The URL can be used to link to this page

1979 pl mn . City of Shorewood PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January ll, 1979 M I NUT E S The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met in regular session on Thursday, January 11, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. at the Minnewashta Elementary School. Chairman Reese called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were: Reese, Gagne, Watten, Stover, and Rascop. Leslie was absent. Others present were: Liaison Haugen, and Planner Nielsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 14th Moved by Stover and seconded by Gagne to approve the minutes of December 14th as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. BOULDER BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT - Final plat This property is described as the "Boulder Bridge Farm" and is located on the north side of Smithtown Road, running west from Howard's Point Road to just north of 27910 Smithtown Road. . A. PLAN SUMMARY - by Tom Wartman Boulder Bridge Farm PURD consists of 45 acres plus lots. Total acreage in the PURD is approximately 80 acres, of which 18 acres are devoted to open space and trails, 4.5 acres of ponding, and 3 acres of roadway. The main mansion along with the carriage house and greenhouse will remain as a single family residence. The existing large barn and double stall horse barn will remain within the association. The remaining structures will be removed. As shown, 3 tennis courts will be installed, a riding ring area, tot lot, and trail system; which will be used for jogging, walk- ing, cross-country skiing and horseback riding. Horses will be kept and stalled by the large barn area, with a maximum number of 18 horses at any time to be permitted. Lake access will be ob- tained via trail routes by foot or by golf cart like vehicle travel within the subdivision. Sewer and water will be provided for within the PURD. Roads will be main- tained at 22' widths, to continue the existing characteristic of the farm estate. Grass shoulders will handle any pedestrian or cart vehicle traffic. All drainage has been assessed within the project and is controlled by two large wetland areas. Setbacks on each lot have been set at 50' front 30' rear and 10' side, , , with the exception of 4 lots having only 40' front setbacks; those being Block 2, lot 1; Block 3, lot 14' Block 4, lot 5; and Block 5, lot 1. The project will proceed in three stages as diagrammed. An architectural review board will review all building plans, driveway locations, and landscape plans prior to individual construction starts. The Homeowners Association setup will then control all general activities within the PURD and maintain all common grounds. . Planning Commission Meeting - 2 - Minutes of January 11, 1979 BOULDER BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT (Continued) Chairman Reese asked that we follow the recommendations of the Midwest Planning report and take each issue, one by one, _ toget the response of the developers on each issue. . Recommend At 5. "er to: ~ Richard Dean Horse Inspector Recommend Item 6. Reviewal of Engineers. Concerned with egress to those lots northwest .' B. MIDWEST PLANNING REVIEW - David Licht/Brad Nielsen - Letter dated 1/4/79 (attached) 1. Project Area We do not agree with this. It is all very rigidly controlled by the PURD itself and if there were to be any new additions, it would have to go before the City for approval. 2. General Recreational Area parking We agree and have drawn in our plan - 9 spaces across from the barn and 4 spaces by the tennis courts for off-street parking. 3. Golf Cart Type Vehicle Operation We plan to provide a grass through gravel granular type soil to support these vehicles in the right-of-way along the streets; in some areas on one side and in the circular areas on both sides. We are providing a 50' right-of-way for the 22' paved area to give additional width on both sides, which will quite adequately provide the grass road. 4. Non-conforming Buildings Since this is a PURD and since all of these existing buildings are on the same parcel of property, it is proper that we be allowed that status to remain. 5. Stable Area The small barn and the stable next to it are to be used to harbor the horses; it is the intention of the Association to have a maximum of 18 horses. 6. Street Intersection a. Circle Street Connection to Loop Street Should turning movement problems be encountered in this area Circle Drive can be converted to a one-way circulation pattern. We are asking Council to accept the design as now proposed with this alternative in mind. b. East Loop Road Access to Smithtown Road We believe that an improvement can be made beyond the gates to the paved surface of Smithtown Road; making a 90 degree turn at that point; it is our wish to preserve the gates. c. West Loop Road Intersection with Smithtown & Boulder Circle This will not be the primary access to the development; signing can probably eliminate many major problems. 7. Street Location - Cul-de-sac at NW Corner of Project Earlier stages of the project planned to move the cul-de-sac back but some of the property owners to the west have easements so this change cannot be made. In 1961 the city acquired an easement over Tract B, including the radius of the cul-de-sac short 10' from the south boundary of Tract B; that is where the current'road is today. Mr. Chandler has an easement over that portion of the tract and an addi- tional 10' which would, if he ever had a driveway, come over the south end of the cul-de-sac. We would propose they leave the cul-de-sac as is so no further action is needed. Planning Commission Meeting -3- Minutes of January 11, 1979 . BOULDER BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT (Continued) .' Recommend detail review of the drainage by Engineers. Recommend to City Attorney. 8. Driveway Access Since this is a PURD of individual lots, we feel this issue can be dealt with on a lot to lot basis as the project progresses. 9. Street Width I think we agree on this proposal. 10. Front Yard Setbacks We proposed a 40 foot setback, rather than 50', to help deal with some of the lots with low frontage; however, there is some resistance to that so we feel we will go along with the 50'. We still have a few lots that are a problem. Trail Utilization We are not in a position, at this time, to state what the uses of the trails will be. We feel the neighborhood association can deal with these problems as they occur. Landscape/Screening/Fencing plan A landscape plan will be dealt with; landscaping on major common areas, and Dunn's property line as it goes down from the mansion across the open area. oaks, maples, and orientals will be planted and the northern property line is open pasture. Staging plan We have designated on our map the 3 planning stages. 1st phase - initial 7 lots 2nd phase - middle 24 lots 3rd phase _~ast section 11. 12. 13. 14. Dfainage Complete drainage maintains itself in 2 wetlands - 1 in the pond area and secondary wetlands immediately to the South of Smithtown Road and 1 small area to the northeast. The pond is historically a stock pond; we are converting into a filtering basin for runoff going into Lake Minnetonka. The runoff from the project will go into that pond with the solid wastes settling out and the light materials will surface and evaporate; the drainage will then go through the control structure in between 2 levels so that only relatively clean water will pass through to the lake, as required by the Watershed District Regulations. Covenants and restrictions a. Compliance with City ordinances, plus conformance with PURD plans approved by the City. b. Variances by developer plan Summary Statement Developer has complied with this request. 15. 16. * * * Chairman Reese: "The concept and use of land have been approved on the preliminary plans and the issues of the detailed plans have been reviewed, all but the basic question of the docks. A motion is in order for a recommendation to the Council." Watten: "I move to recommend to the Council that we approve the final plat of the Boulder Bridge Development as presented; subject to approval by the various governing agencies, with reference to boat docking, - number and design." Stover: "I second the motion" . . . . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 11, 1979 -4- Reese: "We wish to ammend the motion to include modifications which are not shown." 1. No driveways to front on Smithtown Road 2. No Problem of leaving the 2 lots in Block 7 as part of PURD. 3. Number of parking spaces shown on the plan are suitable. 4. Dock issue left open. "Reflecting on the comments of the developers and modifications, all in favor of the approval of the final plat please signify by an aye vote." Motion carried unanimously. NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES - Peter Fleum and Herb Baldwin, developers The property is bound on the north by Covington Road, Vine Hill Road and the intersection of 101, West 64th (and now ~e are in Chanhassen) Silver Lake, the Ridge, and Near Mountain. This consists of 320 acres in 2 communities. There are lots of concerns. Slides were presented to give a feeling of the kind of single family homes and town houses proposing. They are looking for direction toward development of a concept plan. NEW HOME FINANCING - Industrial Revenue Bonds At the joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission this issue was turned over to the Planning Commission for study. Gagne moved that we get more information from the Bonding Company and pursue this further. Seconded by Watten. Motion Carried Unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, )./7 J!' Jj \ A~~ P(ti<;/t-v~ Bobbie DybviW: Secretary ,;~,..:.. ;tI>. ;+ 4 . . . . -- wban planning . design . ft'I8I1cet reeearch 416 east hemepinaveFlUemimeapolis mimesota 55414(612)379-4600 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood Planning Commission FROM: DATE: David licht/Brad Nielsen .. January, 1 V79 RE: Boulder Bridge PURD - Final Plan (78.14) Midwest Planning has been directed to review the final plans for the proposed Boulder Bridge PURD development. In this regard, it is to be noted that our firm was not the City's planning consultant initially involved in the preliminary layout review, nor were we involved at the time Council action was taken on the preliminary plan. This qualification is highlighted to ensurerecC>g'nition of the fact that the basic development concept was established prior to our involvement. In general, we believe the final plan now before the City is a desirable utilization of the land, is respectful of the topography and natural amenities, and is in keeping with the qual ity and character of the community. The points which we raise, therefore, are detailed considerationsto be evoluoted by the City as well as the developer in the finalization of plans, as well as the final plat. 1. Project Area - The major portion of the project in question is a well defined, contiguous tract of land. An exception to this situation is, however, evident in block 4 lots 1 and 2. These two lots are separated from the primary track by Boulder Circle. As a means to avoid setting a precedent where other land outside of the primary tTact might be brought into the association, it is recommended that block 7 be dropped from the PURD and the related privileges and benents of the common area. Block 7 should, however, be allowed to be subdivided as suggested as part of the final platting process which is being undertaken .inconjunction with the PURD review process. 