be allowed or if that step is not considered,
then granting of a liquor license should be by unanimous vote of the
council.
Why was this ordinance ",wri tten?
Consider thesejLproblems that residents will have to put up with: audio
pollution from motor noise and traffic; gas stench; hazard of increased
road traffic; congestion on lake leading to dangerous situations;
quality of life will be changed; reduction in property values will
come about.
There is a need for such an ordinance for protection of residents. These
are suggestions for greater protection against "unreasonable infringement."
1. Should set maximum number of these type of facilities per "x"
number of miles of shoreline.
2. If 'S:property owners are going to have access to the lake, then
there must be restriction as to how many feet back from lake shore
owner can have or extend lake shore rights.
.
.
.
Shorewood Planning Commission
R-Rec Public Hearing - 2/10/77
Page 2
3. In Environmental Study Subd. 3, Paragraph 2, Line 2: "may" should
be changed to "will".
Line 12: (Environmental Study shall be carried out by) "licensed
engineer" (competent in the ....)
4. Subd. 3, Paragraph 3, Item C: Required acreage for site is not
enough. enough
Item D: "350 feet" (in reality, 250 feet)
lake shore frontage is not enough.
It should be t mile.
Item F-l: Docks should be constructed no
closer than 2Q. feet ... from side lot line.
Item F-2: Review the matter of allowing docks
to extend 200 feet into lake.
Item G-4: 15 feet from side lot line is too
close for storage of boats, etc.
Item G-5: 15 feet from side lot line is too
close for stacking of boats.
Permit should take into consideration density standards and conditions in
lake in front of facility~ Take a vote of residents in area of facility.
There seems to be only. marina facilities addressed in this Recreational Zone.
How can it be called Recreational District with no reference to golf courses,
riding stables, tennis clubs. etc.?
Why is there minimum number of boats required? Why two story limit to
buildings? How is high water mark defined? Why is this restricted to
Lake Minnetonka?
Council should strike the conditional permitted use of "yacht club" from
the R-l zone in Ordinance No. 77.
Lack of good ordinances causes more problems than does a good ordinance.
Conditions of marinas around lake (most of which are located in residen-
tial areas) are deplorable. There is no control over their appearance
and conditions of operations. This would be an innovative ordinance
that would be a guide line for other cities.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Kehoe's have been consulted because they have the only large marina in
Shorewood and therefore can give counsel on the basis of their experience.
Public Hearings are the method whereby governmental bodies hear the con-
cerns and questions of the people. However, informally there has been
input from many different groups. No one got everything they wanted in
this ordinance.
This ordinance is necessary because there is much undeveloped land in
Shorewood. Requests are coming to build on it (mostly residential areas)
and some involves lake access. The council wants to anticipate these
situations and be ready with a protective ordinance that provides proper
controls. (There are none on Lake Minnetonka as evidenced by the fact
.
.
.
Shorewood Planning Commission
R-Rec Public Hearing - 2/10/77
Page 3
that almost all the marinas on Lake Minnetonka are in residential areas
and many of them show a definite lack of any kind of governmental controls.
Therefore, the counoil assigned the Planning Commission the task of
developing a Recreational Zone in a Residential Area.
Planning Commission has primarily directed its attention to marinas in this
draft because that is the type of facility that is coming before the ooun-
cil for consideration. It is important to have something ready as a
base to build from and provide for current requests. . The Planning Com-
mission could not take on other recreational facilities beoause that
task could take months, even years. They will have to be developed in
the future.
In the R-l zone of Ordinance 17 there is the possibility of a Conditional
Permi tted Use being granted to a "Yaoht Club" that requires only 4/5' s
vote of the Council for approval. There are no requirements of signifi-
cance to protect the residents near such a facility.
Do not consider marinas in connection with this ordinance. Deal with
the Ordinance alone. Does it protect residents and their property enough?
Are there other concerns the planning commission should know about? That
is the kind of information the Planning Commission seeks at this type
of hearing.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Watten closed the Publio Hearing at 9:45 p.m.
The Planning Commission will next meet on Thursday, March 3, 1911.
Submitted by,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
SHOREWOOD
.
DATE: ~h7
tR~ e-:. ... ~ j- .
,1X~~ ~
~~ ~ r~~.
,- . ~
fr1:~T~.
~ ~~;;~0
~ . .
e
e
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: PARK CODISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 3/3/77
The Council is planning on adopting an ethics
ordinance whose provisions would affect you in
your servioe to Shorewood.
They would like you to read the proposed ordinanoe
(attached) and forward to them your opinions or
suggestions regarding such an ordinanoe.
They will be taking this up at the March
meeting.
~A
.{,
e
e
e
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - MARCH 3, 1977
A special meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on Thursday,
March 3, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. at the Minnewashta Elementary School. Presiding
was Vern Watten, chairman. Also in attendance were Commissioners J. Brecke,
J. Cole, S. Larson, F. Reese, K. Stover and Councilwoman J. Haugen. Jerome
Miller was unable to be present due to winter storm.
.
Jane Cole moved, K. Stover seconded, to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of January 13, 1977, and the Public Hearings on Boulder Bridge (1/27/77)
and the Recreational-Residential Zone (2/10/77). Motion carried unanimously.
Two items on the agenda were consideration of the amendment to Ordinance #77,
commonly referred to as the "Recreational Zone" and the Boulder Bridge develop-
ment proposal. Chairman suggested that because of inclement weather conditions,
that discussion and vote be taken only on the R-Rec Zone and that some time be
allowed for discussion of the Boulder Bridge proposal. There were no objections
from commission members or audience.
Chairman called upon commissioners for their findings on the R-23: Recreational
Zone in a Residential Area.
Steve Larson: Referred to his statement of November, 1975. Continues to feel
this is an ordinance of "spot" zoning according to the definition;
it is an invasion and intrusion into residential property; it repre-
sents a breech of the current zoning ordinance; the way it is
written, there is more to it than a device for launching boats-
for water-harboring facilities; it is premature in that there
is no coordination with other municipalities around the lake.
If it is passed, these items need to be examined: wintertime
use; overnight stay; is it to be taxed as residential or
commercial; elimination of set-ups in private club.
His recommendation would be to vote no on this amendment.
.
Jane Cole:
.
Wishes to respond to comments made at Public Hearing and reported
in minutes. Also referred to Tonka Bay's newly passed marina
ordinance.
In reply to Public Hearing comments and questions:
1. Where are neonle who want this ordinance? People who favor
something ordinarily feel government officials are handling matters
for them. Those who are opposed to something are generally the
ones who show up at hearings, etc. Those who are for something
generally do not show up.
2. Changes have been made nrimarily to the advantage of commercial
interests only. Changes have been made for residents' interests
as much as for commercial interests. Consider the fact that at
the present time Ordinance #77 allows as a conditional permitted
use in an R-l zone a "yacht club". There are no significant controls
that can be exercised. It is a very loose, very dangerous situation
and the things that have been put into this R-Rec Zone are to protect
residential properties.
Shorewood Planning Commission - 3/3/77
Minutes - page 2
Jane Cole (contd.)3. If 'Oro'Oerty owners are going to have access to lake. there
must pe a limit as to how far back from the shore a 'Oro'Oerty
owner can give access to the lake. This referred to the Boulder
Bridge development. That comes under PURD regulations. There
are very definite criteria that would control lakeshore useage.
4. Revise footage downward. allowing docks to gO 200' into lake.
That is an IMCD regulation. Individual applications would be
heard at a public hearing and would be considered by the city
council for each request.
5. Planning Commission should take note of: comments on removing
set""llps from pennitted uses; there should be maximum number of
these types of facilities per "x" number of miles of shoreline;
boat density standards on lake in front of proposed facility;
strike "yacht club" as allowable conditional use in R-l zone.
Statement: She feels that there is a need for a good ordinance
to cover proper controls of a marina operation, at the same time
allowing the marina operators to work in a manner that is econo-
mically feasible.
.
Kristi Stover:
.
Frank Reese:
Vern Watt en:
Jerry Brecke:
.
We DO need a marina ordinance. Because Shorewood has significant
miles of lakeshore, there will be requests for marina facilities
now and in the future. We need to have something to go by. There
is little in the way of precedent for this type of ordinance, so
it has been difficult to develop, but it must be developed and
proposed.
Believes lake is public body of water and should be available
to all Shorewood residents and not just those people "lucky"
enough to live on the lake.
Under present ordinances, conditional use is not adequate to
control a marina operation, which is a sufficiently different
use from all other uses. Hopefully, this ordinance would provide
mandatory and necessary controls for this particular use.
Agreed with Steve Larson's statement of a year and a half ago
that this ordinance was premature. Quality of life and environment
around lake are delicate matters to control. Because other cities
on the lake do what they want through council decisions, didn't
feel Shorewood could make much difference in contributing signifi-
cant controls. At this time believes that Shorewood and the entire
lake area will experience a significant demand for development and
we are going to need a device for controlling it. This is a
foresighted control device.
Also, Lake Minnetonka is a public lake and people around the lake
should have access to it.
Feels that Shorewood's ordinance (proposed) is better designed to
control marinas and regulate individual requests for marina facilities.
Would vote to recommend passage of the R-Rec Zoning Ordinance.
Pressure for proposals for development that will come forward in
the future should be (and probably should have been) dealt with.
This ordinance is a better ordinance than the most recently published
one. A conditional use permit is not geared as well as this ordi-
nance is for potential problems and projects that may arise.
Would vote to recommend the adoption of the ordinance.
.
.
***
.
Shorewood Planning Commission - 3/3/77
Minutes - page 3
The commission then took up the item of set""llps in a private club. Because liquor
is used on many boats on the lake, it is a reality to have to deal with. This would
provide some means of control. The provision of a public hearing for each individual
application and a special 4/5ths vote of the council to allow, provides for a thorough
discussion of each particular situation.
Further items discussed: side set-back for docks; change reference to codes; location
of gasoline dispensing equipment; hours of operation; provision for security; winter
time uses; overnight stay; property taxes.
Winter recreational use: No action taken
Overnight stay on boats: No action taken
K. Stover moved, Reese seconded that in the written addendum to the site plan the appli-
cant shall state the method of maintaining security on the premises. Motion
passed 5 to 1. Larson, Cole, Stover, Reese and Watt en voting aye; Brecke voting
nay.
Stover moved, Larson seconded, that included in the written addendum to the site
plan, the applicant should list the proposed hours of operation. Motion carried
unanimously.
Larson moved, Cole seconded, to strike the item dealing with set""llps in a private
club. Motion lost. Voting aye: Cole and Larson; nay: Brecke and Watt en and"abstain-
ing: Reese and Stover.
***
Planning Commission wishes the Council to take note of this division of opinion and
the prolonged discussion about set""llps reported elsewhere in these minutes.
Reese moved, Stover seconded, that the side set-back in the water for slips be in-
creasf'd from 20' to 50'. Motion lost. Voting aye: Reese and Stover; nay: Larson,
Cole, Watten and Brecke.
Planning Commission alerts the council to this division of opinion regarding the
set-backs for docks and that they take this under consideration in light of the
health, safety and welfare of near-by residents.
Reese moved, Watten seconded, that on Page 3- Item 3-E the words ''Minnesota State
Building Code and ~1innesota Energy Code" be stricken and that "all other applicable
codes" be inserted. Motion passed. Voting aye: Brecke, Watt en , Stover and Reese.
Abstaining: Larson.
Reese moved, Watt en seconded, that on page 8, after Section 4, to include a new
Section 5 which reads:
"Section 18, Subdivision 3, Clause D shall be amended by striking
words "yacht club". Renumber the remaining sections.
Motion passed nanimously.
Cole moved, Stover seconded, to delete words "privately sponsored" from Subdivision 1
Purnose, Line 2. Motion carried unanimously.
Cole moved, Reese seconded to delete "/or" and make'hlailing address" plural in Item lA,
#20, to read "name of owner and manager and their mailing addresses". Motion carried
unanimously.
.
.
.
Shorewood Planning Commission - 3/3/77
Minutes - page 4
Cole moved, Reese seconded, that on page 3, No. 3-G, to change the word "required"
at the end of the sentence to "requested". Motion carried unanimously.
Cole moved, Reese seconded, that because our current zoning ordinance provides too
loosely for the introduction into the community and the regulation thereafter of
water-harboring facilities, that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
Council that Ordinance #77 be amended to include the entire document, commonly
referred to as the Residential-Recreational Zone, draft dated 2/10/77, as amended
at Planning Commission meeting of 3/3/77, copies of which are attached to this
recommendation. Motion carried 5 to 1. Voting aye: Cole, Stover, Reese, Watt en
and Brecke; voting nay: Larson.
Chairman instructed secretary to record the action and transfer recommendation to
the City Council.
###
Discussion of the Boulder Bridge developnent was then taken up.
Chairman Watt en reported the Planning Commission had met the previous Saturday on
the property in question with the developers and "walked the site."
Discussion ensued regarding the actual number of feet of lake shore in the proposal.
Mr. Dick Larson stated that if Mr. Little's lot is included in the proposal, there
would be 1400 feet of lakeshore. Mr. Robert Dunn from Woodside Road questioned how
that figure was arrived at--he feels that according to his measuring, the proper
footage would be more like 600'. Councilwoman Haugen and Chairman Watten stated
that if the developers include the Little property in the proposal, that it would
be because they want to do so -- not because any person or commission requested
that they do so. Mr. Larson stated that the developers would be willing to add
this lakeshore frontage if it will allow the proposal to be approved.
Planning Commission agreed to meet with nearby residents in the early part of the
coming week. The Planning Commission also agreed to meet in regular session on
March loth and take up the Boulder Bridge proposal again at that time and vote on
their recommendation.
Meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
.... .. fu. "-~ ~.. ~ ..x.l,..... ? c. .:... ~hcv..y.d.- :x.o ~'..'........cl:h
~Cl.M. d- \..o\A..JL. ",... ,~~ "c,J:..~, ,~~ '." ":'&', - .
, , )'\ O"'\.~~~ - ,'~clA,A..u.)\v.:~h
. ,
w-<<- ~ do 0 l-..() ~ ~ u.A..A.. ,~~\.Q...Q...IY\cl.. - ()..Md- ~~~ ~
~ "1 J.-o.Md.. .....-. ~ ~~~"";~~~..
..:tk; ~~ ~ o..A.L.c;,..; "-""" ~:J- -.x..1...... P Ll 'R 1) --..~ . 01
(X..\u.. q~~ O"\.o......M.~-....c..- a..M.d- ~~ 6)r. "~" . ,
~ rl -.1.=\:.... ,-,-,,",-0.. "r ~ ~ ~ c:L ....... ~.,~
0. ~ ~....Q.. .... ..Q-A>-""; o.Jl~..x. b..-o...J...o..A) .. --- d->>d.-...bt .::IJu.:.
~' ~~ -:
~~~
~ ~ o...'f~a ~ ~ .:)'.;0", ~ '1'--0, ~ 15"'- ~o..M.X.
~ ~ ...,';.Lh::l..lv... "~\ ~"''''-C ~. '" ~\".::Uu.-
~ ~ ~..L>.-.l. ~..;....'\ .:L4 ......L...A....... ~."""<"'\i .......1: "':... ...
~ ~ "t.l.,~"~ h ~b~ .........x=c...... ..,~,~,._~t,,'^~'
\ -----",.":"\ \ '" '
. .,.', ,,' " . ',"','-,
'(\~0...S2, b-\-~~ ~,,-C"--- ~~ 'o,-t.~', ,~~ o....~o...~"
Vv:. ...::c~' ...Lo..k (~h ...:iJu,..' JL4~ .;;L"-~ ~ ~~ o..:.t'~ LAJ:>,;c'; '<:1
.~ .x:~J~ ~~. ~ .ct.. ~ &u- ~ ~ .:Cl.. .j
~ :J ~ ~ ~. ..;..... : \...""-". ~ '\ .<> ~: . - "i I.-.J.a o-O.~ """,-t:.
1" - "\ . ~cI...A- "'- ~~\ k...u...
~
;;r (Y\~.:Lo ,J\.L~OL ~ of 5:..10.>
~'Y'- ~~ ~........J.. I "";";:'h ~ ~~. -
.~ ~ "--'~~ .~.r~~ J.;o.(>.....,~.
-\r.;<:..\..o... ~ .:...Sl. -:La ~cLJ. ....
(~)
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - MARCH 10, 1977
The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met in regular session on Thursday,
Maroh 10, 1977, at Minnewashta Elementary School. Chairman Watten called the meeting
to order at 7:50 p.m. Present were members J. Brecke, S. Larson, F. Reese, and
K. Stover. Absent were J. ,Cole and J. Miller.
Brecke moved, Reese seconded to defer approval of the minutes of the meeting of
3/3/77 on the R-Reo Zone to the Maroh 24th meeting. Motion oarried unanimously.
First item on the agenda was the Boulder Bridge Development PURD proposal by Tom
Wartman and Mr. and Mrs. Duane Little (represented by Dick Larson, planner and
architect) for land located at the west end of Shorewood, bounded on the south and
east by Smi thtown Bay Road and Howard's Point Road.
