1980 pl mn
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 8, 1980
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Reese
at 7:45 P.M. on Tuesday, January 8, 1980, in the Shorewood City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Present were: Reese, Benson, Gagne, Rascop, Stover and Watten.
Absent: Leslie
Also present: Attorney Kelly and Planner Nielsen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Stover, seconded by Gagne, to approve the
minutes of December 13, 1979, as written. Motion carried unanimously.
FINAL ACTION - Paul Christensen, 6065 Cathcart Drive
Councilwoman Haugen had spoken with the Gardiners relative to selling
25' or more of their property (P.I.D. #32-117-23-34-03). Mr. Christensen
stated their terms for sale of the property could not be met by him
at this time.
,-
A motion was made by Stover, seconded by Rascop, to recommend approval
of this division subject to acquiring an additional 25 ft. for a public
road and to the cul-de-sac being 120 ft. as specified by ordinance;
also, that the planner make a preliminary sketch as to how this
division would affect the neighboring residents and to present this
and the feelings of the planning commission to the Gardiners for their
reconsideration. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Howards Point Marina, 5400 Howards Point Road
At 8:18 P.M. the public hearing for the Howards Point Marina Rezone
Request opened pursuant to legal notice published. Dale Evans,
Attorney Snell, Jerry Brecke and Mike Sayler represented Howards Point
Marina. AttorneySnellpresented.analternateapplLc.ation
which eliminates the need for a variance in side lot line setback.
Boat traffic statistics were presented by Mike Sayler, ~anager of
Howards Point, and letters and feelings of the interest€d participants
were presented as follows:
Those in favor:
Mrs. Adeline Johnston, 5465 Howards Point Road, sent a letter dated
January 5, 1980, stating no objection to rezoning request, however,
did mention concern about traffic problem.
James and Rita Kehoe, 5380 Howards Point Road, in their letter of
January 4, 1980, extended their full support to the project.
Those opposed:
Mrs. Virginia Ridinger, 5330 Howards Point Road, presented letter of
January 8, 1980, from Attorney Zalk, registering strong objection
~ and recommendation to deny the application.
J"'
~tI
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 8, 1980
- 2 -
Those opposed: (cont'd.)
Mr. Bob Chapman, 27280 Edgewood Road, presented letter of January 2,
1980, and a copy of a petition mailed to Shorewood Council dated
12/9/71 in opposition to the rezoning.
Mr. Roger Hauge, 5490 Howards Point Road, voiced concern over the
buildings on the site as restricted by ordinance and as to the
guarantees, if any, of no additional expansion in the future.
Mrs. Titrud, 5920 Howards Point Road, was also present and voiced
objection to the rezone request.
At 9:13 P.M. this public hearing closed.
The planner presented his report of January 3 and Addendum to that
report dated January 7, 1980, and suggests "that the request for
rezoning and expansion be denied and that the marina be maintained
in its present legal non-conforming status."
Attorney Kelly's letter of 1/3/80 requested the planning commission
to consider each item of Ordinance No. 108 as it relates to the
rezoning application. A motion was then made by Stover, seconded
by Rascop, to set up a discussion meeting for January 22 on this
matter. Roll call vote was 5 ayes, 1 nay by Watten.
PUBLIC HEARING: Redfield Homes/John Cranbrook Rezoning Request
20520 and 20560 Excelsior Boulevard
At 9:45P.M. public hearing opened pursuant to legal notice published
December 28, 1979. Jay Carpenter and John Cranbrook were present
and Jay Carpenter presented a request to combine Lot 6, St. Albans
Bay Estates and Lot 74, Aud. Sub. No. 141, and rezone from R-l to
R-3, double family dwelling, and also presented a concept plan for
develoJ?Illent. There was no approval or disapproval registered by interested
partic~pants at this hearing.
It was generally felt by the planning commission that the building
of doubles on this property would not be undesirable for this area.
However, Watten voiced concern to keep the area more open. Stover
requested that the record show this as not being a zero lot line
situation.
Watten moved, Stover seconded for purpose of discussion, to table
the discussion until the next regular meeting. Motion failed on a
vote of 5 nays to 1 aye by Watten.
Then Gagne made a motion, seconded by Rascop, to recommend approval
of the rezoning and conceptual plot plan to the Council. Motion
carried on a 5 to 1 vote. Watten voted nay.