2. General Recreational Area Parking: Two areas of the development where we believe some off-street parking is required are at the tennis courts and near the barn. In both areas, th.re are persons who will want to utilize these facilities who do not have rPady, direct access. Some parking, as a consequence should be plOvided off-street (streets are proposed for a paved surface of twenty-two feet which does not permit on-street parking ). J ShoreVl/OOd Planning Commission .. January, 1979 Page Two . Additionally, in the area of the stables, I imited off-street parking should be provided for those individuals desiring access to. the boat storage area. It is understood that assoeiation-owned golf cart type vehicles for general member use will be available for transfer back and forth between the stable ar8Qand boats. Those utilizing these "common'" vehicles from the . more remote locations of the development will in all likelihood utilize their cars to gain access to the common vehicle storage area. The applicant should specify the numbet and location of the parking stalls on the final plan. . 3. Golf Cart Type Vehicle Operation: While we have some general questions and concerns as to the successfulness of the concept of utilizing golf cart type vehicles as a .m&ans of boat slip access, their general utilization over the development could pose a significant problem unless properly addressed. Unless licensed, the vehicles cannot operate on the paved portion of the right-of-way. In response to this situation, the developer has suggested that a substantial portion of the right-of-way will be open green space and un- licensed vehicles could operate in this area. Additionally, the project planner has suggested theta specialized compacted soil could be provided in a portion of the unpaved right-of-way which avoids the "cutting of a trail" yet retains grass and the natural character which is desired. We would urge that such be accompl ished as part of the development. 4. Non-conforming Buildings: The developer has advised that a number of build- ings currently on the site which are utilized as rental units will be removed. Three other existing structures will, however, remain. These are the barn, greenhouse and carriage house. Unless specifically permitted as part of the PURD, these structures are non-conforming, based upon setback requirements. Additionally, the number of structures on the lot where the main dwelling is located exceed the accessory use provisions of the ordinance. The developer has been advised of this situation. Our recommendation is that these buildings should be allowed to continue, but as non-conformities. If destroyed, the barn could, however, be replaced only within established setback provisions. I, . 5. Stable Area: The intent exPressed by the developer is that the designated common stable area is the or-'y location where horses are to be housed. We would Qgreewith this position andi would suggest that such a requirement be made part of the deed restrictions. ^",. Wartman indicated that such an addition to the legal documents would be rhode. We would also recommend, however, that the maximum numberJf horses lObe kept within the project area be specified and limited to ffiisnumber. I . ShoreVl/OOd Planning Commission 4 January, 1 V79 Page Three . 6. Street Intersections: a. Circle Street Connection to loop Street: While recognizing theobiectiye of creating an isolated neighborhood concept on the east portion of the site, the street connecting this area to the main drive may paM some future problem. The project architect has insured that the intersection is on a fairly level portion of land which is extremely beneficial. Should turning movement problems be later encountered, the developer has suggested a possible solution of making the Circle Drive a one-way circulation pattern. If a problem is later encountered, we believe this solution to be an acceptable alternative and as a consequence suggest the design be left as now propOsed. b. East loop Road Access to Smith Town: This intersection is ~ntly a poor angled access. A more right angle intersection would be preferred. Within the confines of the gate which is to be preserved, the project architect has expressed his belief that an improvement can be made. We would recommend that the City Engineer be involved in a final determination of this matter. . c. West loop Road Intersection with Smith Town and Boulder Circle: This multiple and angled access has been discussed asa possible problem. It is, however, felt that this will not be the primary access to the development and as a consequence, signing can probably eliminate many major problems. Again, the City Engineer should be involved in a final determination on this matter. 7. Street lDcation - An item requiring clarification is the location and/or intent of the placement of the cul-de-sac located at the northwest corner of the proiect area. A review of the aerial photo/plat maps suggest that the dedicated road and cul-de-sac extend much further into the proiect than is indicated and would appear to take up a maior portion of what is block 2 lot 3. In clarifying the matter, attention needs also to be directed to how the properties to the west will maintain public access. . 8. Driveway Access -The City Council's resolutionapptoving the preliminary project plans noted that driveway access points should be included on the final project plans. In view of the fact that the homes to be constructed will be custom designed for the sites, it is impossible at this time to designate driveway locations. We would, therefore, recommend that driveway locations be subject to specific site plan approval assumed by the project architectural review committee andtnot this driveway location review ~~ approval be specifically mentioned within the deed . restrictions. l 9. Street Width-A fifty foot'right-of-way.and twenty-two footpavement.have..n proposed. In keeping with the natura.1 rural character of the community which has been agreed . to as part of the Comprehensive Plan-Policy Plan, as.,.U. as the desire to preserve existing trees, we find such a proposal acceptable..\dditionally, in view of the size of the .1015 proposed on-street parkil1J would not. appear to hea . concern. Shorewood Planning Commission 4 January, .1V79 Page Four '. 10. Front Yard Setbacks - The applicant has proposed that the minimum front yard setback throughout the proi~ct area be reduced to 40 feet. 50 feet is the standard within the general R-l district. Upon discussion of this- situation with the City Attorney, it is agreed that this is setting a questionable overall precedent. It is recognized, however , that within the project area, hardships do exist os a consequence of street layout which result in some proposed lots having three sides classified. as front yards. It is therebre recommended that the standard of 50 foot rront yards be maintained and exceptions fora 10 root front yard back reduction be granted only br specific I()ts as part of the PURD approval. 11. Trail Utilization: The developer has suggested that trails would in all likelihood be multi-purpose facilities, accommodating horses, pedestrians, etc. In this regard, we have cautioned that if the trails are multi-purpose i separate pathways would likely be necessary and that extra space may as a consequence be necessary .To be noted, however, is that we view the trail utilization to be a matter of concern within the development and find acceptable the suggestion of Mr. Wartman that the property owners association be allowed to determine and govern use. 12. landscape/Screening/Fencing Plan -At various points of the parameter of the project, sensitive areas are known to exist. In these vario.us locations, the City should be provided with detai led plans indicating how buffering will be accomplished. Due to the natural features of the site plus the project scale, detailed landscaping plans are not viewed as necessary br the interior portion of the project area. . 13. Staging Plan - Due to the scale of the project beingundettaken, it would appear unlikely that the entire tract will be developed at one time. As a consequence of anticipated phasing, the City should be provided with a staging plan, defining the progression of development. 14. Drainage - It is understood that past experience has ciemonstrateddrainoge problems in various portions of the project area. The City Engineer as well as the review and decision making bodies should be certain to give attention to this matter. . 15. Covenants and restrictions .. Our review indicates that the proposed covenants and deed restrictions are quite well done and the coverage is generally adequate. . We would, however, recommend subject to the City Attorney's comments and opinion that two modifications be made: a. We believe that comt'.iance with the ordinances of the City, plus conbrmance with ~ PURD plans and conditions approved by the City be added osatimiting factor. b. Variances by the developer (SectionS) of the document would appear to grant .Iotitude which is beyond City restri.ctions. ..We would ..geest that this section be clarified and more appropriately limited.. . Shorewood Planning Commission 4 January, 1 V79 Page Five . 16. Plan Summary Statement - We believe it would be highly beneficia' to the developers as well as the community to have-a plan summary statement prepared which specifically outlines and defines what is being requested for approval as part of the PURD. Such things as the front yard setback deductions on various lots ete. would be items to be noted. This would assist in review of the plan plus assist greatly in defining and thereby assuring all matters which are being requested br approval are considered and acted upon. The Commission.should be awore thotthe plan currently before them is not the final plot. This official document is being prepared and according to the applicant will be finalized upon the City's approval of the current planning stage. cc: /tkJyor and City Council Elsa Wiltsey, AdministTator James Norton, City Engineer Frank Kelly, City Attorney Tom Wartman, Applicant Richard Lorson, Project Architect . (656 .09) I , . ~ o rJ1 ~ Z Z ~ ~ c: 8 ..2 a.. 0 ClI:: ::> a.. ~ - 0 .: a.. LL. ~ I J E ! ... ~ z af ! . 0 - GI ~ ~ .g> - u ... 0 &0 ... .... ~ w == !:: "5 U') 0 &0 rJ1 .~.::.~ ".... .. ~. . .., ,; ilJ~ lu '! ~~ - i . .. ~". ~ .. . ... . ~ '-.- f f I ! j I I I :1 :~ ;: J! '. " ~;. -{ ~"100 .~ "j '. . ~ ~ .J 0- ~2 . . , e - :1. - .t ..: .. . .I ~ :",~ '. !! ,-:' - i, ~ . .; " ;" ;. .. ~- .: . '! ~ ;. .,. .:... : ~ 1:- :~ I; . . ~ '~. . ;' ~ .. .' i ei ." ;; 1'.1 ~f i t o~nn 0 ~--'1;"":a"~ ~~ ~~\fl...:.:::-~..:=.,;:;;] ..' . ~ .... - $:-;\~ ~~. HH.. L.:a~ \,;,.... .,;;....rnv.... D....... ...."M..