Chairman Watten stated that reports from the engineer, attorney and planner were in
the hands of the members, plus minutes of the informational meetings,and the Publio
Hearings. The planning commission had met with the developers and the neighbors
on two separate occasions; and a letter from near-by residents was filed at oity
hall.
Planning Commission members suggested' the following items needed to be examined:
(1). What would be the impact on the lake of 46 docks? (2) Does this proposal con-
form to the purpose and intent of the PURD zone? Does PURD require cluster housing
or is it just desirable? (3) What is the appropriate sequence of approval between
the Shorewood Counoil, the LMCD, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Department of
Natural Resources, etc.? (4) Does "common land" have the same connotation as
"open space" and does the use of common land by 46 owners entitle them to lake shore
access? (5) What is intended for Woodside Road cul de sac: and will there be
unauthorized use of road from Smithtown Road to Duane Little's house for public
access to lake? (6) The "funneling concept" - allowing back lots access to lake
through commonly owned land on the lake.
Chairman Watten directed discussiOn to issues raised.
1. Impact on Smi thtown Bay of 46 docks.
Dick Larson, PURD planner, reported there are 725' of la,keshore property
listed in the PURD proposal.
Watten commented that if there were 1000' of shoreline, Shorewood zoning
and LMCD standards would allow one dock per 100 feet of shoreline up to
four boats per dock, which would allow up to 40 boats in an ordinary R-l
zone. (A citizen commented that Shorewood ordinance requires a house on
a lot to justify a doCk in R-l zone.)
Information from LMCD director indicates that the lagoon on this property
has been, and can beat optimum high water level, a navigable body of water
and is countable as feet of shoreline. The shoreline can't be distrupted
except to remove collected silt. (Developers plan to request maintenance
dredging of the north side of the lagoon.)
There are 8-9,000 boats on Lake Minnetonka (marinas, homes, etc.). Hennepin
County Water Patrol has taken a census of boats since 1969. Average useage
of those 8-9000 boats is 5%. On an exceedingly heavy day, it can go up to
3<>%. Highest boat count ever taken on lake is 1300. 5% of 46 boats is
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March lO, 1977 ~ page 2
is 2.+ boats - 30% is l3-l4 boats. Not every boat owner gets out every day.
LMCD does not restrict use in a "oritical" bay area. Have deolared some b83's
as "quiet water areaslt - in those areas attempting to limit high speed boats
and water skiing.
Already, they are limiting water skiing to 150' from shoreline and attempting
to oontrol use of high speed boats by reducing allowable M.P,H. to 40 during
day and 30 at night. Discourages people from buying high powered boat. They
hope to reduoe those speeds even more in the future. If these controls oome
to pass, there will be slower traffic on the lake than we anticipate at this
time.
Disoussion ensued as to what is the allowable relationship between land and
dockage under the Shorewood zoning ordinance (Sec. II, Subd. 7, Item c)
City Planner (Nason-Wehrman) is of the opinion that this proposal "does not
appear to oonform to the stated purpose of the PURD section but instead uses
the PURD seotionto take inordinate advantage of lake faoilities."
City Attorney: "If a PURD site located off the lake shore oanaddress itself
to recreational areas which inolude swimming po.ols, tennis courts, jogging
tracks, baseball field, it would appear that a PURD adjacent to the waters of
Lake Minnetonka would properly address itself to boat dockage and lake acoess."
Ed Abramson: If it is considered desirable that more people have aocess to
lake, that issue should be addressed. PURD is designed to encourage enhanoe-
ment of site charaoteristics. This property has unique feature-shoreline.
This property is zoned R-l where there are restrictions to use of lake by
property owner. Iii this PURD proposal for use of lakeshore and lake aocess
through use and ownership by 46 lot owners of common land on lake in keeping
with the prinoiples and intent behind the PURD ordinance? If this principle
is aooepted, then many other properties along the lake could provide the same
kind of aocess, but that is contrary to intent of ordinanoe. The question
of encouraging use rather restraint is the crucial question.
Swimming beach and this amount of dookage would be incompatible. There is
a definite safety faotor involved.
2. Does this plan conform to purpose and intent of PURD?
A. Flexibility in land development: In this proposal the plans are for single
family dwellings on individual lots.
PURD's are sometimes developed because higher density is intended or beoause
a land oharacteristic wants to .be preserved, or common land used to take advan-
tage of site characteristics. This may not be an effioient layout because
there would be no saving in installation of munioipal services and utilities.
PURD flexibility allows putting home in right plaoe and common area (lake use)
in another area.
Diok Larson: Planner's design criteria were first of all to save natural
features of the site: existing roads; large old trees; hedge row; certain
buildings and trail system. Other reason for developing large lots with single
family homes is that the money climate is more available for single family
homes than for any other type of development.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COQISSION MIWTES
March 10, 1977 - page 3
B. Variety of housing. etc. Not known.
.
Dick Larson: See PURD Subd. 4, Paragraph B: "A PURD which only 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 approval."
F. Reese: Where homes are not clustered or attached, it is not imperative to
know type of housing. Where houses are attached, it would be more important
for Planning Commission to see that they are in harmoD3 with each other and
with homes in neighborhood.
C. Professional people used to brin~ about higher standards: Criteria met.
D. Preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics: See A above.
r. Spatz:
dwelling?
Does PURD state that the mansion is to be used as multi-family
What are plans for connecting to utilities?
T. Wartman: Multiple use existed prior to his residence there. He has removed
partition in the middle and he, his brothers, and friends live together there.
They plan to connect to sewer.
3. Appr.opriate sequence of approval between Council, LMCD, MCWD, DNR, etc.
.
LMCD and MCWD make their decisions dependent on city council's approval.
City council would be subject to DNR decision to approve or not approve dredging
permi t .
4. Discussion of "common &rea" vs. "open space" and appropriate use.
Dick Larson stated that the common area near lagoon-would provide access to
docks - there would be no designated courts or formalized facilities located
there. There would be trail systems around the pond and out&~perimeter; use
of barn for stabling 5-6 horses; tenni.s and other racquet game courts would
be constructed.
Steve Larson: A PURD is to provide more efficient and effective use of land,
open space and facilities. Statement was made-previously: lake is a public
facility. Finds "facility" is defined as something you build to provide a
service or convenience. Not sure that open space is a public facility that
applies to the lake. . This connotes a park. He feels term "common land" does
not connote the same idea and the term has been introduced into these dis-
cussions and is not a legit~mate term from this ordinance. Doesn't feel
phrase "open space" and "public facilitt" can be applied to this proposal's
"common land" usage.
Frank Reese: Open space can involve non-use or intensive use. Open space
can be m~sh, heavy woods which can be left in a natural state to enjoy as a
unique element of the site and cluster houses so those areas remain intact.
Or, it can be put into trails, courts, frontage on the lake and the open
space would be subject to more intensive use.
. Common usage area can be located anywhere in development even if it is located
on public street and be available for the exclusive use of PURD residents
(e.g. Amesbury).Refer to Sub. 7, Paragraph B.
.
.
.
SHOREWooD PLANliING COQISSION MINUTES
March 10, 1971 - page 4
5. Preoedent of funnelling lots off lake to acoess through comparatively
small frontage on shoreline.
It may or lIlay not be a detrilllental preoedent set. Nearest home will be 600'
from shoreline and the lake shore still will give a view of uninterrupted trees
and vegetation from lake. (In this oase, there would be the matter of all
those docks on the lake.)
6. What about Woodside Road and will the road to Little' s house from Smi thtown
be used as public access?
Dick Larson: Plans to move Woodside oul de sac to the north will be dropped if
residents. want the present arrangement to remain. There would be noplans to
connect Woodside to Boulder Bridge roads. Road ooming from Smithtown to Littles,
at the request of the oity, would be dedioated to the oity and they would do
everything needed to prevent it being used as public aooess.
Frank Reese: All other issues in this proposal oan be aooepted or accommodated
but the issue of boat density remains unsolvable at this point. PURD requires
that developer sign a oontract with the oity and thus the city is more able
to control the development than in a single family subdivision development.
There are benefits in this proposal and it comes down to trade-offs. The devel-
opers, instead of proposing 69 dwellings as they could, or even higher density,
than a PURD allows. They came in with 46 lots-a reduotion in density by a
third. (Precedent: In Amesbury it was deoided that up to 10% higher den.sity
than zoning allowed, would be an "insignifioant" increase.) Therefore, asking
for 16 lots would not be out of order. Because they are enhanoing development
with tennis oourts, stables and other signifioant features, that density oould
have been made more aoceptable. Here, then, there could2~e flexibility as far
as boats are oonoerned.
By oode-with 1250' of lakeshore, you could put in 12 dOCks, eaoh dock oould
have four slips for a total of 48 slips if individual lots. But by no stretch
of the ordinanoe oan this be used as rationale for allowing 46 boats for this
development. It means l2-l4 docks, period. Flexibility of PURn would allow
dook owner to live some distanoe away, for instanoe. It would mean one family
per dock; 14 docks spaced a 100'apart. That would fit into PURD flexibility
philosophy.
It is a fine development proposal.
At this time there were four oommission members present. Consensus of those
members was that they would like to have the whole oommi.ssion vote on the
recommendation. Chairman closed the discussion. Reese moved, Brecke seconded,
to olose all discussion on this proposal and hold off voting on this matter
until next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, Maroh 24ft. Motion
oarried unanimously.
Motion made and oarried to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned 10:20 p.m.
Respeotfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rioe, Seoretary
.
.
.
SHOREWooD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - Maroh 24, 1977
The Shorewood Planning Commission met on Maroh 24, 1911, at Minnewashta Elemen-
tary School. Chairman Watten called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Also
present were J. Brecke, J. Cole, K. Stover and Council member J. Haugen.
J. Miller arrived later. Absent were F. Reese and S. Larson.
Brecke moved, Cole seconded, to approve minutes of the meetings of March 3rd
and March 10th as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Jim Dutcher appeared before the commission to discuss his proposal to build 15
two-unit dwellings on property located at 23575 Smithtown Road ( A. S. 135, Part
of Lot 213) presently zoned R-5 and R-4.
After oonsiderable discussion, the planning commission instructed Mr. Dutcher to
return with a proposal calling for fewer housing units-- a number more in keeping
with the wquare footage requirements; topographical data that is acourate; data
required in Subdivision ordinanoe; and a report from Hennepin County Highway
Department about ingress and egress of this development onto Highway 19.
Next item was Boulder Bridge Development proposal. Vern Wa~ten reported a oonver-
sation with the oity attorney that indicates even if this proposal is approved
as is, that there are still a number of procedures to be worked out with develop-
er, e.g., contract to be made with city, required bonding oertified, staging
specified, etc. It will be some period of time before all details are taken
care of (if project is passed).
J. MILLER: Weighed the positive features of adding 46 fine homes to the city tax
rolls as over against the negative features of funnel ling 46 lots down through
aooess on the one lake shore lot and the effect it would have on nearby neighbors
and on lake density. He feels he must vote against reoommending the proposal as
it was submitted. Cannot divorce oonsideration of land use from proposed lake
use. This is the way the proposal was submitted.
KRISTI STOVER: Submitted a written oomment of her "findings" (attached).
J. BRECKE: The proposed use of the open spaoe (common area) is still controversial
as well as the extensive lakeshore use proposal and therefore he would not
recommend this proposal for adoption. Will submit written statements of his findings.
J. COLE: It is a planning commission's obligation to do planning for counoil--to
give them counsel from which to work.
Personally would like everybody who wants to, to be able to use the lake. Have con-
sulted with other communities at the Smithtown Bay area where multiple dwellings
will and have come in.
This land use is as excellent a plan as we are going to be presented with. Open
space does not seem to be a problem. However, lake use is. It has a unique feature-
the lagoon--which would be a desirable plaoe to harbor boats.
V. WAT'l'EN: Should this remain a straight R-l or can it be a PURD? PORn offers a
variety to area that is desirable. PURD would be allowable in this area. Open
spaces where a number of activities can be accommodated are planned. Council
should decide the Lake usage--proper number of boats allowable. Boat dookage
should be restricted to lagoon and on lake shore limited to what R-l requirements
would allow.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - Maroh 24, 1911
Page 2
Jane Cole moved. K. Stover seoonded. to reoommend approval of the Boulder Bridge
PURD conoept with land use aooepted as proposed, and to reoommend that the lake
usage be oonfined to whatever number of dooks are allowable in lagoon by LMCD
and that outer lake shore dockage be limited to single family R-l residenoe
requirements. Motion passed 3 to 2. Aye: Watten, Stover, Cole, Nay: Brecke,
Miller.
Vern Watten deolared that it would take at least four votes in order to be a
valid (by the ordinance) reoommendation to the oounoil. The seoretary was in-
struoted to reoord the aotion and advise the oity oounoil thereof.
K. Stover informed members that Task Foroe of the South Shore planning oommissions
will meet Thursday, Maroh 31st at the Exoelsior Congregational Churoh Library.
Motion made and passed to adjourn meeting.
Submitted by,
SHIRLEY J. RI CE, Seoretary
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO:
DATE: 4/8/77
To: Planning Commission
Vern asked me to poll you all about responding
to Jan Haugen's suggestion that the oounoil meet
with you about the Recreational Zone.
Four of you said "yes"
One said "OK"
One said "No"
One - No reply
On that basis Vern will oontaot Jan8:>out meeting
with you on Thursday, April 14th at 7:30 p.m. at
Minnewashta Sohool~
Jane Cole also has a proposal she'd like to lay
before you for disoussion.
NOW, for the good news!
Gird your loins for Thursday, April 28th, 7:30 p.m.
Minnewashta School.
. Three Public Hearings.
7:30 p.m. Jim Dutoher - Subdivision proposal for
that land on Smi thtown. He's coming in
for the "maximum number of duplexes allow-
able" in light of the zoning - R-4 and R-5.
8:00 p.m. - Upper Lake Minnetonka Yaoht on Enohanted
Island for Conditional Use Permit in R-l
zone- Dr. Riohard Leavenworth, oommodore.
8:30 p.m.
Shorewood Yacht Club, John Cross, petitioner,
for Conditional Use permit in R-l zone.
..
.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - APRIL 14, 1971
The Shorewood Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, April 14,
+977, at Minnewashta Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Present were Chairman Watten,
and members J. Brecke, J. Cole, S. Larson,J. Miller, F. Reese and K. Stover.
Mayor Frazier and Council members Haugen and Naegele were also present to discuss
communication between the council and planning commission.
Jane Cole presented the outline of a shortened and simplified version of the
former R-Rec zone amendment. Reactions to it varied. She was instructed to
prepare a completed document and bring it to the May 12th meeting for study and
discussion.
Discussion also centered on the need for developing a comprehensive land use
plan together with making time for interviewing planners and incorporating plans for
for use of the lake.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
.
ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM THE MEETING OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL l4, 1971
PRESENT: Frazier; Haugen; Naegele; Watten; Brecke; Cole; Larson; Miller; Reese; Stover
Informal discussion began by airing the feeling on the part of some planning com-
mission members over the lack of communication between the council and planning
commission on the development of the Recreational District. Some felt betrayed
over working many hours on a document that apparently long ago some council mem~
bers felt they couldn't support. Further conversation revealed that planning
commission members as well had not always been comfortable with certain elements
of the amendment, but had felt it was necessary to compromise.
Range of opinion regarding the ordinance went from a denial of need for such a
document,to the desire for an immediate development of guidelines to legitimize
present facilities and imminent ones, to willingness to develop a total recrea-
tional ordinance.
Jan Haugen explained her role as liaison to the P. C. as one of contributing infor-
mation only or clarifying council's position, but never to offer her personal opin-
ion. Council wished to "bend backward" in order to give P. C. free rein to develop
its assignments. J. Miller asked that when the council requests the ~. C. to
take an assignment, that it be accompanied by a written expression of each council-
man's opinions on the matter at that time. Jan was encouraged to express her
opinion in the course of the development of an assignment.
.
Bob Naegele described the role of the P. C. as a group studying the feasibility
of the planning a~~ects of a proposal; whereas, the council should take the politi-
cal heat generated by such proposals.
Concern was expressed over the Council having two more public hearings on the same
matters after the P. C. had conducted its hearings. Frank Reese and Jerome Miller
felt that since new material was seldom revealed at these latter hearings and
since they could only serve to undermine the role and efforts of the P. C., and
since the P. C. minutes were quite thorough, that the public testimony at council
meetings should be limited .to new testimony and that the so-called second reading
should be limited to council discussion on the matter.
Should the Planning Commission try to shift its role from a "reacting" type body
more to a planning-future oriented type body? A great time commitment will be
required until 1980 from members till the Comprehensive Land Use plan is developed
and adopted and approved.
Because she was concerned about the future of Kehoe's Marina in Shorewood, Jane
Cole read from a simplified outline of her proposal for adapting the R and R zone
to be more in line with the original draft of the Ordinance. She asked for reactions
to taking the matter up again. Jerry Brecke was more inclined to work on a total
recreational ordinance. Others, especially Vern Watten, requested her to put her
proposal into a more complete form and bring to a May meeting for consideration.
The meeting adjourned about 10:30 p.m.