PUBLIC HEARING: Michael Caris, 25015 Smithtown Road
Public hearing opened at 10:45 P.M. pursuant to legal notice published
December 28, 1979. Mr. Caris presented his request to divide part of
Lot 38, Aud. Sub. No. 133, at 25015 Smithtown Road, into two parcels;
one to contain approximately 30,000 square feet and one to contain
~.
.~
.
Planning Commission Minutes
- 3 -
January 8, 1980
approximately 21,400 square feet, which would necessitate a variance,
as it is presently zoned R-'-l. Of those present, no one registered approval
or disapproval of this request.
The concern of the planning commission is that this proposed division
request is out of character with regard to the surrounding area.
Motion was made by Watten, seconded by Gagne, to defer action on
this request until the next regular meeting; also, to request a
planner's report. Motion carried unanimously.
Benson moved, Stover seconded, adjournment at 11:04 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
.
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: Planning Commission
DATE: 1/18/80
A study meeting of the Planning Commission
has been set for January 22~ 1980~ for the
purpose of comparing Ordinance No. 108
(Lakeshore-Recreational District) to the
Howards Point Marina rezoning application.
Enclosed please note material on the proposed
division by Warren Olson - Lot 8~ Block 3~
Minnetonka Manor. Since variances to R-2
zoning are required~ the Council has set a
public hearing for February 5 before the
Planning Commission. Please review this
material prior to the public hearing.
~so enclosed for your review prior to the
iebruary 5 meeting is a proposed division
of R.L.S. No. 391 by Don Shaw.
bh
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
JANUARY 22, 1980
.
MINUTES
The study session of the planning commission was called to order by
Chairman Reese at 7:48 P.M. on January 22, 1980.
ROLL CALL
Present were:
Reese, Benson, Gagne, Leslie, Rascop, Watten
Councilwoman Haugen, Attorney Kelly and Planner Nielsen
Stover
Absent was:
HOWARDSPOINT MARINA~RezoningApplication
The purpose of the meeting was to compare the Howards Point Marina
Rezoning Application as it relates to the new Lakeshore-Recreational
Ordinance, No. 108. Attorney Snell and Dale Evans were present
representing Howards Point Marina.
The following materials were presented for review at the meeting.
e
1. Letter from Clinton and Rosemary Berg was presented by
Mrs. Berg, stating objection to the rezoning request.
2. Notes regarding acreage, number of slips allowable and
parking, dated 1/8/80, were presented by the planner.
3. A diagram was presented by Dale Evans showing parking
allocation of 75 parking spots.
4. A copy of a map showing sanitary sewer for Howards Point
was presented by Mr. Bob Chapman for the record.
Upon review of Ordinance No. 108, the rezoning application, the
planner's reports and other materials previously submitted for this
application, the following concerns were raised:
-
Attorney Kelly requested that the amended application be formally
submitted in writing, and that the number of boats intended for use
be designated.
In his notes of 1/8/80 the planner shows a' designated wetland area of
2.62 acres, whereas the EAW, Exhibit C of 'the application, page 2,
II,B.2.f. indicates .9 acres wetlands. Haugen requested that the
attorney research application of the wetlands ordinance as it relates
to Howards Point Marina, and submit a report of his findings.
Watten requested the attorney to report as to whether the ordinance,
allows for houses to exist as they are pre'sently used. It was
requested that Howards Point Marina show the location of all the
buildings on the property, designate thei~ uses, and reqaest
variances as applicable.
The planning commission also requested that the applicant show the
location of the docks on the site plan.
.
-
"
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 2 -
January 22, 1980
Another concern mentioned was that of whether he lighting on the
marina meets the requirements of the ordinance Also, Mrs. Titrud
voiced concern over parking on the road right- f-way.
Attorney Kelly suggested that Howards Point Ma
engineer regarding a "dust free" surface in th
by ordinance; also as to any drainage problems
the present surface which is sod. The plannin
an alternate proposal for surfacing of the par
one with delineation of parking spaces.
Watten then moved, Rascop seconded for purpose
defer action on this application until the 19t
receipt of the attorney's reports, receipt of
application, and consultation of the applicant
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 10:56 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
ina consult with the
parking lot, as required
that might occur with
commission requested
ing area, preferably
of discussion, to
of February, pending
ritten amended '
with the engineer.
e
SHOREWOOD
.