__ .- . ',' .... ',' .... . ". . .~~~~:=;..: ~~.;; :..=: ::-:-. - -.". . ...-...- ..J'I'C"'-~."QI"" ~ : . ! I c I f! ~-~ .. ' . . . . . City of Shorewood Planning Commission Study Meeting January 25, 1979 MINUTES The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met at 7:30 P.M. on January 25th at the Minnewashta Elementary School. The meeting was opened by Chairman Reese. ROLL CALL: Present were: Reese, Gagne, Stover, Rascop, and Leslie. Watten was absent. Others present were: Liaison Jan Haugen, and Attorney John Sanders. INDUSTRIAL BONDS - Russell L. Prince of Juran 9c Moodv. Inc. Attorney John Sanders introduced Mr. Prince of Juran & Moody, Inc. to explain the Industrial Bonds. The Industrial Revenue Bond program p~ovides a way for growing communities to be assured that reasonably priced mortgage money for homebuyers will continue to be made available to finance the purchase of new homes within their cities. A builder/developer asks that the City consider and pass a resolution authorizing the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds to provide funds for making low cost home mortgage loans available to purchasers of the builder's homes. Upon passage of the resolution, and the necessary legal work by the Bond council, the bonds are sold by the Unde~vriter and the proceeds of the sale are turned over to the Trustee. vfuen the builder sells a home, he provides the buyer with a list of the participating mortgage lenders and the buyer then makes his application with the lender of his choice for the mortgage loan. The mortgage note specifies a lower rate of interest than convention rates. The buyer will make his loan payments to the lender and once the loan has been closed, the lender delivers the closed loan to the Trustee, who buys it with the money he is holding from the sale of the bonds. This creates a "pool of mortgages" and becomes the basic underlying security behind the bond issue. The pool of mortgages is very heavily insured to provide securit~ and protection to the bond buyers against losses and it provides security to the Clty that the bond issue will not be jeopardized by problems caused by credit or hazard. Benefits to Cities: 1. Housing growth can be maintained 2. Additional building increases the city's assessed valuation with lower interest costs and therefore lower taxes for all residents of the city. 3. Increased property tax revenues increase the income to the city. 4. City improvements of sewer, water, streets, etc. can be financed from proceeds of the revenue bonds and deeded over to the city, relieving the city of this financial obligation for the proposed development. Benefits to Homebuyers: 1. Homebuyers receive a mortgage loan with an interest rate approximately 2% below the current market rate, at the time of closing. 2. More potential buyers of lower and moderate incomes will be able to qualif.y for home mortgages. 3. Homeowners can receive immediate benefit from the Im'Jer cost of borrowing money to purchase their homes. . . . Planning Commission Study Meeting -2- January 25, 1979 MODEL BOND ISSUE: 83-1/3 15 % - Actual purchase % - into basic mortgage reserve fund 1-1/2% to months interest 2 % to unde~~riters discount Difference - expense of signing the bond issue - initial trust fees. 2 % Trustee - Cushion - If bonds cannot be sold at $5,000. have to sell them at par, less 1%, 2% or whatever trustees can get. Chairman Reese asked the members to review this material and table it to the next meeting of February 8th. ~ MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES: Roman Bruce, Gordon Freeburg, and Bob vlaibe1 were present from the ChanhasseD Planning Commision to take part in the review of the development of Near Mountain Properties. Reese, Gagne, and Leslie had attended the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting last night. Reese reported that the response from the Chanhassen Planning Commission was very positive and amotion was made at their meeting to proceed with the development. Concerns: The counties interest in providing a thoroughfare street right through the middle of the project, coming out on the north end of Lotus Lake. Environmental implications in terms of wetlands, topography, etc. Central Water System. Park land and trail system. Discussion from the interested parties resulted in. giving the developers the go ahead; to draw up a preliminary plan for a public hearing- Because of the lengthy program, the Recreation District study was tabled to the meeting of February 8, 1979. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 4-I~ f!;f~ Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary ; . . . . City of Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting February 8, 1979 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Reese at 7:30 P.M. at the Minnewashta Elementary School February 8, 1979. ROLL CALL Present were: Reese, Rascop, Gagne, Leslie, and Stover. Watten was absent. Also present: Liaison Jan Haugen. Jerry Brecke, representing Howards Point Marina, was present to comment on the Hecreational District 2nd Draft. APPROVAL OF MIlfUTES Reese moved that the minutes of January 11th and January 25th stand approved as written. Seconded by Leslie. Motion carried unanimously. DIVISION - C. R. Cronin - Proposed Emerald Hills Addition Carleton Cronin 9f 5640 Ridge Road came before the Planning Commission for informal discussion relative to subdividing his property (Plat 34336, Parcel 3834) into three lots. After presentation and discussion, b~. Cronin was given favorable direction to take the proposal to the City Hall for further action. RECREATION DISTRICT - 2nd Draft Liaison Haugen gave a brief history of the Recreational Zoning for the benefit of the hew Planning Commission Members. For a year and a half Council and Planning Commission attempted to amend the Ordinance #77, commonly referred to as the "Recreational Zone". She pointed out that, "Through the workings of the Planning Commission and Council, it had mushroomed and became too restrictive and too every- thing and was therefore not ready to be put into an ordinance; however it is a necessity to the residents of Shorewood in order to have access to the lake." Jerry Brecket representing Howards Point Marina, stated that he was attending the meeting to see what direction the ordinance is taking and ha4 some comments on some areas and would like to offer them as we go through the draft. Reese: Addressed the Recreation District 2nd Draft and asked to proceed with the reading and offer comments as we move along. " Haugen: This draft was drawn up by the Attorney from materials worked on in the past and has been condensed into a workable document to be put into an ordinance to be incorporated." Brecke: "The marina did not exist at its current ownership at the time this was being studied; the crisis came up later and now we need the ordinance. We are looking for changes in configuration of our ramp and the filling in of the slips." Page 1 - RECREATIONAL DISTRICT - PUHPOSE Leslie: "When I first saw this, I expected to read about the different kinds of recreation and right away we are zonked into Lake Minnetonka." Reese: "I feel that we should expand upon the purpose here." Leslie: "I feel the time is going to come when we need a Recreational District Ordinance, so why not make it that, and broaden the purpose to allow for all those things to come in there." "Under purpose, I prefer to have it read: 'Lake Minnetonka recreational facility available for use by the citizens of Rascop: is the largest this City." ,I . . . Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - February 8, 1979 stover: "Page 1 - Permitted Uses - B. PHefer: Not Clear. "Public recreation and related structures." Page 3 - #15 Gagne: "Do you have an option?" Heese: Asked for a vote. Majority voted leave it in. Canopies Page 3 - #16 Flow of boat traffic. Leslie: "We are talking about protecting the infringement of the other property owners main concern for the boat traffic not to go where their traffic is going." stover: "You can require but it is beyond the control sf anyone." Brecke: "We try to control the speed of the traffic and direct by buoys." Page 3 - #20 Leslie: "\fuo says they are going to have a building and why do we have to know the interior design? Prefer it reads, "interior use of the building". Page 3 - #22 Haugen: "I would like to see a #22 = Number of facilities, similar to the proposed facility within the bay whereon lies the site." (Informative) Page 3 Reese: h. "These agencies do the bay analysis but requests are not granted unless they are applied for." Should read: Page 4 - or names of agencies to whom applicants ~ request and obtain approval for operation as proposed. Page 5 - 3 a. (2) - prefer it read - public accesses of at least 50 feet in width. strike - located within the Shorewood City Limits. Page 5 - b- (3) The maximum number of boats on any site shall be limited to 75. strike - to be stored. Page 6 _ d. The clubhouse shall not contain more than 10% sq. ft. of lake area property on the first floor 3.evel. The storage building shall not be more than one story in height. Page 8 _ e. No parking area shall be permitted within 15 feet of any lot line. Brecke: Would like to change this to 10. Howards Point Marina has excellent screening and here we believe a site plan would again show where it is at. Would like to park 15 cars in front of the fence. Page 8 7. Screening as required in the REC. zone. Page 8 Subdivision 3 should be subdivision 4, already have a 3. Page 9 " 4 II " " 5 Page 9 " 5 II " II 6 USE OF THE FACILITY AUTHORIZED HEREUlffiER Brecke: Would like to have this read: within ten days following April 1st. . "Slips change hands many times before March and these names donot mean anything if given too far in advance." City of Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1979 . M I NUT E S The Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood met in regular session on Thursday, March 22, 1979 at the Minnewashta Elementary School at 7:30 P.M.. . ROLL CALL Present were: Chairman Reese, Watten, Stover, and Rascop. .Leslie and Gagne were absent. Also present were liaison Haugen, and Atty. John Sanders. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED CITY HALL -'7:30 P.M. Request of the City of Shorewood for a Conditional Use Permit to use a portion of Badger Field (Zoned R-2) for the construction of a municipal City Hall. Frank Reese, of Reese-Rova Associates, made the presentation of the proposed City Hall: Showing - Site Plan - Floor Plan - Exterior Elevations - Details. . The following concerned persons were in attendance and made statements: Mrs. Leonard Meyer - 5795 Country Club Road W. D. Kendrick - 5800 Echo Road Kermit Flesness - 5810 Echo Road Gene Clapp -24115 Yellowstone Trail Bohden Witrak and Irv Novak, representing Minnetonka Ctry. Club. Allan Siegman - 5775 Echo Road Dolores Durda - 5815 Echo Road Mr. & Mrs. Peter Royce - 5825 Country Club Road Summary of Citizens Concerns 1. Why does the City of Shorewood need a new city hall? 2. What is wrong with the City Hall now being used? 3. What will this cost the taxpayers? 