. Submitted by Shirley J. Rice
KELLYAND LARSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT L.AW
311' SECOND STREET
.
WILLIAM F. KELLY
GARY L.ARSON
JOHNC. SANDERS
THOMAS C. HANNON
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA S!$331
AREA CODE 612
474-111177
April 27, 1977
ShorewoodPlanning Commission
Shorewood City Hall
20630 Manor Road
Excelsior, Minnesota. 55331
Gentlemen:
.
You have before you>a.pplications for conditional use permits
applied for by thetJPper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Mr-
Cross in behalf of the.Shorewood Yacht Club.
Tt is the oQligation.of the a.pplicant to presentevj,dence
to justify the request. After the evidence hap been Pre...
sen ted, . it i p the quty.. of the Planning Commj, ssian .tq
determine then iftheevj,denoe, as~resented,eptablished:
t,
1 . That the proposed building or use will not ..
have a substantial Or undue adverse. effeotuPP:n
adjaoent property, . the oharaoter of the neigh-
borhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities
and other matters affecting the public hea.lth,
safety and general welfare, and
2. That the proposed building or Use will be
designed, arranged and operated so as to permit
the development and use of neighboring pro- ..'
perty in aooordance with the applicable. district
regulation.. "
In addition you may.recommend the imposition of additional
oonditions asset forth in ParagraphC, Subdivision 1,
Seotion 7 of the Zoning Ordinanoe.
In addition .sttb-paragraph 8 of Faragraph C , Sub...divi ~iQn 3.. of
Seotion 7, deals with additional information required j,f the
request provides fol:" common open space. .
You have 90 days after filing the request for the oO:nditional
use to file a written reply containing your recommengatj,ons
.
KEL.L.Y AND L~RSON
.
.
Shorewood Planning Commission
April 27, 1977
Page 2
ooncerning the Proposed conditional use.
The Upper Lake Minnetonka Yaoht Club is presently operating
under a special use permit issued to it prior to the adoption
of this ordinanoe. If the applioation for the conditional use
permit is not granted, this yacht olub has aright to continue
to make application for its annual permit under the pre-existing
special use permit. Shorewood Yacht Club is a new organization.
I would be pleased to meet with the Planning Commission at any
time to review with it evidence whioh it has received, or
review any other matter pertaining to the request under Qonsi-
deration.
Yours very truly,
KEI:~l :CON
Will.i!-am F. Kelly
. ji
.
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: To all property owners DATE: 4/13/71
within 300 feet of the
property described in the
attached notice.
e
e
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 4/27/71
BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON THE UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA
YACHT CLUB SPECIAL USE PERMIT
#####
The Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club in 1969 was
granted a special use permit for boat harbor and
dockage. That has been renewed year ly . (See
copy of original special use permit enclosed.)
In 1972 the resolution stated that the permit was
"renewed for an unlimited time, subject to cancella-
tion if the use is not complied with."
In 1972 Jim Thibault purchased a lot (Lot 18) from
the Yacht Club and built a home there.
In 1976 the Yacht Club requested a change in confiBU-
ration and numbers of docks and buoys. Council autho-
rized it and ultimately it was revealed that the
./~ request was not in complete agreement with the original
special use permit.
The Yacht Club applied for a '77 permit with a request
for a change in configuration and dock numbers. Mr.
Thibault and some nearby residents are protesting
the granting of the license on the grounds that the
Yacht Club has not complied with the terms of the
original agreement.
In view of the complaints by the neighbors, the Council
agreed to call a Public Hearing under the Conditional
Use section - R-l zone - of the new zoning ordinance
dated 1973.
/~-~-
.
,a\
.pl'
e
SHOREWOOD
. MEMO: To all property owners
within 300 feet of the
property described in the
attached notice.
DATE: 4/13/77
e
e
e
.
.
.
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
April 26, 1977
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Shirley,
339 THIRD STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
TELE: 612-474-5233
Enclosed please find 8 copies of a memo to your Planning
Commission as well as 8 copies of the resolution which
will be read (one copy of each for each member and one
copy of each for your files).
Thank you for getting these into the hands
Planning Commission members at such a late
that they may have them in their packets.
of your
date, so
\ .. "t\
~\\ ~\l\\
"
.
.
.
r
~'
~,'
CITY OF EXCELSIOR
339 THIRD STREET
EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331
TELE: 612-474-5233
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
April 22, 1977
MEMO TO: Chairperson and Members of Shorewood Planning Commission
Re: Excelsior Resolution 75-47 on land abutting Gideon's Bay
The City Council of Excelsior, at its April 18, 1977 meeting
reaffirmed Resolution 75-47 copy of which is enclosed. We
would appreciate your permitting our representative, Janice
Hornick, to read a copy of this reaffirmed resolution at your
Planning Commission meeting on April 28, 1977.
Sincerely,
Ci1)p~~
Mayor of Excelsior
RB : ds
,
.
'.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 75-47
~'
WHEREAS, the City of Excelsior, the City of Shorewood and the City
of Tonka Bay surround Gideon's Bay on Lake Minnetonka and the land abut-
ting the bay has historically been used for residential purposes only,
and
. . WHEREAS, the Citizens of the City of Excelsior have brought to the
. attention of the council the fact that consideration is being given by
, i
the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood to a change in the
historical use of the land abutting the bay to the extent that a request
has been made for the use of a parcel of land abutting the bay for marina
purposes, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Excelsior is concerned with
the effect such land use might have upon the waters of Gideon's Bay and
other related matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the pity ,of
Excelsior:
1. Councilman Johnson is requested to represent the City of Excelsio
before the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood and express to .
the Commission the concern and apprehension 'of the Excelsior City Council
in the following matters:
(a) A change, of pattern of land use on Gideon's Bay from resi-
dential to something other than residential use and the effect such change
would have upon residential properties abutting the bay.
(b) Increased boat traffic and its effect upon the waters of
the bay.
(c) The auto traffic problems which could and would be created
by such use served through an access off Highway 19 at or near Studer
Park;. Studer Park being an Excelsior ~ark available for'use by children
of the communities of both Shorewood and Excelsior.
(d) The expression of deep concern felt by the citizens of
Excelsior as to the adverse effect such change would have on their
general quality of life.
Passed unanimously by the c~ty Council of the City of Excelsior on
October 20, 1975.
~e~~
Attest:
Chase Cornelius - Mayor
. .,
....
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
April 28, 1977
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Upper Lake Mtka Yacht C.
Shorewood Yacht Club
Wild Duck-3rd Addition
The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met to hold three public hearings
on Thursday, April 28, 1977, at Minnewashta Elementary School, Chairman Watten pre-
siding. Also present were J. Brecke, J. Cole, S. Larson, J. Miller, F. Reese,
K. Stover and John Sanders of the city attorney's office.
Brecke moved, Stover seconded, to dispense with approving the minutes of the last
meeting and defer it to the next. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Watten opened the Public Hearing on the request for a Conditional Use permit
by the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club on property described as Lots 1 and 2, En-
chanted Park, Enchanted Island. He made note that there was on file at city hall
a certified copy of the published legal notice and that public hearing notices had
been sent to all property owners within 300' of the Yacht Club property. State-
ments from the proposers, from residents, and reports from the attorney and engineer
are also on file.
Dick Putnam, Cas co Point Road, Orono, Vice Commodore of the Upper Lake Minnetonka
Yacht Club, reviewed the history of the Club, which was originally granted a special
use permit in 1969. It is dedicated to sport of sailing, racing being an integral
part of their activities, and is not a commercial facility. Having started with
an undeveloped piece of land, they feel it has become an asset to the area because
they try to keep it in a park-like manner and have made it available to nearby resi-
dents to use during the week. No buildings at present, but they hope to construct
a 1200-1600 square feet summer type building in the future. They are looking for
40 parking spaces and would seek to control the influx of traffic by requiring car
pooling of its members. Drainage this spring was a problem and they intend to work
with residents and city to correct it. Because of the difference in boats used
now as over against in 1969, they need to request change in facilities and would
also like to enlarge the dockage. They are seeking a conditional use in an R-l
zone as permitted in Section 18, Subd. 3 of Ordinance No. 77.
Carol Rascop, Enchanted Island, (neighbor to Club) read a statement by Jim Thibault,
the neighbor on the other side. She listed areas where it was felt the Yacht Club
had deviated from the terms of the Special Use Permit:
No mooring of boats beyond 9:00 p.m. In some cases boats were moored
overnight.
Buoys remained in all winter.
Yacht Club did not get building permit to construct parking area and
it is not a dust-free surface.
Conflict of interest represented in ~w. Jack Chandler who is a member
of the Club and was on the Council when they voted to approve the
Special Use permit.
Even though new zoning ordinance was passed in 1973 which allows for a
yacht club in an R-l zone under a conditional permitted use, the Yacht
Club did not come in under that provision for any of the intervening
years.
Other residents speaking to problems raised by the Yacht Club in that area were:
Bill Ringsred, o. B. Lund, Helen Tollefson, Robert Rascop, Jim Kimball, all of
Enchanted Island. Matters of concern were:
1.
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
April 28, 1977 - page 2
There have been some serious abuses by yacht club members of the
rights that sailboats have over power boats; however, would prefer
to work out compatible solution.
Club not a bad thing, but there is concern over tendency of the
club to expand and that results in increasing congestion near the
channel.
Heavy and fast car traffic on the road on weekends is hazardous.
With the proposed new configuration of docks, there are fears that
the departure and return of boats will intrude upon the swimming
and boating area of the neighbor to the left and be a hazard.
It is not too logical to allow more boats/dockage on less lakeshore:
600 feet of lakeshore in 1969; 220 feet in 1977.
There is a discrepancy in lot lines as shown by the Club and that
in possession of residents.
Enforcement of conditions of Special Use Permit has not been diligent.
Who is responsible?
Jan Hornick of Excelsior City Council read their Resolution 77-1 passed recently by
them declaring a moratorium on allowing any new dockage on Lake Minnetonka because
of the absence of Hennepin County Water Patrol in policing the lake and she en-
courages the same attitude to prevail in Shorewood.
Mr. Leavenworth, ~w. Putnam, Dr. Soderberg and Mr. Chandler responded to the
points raised regarding the violations noted in Mr. Thibault's letter.
.
Mr. Ringsred offered to host a meeting at his home to try to work out a compatible
arrangement between residents and Yacht Club members.
Chairman Watten closed the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.m.
The Public Hearing on the request of Shorewood Yacht Club, John Cross, petitioner~
for a conditional use of property located on Gideon's Bay, A. S. 135, Parcel A, B,
and C, next to Minnetonka Dredging. Chairman Watten reported the official publi -
cation of the legal notice, the notices sent to all property owners within 300' of
the site, engineer's and attorney's reports were on file at city hall.
Bruce Thompson, attorney for John Cross, presented the case for the Shorewood Yacht
Club and reviewed the history of their original request for rezoning from 2t years
ago to the defeat of the Rand R zoning ordinance.
The Shorewood Yacht Club is to be a non-profit corporation, a family sailing type
of organization, limited to sailboat owners, to be run by a board of directors
who would lease the facility from John Cross. ~~ey have submitted with this request
a comprehensive proposal that incorporates many of the requirements of the R & R
zone. Shorewood's planner find the site to be a "very viable site" for a yacht
club. They have solicited opinions regarding various requirements from the State
of Minnesota EQC, the Department of Natural Resources, U. S. Corps of Engineers,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
They have secured access from Highway 19 over the railroad tracks; hence, will
not have to go through residential area. There is a dredging company to the east
of the property and vacant property to the west and commercially used property to
the south.
.
.
.
.
SHORE WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
April 28, 1977 - page 3
The following citizens asked questions or made statements: Bob Chapman, Shorewood;
Cathy Sackrison, Tonka Bay; Bob Zalk, lawyer for Gideons Bay Association; Vern
Haug, Tonka Bay; Jan Hornick, council member from Excelsior; Susan Reid, council
member from Tonka Bay; Curran Nielson, Shorewood; Irving Turner, Shorewood; Gordon
and Mary Ann Hall, Shorewood; Linn Cowles, Excelsior; Ken Miller, Tonka Bay; Carol
Johnson, Tonka Bay; Gregg James, Shorewood; Dave Benway, Excelsior; Mike Arvidson,
Shorewood; Mary Bagdons, Shorewood; John Gilbertson, Excelsior-Shorewood; Paul
Stiller, Shorewood.
Concerns can be summarized as follows: Questions if there is a need for Environ-
mental Impact Statement; Tonka Bay has passed an ordinance that really governs
marinas; this represents a changing pattern of land use that is detrimental to
properties around; increased boat traffic on Gideon's Bay; auto traffic on Highway
19 will exacerbate an already critical situation; seeking proof of financial res-
ponsibility and ownership of project; use of auxiliary motors on boats and their
effect; noise pollution; lack of respect shown for environment by non-lake shore
owners; lack of restrictions listed in ordinance for conditional use; expansion
of grandfathered marinas; shallowness of Gideon's Bay makes it unsuitable for
this boat traffic; traffic in and out is a hazard; storage of boats is an eyesore.
Bob Zalk statement: This is an R-l area. Ordinance does not include definition
of yacht club -- needs to be spelled out; Ordinance 77 spells out definitely per-
missable lakeshore usage in a residential area, which is contrary to proposal
request; inclusion of wetlands in total acreage is not allowed in ordinance; is
parking area drainage adequately planned for; undue adverse effect upon character
of neighborhood cannot be decided by the "battle of appraisalsl1; how is it to be
owned or financed? Who are the owners? What is John Cross's interest? Who will
be responsible for conduct of facility? Boat density policy includes two categories:
one category includes both power boats and sailboats--racing sailboats would have
a significant usage and this would move bay area into critical rating as far as
density is concerned; this marina would be the third largest on the lake; what
is actual depth of channels; the dredging facility should not become a pivotal
guidepost for that area.
Bruce Warner, Shorewood; Harvey Schneider, Bloomington, a potential member of the
Yacht Club; Helen Tollefson, Enchanted Island, spoke to the following concerns:
1.) Since many near-by municipalities have dockage for their citizens and since
dockage is almost impossible to find, it is very desirable that dockage and access
to the lake be made available to off-shore Shorewood citizens. 2) Curious as to
how and why it is that the dredg ing company continues its heavy commercial venture
in a residential area as over cgainst encouraging a yacht club. 3) Would appreciate
the opportunity of being a member of the proposed yacht club, to serve on the board
and have privilege of sailing on Lake Minnetonka.
Bruce Thompson responds: definition of yacht club and drainage question is best
addressed by the city engineer and attorney; full disclosure and detailed plans
will be provided at whatever time the council asks for it; channel is 60-80 feet
wide - barge loaded with rocks from IIhnnetonka Dredging makes it through those
channels every day. Facility will be a well run operation. City of Shorewood
should not only provide tennis courts and baseball diamonds, but should also pro-
vide facilities on the lake.
Public Hearing on the conditional use request of Shorewood Y .acht Club was closed,
at 11:00 p.m.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
April 28, 1977 - page 4
Chariman announced that the Planning Commission would make its recommendation on
the requests heard that night at their May 26th meeting.
Next on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Jim Dutcher's request for subdivision
into maximum number of lots allowed on property described as Lot 2l3, A. S. l35,
23575 Smithtown Road, which property is zoned R-4 and R-5. He proposes construc-
tion of l3-15 two family homes on this property. He was advised that 13 lots were
all that would be allowed according to ordinance requirements. All lots, but one
would contain 20,000 square feet, and the other one will have 15,000 square feet.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the proposal subject to require-
ments of the City.
The following residents questioned or commented on the proposal: Paul Stiller,
Shorewood; Gene Patch, Shorewood; Mrs. Mauritz Kronholm, Shorewood; Gordon
Lindstrom, Shorewood.
Comments expressed were: traffic on Highway 19 already hazardous; contended
that zoning on property was changed without adequate notice to citizens; will the
change in contour affect drainage onto nearby property; this is too great a den-
sity to be allowed in Shorewood.
Planning Commission asked if there would be a variety of home styles in the develop-
ment (Mr. Dutcher referred them to his other developments on Shorewood Lane and
Wedgewood Drive); what about water supply (Mr. Dutcher says he'll drill a well for
the first two or three houses and then connect up to city water when it comes
through); how long will it take to build the whole development (2-2* years, hopes
to start first one in August or September).
Public Hearing closed at 12 midnight. Since Mr. George Hansen was not present to
pursue his question of subdivision on Strawberry Lane, it was moved and seconded
to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
e
.
SHOREWOOD
MEMO:
4/28/11
Planning Commission
DATE:
Jerry Brecke asked me to call the LMCD and find
out the increase in docks in Exoelsior Bay for
the last three years. Frank Mixa said that they
have counted boats and slips in the last two
years. Prior to that they counted only slips.
1915
1916
1911
l25 boats and/or
slips
141 boats and/or
slips
l51 boats and/or
slips
4 installations
5 installations
5 installations
Regular seasonal storage 119
Transients (Butoherblock) 38
Frank Mixa also commented that last night the
LMCD amended their ordinances to allow commercial
and municipal docks in a residentia.l area to extend
only to 100 feet. That will make a difference to
both Yacht Club proposals in that Upper Lake Mtka..