MEMO:
e
TO COUNCIL
DATE: 2/8/80
NOTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF FEBRUARY 5~ 1980.
Warren Olson Division~ 5060 Suburban Drive:
To engineer and planner for their review.
Discussion to continue at Mar. 4 meeting.
Gene Ruffenach~ Clara Avenue Access:
Action scheduled for Mar. 4.
Don Shaw Division~ 22380 Murray Street:
Suggested to Mr. Shaw to review subdivision
ordinance and submit preliminary plat.
.
Becky Hunt
e
"____~T
e
e
.
e
e-
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 5~ 1980
I
I
!
M I NUT E S
The Planni~g Commission Mee ing of February 5, 1980, was called to order
by newly appointed Chairman Robert Gagne at 7:41 P.M.
ROLL CALL!
Present: iLeslie, Rascop, R ese, Stover, Watten
I Attorney Kelly, C uncilwoman Haugen and Planner Nielsen
Absent: I Benson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Reese moved, Leslie seconde , approval of the January 8, 1980, minutes.
Leslie moved, Rascop second d, approval of the January 22, 1980 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING: Warren Olson Division, 5060 Suburban Drive, 2'6-11Z.,..23---41-OOl4
At 7-:45 P.M. the public hearing for the Warren Olson proposed division
opened pursuant to legal notice puplished January 23, 1980. Mr. Olson
presented his request to divide Lot 8, Block 3, MinnetonkaManor, into
two lots by a Registered Land Survey; said property presently zoned R-2.
Twelve residents were present for the public hearing, including property
owners directly to the north and south of the Olson property: Mr. Don
Macklin, 5040 Suburban Drive (part Lot 7, Block 3, Minnetonka Manor) and
Mr. and Mrs. Roman Stacken, 5050 Suburban Drive (part Lots 7 and 8, Block 3,
Minnetonka Manor)--both parcels to the north of the Olson property; and
Mr. Ken Koppes, 5080 Suburban Drive (Lot 9, Block 3, Minnetonka Manor)
to the south.
There was much concern voiced by Mr. MackLin'afld several,otherparticiparlts
present over run-off and possible drainage problems that may result with
a division of this property, taking into consideration the pond which is
located on the property.
Attorney Kelly suggested an easement with an adjoining property owner as
a possible solution for a driveway; however, this suggestion received a
negative response from the neighbors, particularly Mr. Stacken. It was
Leslie's feeling that there should be more discussion on this, and that
the driveway situation should be resolved.
It was moved by Watten, seconded by Rascop, that, prior to making a
recommendation to the council, the engineer examine the Olson site and
the surrounding area, particularly to the south, to see if filling or
drainage of the 0lsonproperty.will. adversely affect the surrounding
properties, and ~or the planner to review the Olson property to see if
it is a buildable lot; discussion to continue at the March 4 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
--
Planning Commission Minutes
- 2 -
February 5, 1980
.. DISCUSSION: Gene Ruffenach - Clara Avenue Access
The purpose for discussion of this matter was to review Gene Ruffenach's
proposal to construct'a private driveway over Clara Avenue. The attorney
reviewed his letters of September 10 and October 5, 1979, citing the
legal issues of this matter, the requirements of the applicant and the
options available to the council in making a determination of this request.
The planner reviewed the concept plans with those present, including
Mr. and Mrs. Marshall of 5320 Eureka Road. Mrs. Marshall expressed concern
about development in this area and about potential traffic problems in
the event a road is approved.
After much discussion, Reese moved and Rascop seconded, that this matter
be taken up at the next regular meeting for final action. Motion carried
unanimously.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: on Shaw Proposed Division, 22380 Murray Street
.I.D. No. 34-117-23-33-0011
Don Shaw, realtor, and Vita Glaser, owner of said property, presented a
request to divide R.L. . No. 391 into two parcels; southerly parcel to
contain approximate+y 2,000 square feet, with an existing home; and
northerly parcel tolco tain approximately 44,000 square feet; with a
proposed driveway runn'ng north from Murray Street along the southerly
parcel.
-
Recommendation was mad by the planning commission for applicant to review
the subdivision ordina ce and submit a preliminary plat to the city office.