4. Why does this building have to be built on Badger Field? 5. Money from Liquor Stores should be used for Parks and Welfare. PROBLEMS RESIDENTS NOW PUT UP WITH: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. 7. Badger Park uses the Mtka Ctry Club Parking Lot for the dumping of beer cans, etc. Lights are on all hours of the night; noise from hockey players, police cars parking in early hours of the mornings with their radios on full blast. Not enough lites; a lovers lane area; not safe for teenagers. Town growing every year, what is to prevent more hockey rinks? Park means lovely area; we are looking at sand piles and gas pumps and heavy equipment. Murfin made promise~ regarding his property and it is an eyesore. Owe our voters more information. . . . Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1979 - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: 1. The City of Shorewood has made the present City Hall do in spite of all its deficiencies. 2. Anyone wishing to visit city hall would soon be able to see the needs. ,Heating problems, fumes from present furnace, no basement; cold floors, extremely hot in summer. ,Working areas overcrowded; no storage space for records which we feel to be very important. .Water not drinkable, have to bring in water. Getting along with these poor conditions, it now merits better facilities within an economical plan. 3. The cost at $100,000. plus 25,000 for some fill and lot work. 4. This building should be built on Badger Park because it would improve many of the complaints registered here and would also save the village money by having the maintenance sheds; employees together in one area; making for more efficiency. 5. Money from the Liquor Stores is to be used at the discretion of the City Council; to be used where needed. .It is felt that this is a great need. ,Welfare is recieved through Hennepin County, not the city, and has nothing to do with City funds. 6. Liaison Haugen invited any interested residents to attend the Park Commission and Council meetings for further information. The Public Hearing was closed at 9: 15 P.M.' Stover moved, Rascop seconded, tha the issue be tabled to the next meeting of April 12, 1979. ,Motion carried. Study meeting followed the Public earing - Comprehensive Plan. Meeting Adjourned: 10;45 P.MJ Respectfully submitted Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary . . MOTION: . Minnewashta School City of Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 1979 M I NUT E S The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Reese at the Minnewashta School on Thursday, April 12, 1979 at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were: Reese, Others present were: Gagne, Leslie, Rascop, Stover, and Watten. Liaison Haugen, Attorney Sanders, and Park Commission members Breckheimer, Goettelman, Lindstrom, Nygaard, and Stein. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stover moved, seconded by Reese, to approve the minutes of March 22nd as written. ,Motion carried unanimously. PROPOSED CITY HALL The Conditional Use Permit relative to the new City Hall was taken from the table. Chairman Reese asked Rascop to chair ~his portion of the meeting, (Reese being the architect for the project). Reese was called upon to review the plans for an update. He complied by showing the location of the proposed building; adjacent buildings, tennis courts, hockey area, and parking area plus the building plans~ He pointed out that staff and council preferred it be located in the badger Park area for various reasons: 1. At the present site, tearing down the old city hall would be too costly. 2. Present site has been designated as park area. 3. ~he new city hall will buffer between the active area and the residential area to the south; some of the eye-sores being moved to an area behind the garage. 4. lt is centrally located to provide better flow. 5. Soil tests have proven to be satisfactory. 6. A 38% expansion is available if needed in the future. Gagne moved that the Conditional Use Permit be granted, seconded by Stover, motion carried by 5 ayes. Reese abstained. PUBLIC HEARING -Don Rippel -SUBDIVISION Applicant proposed to resubdivide Tracts, A, B, and part of C, of R.L.S. #8 into approximately 3 -- 40,000 square foot lots. .The land is lakeshore property located on Woodside Road and zoned R-l. A house and tennis court currently occupy the property wtth access provided by a private easement which loops through the pro~erty to the south which is also owned by the applicant. ,This easeIlnent now serves 4 residences. : . MOTION: 8:40 PM . MOTION: . I PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - MINUTES - APRIL 1:', 1979 With no pinput from interested persons, the concerns wer discussed by the Planning Commission: I 1. access by easement - Shorewood Policy - no more ttian 3 parcels may be served by private eas~ment. ,Public street not feasible. i 2. 251 setback - adequate building setbacks frfom easement. 3. Tennis court principal use of the lot. , I Leslie moved, seconded by Gagne, to pass on to the Counc~l a recom- mendation to allow the petititioner to divide his proper~y; subject to the planner I s recommendations. ,Motion carried unanimqusly. I PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY LAKE USE PLAN- NEAR MOUNTA1N PROPERTIES Applicant: Lundgren Bros. Construction Co, Inc. - : The property under consideration for rezoning to a Plann~d Unit Residential Development is located in the SE Corner of ~he City and is bounded by Silver Lake, City of Chanhassen, Vine aill Road & Covington Road which property is approximately 179 acr~s. I Herb Baldwin presented slides of the site; the concept s~etch in a carousel; showing the amenities, hill forms to generate qharacter, and a graphic of solid forms and voids in the area with4tatement of the soils and wetland elevations. I : Peter Pflaum then presented slides relative to building types for the area. Interested persons Concerns addressed 3) Number of units schedule. attending were the Wally Day tons. : , were: 1) The trail system, 2) Traffii feeding into a cul-de-sac 4) Chanhas~en : time The public hearing I'las closed at 10: 15 P.M., Chairman Reese askei any interested persons to make comm$nt in writing to City Hal . -Suggested to Peter Flaum that he ~eet with Jan Haugen relative to a traffic meeting with the State awy Dept. regarding Vine Hill Intersection. . . I I : Leslie moved action on the development be tabled until t~e meeting of May 10, 1979. ,S 2conded by Stover, motion carried unarjlimously. INFORMAL REVIEW - S)LBAKKEN HOMESITE SUBDIVISION : Sketch plans presen~ed for development of a tract of lan~ located R.L.S. #1, abutting Howard's Point Road; north of Smitht~wn Road. The property curren~ly zoned R-l, single family residenttal. Mr. Solbakken had a few different plans to submit for co~ent. ' He was given direct';"on by the P. C.' and a report was sUbmttted for issues and analysis by Planner Nielsen. - I I MEETING ADJOURN m - 11: 05 P. M.' Respectfully su)mit~ed Bobbie Dybvik, 3ecretary i CITY OF SHOREWOOD I PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETING Ap r i 1 2 6 , 1979 '. M I NUT E S The study meeting ot the Planning Commission was called to order at17:40 P.M. by Chairman Reese. 1 I Mayor Frazier was present and asked tor some time to extend his thapks and honor persons who have volunteered their services tor the various p~' oblems contronting Shorewood. Certiticates ot Recogniticn were given to t e Plann- ing Commission Members and members ot the Park Ccmmission; with su gested awards to also be presented to Jane Cole and Jerr~ Miller tor theirl many hours spent On the Planning Commission. : I Frazier stated that the Counci I' s goal is to comp ete the Comprehenisive Plan by the end ot May. He asked the Planning Commiss.on to study and p~y atten- tion to the Districts; as to signiticant projecti( ns ot the needs oit neighbor- hoods. The major problems are housing and population tn our servic~ line. A special session will then be held between the C(uncd, and Plannihg Commi- sion to get together on controversial aspects. I lans !are to have Ilit com- p leted by the end ot June. (Mayor lett). . . ROLL CALL Present were: Stover, Rascop, Leslie, Gagne, ReeSE andlnew Watten was absent. I Also present were: Liaison Haugen, Park Commissior mem~ers, Goettelmanand Brad Nielsen, Planner, and Mayor Flazier. member Bruce Benson. I Lindstrpm, and APPROVAL OF MINUTES -April 12th Leslie moved, and Gagne seconded that the minutes ot the April stand approved as corrected: The change trom Pre iminary Plat Preliminary Land Use plan tor Near Mountain Prope ties. STUDY OF LAKE SHORE RECREATIONAL DISTRICT 12th! meeting I to r!ead ! I ! I The study ot the Recreational District Ordinance to consider an amerdment to the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance intended to crelte a Lakeshore Recreational District providing regulations tor use ot land to provide access to the lake and use ot the lake was completed with the help 0 Planner Neilsen. A public hearing is scheduled tor May 12th at 8:00 P.M. at the Minnewashta Elementary School; notic~s ot legal published Wednesday Apri 25th and May 2nd. ADJOURNMENT: Due to the la e hour; 11:30 P.M., Reese asked memlers to attend a special meeting - May 3rd to tinish the study ot the Comp ehensive Plan to pass on to Council. Leslie moved, Gagne isecondp.d to adjourn. Motion (arried unanimously. Respecttully ubmitted, . Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLAm ING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 0, 1979 . ".1 I NUT E S The regular me Chairman Reese 7:30 P.M., ~LL CALL: Present were: Also present: ting of yhe Planning Commission was called to order by on May 19, 1979 at the Minnewashta Elementary School at Reese, Syover, Gagne, Watten, Bensor, Leslie, and ~ascop. Liaison ~augen, and Planner Brad NiElsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Watten moved, seconded qy Gagne, to approve the mirutes of April 26th as written. Motion carrieq unanimously. NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPERTIE~ - Lundgren Bros. Construction Herb Baldwin presented ~ Concept Statement to the Ilanning Commission, a draft report from the T~affic Engineer's Survey re ative to 62nd & Crosstown extension, and a breakdqwn on the building developnent in phase form - show- ing the number of units Iplanned in each phase. He asked for a reaction from the Planning Commission Ito the concept. . Vern Watten stated that the contingencies at this time are too great and the Planning Commission needs some study time to acdress the purpose of the Public Hearing. The sketch plan is too premattre at this time and the requirements of the Preliminary Plat have not yet teen met. Rascop moved, seconded by Gagne, to continue the Ptblic;Hearing until such time that a preliminary plan has been presented by the petitioner. The Planning Commission at this time recommends approval of the Conceptual po:t;;t::ion with the following issues to be resolved bE fore the preliminary pl~n is submitted: 1. Density (130% to 100%) 2. Parks (Report from Park Commission 3. Address Transportation Problems 4. Public eggress to Silver Lake (Consult Attorney) 5. Water System 6. Sewer and Drainage 7. Phasing Motion carried unanimously. Planner Brad Nielsen requested a copy of the minutEs and reports from the Park Commission; also copies of the preliminary plct at least 10 days prior to the meeting, with reports from engineer and att(rney. . ; . . MOTION: MOTION: .OTION: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 2 - May 10, 1979 MEDICAL BUILDING - PUBLIC HEARING - Norman Undestad & Joe Romain Proposed medical building at the intersection of Hw 7 and Linden Drive. a. resubdivision of lots 16, 17, and 18, Linden b. rezoning from R-l to R-C c. conditional use permit d. variance to required setbacks of R-C distric Interested persons attending the hearing were: Mrs. Hilton Gene Clapp Mr. &.Mrs. Gregg Suddendorf -24140 Yellowstone Trail -24115 Yellowstone Trail - 6050 Riviera Lan Issues addressed: 1. Number of feet from front of property? 