Yacht Club proposes a dook 160 feet long and Shore-
wood Yacht Club proposes 4 docks 200 feet long.
.
--
.
.
'SH'OREW()()D
MEMO: Steve
DATE:
5/5/77
Notes from conversation 'With Jeff Nelson, adminis-
trator6fMtnnet!"iSta,wit.h:r:egard to Hoodend Shores.
Jeff reports that they receive no complaints
about Woodend Shores with the exception of
residents on Crane Island several years ago who
complained about their (Woodend) powerful
lighting system. It was moderated. Water Patrol
likes the dockage because it is so well lit that
it can be patrolled effectively. (Jeff reports
that the Water Patrol told him last year was a
banner year for thievery from private docks)
Jeff said that the neighborhood keeps up the common
area very well - "too well" as far as the City is
concerned because they use so much water from a
municipal well located on the outlot cause they
insist on keeping the area green!
There are about 30 houses in the development and
20 docks. Lakeshre frontage is about 100 feet.
Right now the staff and council of Minnetrista are
at odds over multiple docks. Council wants to pro-
hibit it, staff feels they should limit and regulate.
Heteels that cities around the lake should take
the time to identify what really is the problem on
the lake. Is it dockage? Or is it the boats coming
onto the lake from outside on weekends?
In looking ahead and in view of increasing requests
of this nature, will municipalities have to more
and more restrict any private kind of dockage and
only have municipal dockage at intervals along
lake shore?
See legal opinion of counsel for IMCD,attached.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
/'
MEMO
-
TO:
Vern Watten, Chairman
Shorewood Planning Commission
FROM: steve Frazier
Date: May 11, 1977
This is a first attempt to provide you with some informal feedback on planning
issues and general developments within the city.
After reading the Plan.."'1ing Commission minutes of April 28th on the three public
hearings, the council and I want to again thank you for your dedication and tenapity
Wow, that must have been some meeting! Here are some unorganized thoughts about!
issues:
1. UPPER WLKE Mllllf'ET01~ YACHT CLUB At the May 9th Council meeting permission was
granted to the ULMYC to continue their dock usage based on last year's special u~e
permit as an interim procedure until final action on their 1977 Conditional
Use Permit is resolved. The 1976 permit resulted in a growth of 11 boats (30 to
41) both from a lack of communications with the UL~ITC representative and misrepre-
sentation of the club's intentions. Now you are faced with.another request to
enlarge and intensify that facility beyond the 1969 Special Use Permit where the'
square footage has been reduced by half and the complexion of t~e ~ea has becom~
more residential with higher population and boat density. An interesting aspectt
of this request is that the prime movers of the enlargement are the main opponenys
of the residential boat concept at Boulder Bridge.. There appears~o be more than
a little hypocrisy here! This is especially true in light of a formal letter (in-
cluded) from the latv firm of Robins, Davis & Lyons, which has been retained b1
some of the same residents requesting the Conditional Use for th.eUlJ>rrC.
I,
I feel that the UL1~C runs a very nice facility and is making every effort to work
out their difficulties with adjacent residents. However, althoug!l;esthetic consid-
erations are important, it seems to me that your planning function. must also incilude
consideration of the precedents and legal ramifications which would be involved if
you were to recommend the conditional use of the ULMYC as a "yacht club" and its
effect as a precedent on other "yacht club" requests both now an.d in the future.
In conClusion, the council will prObably be divided on the UL~ITC C~nditional Use~
I personally feel that they should keep within the 1969 Special ;Use of 30 boats
with proper revisions which are within the said special useagreem~nt. If legal~ maybe
even stay within the 1976 permit (which I don't think is totally legal). This
would most likely be agreeable with the residents; would probabl'y!)1eet the needs'
of the ULI,ffC; and avert the danger of setting a precedent which world he applicab.le
(in a legal sense) to all future "yacht club" proposals. (P. S. You may desire',
to get some legal advice on this issue in a briefing session with 9urcity attor~ey.
2. SHOREHOOD YACHT CLuB I will vote "noli on a 125 slip marinaitLthat particulf:u'
area.
3. ~lILD DUCK - 3rd ADDITION You will note from the Minnehaha Cre~k Watershed
District (copy included) minutes of April 28th that the board appr?ved the concept
of drainage of Dutcher's Development to either Excelsior orShorew~od. . At the
last council meeting we have directed (by letter) that the drainag~ be to Shorewpod
and suggest that you also require him to do so.
,
" Memo - Vern Watten - page. 2
By the way, in "the same minutes of the ilfCWD did you notice that a}iplication fori
. dredging the Boulder Bridge lagoon (with restrictions) was approved.
4. BOULDER BRIDGE DEVELOP~~T First, the vote of the Planning Commission on the
BBD was a legal vote. A quorum (Sect. 5, Subd 2-C) of the Planning Commission is
five members - to legally conduct business. The concurring vote df the majority
of the members (i.e., three of the five, four of the six, or folU' ;of the seven)
shall be necessary to any action by the Planning Commission." Nowhere in the
ordinance does it say that the planning commission must have at . least a "four" vote
in conducting its business. However, now we are on the verge of a suit (before J
mentioned letter from Robins, Davis & Lyons) based on this very issue. (r. S. ,The
letter is derogatory and condescending to say the least). The whqle hypothesis'
may be legally moot anyway because I believe the Planning Commission had used uR
its 90 days review period and the council had the right tq take ac,tion on the
request (Section 27 - Subd. 5, B-1). A legal opinion will be forthcoming from
the city attorney -- these are my own humble interpretations.
.
Secondly, almost all letters from concerned citizens emphasized the idea that the
BBD would set a precedent for Shorewood and the rest of Lake Minnetor~a. In res-
ponse to this concern, I directed staff to search out any such projects having a
similar development concept. We found at that time that Ba;ycliffe;, Bayview, Chimo,
and Smi thtown Bay Association were similar and at that point had proven to be c.
compatible and successful projects. (Brief description included.) . Then, at the;
public hearing We became aware of an "awful" project called. "Woodend Shores" in'
Minnetrista. Well, after checking it out (see enclosed memo) we f\ound the state-
ment to be factually untrue and misleading. I hope this data is qf value to you as
BBD comes in for final approval. .
5. PRELHIINARY METHOPOLITAN SYSTEMS STATEMENT COMMENT Please find enclosed, if
you have not already r~ceived it, a copy of my letter and comments of the preliminary
systems statement. I know you will be interviewing planners an~ hope that these
comments will be of some help in arriving on a recommendation of a planner.
6. LAKE USE TASK FORCE Lake use problems are overwhelming our:fair city. There
are a lot of other things to do! In response to this the council ~asdesignated
that only at the second council meeting of the month may lakeshore issues be dis-
cussed. Also, the council has directed me to draw up guidelines, ;charges, and
nominate a six person (2 alternates) task force in the developm~nt1 of policies
and procedures involving lake usage. fl'iY recommendations will be r.eady for the
May 23rd meeting of the council. Your ideas are always welcome .
.
co: Jan Haugen
Fra.'1k Kelly
Elsa \iil tsey
steve Frazier
7. WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY A water feasibility study will be pre'sented to the
Council on May 23rd. I have included a rough map of a Phase I system. Again,
you wish to make some informal comments or suggestions, I wouldw<<lcome them.
I hope that this brief review will help in improved informal communications.
.
~
.
SHOR.'DlOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Hay 12, 1m - MINtJ'.rES
The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met in a study session on Thursday,
May 12, 1m, at Himlewashta Elementary School. Vern Watten opened the meeting at
7:55 p.m. with K. Stover and J. Haugen present, S. Larson and F. Reese arriving
later. HayorFrazier was also present. The purpose of the meeting was to interview
representatives from pJ.anni.:Dg ccmpanies who wished to be considered for the post of
city plaming consultant in the developnent of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
ORLlN MILLER - Wehrman-Chapnan Associates
His CCllJlpaIly is an experienced firm of twenty professionals (15 located in Minneapolis)
who offer multi-discip] inary services in pla:n:n:i.ng, engineering, landscape design and
architecture. Their philosophy is to work with councils and plam1:i..ng commissions,
making recommendations, offering alternatives, but formulating a plan thlilt the local
govermental group has decided upon and that they can and. will defend. (Reject the
idea of a consultant's plan!) . .'
They take a positive approach to worki.ng with the Metro Council; they have had exper-
ience in dealing with them in areas of sewer, transportation, and. general metropo-
litan pJanning and. do not find them to be as "cut and. dried" in their approach as some
fear them to be; they want input and. information from local governments to augment
their understanding; feels they can act as a liaison to the Metro staff.
Shorewood very likely needs pla:n:n:i.ng in the areas of housing. transportation, park
and. recreation. land use. public facilities (utilities) and environmenta.limpacts.
Would start with typical research as well as economic research. Propose implemen-
tation of plan through creation of new ordinances (if necessary), modif'ication or
strengthening of old ordinances or policies. '!'hey try to stay away ~ "coloring
book" studies. They strive for policy oriented, lmderstandable and. concise reports.
Q: Have you done much with lake use plam1:i..ng?
A: For several years our firm has worked on an outstate county level for the DIm
in developing policies and ordinances for lake usage involving classification and
protection of lakes. Some of our staff have worked with lake comllnmities to pre-
serve and improve the lake.
Q: Do you charge by the hour or by the project?
A: If it is a large study, we charge a lunp sun by the project, generated from hOurly
fee. Will work either way. Once we know total scope of the plan (asSUllingSCOpe of
plan is agreed llpOB) we would. submit an estimate and negotiate from there.
Q: Are your rates dependent upon the person serving the comnnmity?
A: Yes. We have a statf of relatively high experience (10 years and more).
Q: There are a ntDJIber of communities on the South Shore having the lake as a common
denom:ina.tor. What effort would you put forth to coordinate pla:nning with other com-
munities?
A: We are presently negotiating separate contracts with Brooklyn Park, Anoka, Champ-
lin, Brooklyn Center and becallSe they have common problems (Mississippi River, Trans-
portation) we will be worki.ng With them as a unit as well as individually. Would
work as liaison to the other South Shore coumnmities. Have done this in the area of
parks with F.diiia and st. Louis Park.
Shorewood Planning Commission - 5/12/77
Minutes - page 2
.
Q: Shorewood is referred to as a bedroom conrmmity. Can a cammmity have what it
wants or met there be a mix of housing, elements of commercial, indetrial....?
A: Hetro Council, I believe, are amenable to reasonable changes. They are in the
process of educating themselves. They want to learn more and. lmderstand. more about
the character of communities.
Q: What kinds of unique services to you have to offer Shorewood?
A: Have worked with other lake communities (Wayzata, Hinnetrista, Greenwood, some
with Shorewood). Are presently working with Arden Hills which is located on a lake
and. involved in developnent. Have staff capability in hydrology and. water manage-
ment that is superior to other firms.
Q: We have written a response to systems statement. Have asked for task force to
consider recreational aspects of lake. How can you serve this need?
A: Clerly is an oversight and they need to get the infomation to augment their
und.erstancling about this area.
Q: What do you suggest for. expediting channels of communication and resulting
positive action for us with Hetro Council?
A: We won't sit in our office. Would have lots of personal contact - phone calls,
face to face small meetings, etc. We also have easier and more access to certain
intomation that would be used in these discussions.
.
Q: Are you retained at the present time for this function?
A: Minnetrista
DON BRAUER - Brauer Associates
.
Have a statf of 25 people; are actively involved in various kinds of plarming, includ-
ing comprehensive land use plarming; it representa about 25-3~ of their business.
Do consulting work with federal government. Believe it is important to be on both
sides of the fenee, but; not at the same time! We do not do any work for developers
where we are planners. We have a clien~ear Motmtain Properties who have 300 acres
in ChaRhassen and. 80 in Shorewood. If this is a hang-up, they are out clients and.
we will stick with them. Limit the n'UDlber of plarming jobs that our principals
can have to three each. Richard Minnick would. be the member of the staff available
for this job. Statf members have expertise in geography, resource pJenning, civil
engineering, t:irchitect1%re, regional plarming, landscape design. and. urban studies.
Have pioneered in citizen participation in the p'e'l1n;T\g process. (Ex. Eden Prairie)
It has its benefits and. its draWbacks. Almost every kind. or a group process gets
challenged these days, by the "involved, the atfected; the elected, the appointed,
and the amwinted!" Pla7mi1lg is a process. It it works right, there is an involve-
ment of a cross section of a community and many become educated and. get involved.
Failures: Orono - basic difference in their assessment of what was the way to go
and. ours, i.e., drawing a line that differentiated between urban and. non-m-ban
sections of the commtmity. We are known for not "watfling around." on something.
.
.
.
Shorewood Planning Commission - 5/J2./77
Minutes - page 3
Did the first plan ever reviewed by the Metro Council. Have had 15 plans reviewed
by Metro; Eden Prairie's up-date is about to be reviewed.
Cost arrangement: Prefer to contract fo;r this 1dnd of work on a two step basis:
with given lmp sum fee or maxim1m1 not to succeed or contract for a month or two
months atil we know what the needs are and then make a final contract.
Orientation: Gather up all available facts and data and establish base we're operat-
ing from. WouJ.d work with Planning Commission, Council, Park Commission, IIt.an
Rights Commission, small group discussion and action sessions. It would involved
structured small group interaction sessions and then have the whole group meet to-
gether. Out of this would draw some conclusions and make specific proposals from
those results. Propose to involve community in the same type of interaction, either
by neighborhoods or altogether, whatever method they would believe to be the most
desirable.
Q: How can we retain our identity and how can we work with other nearby communities?
A: Something "awtully desperate" has to happen to get communities to "hang together".
First thing that could be done with groups from tbe South Shore would be to give
everyone a "Perception of RealitY" test. You can't flunk tbe test! "What your per-
ceptions are, your perceptions are!" CouJ.d discover from that that there are some
things on the Soutb Shore that can be shaped. As we would "sbape" the future, we can
look for "wbat is possible and what is probable and then choose what is preferable."
As Mr. Brauer tried to find his way to the meeting place and made observations of
the community as he went, he sees several tramas that will face tbis community.
1. There is relatively wide divergence of sizes of areas on wbich people
live; there is a wide range of reasons wh.y people are living here;
and there is great diversity in their econGBdc levels.
2. He sees what he calls the "gang-plank" tbeory: "we're here and (we want
to keep wbat we want- we're on board) and we're going to pull in the
gang-plank. "
3. Lake will continue to be a battleground of have's and have-nots, not
likely to be solved in this generation.
He tries to use the carrot to get certain things planned for and then gives the
carrot when merited. Example: Eden Prairie: planned for much open space and
reservation of natural resources. City bas a remarkable record for receiving
grants, donated money and property. That provision, of course, brings multiple
dwellings and brings "bad people" to town, as well as "manufactured" housing.
Eden Prairie has a high percentage of multiple bousing and subsidized housing and
that was planned for. They also have much open space and many natural resources
bave been preserved.
As far as working with nearby communities, an example of a difficult situation that
they helped a variety of groups work through is the designation of the fonner Bong
Air Force Base in S. W. Wisconsin as a park. Through small group interaction - and
they bad 26 different" organizations and S different governmental units who aJ.l:'
had different ideas of wbat to do with that area - they were able to effect a concen-
sus of what should be done with the park so that the state DNR could get busy and
develop it.
Also gave example of their work in this area of a situation at Menominee, Wisconsin.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING CCIIMISSION
MINtJ'J.'J'!'S - May 12 , 1m - page 4
DAVE LICHT - President of Midwest PJ.anning and Research, Inc.
Have been in business f'or 22 years. Have up-dated their operational policies.
He was director of' planning f'or the University of Minnesota where he had 65 planners
working for him and out of' that experience developed criteria about the qualities
he f'avored in consultants and he has that kind of person on his staff.
When working on. an assignment, the same "principal" planner comes out all the time
and responds to inquiries. Two other people are also assigned to the project, so
there should always be someone available to answer questions or respond to problems.
He believes in a commlmity plan, not a consultant plan. He works as a technician
to facilitate the policy of a community. Midwest is working with the cemmunity of'
Dellwood, located at the northeast corner of White Bear Lake, and is ve;ry much like
Shorewood (or even more so!)
The "principal" of his agency meets with every councilman, commission. member and
key people separately. They identity what each one wants to see achieved in the
commlmity. The principal then focuses in on what is wanted and devises a policy
plan that is then reviewed in detail by commissions and councils, etc. It is an
objective way of' deciding on what a community<wants achieved.
Then divides the city into neighborhoods. Work out with neighbors a specific plan
for that neighborhood. It gives a much better chance for constructive citizen par-
ticipation. They emphasize openess, provide for the education. of planning commission
and council and the community. Example: When their clients' comprehensive plans
come up for f'inal hearing, the auditorium is not crammed with people who are all
"riled up") because they have worked on it so thoroughly that people do not feel it
has been rammed down their throats. They have carried on this procedure successfully
in commlmities of 400,000 to 200.
Their firm offers planning and design capability but the unique capability they bring
to a project is their economic real estate research planning (what is supply and
demand for certain types of' housing in particular areas, whether cOlllDlerical will If go"
in an area, etc.)