Leslie moved, Rascop s conded, adjournment at 9:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
e
e
e
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 19, 1980
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
The study session of the Planning Commission was called to order on
February 19, 1980, by Chairrran Gagne at 7:55 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop, Stover and Watten
Absent: Reese
Staff present: Attorney Kelly, Planner Nielsen
HOWARDS POINT MARINA - RezoringApplication
Per request of council at,sfecia1 meeting held 2/19/80, the planning
commission was requested to make a recommendation at this meeting
regarding the Howards Point Marina application.
Written correspondence from residents was acknowledged and Gordon T.
Christensen letter of Februcry 4, 1980, was read by chairman.
Attorney Snell and Dale Evar s presented the .. formal. revised application
and new site plan, which ap{lication requests 68 slips instead of 72 as
previously requested, and e iminates the need for a sideline setback
variance as a result of the service dock extending straight out into
the lake rather than to the north as previously requested.
After discussion of various changes reflected in the revised application,
Stover moved and Watte n sec~n ded recommendation to the council to approve
the application for 1akesho e-recreational zoning for Howards Point
Marina with the following a eas of concern:
1. preferential treatmEnt to Shorewood residents
2. parking drainage to lake and wetlands
3. surface of parking ,rea
4. legal or illegal not-conforming use and setback of buildings
5. length of gasoline (ock
6. lighting of parking and dock area
7. determination on letgth of dock by ordinance or LMCD requirements
8. square footage dens'ty including wetlands (as regards Ordinance
No. 70); also, "critical area" designation by LMCD.
Motion failed on a 4 to 2 v(te: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop voted
nay; Stover, Watten voted a e.
Discussion following the vo e consisted of:
Stover's concern is that 0 dinance No. 108 is intended to "serve the
lakeshore-recreational need of the city" and that the purpose is to
insure that it doesn't undu y infringe on property rights of others' she
also feels that the opera.tion of ~ marina definitely implies. increased boat traffic.
I
A concern of Watten's id that approximately 40% of the renters of
slips at the marina are Sho~ewood residents. He feels that 60% of the
rental slips should be allot ted to Shorewood residents. As regards
density, he feels that with the i ~tended revision forthcoming, this should allow
densities to increase in all area!).
-
.
.
Planni g Commission Minutes
- 2 -
February 19, 1980
HOWAR S POINT MARINA (cont'd )
Rasco disagrees with the we lands interpretation in attorney's memo
of 1/24/80; feels thatappli ation would be acceptable with 54 docks;
and, is concerned with the 2 5' of dotkproposedas compared to 200"
which'isa.llowed by ordinanc .
Leslie disagrees with wet Ian s interpretation and believes that difficulty
does have impact on request; feels there will be increased water traffic
as well as road traffic; als is concerned with "critical area" designation.
POLICY PLAN - Final Revision
Planner reviewed his memo of February 19, 1980 re final revision of the
policy plan/development fram work.
Rascop moved, Leslie seconde
by Brad Nielsen on February
carried unanimously to appro
6, 7 and 9.
to accept the revised plan as submitted
9, 1980, on an item-by-item basis. Motion
e the following items: #1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Regarding item 8, Watten mov d, Rascop seconded disapproval of this
item. Motion carried unanim usly. Watten doesn't feel that rezoning
creates an incentive for red velopment of the auto salvage yard and that
the last line of item 8 shou d be deleted. After further discussion,
Rascop moved, Gagne seconded, that the double bungalow strip on Hwy. 7
be zoned low-to-medium densi y and that the area to the west of
St. Albans Bay Estates remai semirural. Motion carried unanimously.
Regarding item 10, Watten mo
carried unanimously. After
seconded to suggest to the c
it is reflective of theexis
ed, Gagne seconded disapproval. Motion
urther discussion, Stover moved, Leslie
uncil that this area remain semirural since
ing development. Motion carried unanimously.
Leslie moved, Rascop seconde adjournment at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
e
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: COUNCIL
DATE: 3/7 /80
RE: NOTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- March 4, 1980
Redfield Homes, Inc.
Approved the preliminary plat.
Gene Ruffenach - Clara Avenue Access
Referred to council with no action or
recommendation from the planning commission.
Warren Olson, 5060 Suburban Drive
Denied division in concurrence with planner's
report of Feb. 28.
-
bh
-
-
-
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH-4, 1980
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting was called to order on March 4, 1980,
by Chairman Gagne at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop, Stover and Watten
Council Liaison Haugen
Reese
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Rascop, to approve the minutes of
February 5, 1980.