100' setback from Hwy 7 to property line 2. What is development intended for adjoing lot. Not asking for PUD at this time; only 1.2 acres are being developed at this time; the balance of 2 acres will have to come back to City for recommendation for medium density hou 3. What will extra traffic do? Not anticipating any additional traffic, ill use service drive. 4. Suddendorf objects to rezoning in a resident'al zone. are feet; 7000 feet on ic of 4 doctors and 1 nd floor. 5. The building will be approximately 15'~00 sq each floor. attempting to get a medic 1 cli dentist with 4 or 5 office suites on t e sec 6. Rumor that building was much larger; M~. Cla size of proposed building. ' ! I 7. Reese: When a commercial abuts a residl~ntial must be 25' away; if only 17', have to show a hardship. Watten moved, seconded by Stover, to table de~ision until the meeting of June 14th. Motion carried unanimous11' LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - PUBLIC HEARl G 8: 0 P.M., with the To consider amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Ordin nce intended to create a Lakeshore Recreational District to provide regulati ns for land use and access to use of lake. Reese moved to table til meeting of June 14th, seco ded by Leslie. carried unanimous~y. I PAMELA DANSER - 211640 Lilac Lane - Lot Motion #133 - 40,00 square feet 10' i. from east side 101' open frontage; pr pose to move a 18' wide be demolished by July st. It is zoned R-l. Present house 22'1 width with house on property or it will Stover move that we recommend to the Council to app ove contingent with statement of agreement from all adjacent neighbors. Seconded by Gagne. Motion carried unanimously. MEETING ADJOURNED - 11:40 Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary CITY OF SHOREWOOD STUDY MEETING MINNEWASHTA SCHOOL MAY 24, 1979 7:30 P.M. MI NUT E S . The Planning Commission study meeting was opened at 7:50 P.M. at the Minnewashta Elementary School on May 24, 1979. ROLL CALL: Present were: Chairman Reese, Stover, Leslie, Rascop, and Gagne. Benson & Watten were absent. Also present was Councilman Shaw. CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION - Bernice Brooks, Christmas Lake Motel Owner B;;~i~;-B;~~k~-;;~-p;;~;~t-f~;-;~-i~f~;;;l-di~~~~~i~~-;;l;ti~;-tb--- the proposal to remove the existing motel buildings and subdivide the property into six residential lots. The property- RLS #510 Tracts E, F, and G, is located between State Hwy 7 and the north shore of Christmas Lake - each lot contains approximately 40,000 square feet or more. Upon the request of Mrs. Brooks, a public hearing is scheduled for the meeting of June 14th, 1979, at 8:00 P.M. at the Park Shelter at Badger Field. . ~!~~_~QQ~I~I~_K~QK!~II!~_=_K~!~E_~Il~~~~_~_~~E~~E!_~~l~~ig Peter Pflaum and Herb Baldwin of Lundgren Bros. Constru~tion Co., were present to discuss the problems to be resolved before the Preliminary Plat may be presented. Councilman Shaw referred to a letter from Attorney Kelly, dated May 17, 1979, stating the issues to be addressed before the plat may be presented~ (Letter attached as part of minutes) IJ Density 2J Parks -(Midwest Planning Letter from Erkkila attached.) 3J Transportation 4J Public egress to Silver Lake 5J Water System 6J Sewer and Drainage 7J Phasing The developers were given direction as to steps to take for the completion of the requirements of the preliminary plat and upon the completion of these requirements will again address the issues to the Planning Commission, together with the Preliminary Plat. . ~~~I~I~~~_~~~!_~Q~QL~IQ~~~~_2_K~QK!~I~_=_I~EEy_Q~gg~g Terry Duggan was present with hii proposal of developing the property (Lot 145, Aud. Sub. 120 located in the SW corner of the intersection of Highway 7 and Christmas Lake Road) which includes the construction of three individual 6,000 square foot buildings. The owner wishes to operate his. wholesale auto parts business, Tonka Auto Body Supply from one of the ):>uildings. The property is currently zoned C-l, neighbor- hood convenience and commercial district, and he is asking direction to meet the requirements for the 6,000 foot buildings. Rascop moved, seconde~ by Gagne, to recommend to the Council to ~mend the zoning ordinance as it is inconsist~nt with the minimum lot size and floor area ratio for the commerci 1 district. Motion carried unanimously. . . . REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 14, 1979 MINNEWASHTA SCHOOL M I NUT E S The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called Chairman Stover at 7:30 P.M. at the Badger Park Park Shel Roll Call: Present were Stover, Gagne, and Benson. Absent were - Leslie, Rascop, Reese, and Watten Quorum There not being a quorum the meeting was adjourned and all tabled to Thursday, June 21st at 7:30 P.M. at the BADGER order by acting iness on the agenda SHELTER. Note: All future meetings of the Planning Commission will be held at the Octagonal building at Badger Park - known as the Park Shelter - until such time as the new City Hall is available. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary . . . BADGER IPARK SHELTER I I June 21, 1979 7:30 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION ME TING P. M., M i NUT E S was opened at 7:45 ChJirmanReese. I I P.M. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission at the Badger Park Shelter on June 21, 1979 by ROLL CALL Present were: Also present: Reese, Stover, Rascop, Gagne, and ~enson. Watten rrived late. ' Leslie was dbsent I Liaison Jan Haugen and Planner Braq Nielsen. i APPROVAL OF MINUTES ------------------- Stover moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve the m~nutes of May 24, 1979 as written. 'Motion ca ried unanimously, 5-0~ PUBLIC HEARING - CHRIS MAS LAKE ADDITION - BernicJ Brooks Bernice Brooks of Chri existing buildings and The lots are all nearl ments of the ordinance ---------------------------------- tmas Lake Motel is proposi4g to tear down the divide the property into 6 iresidential lots. ' 40,000 square feet and dolnot meet the require- I and require variances. ' Interested residents p esent were: Mrs. Goodman, Joe Gorecki, Pat Elliott, and Mr. & Mrs. Phillip.. ,All were in support of the request and felt the plan to be in keeping ith the character of the neighborhood; with many of the lots to the nor h side of Christmas Lake b~ing less than the 40,000 square feet required. It was their feeling that the area would be up- graded by such a plan. The Public Hearing was Commission. ,After ind it was moved by Stover to approve the plan as carried by a 6-0 vote. clpsed, with discussion before the Planning viHual comments from the Pianner and PC members, I I s~c.onded by Benson, to rerommend to the Council sut>mitted with necessary vc1lriances. ,Motion ~~QI~~~_~QI~Ql~Q_=_~igg~~u_I_~g~_~ig~~g_~~E~_=_~~t_Q~E~~~i Joe Gorecki appeared before the Planning Commissipn concerning the outcome of the Planning Commissioj:1' s ,decision regarding t~e proposed medical bldg. at the intersection of Hwy 7 and Linden Drive - P~blic Hearing 5/10/79. ' Chairman Ree attended the attending th e stated that there were no objectiors from neighbors who Public Hearing and that several letters from persons not Public Hearing had been received, ihdicating approval. The question brought up at the Public Hearing waslwhy a variance was I needed on th north side of the building1 Rascop moved 16, 17, and April 5th, w Use permit f Gagne seconded, to recommend approv~l to replat - lots 8 of Linden Park into the new southern lot per survey of th the section to be rezoned R-C, an~ to grant a Conditional r the Medical Building. ,Motion carr~ed unanimously 6-0. I Variance not to be acted upon by the Planning Com~ission. . . . PLANNING COM ISSION MEETING - 2 - June 21, 1979 LAKESHORE RECREATIONAL DisTRICT - T-;--;;-;;;id;;-a~;;d~;;t-t~-th;-ghorewood Zoning Ordinance intended to provide regulations for la d use and access to use of lake:. Rascop moved, seconded by Ordinance be sent to th recommends with areas 0 agne Council with all inclusions the Planner concern on part of Planning Commission: IJ I portant - Not amount of feet on lake but on shore to acc modate boats in use and supportive fac.lities. 2J Sl ip space be 1 recommend 600 feet. 3J P rpose: Need ontrol of marinas coming in the future. Motion Carried - 4--\Aye s - 2 Nays MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:10 Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Dybvik . PLANNING COMMISSION BADGER PARK SHELTER July 12, 1979 7 : 30P . M .i 'MI NU'!' E S The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Frank Reese ,at 7:48 P.M. at the Badger Park Shelter on the 12th day of July, 1979. ROLL CALL: Present were: Reese, Benson, Gagne, Leslie, Stover, and Watten. Rascop was absent. ,Also present were Liaison Haugen, Planner Nielsen, and Attorney Kelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES "':'J1.ine 21,'1979 Gagne moved, seconded by Wattelil" that the minutes of June 20st stand approved as submitted. ,Moti,on carried unanimously. . PUBLIC HEARING ~'PROPOSED.AMENDMEN'1'TOZONING, ORDINANCE #77 A Public Hearing was held to propose an amendment to the zoning ordinance as follows: Section 1. -Ordinance No. 77 is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section: Section 26 . ,Subdivision 4 c] Commercial structures within the C-l, C-2, and C-3 district may be increased in size and floor area ratio as pr vided in Section 26. Subdivision 4). a) and b) b a conditional use permit provided that: 1. Provi ion is made for adequate landscaping and plant ng to maintain the natural open character of th city a.nd at ".linimumat least ten (10) per- cent f the site is devoted to and developed in such manner. 