He has been personally in the planning business for six ;year. Has never lost a
client; has 100% client satisfaction.
ing
A major savings could be instituted in th.e inventory stages, combin! data collecting
with nearby cOlllDl'Unities. Those cammmities would enjoy a spin-off benefit. Would
be willing to work with another consultant. Would however want sc:me control over
the final results.
Feels Metro C01.mcil criteria should be met on sub-oregional basis, e.g., Excelsior
might meet certain housing needs and sharing those satisfactions with Shorewood, and
vice versa.
Cost: Based on what the Metro systems statement says, they would do the Comprehensive
Land Use PLan for $9,000 - cost plus basis with. maximm budget figure. It any money
is saved, it can be directed to some other area or it can go Back to the city treasury.
Would develop ordinances - zoning, subdivision., maintenance code for additional $5000.
Q: We want to d.evelop the 'Iway we want". Take exception. to Council edicts. How
do we manage this?
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING CCIIMISSION
M:INtJ'J.'1!'S - May 12, 1977 - page 5
A: Inventory stage is full of documentation of why things are the way they are.
Example: Lakeville - there was a difference with Metro in estimate of population
projection. Will meet with staff te request documentation for Metro's figures. He
has his documentation. Feels that he should be reasonably successful in coming to
an adjustment of this (or such) differences. Example: Dellwood did not want to
be in the Urban Service area. Negotiated with Metro Coecil to remove them from
that status.
Q: What kind of specific problems do you see for this community?
A: :Environmental, housing, maintenance of property (how do you retain character of
community?) financial (how do you maintain services?)
This concluded the interviews for the evening. Howard Dahlgren withdrew from con-
sid.eration and was not present.
Informal discussion of pJ 8Mi ng commission members and. mayor followed the inter-
views. No decision was made at this time.
Meeting adjourned 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
"~~^<~f:-..' " :
.'MEMO~
Re:
ShorelineM~gement
"'Act of 'I 97 3' -,,/
-,
:;;"",,0,:0'
" -,-
".:~C.Qnta.cted Mr,", !o!i.:lle$
(~96-1523)
- -, - c-__ '__,' ,
',,~ - -,', '-' '-, '-,> - -". .';,',,-,,;";-\
~'_-_:~,', _ _' -::'_::--, :_':,~';~:-,:, ,:; _:-_'-_:::~-:-~'~':::,'{>:,~;:,-;;;: ~r:_ ,'," ,~'_ _ ; '__: ,'_~:,'J"',',>, .:". _ _ ",,}.~;," _, ': _<<_ ,'_: ,:{::,;~, ~ , _"
,s4v-e been put .into three .classif'ications.
'-:Bequirernentsnl:lbe different 'for each category.
The threecategor-ies are: Recreationa.l Development
. ,General DeV'elopment
.. llatural Environment
:'~eMinnetol1ka has not been categorized as yet~
-
--
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: Planning Commission
DATE: 5/25/77
I forgot to include the agenda in the mailing.
Here it is:
Thursday, May 26, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Minnewashta
DECISION MAKING NIGHT **** School
1. Jim Dutcher request for subdivision
2. Upper Lake Minnetonka Yaoht Club request
for Conditional Use Permit
3. Shorewood Yacht Club request for
Conditional Use Permit
4. Maybe some discussion on the choice of a
planner.
-
This will be pinoh hitters' night. Very likely
Frank Reese will chair the meeting, and Jerry
Brecke, a liberated man, will serve as secretary
pro tem. (He even gets to bring my attache'"
oase! ) ............ .
Hope this doesn't sound too defensive, but I
am paying for the postage because of my oversight.
Will be sorry to miss this meeting!
~.
e
-
SHOREWOOD
e
MEMO:
TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 6/6/77
and
CITY COUNCIL
Re: Minutes from May 26th planning commission
meeting on the Shorewood. Yacht Club
Conditional Use, page 3.
Since the tape ran out and discussion
wasn't recorded for Items 6-12, Jerry
Brecke referred me to Jane Cole's
notes on her motion. Jane says there
was some discussion regarding #6, but
she didn't have the details marked on
her version of the motion. This item:
may need amendment.
Item #10: Jane calls it to your
attention that the Planning Commission
didn't provide an hour of opening -
only closing.
e
e
e
MEMO:
From :
RE:
~
S.HOR.EW"OOD
PI..A.N"NING COMMI SSION
DATE: . 5/26/11
Oi ty. Council
DRAINAGEFROM.DUTCHER SUBDIVISIoN
You will note in the minutes of the
Minnehaha. Creek. Watershed District that
. they. approve the drainage from Jim
Dutoher'sproposeddevelopment to
either Exoelsior or Shorewood. The
Council advises you that they wish
him to direct it to ShoreW'ood.
~
.,""
.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLAlmING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 1977
Mnru'l'ES
The Shorewood Planning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, May 26,
1977, at 7:30 p.m. in MinneW'ashta Elementary Sohool, Frank Reese presiding in
the absence of Chairman Watten. Also present were J. Breake, J. Cole, IC. Stover,
S. Larson and J. Miller.
Motion by Stover, seconded by Cole, to approve the minutes of March 24, April 28,
and May 12, 1977. Unanimous approval granted.
JIM DUTCHER'S REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE FOR WILD DUCK, 3rd ADDITION
Mr. Dutcher stated Excelsior has a water main ooming up to his property and
feels that they (Exoelsior) would like to supply the water. He says that
he also feels Shorewood will want him to use their water when the system goes
through. At the present time he is planning on using wells only, unless an
alternative is worked out before construction is underway.
Drainage is a questionable problem. Mr. Dutcher feels it wouldAbe easier to
have drainage going into Excelsior area where it has been going, than to re-
ohannel it through Shorewood. He said he would comply with the oounoil's request
but he would alsu point this out to the oounoil.
Motion made by Breoke, seoonded by Cole, to approve the Wild Duck, 3rd Addition,
as proposed for thirteen buildings, 26 living units without reoommendation to 0
the oouncil where the drainage should be direoted. Frank Reese amended the
motion to inolude suggestion that the oouncil review the 4/28/77 Engineer's
report on this matter. Reese amended the motion further to state that Jim Dut-
cher is willing to deed outlots A and B to adjacent landowner. Motion oarried
unanimously.
UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Frank Reese pointed out that some members of the oommission had visited the
Yaoht Club premises on May 21st. Jerry Miller stated that with land reduction
from what the Club has owned in the past, he does not feel the one (1) plus
acres remaining oan hold more people, oars or boats.
The discussion also oentered around what caused the flooding to take plaoe. The
Yacht Club property was improved with a parking lot and Rasoop's added a drive-
way.
Yacht Club spokesman said that boats were now kept there overnight beoause of
members who did not live on the lake. No one living on the lake kept his boat
there.
Question was raised as to whether the speoial use permit automatioally became a
conditional use permit by the Council's adoption of Ordinanoe #77. They deoided
that it did not.
The oommission felt that the yaoht club would be better if handled under a condi-
tional use permit including the terms of the speoial use permit.
The question oame up on page three of the applioation regarding the striking
of "group gathering" from the paragraph. By a 3 to 3 vote, it remained in.
Stover, Larson and Miller in favor of striking; Cole, Reese and Breake in favor
of leaving it in. Page 1 of the applioation also makes referenoe to nuisanoe
situation control whioh we felt was adequate plus the need for a oertain group
to be on the premises on the morning of raoe days.
f
f. '"
SROREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - page 2
.
Disoussion got down finally to the only objeotion was the proposed eXR~s~n of
the faoility to 42 slips. Miller moved, Larson seoondedf that thJ{~on~t1oDal
use permit beYeccmmellJeJ. with the restriction that only thirty (30) boats be allowed
and that no additional provisions were granted for the two oommittee boats'dookage.
The vote was 4 to 2-Breoke and Cole voting nay; Miller, Stover, Reese and Larson
voting aye.
It was also moved by Reese and seoonded by Miller that our oity enigneer study
the oondi tions of Lake Road, aooess road to the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club
and the residential properties adjoining it, based upon problems of flooding
and inadequate size that have been brought to the attention of the planning com-
mission. Passed unanimously.
SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB
Questions developed for discussion:
1. The total number of slips
2. Traffic entry/exit on County Road 19
3. How the operation would be handled
4. Arvidson law suit on neighboring property
5. Controlled use of ohannels
.
Reese questioned whether dock: A had the right to go out 200 feet into the bay, if
by doing so it oame to less than 200 feet from a neighboring shoreline. One neigh-
bor would be 160' from the end of Dock~A. Warren Clague oommented that the cove
aspeot of. the area was quite good, one of the better locations on the lake for
a marina.
Commission members who were at the marina Saturday felt channels were even better
(bigger and wider) than they had anticipated. Also that boats will not create
a lot of traffic on the bay (Gideon's) beoause they will head straight for open
water of the big lake.
The Arvidson lot is not buildable now without a special variance permit because
of the size. We do not know the outcome of the suit over the sale of the proper-
ty or the questions of sight line interpretation.
John Cross suggested a compromise to delete two slips off of dock: itA" and 8 slips
off of ''D''. This would shorten both docks and give about l80J to marina on
dock "A" and 180' of buffer to neighbor - total loss of 10 slips to marina.
Brecke suggested that the end slips from A, B, and C docks be removed (10 slips)
but dock D remain as is because of lack of its penetration into the bay.
Informal poll of members was that the proper number ranged from 100 slips to 125
slips with three people feeling 115 was acceptable.
The question of fenoing to prevent users of either marina or dredging company
to cross into other road was discussed. Cross said he would prevent it.
.
It is intended that marina would operate during normal boating season only. No
activity in winter is planned. Tennis and game oourts would not be lighted. No
swimming pool is being put in or anticipated.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 26, 1977- MINUTES - page 3
Cross agreed he would make the neoessary petitions to get a ~ight turn lane off
of County Road 19 for easier acoess to his property.
Cross agreed he would give Shorewood residents first perference for slips at the
time he starts up and eaoh succeeding spring whenever openings arose. He preferred
to have it be a Shorewood Marina.
Jane Cole moved, Frank Reese seconded, a motion that the Planning Commission
reoommend that the counoil approve the Shorewood Yaoht Club applioation for
Conditional Use Permit under the R-l "yaoht olub" based upon John Cross's
submitted site plan and the Shorewood Yacht Club Manual together with the fol-
lowing oonditions:
1. That Docks No. A, B, and C be reduced by 20 feet per dock and that the
total number of slips be limited to 115.
2. That the Shorewood Yacht Club be limited to sailboat harboring only,
exoept for two power boats to be used for managerial or resoue situations.
3. That the sailboats when moored and not in use have a silenoing devioe on
the halyard.
4. That membership in the Shorewood Yacht Club initially and thereafter
be geared as much as possible to aooommodating Shorewood residents; that
the offerings for membership be publicly advertised.
5. That the Shorewood Yacht Club be permitted to sell soft drinks, snacks
and pre-packaged foods, fishing bait and tackle and light acoessory marine
line equipment and 3.2 beer,as lioensed, to olub members and their guests
only.
6. That they not be permitted to sell liquor by the drink (on sale) or to
sell set-ups; they not be permitted to operate a restaurant or major
dining facility; they not be permitted to conduct sales of any kind,
other than permitted above.
7 . Activities at the Yacht Club shall be limited to those directly related
to the primary purpose of the Club (Sailing) and to those anoillary
activities specifioally permitted in this conditional use (i.e., game
oourts, sailing school). Snowmobiles and fish house activities shall
not be permitted.
8. Lighting: as permitted in Section 13, Subdivision 11, Ordinanoe #77
and the Shorewood Yacht Club site plan.
9. Boat storage shall be limited to parking Lot A per site plan (the lot
north of the tracks).
10. Hours of Club Operation: Closing time Sunda:y - Thursday: 10 p.m.
Friday & Saturda:y: 12 midnight
11. Parking: as regu.lated in Section 13, Ordinance #77 and the Shorewood
Yacht Club's site plan.
12. That the Shorewood Yacht Club pursue the installation of a right turn
lane off of County Road #19 onto their access road.
The motion was passed unanimously (6-0).
Meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by, JERRY BREeKE, Acting Secretary
e
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: PLANNING COMMISSION
6/10/77
DATE:
The meeting last Thursday (june 9th) was
cancelled because neither Vern nor
Frank could attend because of gradua-
tion and they would like to be in on
the discussion and decision regarding
the planner.
Vern would like a meeting on June 16th
if it is possible. I have not contacted
"you all" about it, but there seem to
be five "yeses" at this time, so it
looks like a meeting date. I'll call
to confirm it. Agenda would still be
the same as for the 9th--discussion and
recommendation of a planner.
e
-
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1917
Minutes
The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met in regular session on
June 16, 1977, at Minnewashta Elementary School at 7:30 p.m. Present were
J. Cole, S. Larson, J. Miller, F. Reese, K. Stover. V. Watten arrived later.
J. Brecke and J. Haugen were absent. J. Miller presided until V. Watten
arrived.
Reese moved, Cole seconded, to accept the minutes of M~ 26th as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
Due to the request by the council of the Planning Commission to attend the
JUly 14th Public Hearing on Municipal Water, the next meeting of the
Planning Commission will be held July 7th.
Commentary followed on interviews with planners - namely, Orlyn Miller of
Wehrman-Chapman associates; Don Brauer - Brauer and Associates; Dave Licht
of Midwest Planning Company. These three companies are outstanding in the
field. Any one would be more than adequate for Shorewood' s needs.
Wehrman-Chapman's reputation is that of a good technician. The company does
a major portion of its work with municipalities, while the other two firms
work more with private developers.
Brauer Associates seems very innovative and creative and a number of commission
members felt that that quality would be very desirable in formulating a Compre-
. hensive Land Use Plan. Their input could bring unique insights to our community.
Midwest Planning's economic analysis capability is very significant quality
for Shorewood. Their CO!3t figures are "right out in front". This company gives
the feel of expediting things and a capability of getting Shorewood moving in
the planning area.
F. Reese moved to recommend to the Council the engagement of Midwest Planning
for the purpose of formulating and advising the City on its Comprehensive Land
Use Plan; and further, they recommend that since the personality of the chief
planner is a significant factor in how well the city and planner work together,
that before any agreements are arrived at, that the Council determine who will
be assigned to Shorewood and ask to meet with the planner and also to include
the PLanning Commission in the interview. Motion seconded by J. Miller. Motion
carried 5-1. Voting ~e, Larson, Miller, Reese, Watt en, Stover; voting nay, Cole.
Miller moved, Watten seconded, to recommend Brauer and Associates as the backup
choice of planner. Motion passed 5-1. Voting ~e, Larson, Miller, Reese,
Watt en, Stover; voting nay, Cole.
Meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
SHIRLEY J. RICE, Secretary
.
tit
.,
.
.
SHOREWooD PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 23, 1917
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held on June 23,
1977, at the Minnewashta School at 7:30 p.m. Present were J. Brecke, J. COle,
S. Larson, J. Miller,F. Reese, K. Stover and Councilwoman Haugen. In the absence
of Chairman Watten, Jane Cole presided.
K. Stover moved, J. Brecke seconded, to approve the minutes of June 16th as sub-
mitted. Motion carried unanimously.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION : DIVISION OF PROPERTY - Murray Street Plat 34440 Parcel 0300
Orla Andersen
Mr. Anderson appeared to inquire about dividing his property (34440, 0300) fronting
Murr~ Street upon which a double bungalow is located. Total parcel contains
56,628 square feet. He wishes to divide it so there would be about 30,000 square
feet for the double bungalow and about 26,000 for the new parcel which would be a
lot for a single family dwelling. The area is zoned R-2. The planning commission
looked favorably upon the proposed division suggested to Mr. Andersen that since
the ordinance calls for lots to front on public roads, that he negotiate with his
neighbors to have the present driveways become a common road with a cul-de-sac to
serve the several family dwellings in the area.
REZONING: R-3 to C-l REALTY SHOPPE, HIGHWAY 7 AND CHASKA ROAD
Larry Skalicky and Gary Winterfield appeared to inquire about a Conditional Use
Permit or Zoning change from R-3 to C-l for the property on the south side of
Highway 7 at Chaska Road (opposite Country Kitchen). The parcel contains about
19,000 square feet. The gentlemen proposed a family dwelling type structure to
house their business.
The Planning Commission responded favorably to their building proposal, but ad-
vised Mr. Skalicky and Mr. Winterfield that they are adverse to strip commercial
zoning along Highw~ 7 and that that parcel is a problem area. The Planning Com-
mission advised them further that a planner is to be hired to assist in develop-
ing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Shorewood and it is hoped that the planner
will come up with some solutions for problem properties like this one. They
were advised to hold off with plans till the Planning Commission had more time to
consult with the planner.
PUBLIC HEARING: TERRY DUGG!A1i'S REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-3 TO C-l, Aud. Sub. 120
Lot 145, Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7
Public Hearing was opened at 8:23 p.m. About 20 people were present. Terry Duggan
enumerated the reasons for making another request to rezone this property.
1. Request is for rezoning to C-l rather than C-2.
2. He has dropped the service bays from his plans and the new building "is
designed for retail sales only.
3. Upon instructions from the planning commission at the previous hearing
to get local support, he now is able to present a petition from near-by
property owners.
4. Because he wished to save time and not because he wanted to circumvent the
Planning Commission, he polled the council in May and they voted 4-1 to
join neighbors in petitioning the Planning Commission for rezoning of
this property.
.
.,
.
.
SHOREWooD PLANNING COMMISION
MINUTES - 6/23/71 - page 2
The following citizens were present and presented testimony: Pat Davidson, Frank
Davidson, Bill Maddy, T. O'Brien, Pat Elliott, Robert Olson, Nancy Larson, and
Eleanor Goodman.
The testimony included:
CDncern for density in the area and the traffic pattern to the business
is designed to reduce the flow of traffic on fhird Avenue - eventually
even funnel it to Highway 7 at the west end of the property.
The building would be located on the middle acre - what are the plans
for the other two acres? (Not decided yet)
Could a restaurant go next to the church? Would it serve liquor?
(A restaurant could go there, but not a fast-food place. City ordinance
forbids a liquor license to an establishment less than 200 feet from
church or school.)
Zoning ordinance calls for business every 5,000 square feet. Why only re-
ferring to three businesses? (Property on Highway 7 is sold by square feet.
In order to afford such land, a business would have to be at least a $500,000
sales business.)
InterStudy has been reutral and are concerned about traffic, but would sup-
port decision of Council and Planning Commission.
Christmas Lake Association members have been informed and have not taken
a position on the matter.
There could be more control over a resident property owner (Terry Duggan)
than over an absentee landlord.
Comments from audience are directed to the prospect of a specific business
run by a specific person. Planning Commission must deal with a zoning
change and that brings a different perspective to their judgment.
This proposal has a strong similarity to previous request by the Realty
Shoppe for Highway 7 westward, which the planning commission just dis-
couraged. Same judgment seems to be in order for this project as well.
In response to resolution by council, the Planning Commission will delay its
recommendation to next regularly scheduled meeting. ]
Brecke moved, Miller seconded to adjourn meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Submitted by,
Shirley J. Rice
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1911
MINUTES
The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met July 7, 1977, at 7:30 p.m.
at Minnewashta School. Present were J. Brecke, J. Cole, S. Larson, K. Stover,
wi th Frank Reese presiding. Also present was Councilwoman J. Haugen. V. Watten
and J. Miller were absent. Meeting was held one week early because of a Public
Hearing on Municipal Water scheduled for July 14th.
J. Brecke moved, K. Stover seconded, to approve the minutes of June 23, 1977, as
submitted. Motion carried.
RE UEST OF TERRY DUGGAN TO REZONE PROPERTY AT CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD AND HIGHWAY
FROM R-3 to C-l A. S. l20 Lot 1
Public Hearing on this request was held June 23, 1977.
Discussion by the planning commission ensued regarding the future development of
this area. Single family housing and single car transportation will not likely
continue as a way of life for this area. Because of government subsidization and
energy conservation, development will tend increasingly toward subsidized multiple
housing and mass transit, such trends calling for commercial areas to be grouped
rather than strung out along a highway corridor.
.
Concern was again expressed for rezoning this land to commercial without knowledge
of what would happen to the rest of the acerage and also that although Mr. Duggan's
reputation is fine and his business is well run, there is no protection for the
city as far as future developments for that property are concerned. Concensus
was that the commission prefers to see commercial areas developed as a total con-
cept (e.g., this property being developed as a one building complex with a parking
area serving the joint commercial needs and green space harmoniously planned for
the whole three acre tract.)
J. Brecke moved, J. Cole seconded, to recommend to the council that they deny
Terry Duggan's request to rezone the property at Highway 7 and Christmas Lake Road
(Aud. Sub. 120, Lot 145) from R-3 to C-l, and further that they request the
council to proceed with all possible haste to secure the services of a professional
planner, whose first priority will be a study and recommendation of the Highway 7
complex and the development of the problem areas along it. Motion carried 4-0.
Present and voting aye: Brecke, Cole, Stover and Reese. Voting Nay: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: R. N. THOMPSON AND WILMA THOMPSON REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SEC. 31, T 117 t R 23, LOCATED ON WOODSIDE ROAD
Martin Seipp, attorney for Richard and Wilma Thompson, appeared to request a sub-
division of the above described property containing 8.75 acres, into eight (8)
lots, each containing more than 40,000 square feet, located in an R-l area.
Developers indicated that at this time there are no specific plans for developing
land to the east of this property, but they do plan to subdivide property at some
future date, taking care to guard the character and features of the property.
Cole moved, Stover seconded, to close Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m.
.
Reese moved, Brecke seconded, to recommend approval of subdivision plans, dated
June 13, 1977. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Thompson was advised that in the future development of his property in this
area, he should consider dedicating "green space" for park development to the City
of Shorewood.
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
July 7, 1911 - MINUTES - page 2
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: REQUEST BY DAVID CARLSON AND WILL STAGEBERG TO REZONE PROPERTY
AT 23505 SMITHTOWN ROAD FROM R-4 and R-5 TO C-2.
David Carlson, realtor, requested an opinion from the Planning Commission on rezoning
that part of Lot 213, A. S. 135, that formerly had been the site of a nursery, then
the Moore Sign Company and then offices for W. Stageberg. It is zoned R-4 and R-5
presently and they request rezoning to C-2 for the establiBhment of a nursery.
The Commission advised Mr. Carlson of problems with multiple entrances and exitB
onto Highway 19 from several establishments in that area; of the desirability to
consult with Excelsior Planning Commission to coordinate development for that
border area; of concern for what could come in that area if the nursery went out
of business and it had been rezoned commercial; and discouraged rezoning at this time.
After further discussion, combined with references to previous "problem" request
by Realty Shoppe and Terry Duggan for properties on Highway 7, J. Cole moved,
seconded by S. Larson, to recommend to the Council that they instigate the devel-
opment of a new commercial zone that is compatible with residential surroundings
and also which generates low traffic. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
.
.
.
LEGAL NOTI CE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Shorewood Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing under and pursuant to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
(Nos. 77 and 79) on the request of Richard Noel and Wilma AmEnd Thompson
on a proposal to subdivide into eight lots, the property located in an R-l
zone, containing 8.75 acres, as hereinafter described:
All that part of Government Lot 2, Section 31, Township l17, Range 23,
described as follows, to-wit: Starting at the Southeasterly corner
of Scott's Subdivision of part of said Government Lot 2, thence
Northeasterly along the Easterly line of said Scott's Subdivision a
distance of 696.72 feet, thence East parallel with the South line
of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 500 feet; thence South at a
right angle a distance of 688.42 feet more or less to the South
line of said Government Lot 2; thence West on the South line of
said Government Lot 2, 607.3 feet more or less to the point of begin-
ning, which property abuts the east side of the southerly end of
Woodside Road in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac. Each lot contains
over 40,000 square feet.
The hearing will be held in the Minnewashta Elementary School, located
at 26350 Smithtown Road, City of Shorewood, at 7:30 p.m., Thursday,
July 7, 1977. Written and oral positions will be accepted and the Council
will hear all persons desiring to be heard.
ELSA WILTSEY
Clerk-Administrator
City of Shorewood
To be published in the
Maverick Newspaper, June 22, 1977
r of "*"at.."
STAft Oft MINN.SOTA
c.."ty of Heft....ln
S.g"ec:l 1 . ( ~
lfl.J.ish.r or m.n.el
I. 1M 1IfttIef........ .....11fter or me.....'" officer Of th. ......... ~ ..
the M_rlck.....r a. to tM fOIl_Ine Qu.llf1catlon of .... newsee.r a. a .....um
of official ancl 1"'1 PUblication, It I. print... In tM E","," laneu... In ,.......,
for"'.t and In COlu"'n and ...... for", ..ulwaleftt In print... ... to at ..... .00
..uare IftCII... It II 0 _kly oncl dlltrlH"" at ..... once a _k. It II.. ..... of It I
- cOlu",nl dOvot... to __ of lOUI In....... to tll. community wlllell It
DurDortl to..rv.; mey contoln _. com....nt ond mlscellony; doe. not wIIolly
dUPlic.t. .n" otll., pUblleatlon ond II not ...... up efttlrel" of Nt.nt.. Plat.
moU.r .na .av.rll.....ntl; It I' clrcul.ted In ond nOlr tll. munlcIP.llt" wlllCII It
purDOItI to .IV.. IIa' at 100It 500 COPle' """"'1" dollv.r4Id to po"l", "'lMer...r..
II.. on _r... of .t 101.. 15~ of It I total circulation currentl" .ald or no more
tllon tI,,.. montll, In arroar.. and II.. efttry al _o"'-cl.. mo...r In ItllOCIIltOIt-
offiCiI It' known off Ie. of 11_ I' In tM county of ~ \:;Y'\ In
w11lcll I'" In wllOI. or In Nrt. tile munlelNllt" of ~oOc:l wlllell
tll. _1N..r purDOrtl to serve;lt file' a CODy of OIell Issu. Imm4ldlatOl" wltll tll.
Stat. Hi,torlClI Socl.t,,; ..Id ftIWINDIf 1101 comDII'" wltll all tll. forllOln, cOncl..
lion' for ot '01" two "OIrs prior to tll. d.t. of tllll offld.vlt.
I lurtll.r ,t.t. on o.tll tllat tll. Drlnt... ~ ~
h.reto oU.ch.d ., . part h.reof w., cut from th. cOlumnl of ..Id newID..... .nd
w., Drlnt.d lh.r.ln in th. En,n," l.neuIII one. . _k for I weeks, thot It
'.. first '0 pUbn,"", on LL.Ja.ct th. d:J da" Ol~ I",
. .r..ft.r on of each _k to .nd Includln, th. d.y
l' ,.nd thot the fonowlne I' . copy of th. low.r c... .'Pha"
which is .cknowl.ctted to hove ...n th. slz. .nd kind of ty.. u.... In tll. public.
th"'\n Df s..d notice.
abc defqn j, k ImnoPQ rstuvw.YI
SUb'Cflb.d .na ,_rn to blfore me this a-4
d.YO~
19 '11'
~,.~
Notory Public
County. Mlnnesot.
My Commission E. pir., .1' '~l
....AAAaW"'~A..A..
.lAJJoAJ@~M""';~if~B~C ~::~~~TA
,.~ NO HENNEPIN COUNTY . 84
laslon Expires Jan. 25. 19
. My Comm
X
fltlJJUN 27 1911
.
... '-;.~
'-
'. ................-:.....,
MEMO: COUNCIL DATE: 7/8/77
'from Planning Commission meeting of 7/7/77
eir recommendation re Terry Duggan request
to rezone property at Hwy 7 and Christmas Lake Road.
SHOREWOOD
.
~~~emoved, Cole seconded, to recommend to the
~~(}:i.l .. that they deny Terry Duggan' s request to rezone
Qperty at HWy 7 andChri stmas Lake Road from R- 3
I, and theYdturther request the Council to prObeed
.~l possible<hastetosecure the services of a
8sional planner, whose first priority be a look
ghW~7 bomplexand development of the problem
..... along it. Motion carried 4-0. Present and
;B:reclce,/ COle, Stover, Reese."
~ngCommi.ssi.on looks uniavorabl'j on strip
ialdevelopment along Highway Seven. They
tQsee.oommeroialareas developed as a total
t(e.g., this property being developed as
lding complex,with a parking area serving
eCOlM1ercia.l needs and green space be harmious-
edfox-the whole three acre traot.)
. ~()tbef~ture, there will be less< relianoe on
11' oaI'. a1'ld.more Of a move to mass transit, and
'a1. areas need to be gr.ouped and net strung out.
..-ill..b.e mOre subsidies from the government for
'~.ll8.n....lJi.le family dwellings and this indioates
~ment . in planning and thinking of developmant.
. .<Wed
eheQondedby Steve Larson, to recommend. to
cil that tbey instigate the development of a
ercialzone that is compatible with residential
ngs and also which generates low traffic.
()fU'ried. 'unanimously.
.
..
l_~"'"
~~ '.
~ - ~'l'f
- .. -- "~
shorewood planning commission
july 28, 1977
minutes
. The Shorewood Planning Commission met in a study session on July 28th at Minnewashta
School. Chairman Watten convened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Present were J. Brecke,
J. Cole, J. Miller and Cotnlcilwoman Haugen.
Brecke moved, Cole seconded, to approve the minutes of July 7, 1977. Motion carried
tmanimously.
Members present reviewed the Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Population
and Housing sections Metropolitan Systems Statement; Shorewood's response to it;
and Paul Baltzerson (Metro Cotnlcil) reply to the City.
Commission members reviewed the contract for services from the newly appointed
planner for Shorewood, Dave Licht of Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. Motion
was made and seconded to request a meeting with Dave Licht to go over each service
listed in the contract; find out what each item entails; its relation and necessity
to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan developnent; and ultimately that the authorita-
tive body (Cotnlcilor Planning Commission) "sign off" each stage before proceeding
to the next. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried tmanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley J. Rice, Secretary
.
.
e
-
SHOREWOOD
MEMO:
Planning Commission
DATE: 8/5/77
SPECIAL MEETING: Meet with the Planner, Dave Licht,
Monday night, August 8th, 7:30 p.m.
Minnewashta School. Will go over
items in the contract before he
makes a report to the Council.
REGULAR MEETING: August llth, Thursday, 7 :30 p.m.
Minnewashta School
1. Informal Discussion: Ted Deikel, 27960 Smithtown Rd.
He requests a replatting of a
road in his subdivision which you
and the council approved sometime
ago in order to save some trees and
bushes.
2.
Informal Discussion: Robert Sommer regarding
subdivision of property at the
intersection of Covington Road and
Vine Hill Road. See page 3 of
your half section maps, lower
right hand corner for the Sommer
property in question - about 40 acres.
There are 1,792,005 square feet
657,380 square feet
subtracted for wetlands
1,134,625 square feet
assessed for sewer.
88,064 divided off
in 5/3/74
I am also sending copy of article on lake access for
your information.
Please return Deikel plats for use for the cotnlcil.
-
-
.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 11, 1977
MINUTES
The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was called to order
on August 11th, 1977, at 7:35 p.m. by Chairman Vern Watten. Present were
Vern Watten and Council Member Jan Haugen. Absent were Commission members
Brecke, Cole, Larson, Miller, Reese and Stover. Due to lack of quorum present,
Chairman Watten declared the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
SHirley J. Rice, Secretary
"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPJ.>>mER 8, 1977
.
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
The regular meeting of the Planning cormnission was held September 8th at 7:40
P.M. Present were Brecke, Cole, Larson, Miller, Reese, Stover and Council-
w<:.m1aJil Haugen. Absent - Vern Watten, Chm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jane Cole presided over the meeting.
Jerry Brecke moved, Frank Reese seconded, to approve the July 28th and August
11th minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously.
BAY PARK ADDITION - REVISION
There was an informal discussion with Ted Deikel pertaining to his approved
subdivision. Ron: Haskvitz, attorney, appeared in Mr. Deikel's behalf. They
would like approval to reroute the road in the subdivision to enable them to
save some trees. The lots would still be over 40,000 sq. ft; but part of the
lots would be on the other side Qf the road. It would become a ppblic road.
Mr. Haskvitz pointed out that Lot 1 Block 2 is a lowlands aeea which would need
fill if ever built upon; tbey have no plans to build on it. Felt this was the
best plan within the ordinance requirements.
The Commission generally agreed that the amended plati,was an improvement and
should be presented to council for their approval.
. SHOREWOOD LANE DIVISIONS
~:OO P.M. An informal discussion with the residents of Shorewood Lane which
is zoned R-3 duplex.
Gene Erickson, Norris Adams, Mrs. Hendricksen presented a proposal to divide
and combine lots. Erickson &: Adams want to combine portions of their lots to
make one new lot for building a new duplex. Mrs. Hendricksen wants to Ui\l':ide
her lot into two. They pointed out Dutcher was allowed to have a lot that was
undersized because the sewer came in.
Larson felt the Cormnission needs to know the reasons for dividing Dutcher's
land back in 1974. Reese recormnended that staff look into the matter and re-
port back at next meeting. Brecke moved to table discussion pending research
into minutes to find history of Dutcher division. Second by Larson. Passed
unanimously.
.
Brecke brougbt up the matter of why informal discussions were being held again.
Staff was advised to look up directive 1n minutes pertaining to discussions.
EUREKA"lID. /1!7
Donald T. otten weller of Jones &: otten weller wanted to informally discuss the
possibility of rezoning the N.W. corner of Eureka &: Hwy. #7 from residential
to cormnercial. He was advised to make formal application for a Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING - OLD Nlm~y PROPERTY CO. RD. 19
At 8:30 P.M. the Public Hearing was opened. The rezoning of property from
R-4 &: R-5 to C-2 (for use as a nursery) on County Road 19. The former non-
conforming use has dissolved.
The use would be as a retail center and contracting for landscaping service.
Reese asked about the status of the adjoining property to the east. Residents
present were: Steve JOhnson, 23545 Smithtown Road, Dave Benway - Glencoe Road,
member of the Excelsior Planning Commission.