2. A dra"nage system i developeq which prevents storm water rur-of'~ in excess :Of' that which can be ha dIed .by '!the ""rea and where necessary ponding i.1 and s chtechn~ques .areutilized on-site to meet the r quairements which are generated by the develop- ment. 3. aftic generated by the development can be dated bythe.existing street system and does crease publiCh safety problems. te parkihg area and spaces with appropriate aping and provided in cqmpliance with this nce and ~hich meets the ,needs of the use of operty. dinance ~hall be in effect from and ,fter its and pUblication." - 4. Section 2. . Moved by Stover, sec nded by ],eslie, to recommend to the Cbuncil th~t the ordinance be passed ~s proposed above. Moern carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - July 12, 1979 . NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPER'1'IES -PRESEN'1'A'1'ION OF PREt:tMINARYPLA'1' Herb Baldwin and Peter Pflaum presented the preliminary plat with discussion relative to: 1. Phasing Diagram (5 to 7 years) 2 .16 units per acre bas!ed on ne acreage 2. City assess cost of well. 3. Development Contract - A contract drafted by the City Attorney to protect the city. (,All PURD'shave them). 4. Setbacks - When building permits re i$sued, the setbacks will then be checked. 5. Bond Hold~ng Area -Drainage Ease ent - to come back with ea6h phase f r preliminary plats. 6. Bark Commission make recommendati n to' Council for access to Silver Lake. 7. Determine usable land by establis ing ~etland elevation from the City Wetland Ordinance #70. . Moved by Watten, seconded by Leslie,t6 recommend to the Council to approve the Preliminary Plat, includi g all types of housing planned as of July 12 1979. to recommend the reliminary plan for single dwelling subject to concerns of Ju y 12th: 1] Establish usable land by wetland elevation. 2] It is the concensus of the ark Cbmmission to obtain property s. $'s from the developer and is imperative that Silv r Lake remain a n tural, preserve and avail- able to t epublic. 3] recommend that the concept ,statement be a part of the reco endation 4] plus the 5] plus the wo letters from P anner Nielsen etter dated May 1 , 1979 from Attorney Kelly. Motion carried un nimously. Moved by Stover, seconded by Gagne, to djourn. 10:30 P.MJ M tion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Bobbie Dybvik, Secretary . ShorewoodPlanning Commission Regular M~eting August 23, 1979 - 7: 30 P.M., Badger Park Shelter . MI NUTE S The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Frank Reese at 7 :42 P.M., .at the Badger Park Shelter on August 23, 1979. ROLL CALL: Present were: Gagne, Rascop, ,Stover, Benson, Leslie and Reese. Watten was absent. PUBLIC HEARING - WILLIAM GALlS .~2S100Woodside Road' . Glen Froberg, ,Attorney for Mr . Galis was present with a proposal to subdivide the property of Mr~ Galis located at 28100 Woodside Road, described as Tra.ct B - Registered Land Survey #757) into two lots by means of a registered land survey, 88,500 square feet. Variances for property under 40,000 square feet; minimum lot width of 120 feet and lot width at lake shore of 122 feet are the issues. Applicant to provide a20 foot wide strip of land along the east of the lot of the existing dwelling to have means of access to the public street and not land lock the new parcel. Engineer and Planner reports were evidenced and interested parties Ben Cunningham and Carolyn Severeid were present to see the plans proposed. Moved by Leslie, seconded by Reese, that the property owner be granted his request on the proposed lot split concept subject to the review and approval of the City Council, prior to issuing a building permit. Roll call vote: Reese - aye, Gaagne - aye, Stover - aye, Benson - aye, Leslie - aye and Rascop nay. ,Motion carried. DIVISION -Mrs. Charles Nolan - 20555 Manor Road Mrs. Charles Nolan was present for direction to divide her existing property of approximately 65,569 square feet into 2 lots with a 25 foot easement for use as a private driveway permitting access to the back lot at 20555 Manor Road should owner of this property wish to develop his property at a future date. It was suggested by Planning Commission that she sit with the Planner and Engineer. forldirectio~ on a preliminary plat. MEETING ADJOURNE at 9:10 P.M., , Respectfully sub itted . BOBBIE DYBVIK, Secretary . BADGER PARK SHELTER 7: 30 P. M.' CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN September 13, 1979 'M INUdTE' S The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to or er by Chairman Reese on September IL3, 1979 at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were: Absent were: Also present: Reese, Stover, Rascop,nd Leslie Watten, Benson, and Gag e PLLanner Nielsen APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, Stover seconded, to approve the minu es of Jul 1 th as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, Leslie seconded, to approve the minu es ofAug st 23rd as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. . PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL ALBITZ, - Lot 1, Block 1, - E chanted G rd " (Plat 34915, Parcel 0250) A Public Hearing was called before the Planning Co ission p rs the notice published in the Maverick Newspaper - A gust 29, 97. Scheduled hearing at 7:30 P.M. was opened at 8:10 .M.- Paul Albitz appeared before the Planning Commissio divide the lot described as Lot 1, Block 1, Enchan lots with outlot held in common by the 3 lots. The property is located in the NW corner Island. ,The total land area of the site is approx including a low wet area; approximately 1.86 acres foot elevation with 150' of lakeshore. The averag proposed is 35,000 square feet, including wetlands~ to to 3 od on Enchan mately 2.9-a are above th size lot be ed res 930 ng Interested persons -Att~ndingMeeting Jack Kimball Dale Johnson Brian Butler Vern Faaber Written positions Bill & Lynn Horgan Dave & Sue Nelson Greg B. Smith James Fergusons Concerns: General consensus - Peel 3 lots not appropriate or this area. True square footage of build ble ground? . Public Hearing portion of meeting closed. 4445 i ~ighland Circ e 4425 " II 4435 ~nchanted Dri e 4340 ~nchanted Dri e 4380 I :J!;nchanted Dri e 4345 II II 4320 " II . . . PLANNING COMMISSION - 2 - September 13, 1979 Stover moved, seconded by Reese, to approve the concept plan for a division of 3 lots on Lot 1, Block 1, Enchanted Gardens. I Discussion: Rascop - '11 am against the subdivision of 3 lots; the riet buildable footage is not large enough for 3 lots '." . Reese - '11 feel that 2 lots are preferable for that ~iece of property." Leslie - 'II, too, am in favor of the 2 lots. II Stover - 'rI also agree with a 2 lot division. II Upon roll call vote re$ulting in 4 - nays, the motion was defeated. PUBLIC HEARING -Evel m Farrel ''';' 6020 Mill 'Street before the Planning Commission pursuant he Maverick Newspaper, August 29, 1979, M. was opened at 9:25 P.M. A Public Hearing was called to the notice publishe~ in scheduled hearing at 8~00 P ii Mel Backlin of Realty 'orld4 representing Evelyn Farrel, proposed the division of the so.th 2 01 of the Farrel property, located at 6020 Mill Street (Plat:134400, Parcel 1556) into two parcels; each lot to contain, 19, 900 ~quare feet with 120 feet .Of frontage. on Apple road. .Said prop~rty is located in the R-l district and is part of lot 127, Auditbr'~ Subdivision #120. Interested participant - Philip Hogle of 6025 Mill Street 'lFeels the lot too small for a split". Written Position - Mark Taggatz - 6075 Apple Road "I definitely approve Evelyn Farrel's request for 2 lots from the 39,980 square foot parcel. S ggested the R-l district be rezoned to R 2 (refer to a letter from ,the Plannin Co ission to Mr. ~a atz as written - Janua 17 1 77." Concerns: Bept use of property would be R-2. Reference was mad~ to the lst draft of the Comprehensive Plan for Distr~ct 10: Proposed ~ancl use for this District is primarily single family re id$ntial at a density of two to three units per acre. ,Higher density residential, three to five units per acre, is proposed for the triangular area bounded b A]Dple Road and Mill Street." , Public Hearing portion ofimeeting closed. Stover requested input fr0m the Planner to get an overall long range plan for this area. Leslie moved, seconded by Rascop, to delay a decision on this proposal until the next Plannin C0mmission meeting of October 11, 1979. Motion carried unanimo sly - 4-0. I . PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - ' September 13, 1979 RUFFENACH ROAD ACCESS ON CLARA AVENUE Gene Ruffenach appeared before the Planning Commission for direction to a request to construct an access drive over Clara Avenue from Eureka Road to some land locked property he owns adjacent to his residence. This matter was brought before the Council at their September 10th meeting. (Kelly letter of 9/10/79) Applicant was advised at that time to submit a .formal application containing information listed in Kelly letter under No.2 - a,b, and c in the conclusions. Judy Marshall of 5320 Eureka road was present and was concerned with the over all development; if road has to be opened up it must be done in a reasonable manner. After much discussion, Stover moved that he consult a planner regarding the over all development- of the area and its impact on the community. Reese seconded. .Motion carried unanimously. Meeting Adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted. Bobbie Dybvik " . . . "." CIlY OF SHORE.'VK)()D PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING OCTOBER 11, 1979 Badger Park Rec. Bldg. 7:30 P.M. MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning Com:nission was called to order byChainnan Reese on October 11, 1979 at 7:50 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were: Absent were: Also Present: Reese, Benson, Rascop and Stover Gagne, Leslie and Watten COlIDcilman Haugen and Planner Nielsen APPROVAL OF MINUTES Stover moved, Benson seconded, to approve the minutes of September 13 as suhnitted. Motion carried tmanirnously. R.EC<M1ENDATION - Farrell Division", 6020 Mill Street The purpose of continuing public hearing from the September 13, 1979 meeting, was to give the Planner the opport\.trlity to review the proposed division and see how it would fit into the overall long range plan for this area. The Planner's recomnendation is presented in his letter of September 28, 1979, containing discussion of a necessary rezoning request and the requested subdivision. The site is now zoned R-l and would require rezoning to R-2 before the proposed sulxlivision could be made. Reference was then made to the Preliminary Draft of the Comprehensive Plan for District 10 (see September 13 minutes) and it was cited that the proposed rezoning is canpatible with the City's Land Use Plan. According to the Planner, the subdivision request should also be approved subject to verification from the City Engineer on whether drainage can be accorrmodated on the site. The amount of wetlands Was noted by the Coomission. There was considerable amount of concern as to what will happen to the interior of the block, as ,this hasn't been covered in the report. Also, the Conmission feels there maybe a better way to get access, and that these concerns should be pointed out to the Council for its consideration. Rascop doesn't think they are looking ata hardship right now and would like the applicants to withhold the request until after the Comprehensive Plan goes into effect, as long as the Plan is soelose