.
.
Page 2 - 9-26....J]7
Minutes
Mr. Benway said, "It's good B-2 country along High.way 19. A buffer zone is
needed. How about properYY fronting Studer Park?r1 Is this proper buffer for
a park? Haugen stated she has asked the City Attorney to come up with a new
commercial zone that is compatible with low traffic and a residential area.
Paul Stiller - Smithtown Road - went into the history of down zoning, his
taxes were lowered because of the change in zoning. There are already traffic
problems on 19, he can't count the number of fatal accidents in front of his
house. Now with 13 duplexes going in, yacht club still may go in, - our taxes
are paid for suburban living so would prefer to see land developed as R-4 or
R-5.
Dan Revison, Glencoe Road, stated he prefers a nursery over R-4 Zone. St:i.ller
asked if a change in zoning could be controlled to be esthetically pleasj 1'1g 'and
compatible.
Jane Cole replied that the City Attorney is working on the new commercial zone.
Could take care of Crepeau property and Minion property.
Brecke asked if the new zone goes through does the owner have to pay a new
payment.
The commission decided to table the matter pending report on the new commercial
zone and take up the matter after a public hearing and zoning adoption. Commis-
sion was then reminded of the policy that the vote on the matter is not taken
until the next scheduled meeting after the public hearing. At that time they
will make recommendations with comments.
.
Motion made by Brecke and seconded by Stover to close Public Hearing at
9:20 P.M. It was unanimous.
Reese moved to table discussion on Boat Harbor Ordinance suggested by Jane Cole,
until next meeting.
It was moved by Reese and seconded by Stover that we adjourn. Motion carried
unanimously.
Submitted by Jan Haugen
Notes of Shirley Rice
.
JANE COLE'S
FIRST DRAFT OF "BOAT HARBORING
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT" (8/10/77)
ORDINANCE NO.
.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 77, BEING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURR>SE OF
PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE
BY REGULATING THE USE OF LAND, THE LOCATION, AREA, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT OF BUILD-
ING ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF roPULATION IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1.
That Ordinance No. 77 be and hereby is amended by adding thereto a new section
entitled "26, BOAT HARBORING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT" to read as follows:
SECTION 26 C-4 BOAT HARBORING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Subdivision 1 PURR>SE
.
The C-4 District is intended to provide areas for lake shore
water-harboring of boats to the non-lake shore residents of
the community. Recognizing that the lake shore areas of
Shorewood have already been developed to a large extent and
are primarily residential in nature, these facilities, out
of geographic necessity, may occur singularly rather than in
clustered areas and are required to operate in a manner that
is compatible with the neighborhood in which.they are located.
Subdivision 2 PERMITTED USES
The following uses are pennitted, as regulated herein, without
special .fipplication requirements siiJ conditions attached:
?
~ A. Marinas
). B. Yacht Clubs
C.
?
Subdivision 3 CONDITIONAL PERMITTED USES
The following uses are pennitted only subject to the issuance of a
Conditional Use Pennit as stipulated in Section 7 of Ordinance 77:
A. Swimming Pools
B. Tennis and Game Courts
? >
(Should this
eiC be covered
e or under
Subd. 6-G?)
C. Boat Dock Canopies
(D.) Boat, Boat Trailer, and Boat Cradle Storage
(Add details from Subd. 6-G if this is the place!)
.
.
.
-2-
Subdivision 4 ACCESSORY USES
The following uses are pennitted only when auxiliary to a principal
use pennitted above; they may not exist as princiPal uses in their
stead:
A. Any accessory use, building, or structure customarily
incidental to a princiPal use pennitted above, and
located on the same lot therewith. Any clubhouse pro-
posed for the site shall be designed and constructed
to meet requirements of the Minnesota State Building
Code and the State Energy Code. Any building shall
not exceed two (2) stories in height.
B. Roads, Driveways, Parkin~, and Loading Facilities - as
regulated in Section 13 (of Ord. 77) unless superseded
by the following:
1. Access to site shall be from a public arterial
or collector street and shall be free and clear to
a minimum width of twenty (20) feet of driving
surface.
NOTE: Add 2.
"parking areas"?~
Access roads and driveways shall be surfaced with
a pennanent1y dust-free surface.
?
3. Roads , driveways, and parking areas shall provide
for drainage of surface waters in accordance with
the stonn drainage plan adopted by the City Council.
No direct drainage to the lake shall be pennitted.
')
4. Parking shall not be pennitted on public road right-
of -ways nor on public access driveways.
?
5. Parking shall not be pennitted within ten (10) feet
of any lot line, nor within seventy-five (75) feet of
the ordinary lake high-water mark.
6. Parking area shall include one (1) motor vehicular
parking stall per each authorized boat slip and/or
buoy; minimum size parking area == 300 square feet.
..,
7. Parking shall be properly and adequately screened as
detennined by the Planning Commission.
C. Signs - as regulated in Section 12, Subdivision 3, C-3.
Subdivision 5 DDmNSIONAL REGULATIONS
Dimensional and special requirements concerning building height, lot
area, setback requirements, et al, for this district shall be the
same as those in the R-1 district set out in Section 27 of this Ordi-
nance.
-3-
Subdivision 6 SPECIAL DISTRICT PROVISIONS
NOTE: See
PURD, Sec. 5
(p. 22)
A. Application Requirements
l. In the event that a re....zoning of the property is required,
application requirements shall follow the procedure for
"amendment", Section 6, Subdivision 3 of this Ordinance,
in addition to the requirements stated in the following
paragraphs 2 and 3. Application for a re....zoning to C-4
shall be made by the owner of the property in question,
although an option holder may apply for a C-4 re-classifi-
cation provided his application is accompanied by a signed
statement indicating no objections from the owner ( s) of
all pl'Operties involved in the application. In the event
that a property has already been re....zoned to C-4 classifi-
cation but has not been developed, or that a change is
proposed in an existing C-4 facility, application proce-
dures shall be as follows:
.
30 1 days
(1) Applicant shall contact the City Clerk to be
placed on the Planning Commission agenda;
(2) Filing fee 11 (to cover public hearing costs)
(3) Site plan and written addendum (as described
below) shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission;
(4) A public hearing shall be set by the
Clerk, advertised, and conducted by the Planning
Commission in accordance with Section 8 of this
ordinance;
(5) Within sixty (60) days following the Public
Hearing, the Plarming Commission shall transmit
its recommendation to the City Council; (Such
report (written) shall be accompanied by findings
of fact specifying the reasons for the decision.)
(6) Within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the
Planning Commission report, the City Council shall
refuse, or by a 4/5 vote of the entire Council
shall approve the site plan and addendum.
2. Site Plan - A site plan similar in detail to a preliminary
plat shall be drawn accurately to scale showing: (1) dimen-
sions of the site; (2) location and dimensions of all present
and proposed buildings; (3) location and dimensions of
ancilla.17 ; (4) road entrances and exits; (5) access roads;
(6) location of parking and (boat) storage area(s), including
parking stalls and traffic flow; (7) location and design of
screening; (8) location and design of lightin~; (9) detailed
landscape design; (lO) drainage; (ll) signs; (12) lakeshore
footage; (13) location, shape, design, and dimension of
docks, each dock shall be numbered and shall indicate the
number of boats to be harbored within each designated dock;
(14) flow of boat traffic; (l5) location and design of boat
ramp and launchin~ area; (16) location of boat dock canopies-
when applicable; (17) location and design of service loading
1
.
1
3/5 1
.
..
.
-4-
area; (18) location and design of storage areas; (19) loca-
tion and design of trash collection facilities and access
to same by trash collectors; (20) location and dimensions
of land recreation facilities (such as proposed tennis
ATTN: court(s), swimming pool,etc.) - when applicable; (21) zoning
Is 350 feet enough? ~of property within 350 feet of site; (22) other items peculiar
to the facility; (23) name of owner and mailing address of
facility; - and shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
3. Written Addendum - A written addendum (to the site plan)
containing any additional details pertinent to the recreational
facility that cannot be shown on the site plan shall be sub-
mitted with the site plan. Where a building is used in con-
nection with the recreational facility, the interior usages
shall be described in the addendum.
B. Environmental study
PLANNJ;,NG COMM. NOTE:
I have changed the pro-
cedure order on this -
Read "Environmental
study" paragraph in old
marina ordinance.
.
.
?
.,
?
~
~
?
1. Upon receipt of a site plan and written addendum the Planning
Commission, at the instruction of the City Council, may require
a study of the consequences of the proposal upon the natural
environment, public health, safety and welfare, as well as
possible infringement on the public right to use the public
water or any unreasonable restrictions on the existing adja-
cent residential areas should it appear that any of the above
conditions might be endangered by approval of the requested
facility.
2.
(If required), the study shall be carried out by a person or
persons competent in the knowledge of environmental protection
and urban planning, which person or persons must be approved by
the City Council prior to the commencement of the study. The
applicant (or petitioner) shall pay the cost of the study or
reimburse the city for any such cost. The study results shall
be (filed with the City Clerk and) forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
3. The Plarmi.ng Commission in making its recommendation to the City
Council and the City Council in making its decision shall take
into consideration, along with the site plan and written addendum,
the environmental study report and the effect which that report.
states the proposed developnent may have upon the public health,
safety, welfare or the public right to use the public waters..
C. The proposed site shall be located on a lake which has at least two
(2) public accesses of at least fifty (50) feet in width located
within the Shorewood city limits.
· The proposed site shall contain not less than two and one-balf' (2ft)
acres in size. An additional one and one-balf' (It) acres of contigu-
ous land shall be required when game courts and! or swimming pool are
permitted.
~
.
-5-
E. The proposed site shall contain not less than 250 feet of contiguous
lake shore footage.
F. The minimum and maximum number of slips, docks, and buoys allowed a
facility shall be authorized by the City Council for each applicant
based upon the special requirements of each site.
? .30? - G. Docks and Buoys - Shall be constructed no closer than twenty (20)
feet to the side lot line; Shall extend into the water no more than
two hundred (200) feet as measured from the point the dock touches
the shoreline; Shall be located no closer than one-hundred (100)
feet to any lake channel; Shall be constructed and maintained to meet
standards of the IMCD, the Minnehahah Creek Watershed District, the
Department of Natural REsources,and other applicable state agencies,
unless superseded by this ordinance; the Minnesota state Building Code
shall be used in making the review: minimum live load of forty (40)
pounds per square foot, maximum deflection 1/240 of span required;
Gasoline dispensing equipnent shall be located on a dock separated
by a walkway from any docks on which boats are moored, shall be
located no closer than twenty (20) feet from any boat slip, and shall
be further governed by standards of the Department of the State Fire
Marshall.
.
H. Boat, Boat Trailer, and Boat Cradle Storate - Summer storage of boats,
trailers, and cradles permitted on1.y where and in the manner shown
on approved site plan; Winter storage of boats, trailers, and cradles
excluding owner's rental boats) permitted on1.y where and in the manner
shown on approved site plan, with storage limited to authorized slip
or buoy holders; On-land storage area designated on site plan to be
screened by means of a natural woods area and/or a privacy fence,
the detailed requirements of which shall be determined by the Planning
Commission; Stacking of boats, trailers, cradles, use of boat cranes,
and other methods of boat transfer permitted on1.yon prior approval
of City Council.
I. Outdoor Public Address and Music SyStems - Outdoor public address
systems shall not be permitted to be operated in conjunction with
the facility; Outdoor music systems permitted on1.y on prior approval
by City Council, and must be operated at a reasonably low decibal
level at all times.
J. Licensing - Prior to the commencement of operation granted pursuant
to this Ordinance, the applicant shall obtain a license authorizing
the applicant to operate in accordance with the terms of the C-4
NOTE: I have omitted lnstrict (and any conditional permitted uses); An annual license fee
the annual renewal of shall be charged based upon the number of slips authorized, with the
the? amount of such fee being determined from time to time by resolution
license. of the Council; Inspections of the licensed facility shall be conducted
by the City Councilor its designee. In the event the Council deems
? it necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public,
it may, after a public hearing, p:rovide for changes in the method of
operating the facility and incorporate those changes in the terms of
the license. If it appears that the facility is not being maintained
. or operated in accordance with the terms of the license, the licensee
shall be notified of such violation in writing by the City Clerk and
shall be advised that the violation shall be corrected within ten (10)
days. If the violat~on is not corrected within said time, the council
.
-6-
may revoke the license, but not until the licensee has been given
an opportlmity to be heard at a regular meeting of the COlmcil.
Failure to have a valid license in force shall be prima facie evi-
dence of a violation of this Ordinance.
NOTE: Should
this be in the
ordinance?
?
K. Filing of Slip Rental List - The licensee shall file annually with
the City Clerk by April 1st (or within ten days following rental
of a slip in the authorized facility if rented after April 1st)
the following information: the name and address of the owner of
each boat, a description of the boat, the registration number of
the boat, and the slip numbers rented. The number of boats which
may be stored in the facility shall not exceed that authorized
by the City Council, and only those boats which have been registered
with the City Clerk may be stored in the facility.
L. Seasonal rental of unoccupied slips or buoys shall be first
offered (in a well-publicized manner) to residents of the City
of Shorewood through the 15th day of February of any given year;
thereafter, the remaining unoccupied boat slips and buoys may
be made available for rental to non-5horewood residents.
M. Ancilliary Services - May provide services in service building(s)
or clubhouse limited to the sale of soft drinks, snacks and pre-
packaged fOods, fishing bait and tackle, and light accessory
marine-line equipnent. A license to sell 3.2 beer may be obtained
only by a 4/5's affirmative vote of the City Council; May engage
in the rental of fishing boats, canoes, and pontoon boats to a
number which totals not more than thirty percent (30%) of the
authorized slips and buoys.
NOTE:
I changed this -
r 25%r
SECTION 2.
~r-i
c.> '"
""n
~ c.>
M
r-iG>
.~ ~
M r
~ a
6 ~
~~
o '"
~~
'"
G>
-g.g
r-ir-i
c.>o
.~ oj.>
.t:
+> c.>
.n '"
l>i
"0
r-i '" ('0.
M_~
~~
tH
..= Q)
~.g"O
Or-i~
:2:0.0
Sections 26, 27, 2$, 29, 30, and 31 shall be renumbered Sections 27, 2$, 29,
30, 31, and 32 respectively.
SECTION 3.
Section 4, Subd. 6, shall be amended to include the following definitions:
"SLIP": A permanent water dockage area accommodating one boat."
"MARINA: A facility for the water-harboring of boats and related
services."
"YACHT CLUB:
SECTION 4.
Section 16 shall be amended to include as a district to be shown on the
zoning map the following:
"C-4 Boat Harboring Commercial District"
SECTION 5.
Section 18, Subd, 3-D, shall be amended to read as follows:
"D. Golf course and clubhouse facilities."
..I'{-
SECTION 6.
. Section 26 (now "27") Shall be amended to include the C-4 district.
SECTION 7.
That this Ordinance shall take effect fran and after its passage and
publication according to law.
ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this
, 1977.
day of
ATTESTED:
Clerk-Administrator
Mayor
.
.
.
.
.
.;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 13, 1977
q . ~(!,' ,t>~ ee;m
'7 .. ~., "
$' :~
The meeting was called to order by Jerry Brecke due to the absence of Vern Watten,
at 7:30 P.M. Present were Jerry Brecke, Steve Larson, Frank Reese, Kristi Stover,
and J an Haugen.
Frank Reese moved approval of September 8th minutes. Seconded by Kristi Stover.
Approval unanimous.
Gene Erickson & Norris Adams - Shorewood Lane
Jan Haugen presented information from the city files on Jim Dutcher's division
of land in 1974 (letters, memo, minutes.) as requested.
Mr. Erickson presented his division proposal. He felt a precedent had been set
by Mr. Dutcher.
Reese moved; Larson seconded to recommend to the Council theY!Q! approve the
division of property. No hardship was shown by the petitioner; and the Commiss-
ion felt that previous decisions are not necessarily applicable now and not
binding on this group. Unanimously approved.
Nursery Property - County Road #19
The last meeting was the public hearing. Stover moved to delay the vote until
the November meeting so they will have a chance to look at the new CODllllercial
Ordinance. Larson seconded, unanimous vote.
Ted Noble
Mr. Noble was p:resent as was his attorney, Mr. Glen Froberg; and Mr. Ted Kemna,
engineer. The plat that was approved 10 years ago (but not filed) was discussed
in conjunction with the present proposal to develop on those two lots on Edgewood
Road and two lots on Grant Lorenz Road. They indicated where the road would go
when land was fully developed and expressed their intention to dedicate the land
to the City.
Mr. Noble was asked why a similar decision as the 1973 decision should not be made,
that the entire parcel should be developed. Mr. FToberg answered that 1) sewer
assessments for entire project would then have to be paid; 2) taxes are assessed
on a per lot basis vs. one or two larger parcels.
The suggestion was made that the entire project be filed but only request develop-
ment on four lots. Reese wanted the entire project planned to fix location of
roads and other things specified in the letter from Orr-Schlen in 1973. Mr. Noble
wondered what guarantees he would have that future councils would honor whatever
was approved now. Was told to check with City Office.