to being completed. Stover moved, Reese seconded, that recorrmendation be made to the Cotmcil to approve the division as requested. Motion failed on a tie vote (Stover,Reese-aye; Benson,Rascop-nay). A proposal was then made to recomnend to the Council to place a moratoriun on divisions until the new Comprehensive Plan' goes into effect, unless the proposed divisions adhere to the present ordinance. PUBLIC' HEARING -' Nancy Nolan,' 20555', Manor' Road A Public Hearing was called before the Planning Coomission pursuant to the notice published in the Maverick Newspaper, September 26, 1979. Scheduled hearing at 7: 30 P.M. was opened at 8:05 P.M. Mrs. Nolan proposed a lot division at 20555 Manor Road and 20575 Manor Road, Lot 7 and Lot 8, Minnetonka Manor 2nd Addition, into four parcels. These properties are presently zoned R-2, some 120,000 square feet. The request is to: I '* /JJ I / . . . .: Planning Coomission - 2 - October 11, 1979 divide existing Lot 7 (approx.65,5l9 sq. ft.) into two lots, one lot approximately 20,725 sq. ft. with an existing single family residence and one lot approximately 26,719 sq. ft. for the purpose of constructing one single family residence; also, to divide existing Lot 8 (approximately 56,466 sq. ft.) into two lots, one lot approxi- ~tely 28,700 sq. ft. with an existing family residence and one lot approximately 22,766 sq. ft. for the purpose of constructing one single family residence; to install a private street 25 ft. in width terminating in a 100 ft. cul-de-sac to service the two new lots, the other half of the' street (25 ft.) to be installed at a later date should the owners of Lot 6 wish to divide their property - this street would be. privately maintained by residents; to install an adequate sewer line to service the two new lots; and, for a variance on lot width from lOO ft. to 75 ft. on the 20,725 sq. ft. lot which would exclude the width of the 25 ft private street. Interested participants: Mr. Lowell Frost 20485 Manor Road Mr. Loren Nelson 20525 Manor Road Mr. Mel Cole - 20 75 Manor Road Reference was made to the anner' s report concerning the variance request, which stated that a variance shall be anted only if i can be demonstrated that the "plight of the owner is due to 'ltrlique cir unstances not a plicable to adjacent land holdings within the same district". Adjoi Ong property 0 ers feel there should be a better way to best serve all the lots of Minnetonka Mano 2nd Addition, not just one or two lots as is requested here. The Planner pointed out to Mrs. Nolan cert in areas of concern, I as stated in his report dated October 11, 1 79, and his rea ons for making his r$comnendation for denial of the plat. Also, the 0 neer' s report f October 11, 1979, indicates that sewer service to the rear lots uld be very exp nsive because of the I terrain. The Planning Corrmission s different layout. Since report, a motion was made until the next regular mee ested withdra ng the request and r~suhnitting it under a s. Nolan had no had a chance to revtew the Engineer's Reese, second by Rascop, to table this discussion ing~ Motion ca ied tmanimously~ . t f Medical Center Area Combination PURD & The plan meets the requir ents recoomende by the :planner as far 'as topography is concerned. Basic concerns were related to access to the development and potential traffic problems, especially along Lake Li en Drive, which is narrow and windy. The proposal is based on a density of 6 st. ries due to the high cost of the land. Present zoning is 1.stories,..and the queston=was,raisedas~toWhether the fire department is equipped to handle 6 stories or not. Suggestion from the Planning Coomission wa to put together as detailed a plan as possible, showing existing and planned tre s, and to present this plan to the neighbors in the area. Also suggested was a meeting with lther city staff, a.s well as waiting for the new Cooprehensi ve Pl",,: in order ~o get a indica~iqn of .bat the densitieS for this area will be. . CONCEPT - Ruffehach, 25725 BirP1 Bluff Roa ReI tive to' Clara Avenue Neighbors' response to Ruffenach' s proposa was ti.egative. Basically, they have no desire to build or sulxli vide at present. I I ,; . . . ,,* I Planning Coomission - 3 - I October 11, 1979 I I I Reference was made to October $, 1979 letter froml attorney regarding conflicting requests for vacation vs. private driveway use ofl portions of Clara Avenue. The Planner presented area concept as to how en *i e area could de,veloP, citing potential for Ruffenach to develop so as not to make it i ssible to develop other parcels in the future. Within the area to be developed is a de ignated wetland and topo to deal with. This area was not considered for high denSfty with what exists. Without. any plans for development of neighbori. ng roperties, and with Mr. Ruffenach pursuing purchase of additional property nearby, "t was decided to table this discussion tmtil further notice. I INFORMAL DISCUSSION - Gene ErickSon, 5520:-5530 & )550--5560 ShorewQOcl Lane Mr. Erickson proposed to subdivide existing Shore NOod Terrace lot 3, block land lot 2, block 1 into three lots, one parcel to con ain 30,000 sq. ft. with existing double, second parcel to contain 30,000 sq. ft. w"th planned double, and third parcel to contain 24,071 sq. ft. with existing double. pince a variance is required to divide said properties at present, a motion was r$de and seconded to wait tmtil after the new Comprehensive Plan goes into effect befotf discussing this matter further. DEVElDPMENI' AGREEMENT ;... Near MOuntain Properties 1 Reese ,mo. ved, Benson second~d, to accept th~ a.gre~n~ aspre?ented s~~ject to a further letter of explanatl:onfrom the at.torney . 'I MotIon cartiedunam..mousl y. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Respectfully suhnitted, Becky Hunt ) 6.1' ( ,r- PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY MEETI~G OCTOBER 25, 1979 . MI~UI!;~ The study meeting of the P1anni~g Commiss~on was called to order by Chairman Reese on October 25, 11979 at 7: 415 P.M. ! ! ROLL CALL i j Present were: Reese, Benson, G~gne, Les1~e, Rascop, Stover and Watten Others present: Attorney Kel1yl and Deve1pper Peter Pflaum . I ! . thel mInutes of the October 11, i . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion carried unanimously to alpprove 1979, meeting. i I NEAR MOUNTAINDEVELOPMENTAGREE~ENT . Attorney Kelly, Developer Pf1auF and the Planning Commission reviewed the final plan of the Near Mountain Deve1ppment Agreement in order to come up with a contract to be ~'resented tp the Council for final examination. Attorney Kelly e p1ained th~ document and asked for. comments, questions and/or suggestions from theDev~loper and the Planning Commis~ sion. The following c anges welre propose~: ! I i Page 4, Item #6, line - changle "the 10crtion of the structures" to "the general location f the sqructures". 1 I . i . Page 7, Item #11, seco d to 1asl.t paragrap~, line 7 - add "plus interest" after "$2,777.000. i ro . 1 2, 11ine 1 - c~ange "additional" to "a1ter- I Page 9, Item #16, para native". . I I . Page 10, Item #18, end of paragraph - addl "except any work the CIty needs to perform under Item 13.1" , I . i I Gagne moved, Rascop ~eqon.. ded, ~or Ag.reemeht to go to the Council with exceptions as noted~b ve. Mot1ion carrie~ unanimously. i. ! I In addition to these Ic anges, t!here was miuch discussion about Item 13 r.egarding a. water Sy~.t m.. for tI1e deve1opmjent. Pflaum. let it be known that he cannot afforC( he cost lof a well which is 3 to 4 times the capacity of what is tie ded by t!he deve1op~ent alone, and that Item 13 is, therefore, unacc~p able as lwritten. lHe feels the Council should . come up with a compr9mj' se as tol who is gojing to cover the cost of the well. Leslie moved, I.W tten seci1onded. ' to ~oint out to the Council a very real concern abdu the water system fls referred to in Item 13, and that the Planning ofllm. issioln would. 1ilke to be kept informed of any :further action on this atter. IMotion Carried unanimously. HOWARDS POINT MARINA - A lication.for Re~6nin Dale.Evans Attorney Kelly prese t d an ap~11ication ~om Dale Evans 0 Howards Point Marina to rezone the property from R-1 non-conforming to Lakeshore Recreational. The r quest nece,ssitates al variance from the 20-ft. side line extension setba k for the jnortherly proposed docks, and the grant of a zoning certific te for co1struction Ff a dock addition. A copy of the app1ic tion was ~resented tlo the staff in order to make copies for reviewal y the P1artning Commission. . . . I 6 r , " Planning Commission Study Meeting FARRELL DIVISION 60 Since this division discussion reopened reviewed and Leslie property to R-2 as t After further discus Motion carried unani Leslie, to recommend consideration. Moti Reese - aye; Benson, - 2 - October 25, 1979 o Mill Sttl-eet ailed to 0 to the douncil on a 2-2 tie vote, n this ma ter. ipla ner's letter of 9/28 was ommented n the ity of rezoning this ere is R-~ zoni surrounding area. I DISCUSSION - Paul Christensen ~v~s~ Paul Christensen is proposing a divi into 3 lots. The area is zonecf. R-l sq. ft. minimum. I I Reference was ,made to the engi4eer's No.1, con,cerning the, proposedJ2, 5 , r notrecommenq a private road, heref that Mr. Christensen talk to the own the William Gardener P, roperty,jabout additional 25' in order to hav1 a pu i Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.MJ Respectfully submitted, B~~ Cathcart Drive n existing 165,200 sq. ft. lots are above the 40,000 f October 24, 1979, Item Planning Commission does an informal recommendation of obtaining an south. .' .. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1979 M I NUT E S ning Commission Meeting was ca11~d t order by Acting Chairman t 7:50 P.M. on Thursday, Novembejr 8, 1979, at the City Offices wood. I I I i Stbver and Watten I I I ! APPROVA OF MINUTES I Stover oved, Gagne seconded, to approvel the October 25 minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. ! MINNETO KA MANOR; 2nd ADDITION - FINAL ICTIO Nolan Nancy N 1an appeared e ore the p1anningl co ission to obtain a definite decisio on acceptability of her proposa11 to divide Lots 7 and 8. After having ad a chance to review the p1anne,r's report of October 11, 1979, she rev'sed her request to a 25 ft. pub11ic road with a cul-de-sac, which n cessitates a variance in road wildth and in lot width. Access 0 the back lots is poor and a valria ce in lot width is Looked upon un~av orab1y by the planner. A1S~....' Ithe planning commissio nfee1s the 25 t. road is unacceptable, whetheTI it be private or public; therefo e, Watten moved and Leslie seco~ded denial of Nancy Nolan's propose division. Motion carried unaniroous1y. Be cause10f the poor accessibility of 4..hel back lots of Minnetonka Manor 2nd Add'tion, the planning commission sqggested to red flag this genera1area~ including the Dietz prope~ty, for future requests for subdivi~ion in this area. I COMPREH~NSIVEPLAN #4 I There w~s much concern by planning commi1ssion members as to the square footage land "R" designation in the propolsed Comprehensive Plan. Stover Joved, Gagne seconded, to delete Ireference to square footage (using rlensities only), from the Octoberl 29, 1979, joint meeting minutes~ and change "four R-1 zones" in Ithe last line of paragraph 5 to "four R zones". Motion carried unani~ous1y. I The planning commission requests a specila1 eeting with the council prior to the November 29 public hearing Iso they can present their questions and concerns regarding the Corqpre ensive Plan. Also, they feel it necessary to postpone the pub1iC'I' hearing until after their questions have been answered. HOWARDS POINT MARINA - REZONING, Dale EJans The Environmental. Assessment Worksheet ,~' Ex ibit C of the Howards Point Marina Rezoning and Variance App1icatio , was reviewed by the planning commission and the following questions ere raised: The P1a Rascop of Shor ROLL CA L Present were: Rascop, Gagne, Leslie, Absent ere: Reese and Benson Others resent: Council member Haugen r" r e . . Planning Commission November 8, 1979 - 2 - I I HOWARDS POINT MARINA (cont'd.) I Page 2, 2. at top - There is confusJon as to how many slips are present and how.any are proposed. PI.. e;se clarify. Page 2, ILB.2.g. - Would like clarification of "shoreland" and how they came up with "5 acres" of shore Ian . Page 3, C.2~h. - F. eel 20 is low fig~re. Please justify where this number came from and what it is based o~. Page 6, F.2. - Question that noise on't be generated and that the surrounding residential area won't be sensitive to the noise; therefore, request response to #3, page 6. Page 7, H.l. - What does the E.Q.B. consider Lake Minnetonka? They question whether Lake Minnetonka isn't esi nated recreational. Page 11, A. - What is Minn. Reg. ME B 25? A.l. ,2. and 3. - D. Evans' latt rney confirmed by phone with Mayor Frazier on Nove~ber 8, 1979, the following 1. "is not" should be marked Jth an "X", instead of "is". I 2. "does not" should be marke1 wi h an "X", instead of "does". 3. "is not" should be marked ~ith an "X", instead of "is". A motion was then made by Stover, secon of this discussion until the next meeti the following: 1) the final,ipublished Ordinance; 2) response from applicant t the E.A.W. form; and 3) explanation of carried unanimously. Page 11, conversation corrections: y Watten, to table the rest d, in the meantime, request of the Lakeshore-Recreational stions raised above regarding inn. Reg. MEQB 25. Motion Watten moved, Leslie seconded, to adjou n t e meeting at 10:05 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Submitted, cA~/~ ~ Becky~:'rl . I I I I MINUTES I The Planning Commission Meeting was calied to order at 7:40 P.M. on Thursday, November 29, 1979, in the Recreation Building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 29, 1979 by Chairman Reese Badger Park ROLL CALL Present were: Reese, Benson, Gagne, Lellie, Stover, IWatten and Rascop Also present: Attorney Kelly and Plannrr Nielsen APPROVAL OF MINUTES I Moved by Stover, seconded by Gagne to a~prove the November 8 minutes as written. Motion carried unanimously. -e PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FOR SHOREWOOD At 8: 00 P. M. the publiC hearing portion of the meetin'g opened pursuant to a Legal Notice published November 14, 1979. Interested parties present were: Mr. Bill Maddy, 5780 Christmas Lake Rd. Mr. Mike Pierro, 5890 Christmas Lake Rd. Report No.4, Policy Plan/Development Framework, and Midwest Planning Memo of 11/26/79 citing revisions to Report No.4, were presented by the planner. During his presentation the main areas of concern that were discussed were as follows: In response to questions raised by interested parties present, the planner explain'ed that the Land Planning Act is mandatory by state legislation and falls under the authority of the Metro Council. The Policy Plan provides a general basis for more detailed work in each area and also provides the legal basis for development controls. Concerning questions on "clustering", as noted on page 32, item no. 18, the planner expl~ined that clustering and planned unit developments reduce developmept and heating costs. This led to a discussion of Planned Unit Developments and Planned Unit Residential Developments which are highlyl recommended by the planner as opposed to piecemeal development. . The following geheral recommendations for zoning were given by the planner for the purpose of a~hieving the objectives brought ,forth in the Land Use Plan: I 1. Use ofl PUD and PURID 2. Expandling of number of residential district,s 3. EstabLishing transttional zones; e.g. Residential-Commercial, Lakeshore-Recreati6nal 4. No newl commercial land uses 5. Clustelr development in order to keep low overall density. . .r e e . # Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - November 29, 1979 Much concern was voiced by Mr. Maddy and others present regarding a water system for the City ofl Shorewood (page 102, item 2). Mr. Maddy questions whether anything is gained by getting water from two or three community central wells as opposed to private wells. Maddy also felt that Shorewood should encour~ge use of Tonka Bay and Chanhassen water, feeling this would be a logi~a1 and less expensive alternative to a community central well syste~, which is favored by the City. It was agreed that this concern shotlld be pointed out to the Council for their consideration. . The public hearing portion of the meeting closed at 9:11 P.M. A motion was made by Watten,! seconded by Leslie, to request a special meeting with the Couf1ci1 to discuss the areas of concern regarding the Comprehensive f1an, prior to a vote of the Planning Commission on this matter. l1otion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, Gagne seconded!, adjournment at 9:14 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Submitted, c/Lr~ '1~ B~;~Zt SHOREWOOD . MEMO: Planning Commission DATE: 12/7/79 The Council had an opportunity to review your meeting mimutes and noted your desire to have a furth~r joint meeting before finalizing the ~omprehensive Plan. , Time is pre~Sing and we think it would be to the advantag~ of everyone if we could ask you at this tim~ to give us your recommendations on the Comprehepsive Plan without the necessity of further meet~ngs. For those on the Planning Commission who wish, we invite you to submit your written re~ommendations that you feel would be benefilcia1 for the Council to receive to the 'ei ty Office. e ' We ask youJto take a final vote on the Comprehensive 1an at your December 13 meeting. Thank you . Elsa 1. Wiltsey EIW:bh - . . ~ e . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1979 Badger Park Recreation Building M I NUT E S The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Reese at 7:52 P.M. on Thursday, December 13, 1979, at the Badger Park Recreation Building. ROLL CALL Present were: Reese, Benson, Gagne, Leslie, Rascop and Stover Absent: Watten Also present: Attorney Kelly, Councilmember Haugen and Planner Nielsen APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Leslie, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes of November 29 as written. Motion carried unanimously. HOWARDS POINT MARINA - Rezoning Dale Evans and Attorney Kevin Snell were present to answer questions raised at Planning Commission meeting of November 8 regarding the EAW. In answer to page 2, item 2, a map was presented with an overlay showing the present and proposed boat slips; regarding page 6, item F.2, Mr. Snell asked Midwest Planning for statistics on noise levels; in response to page 7, item H.l, Rascop requested a more justifiable answer--it was explained that Lake Minnetonka is specified a fish management area, but not lakeshore recreational; Mr. Snell presented a copy of MEQB 25 in response to questions raised on that matter. Snell reported that the reason for the variance request is due to a practical difficulty rather than a hardship. Further explanation of "practical difficulty" was requested by the Planning Commission. Much discussion followed concerning the effect that almost doubling the number of slips will have on the boat traffic (page 8, 1.1). It is felt by Howards Point that the boat traffic will remain the same. The Planning Commission asked for supportive data on this matter. The Planning Commission suggested that Howards Point obtain as much back-up documentation as possible for issues raised concerning the EAW; also, that they get approval of the adjacent landowner. Motion was made by Stover, seconded by Rascop to recommend that a_pub1:ic'h~aring be set for the next regular meeting, and to request a planner's report and a statement from the attorney prior to the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - Paul Christensen, 6065 Cathcart Drive At 9:06 P.M. the public hearing opened for the P. Christensen proposed division, pursuant to Legal Notice published November 28, 1979. It was decided that the Planning Commission would assist in contacting the Gardiner's (to the south of the Christensen property) for purposes of obtaining a 25' strip of property between the two parcels so as to provide better access to the 3 lots proposed. ~ . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - 2- December 13, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING - Paul Christensen - continued A motion was made by Gagne, seconded by Rascop, to table action on this matter until the next regular meeting in order to allow time to discuss this matter with the Gardiners. Motion carried unanimously. Public hearing portion of the meeting closed at 9:33 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION - Redfield Homes/John Cranbrook J. Carpenter of Redfield Homes presented an application to combine Lot 6, St. Albans Bay Estates, with the property of John Cranbrook, 20520 Excelsior Boulevard, and to divide these parcels into four lots, each approximately 29,730 sq. ft.; also to rezone the new lots, which are presently zoned R-l, to R-3, double family zoning. Carpenter explained to the Planning Commission that one or the other property will be purchased by the owner of the other to achieve single ownership and that the existing residence may require alteration from equal lot sizes proposed (to be determined by registered surveyor), but that accessibility is no problem and there have been no objections voiced from the neighbors. Rascop moved, Stover seconded, a motion to recommend setting up a public hearing for the next regular meeting for the Redfield Homes/ John Cranbrook subdivision/rezoning request. Motion carried unanimously. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A discussion of the Comprehensive Plan opened for the purpose of voting and making a recommendation to the Council. The main concern voiced was that of maintaining as low a density as possible in the city. The planner answered questions raised and pointed out the percentages of densities proposed, as given on page 81 of the Comprehensive Plan No.4. Gagne then made a motion, seconde by Stover, to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan to the Council with a request to delete the lot sizes. Roll call vote was 4 ayes, 2 nays. Leslie moved, Gagne seconded, adjournment at 10:38 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Becky ~tCt