.
.
.
Page 2.
-
Jerry Brecke mentioned advisability of checking with Park Commission about new
Park Plan and the new concept.
Mr. Noble was asked to re-plat with out -lots and with dedicated roads, then
submit as a regular subdivision.
Reese moved, stover seconded, to table until documents are into the City Engineer
and we have the report back. Carried unanimously.
Enchanted Gardens
Mr. Paul Albins applied for a Variance to allow 3 houses on lot on Enchanted
Island. #1 '"' 35,000 sq. ft; #2 '"' 21,000; #3 '"' 25,000; and outlot (commonly
owned) '"' 16,000 sq. ft.
There was some disagreement as to the actual size of the lot. It is dependent
on high water mark designation. Is it 930 ft or 932 ft. How much is wetlands?
The lot was charged 1 E and 2 D sewer units on the basis of 90,000 ft. The
Engineers office records 16,000 sq. ft. Mr. Albin bought the lot thinking he
was getting 3 acres.
Glen Borecker from Century 21 was with Mr. AAbins.
Bill Horgan, Mr. Faaberg and Mrs. Ferguson were present to express their views
and those of some of their neighbors. They object to 3 homes being put in Rl
zone. Most of the surrounding homes have an average of 60,000 sq. ft. of land.
Also concerned about M-3 Wetlands, an endangered species nesting in the area,
the 15 ft. setback from shoreline and the possible filling of wetlands. The
piece ofproPert~ was l~ke an island when water was high.
The members of the Commission discouraged 3 lots and said it was either 2 or 1
depending on further information from Mr. Albins regarding wetlands, lot size, etc..
Motion was made by Reese that the petitioner provide a preliminary plat and sub-
mit it thru normal channels. The Commission will review when re-plat is "sub-
mitted. In addition the members would like a legal opinion as to use of out-lot
~egress to several lots - Larson seconded - unanimous vote.
The P.C. would like to have the planner receive a copy of the C3 Ordinance and
would like his reaction at the October 2~h meeting. Also the Boat Harboring
Ordinance that Jane Cole proposed.
Brecke moved for adjournment at 10:05. Larson seconded - Unanimous vote.
Kristi Stover,
Acting Sec.
.
.
.
.-
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY MEE'rING
Oot. 27, 1977
The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Vern Watten at 7:45 P.M. Those
attending were: Steve Larson, Kristi Stover, Jerry Miller, Jane Cole, and Vern Watten
from the Planning CommiS:Siolr,. Phil Honsey from Midwest Planning, Jan Haugen from the
City Council.
Steve Larson moved approval of the Ootober 13th minutes. Jane Cole seoonded.
Unanimously approved.
A question by Steve Larson as to the future action of Midwest Planning pertain-
ing to their report to the Council on Municipal Water. They stated it should oome
in Shorewood but after the Council vote it does not loom as a possibility for some
years to oome unless oontamination is discovered in local wells.
COMMERCIAL ZONING
Jan Haugen stated she was contaoted by Dave Licht. He said the zoning as pre-
sented may spawn some legal diffioulties. Phil Honsey said the new ordinanoe 1) gave
no additional proteotion and 2) no one would 'lllse it. He reoommended it be tabled for
further study. Everyone agreed that this was not the zoning that they had invisioned.
They wanted a buffer "C" zone for residential-oommeroial areas.
The Planning Commission requested Midwest Planning to oome up with a new "c"
zoning that will be a transition from the commeroial to residential. They also said
that when looking at the overall plans Midwest should keep these things in mind.
1) We are not an urban area - use parkn and woods as buffers in new developments.
2) Small pieoes of land are zoned "R" that are not appropriate. They have speoial
problems that may be addressed with a new "C" zone. 3) The counoil has to be oom-
fortable with the overall zoning ordinanoe - as does the P.C. so they will work as
a team. 4) Look at the entire oity and see what is appropriate zoning.
Jan Haugen said that the unique quality of Shorewood (Lake - o,en space - woods -
eto.) are desirable to home owners and those looking for a home. The purohasers like
to know what zoning is around them - and should know so they're not sUJ"prised by
future development; and so they don 't have to request extra changing. We should look
at the whole oi ty and deoide what is good in our zoning and what needs improvemell't.
There should be some flexibility for speoial problems. We should try to preserve the
atmosphere.
Further discussion revealed that most of those present felt the "C" zoning oate-
gories are not oompatible; that they need re-organization to produce more Qrder. The
zoning presented to the oounoil was not what we were looking for.
*P.C. and Council should oirole "hot-spots" in the oity for the planner. He oan
then keep them in mind.
** The P.C. requests a standard prooedure for publio hearings, eto. Forms so
those involved know what is expected of them and what to expeot.
BOAT HARBORING ORDINANCE
It was explained its purpose was to provide legal access for the p.blic, to the
lake now and in the future. Planner will look at it and' provide information.
.
.
.
4
Planning Commission - Study Meeting
Page 2.
ETHICS ORDINANCE
There was a disoussion as to Jane and Jerrys involvement with the Howard Point
Marina. How would it affeot their input to the oommission and what would occur if any
variances were requested.
MIDWEST PLANNING
Phil Honsey discussed the systems statement regarding population, sewage flow,
and other disputed areas. We have appealed to Metro Council. The individual meetings
with oity officials should be concluded the week of Nov. 7th. They will give us infor-
mation on zoning ordinanoes by the next study meeting.
Jan Haugen will try to arrange for the next study meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
NOTE: _ P.C. members and Council please let planner know of "hot-spots" as soon as
possible - areas of special oonoern, eto. - so he can work on them before
next study meeting.
Affidavit .. of Publication
STA TE OF MINNESOTA.
County of Hennepm
AA..~u~.\t"."'1\# "~..a~jl.4MAH"''''
- M>'RGARET K. WANotnSEE
I_OlA8Y pueuc . MIHtttSOV .
liENl'ifPlN CQlJNl'V . .
. __ CtlmlfIlssltm h,iI'tS Aut_ $, ItU
.
.
.
(t - J6
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOmffiER 10, 1977
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held November 10, 1977
at the Minnewashta School at 7:30 P.M. Present were J. Brekke, J. Cole, S. Larson,
F. Reese, K. Stover, Chm. V. Watten, Councilwoman Haugen and Phil Honsey, Planner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
S. Larson moved, J. Brekke seconded, approval of the October 13, 1977 minutes. Motion
carried unanimously. (It was decided that study meeting minutes should be approved at
study meetings - and public hearing meetings approved there.)
OLD BUSI~S
OAK RIDGE 2ND ADDITION
Mr. noble appeared in order to present his new drawings of his deve1opnent,
showing future roads, out1ots, and the four lots for current deve1opnent. F. Reese
moved that this plan be reviewed by planner, engineer and attorney and consideration
be given for a public hearing. Seconded by J. Breke.
Discussion: S. Larson questioned the purpose for short square footage per lot.
Explanation was that the average would be 40,000 sq. ft. and that this would be a
variance request. The average would be for the future deve1opnent.
Motion passed.
Advised to request the variance when requesting the public hearing from City Clerk.
ENCHANTED GARDENS - LOT 1. BLOCK 1
Bill Horgan would like to have a chance to s:peak a~ainst, if it comes up.
J. Brekke moved, S. Larson seconded, to end the discuss~on tonight.
Suggestion: Call the City Hall to check on agenda to see it it will be on the
agenda. You will be notified of a public hearing (350 ft.)
PUBLIC HEARING: CLAm ROOD FOR .AMEN'l:MENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. '17 (RE-ZONE)
Public hearing was opened at 7:55 P.M.
Explanation was given of notification to citizens.
Jan Haugen explained Metro Council's projected population. She stated that Metro
Council and Shorewood differ markedly in projected population figures. If we go
over, either 1) there will be no more building permits issued, or 2) we will pay for
expansion of sewer plant. She advised that we don't do anything too drastic until
this is resolved. Phil Honsey stated that he will take data and revise formula. He
also advises that we should "let things take their natural course" and then Metro
Council will see we are right in our prediction. Haugen feels that we should stick
to our ordinances and the Metro Council will see that we are right in our original
position. J. Brekke feels we should have a directive from City Council on no public
hearings for deve1opnents. Since neither Mr. or Mrs. Rood were present, members of
the audience were invited to speak. Mr. Rood's letter was read by V. Watten.
Paul Christensen, John Coverdale, Mrs. Johnson, Dot'.g !hems, Sharon Oswald, Albert
Hoops, Don Mo1enbach and Jane Cole (for Pete Throdah1) spoke opposing the proposed
amendment. They prefer the open spaces, larger lots, are concerned about establish-
ing precedent by lowering lot size requirements. The state of the land (water level,
etc.) was discussed - as well as the tiling that was done mdY years ago. It was
suggested that the City should have maps showing the location of the tiling. Dis-
cussion followed on the need to improve the land in order to build - i.e. fill, etc.
Planner recommends staying away from putting many buildings there.
A question was presented about the quality of homes built by Mr. Rood (homes built by
him on Maple).
V. Watten advised the audience that any vote would be postponed until the next regular-
ly scheduled meeting - DR.. 8. . .
J. Cole moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by J. Brekke. Mot~on carr~ed.
.
.
.
.
Page 2. Minutes 11-10-77
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE REQUEST BY TOM WICKENHEISER - MANOR ROAD (PARCEL B)
Public hearing was opened at 8:40 P.M.
Tom Wickenheiser proposed s:p1itting lot 2 into two lots. (Part B of Lots 11 and 12).
Discussion of lot (proposed) size followed. No members of the audience commented.
Vern Watt en moved to close public hearing. Seconded by S. Larson. Motion carried.
Planning commission discussion followed: Some question about whose figures on square
footage is accurate.
J. Cole moved, S. Larson seconded, not to recommend variance for subdivision because
of reasons listed below and because no hardship was shown.
~~
figures are used.
Motion passed unanimously.
Road frontage too narrow for R-2 zoning.
Square footage too far off (11% - 2&/0 deviation factor) depending on whose
A!2DITIONAL OLD BUSI~S: Continuation of public hearing on Nurs~r:v Prot>ert~ - County
Road 19. Original public hearing - September 8, 1977 - delay on Oct. 13, 1977 meeting
due to possible new Commercial Ordinance).
NOTE: (Public hearing closed on 9-8-'77 - October motion to delay vote until Nov.
meeting. ) Gary Minion wondered when he can get an answer to his nursery proposal. Was
advised that his public hearing is still in force - so no new fee would be necessary.
Also advised that the time may be longer than he desired. His need to know based on order
for nursery stock, etc. He felt that since this was his third meeting he might get an
answer now. General feeling of the Planning Commission expressed that there seems to
be no opposition to his proposal, but the zoning is not proper. The concern is how to
arrive at an appropriate way to re-zone for a nursery without re-zoning C-2. Concern
is for future control.
Phil Honsey rresented a draft of Residential-Commercia1 District.. Discussion followed.
Concerns: 1 Change "nurseries and garden supply centers" to "nursery with garden
supplies". 2 Change hours from "7:00 P.M and 5:00 A.M." to "8:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M.".
(or some more appropriate hours.) - Subdivision 6 - B - hours of closing. .
3) Include C-3 and 4 under B as 5 and 6 (re-state for emphasis).
4) Re-state conditional use requirements for signs, Note: Subd. 6-n-
1, 2, 3 further restrict signs. (For emphaSis).
5) Midwest Planning will provide a list of proposed amendments to ordinance
to be inserted.
6) "All signs design shall be submitted to council", etc.
Note: The purpose describes the intent of this proposed ordinance very well - thus
there should be no problems in making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions.
V. Watt en moved, S. Larson seconded, motion to recommend approval of draft ordinance
"Section 22 A Residential-Commercia1 District' with changes proposed in minutes.
Comment: The Planning Commission appreciates the format and manner in which this
ordinance was presented. Moved by J. Brekke, seconded by J. Cole. Passed unanimously.
Phil Honsey distributed copies of proposed Boat Harboring District.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion of need for some parcels of land to be re-classified R-2 from R-1 to
promote deve1opnent. Pros and cons expressed to this suggestion.
Next meeting: December 8, 1977.
Frank Reese moved, Jane Cole seconded, to adjourn meeting. Motic>'"1 passed.
Kristi Stover,
Acting Secretary
--
e
e
Nov. 10, 1977
MEMB TO PLANNING COMMISSION
From Elsa
Rea Division Request of Lot 11 and 12
From Tom Wickenheiser and John Gray
Mrs. Stanley Vosmek, living on the east side of the lot being proposed
for division came into the office and indicated she would be unable to
attend the hearing. Dr. Larson was in my office at the time. She expressed
opposition to the variance since it would locate the new house too close to
their property line. Dr. Larson agreed to convey her opposition.
I did not obtain an engineer's report because of the expense involved.
Mr. Studer did look at the property but without actual stakes as to where
the lot lines were he could not make any recommendation but felt that in
order to build some filling would be required.
Rea Request for Rezoning from Clair Rood
Enclosed is a letter from Gerald Doheny of Strawberry Lane opposed to the
rezoning.
Note:
In view of the recent confliot we have had with Metropolitan Council on the
sewage capacity and projected population figures for 1980 and up to 2000
any new platting may have to be turned down especially where new zoning is
involved that would double the projections of the original zoning.
Jan Haugen may want to elaborate on the status of the systems statement
figures and what these figures mean to Shorewood's future development.
1';F"'-'.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - December 8, 1977
.
ROLL CALL
The regular meeting of the Shorewood Planning Commission was held
December 8th at 7:40 P.M. in the Minnewashta Elementary School.
Present were: Watten, Reese, Seover, Cole, Brecke, and liaison
member, Jan Haugen. Absentees: Miller and Larson
MINUTES:
Jerry Brecke moved and Frank Reese seconded that the November 10th
minutes stand approved as written. Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
ENCHANTED GARDENS - Lot 1, Block 1 - Paul Albitz
Mr. Albitz was present with additional information requested
by the Planning Commission at their former session:
1. The official water level elevation at Lake Minneton~that
the set-backs are taken from?
=Letter presented by Mr. Albitz, dated 11/21/77, from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; advising the ordinary
high water level as 929.4, as determined by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
2. The proposal to have a lot divided by using an outlot as
access to this lot?
=Mr. Albitz stated that he had conferrerl with Attorney Kelly
o n No v em be r 2 8 t h and Mr. K e 11 y had told him t hat i n his
opinion there were no legal problems.
Mr. Albitz then presented his 3 lot division maps and his
proposals. After much discussion, Mr. Watten read excerpts
from Ordinance 79; "Nothing in this ordinance shall effect,
limit, or apply, in the case where one lot is divided into
two or three lots or parcels of land, the size of which su~-
divided. lots or parcels of land conform to the City's minimum
requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance and also abut
upon a public street."
Watten: "So, the size in this particular case does not conform
to the City's minimum requirements, unless it were two lots."
Adjacent property owners present were Horgan and Ferguson, who
were given time to present their opposition.
Reese moved that this division be held over until the staff
has an opportunity to submit something that reflects the
comments made; such as Federal Wetlands, Endangered Species
Act, City Ordinances that relate to the subdivision, and some
documentary information from the Engineer and Planner.
Seconded by Brekke; motion carried.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REZONING PARCEL 5200 - Clare Rood
AP~blic Hearing was held November 10th, at whichticmeMr..
R60ddid not present himself. Tonight he came f1}rth to
present drawings of .his development in an effort to find the
. best pIa n." The Nov 10th hear i ng had bee n closed.
A motion was made by Brecke and seconded by Stover that the
Zoning from an'R-l to R-2 be denied at this time. Motion
carried.
SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes - December 8, 1977
Page -2-
.
NURSERY/SIGN COMPANY PROPERTY - CTY ROAD 19
The final decision is being withheld for the New Ordinance.
NEW BUSINESS:
ST. ALBANS BAY ROAD - Lot 71 & 72
Jay Carpenter, representing Redfield Homes, appeared before the
Planning Commission stating that he has purchased the Fick Prop-
erty with the Fick Residence. The purchase agreement calls for
contingency through February 1, 1978. He presented his proposals
for the P.C. direction, with the intent that he would have something
to present at the January meeting, so that it could be moved on to
the Council for approval. The plan is for the division of 219,350
square feet - 5.04 acres. He is asking for 3 - 1 acre lots; 2 - t
acre lots and a double bungalow with variances. He stated that a
time element is involved.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL:
.
1. Reese moved, seconded by Brecke, that a Public Hearing be
recommended for January 12th for:
a. St. Albans Bay - Preliminary Plat of 6 lots
b. Oak Ridge Estates 2nd Addition-Preliminary Plat 5 lots
Motion carried.
2. Watten moved that we set January 12th for a Public Hearing for:
Residential-Commercial Zone Ordinance
Variable Fee Schedule Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Seconded by Cole, Motion carried.
COUNCILWOMAN HAUGEN: Informed the Planning Commission that
starting next year, the Council is going to meet quarterly with
both Commissions and have a joint work session. One meeting will
be with full Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
Stover moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Cole.
M~,f io n carr i ed .,
~~ D~secretary
..