Moved by Watten, seconded by Gagne, to approve the February 19, 1980
minutes with revisions to Stover's and Watten's concerns on page 1.
PUBLIC HEARING: Redfield Homes, Inc./John Cranbrook - Preliminary Plat
Lot 6,. St.. AlbansBciy Estates & Lot 74, Aud. Sub. No. 141
Jay Carpenter presented an engineer's worksheet and a preliminary
plat for four lots for doubles, each consisting of 30,380 square feet.
Rascop moved, Leslie seconded approval of the preliminary plat as
requested. Motion carried unanimopsly.
ACTION: Gene Ruffenach - Access V~a Clara Avenue
Planner's memo of February 13, 198p, was acknowledged. Moved by
Stover, seconded by Rascop, that tpe planning commission make no
recommendation on this request and! that it be referred to the council
for its consideration. Motion carjried unanimously.
Discussion following the motion indicated there was much concern by
the planning commission members that there was not enough concrete
documentation presented by the applicant nor was there a formal
written proposal.
ACTION: Warren Olson Division, 5060 Suburban Drive
Chairman referred to engineer's notes from February 26 and March 4, 1980,
planner's memo of February 28, and a letter dated March 4 from Kenneth
J. Koppes, neighbor to the south of the Olson's, with a petition
attached, from those opposing the division due to drainage problems.
Stackens and Koppes' were present and again voiced objections to the
division. Mr. Koppes objects to any adverse effects resolving the
drainage problem may have on his property.
Watten referred to planner's memo citing that this request does not
seem to be in agreement with the "Subdivision Requirements" and "City
Policy" as stated in item No. 's 1 and 2 under "Issues and Analysis".
In concurrence with the planner's memo of February 28, 1980, it was
moved by Watten, seconded for discussion by Gagne, to recommend
denial of this division request to the council. Motion carried
unanimously.
-
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 4, 1980
- 2 -
Warren Olson (cont'd.)
The basic concern of the planning commission was that this division
creates a deep lot with a narrow road and that the lot is unacceptably
shallow without an easement. A suggestion to Mrs. Olson was that
she might consider the planner's cul-de-sac configuration (Exxhibit E).
DISCUSSION: Don Shaw Division, 22380 Murray Street
Discussion of this proposed division was tabled since a.pplicant was
not present.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: James Bruce, 1010 Holly Lane
Mr. Bruce presented preliminary plans to divide Lot 175 and the east
33 ft. of Lot 143, Auditor's Subdivision No. 120, into 3 lots consisting
of approximately 76,675, 60,350 and 64,440 square feet, and construction
of a driveway off West 62nd Street. Proposed division was looked upon
favorably by the planning commission and Mr. Bruce was instructed to
submit a preliminary plat to the dity office.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Don Hess, Ames bury Expansion Area
Mr. Don Hess of Land Plan presented transparencies of various P.U.R.D.
design plans and road configurations proposed for the Amesbury expansion
area which consists of approximately 15 acres of Shorewood property
along the Shorewood/Deephaven border.
The planning commission requested documentation for review prior to
making any recommendations on the proposals presented. Mr. Hess will
present such written documentation at the March study session.
Moved by Watten, seconded by Benson, to adjourn at 10:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 18, 1980
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting of March 18, ]980 was called to
order by Chairman Gagne at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Gagne, Bensqn, Leslie, Rascop, Rees~, Stover and Watten
Council Liaison Haugen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Stover, secopded by Benson to approv~ the minutes of the
March 4, 1980 meeting, as written.
DISCUSSION: AmesburyPURDPlan
Don Hess, planner, and Jim McNulty, McNulty C~nstruction Co., were
present to review with the planning commissio~ the PURD Preliminary
Plan dated March 14, 1980, and the Basic Rese&rch Summary Report
dated March 5, 1980, and issued revised pages '26 and 27 as well as
pointed out several other 'minor revisions to the Preliminary Plan.
e
A petition requesting the vacation of the road right-of-way designations
of Sunset Lane and a map indicating zoning for the area was presented
by Stover.
Major concerns voiced were that of preserving the trees and wildlife;
also, access to the development particularly in regard to West Lane.
Gail Eisert, 20585 Garden Road, presented a list of concerns regarding
the proposed development.
A suggestion by one o~ the residents was for ~ more gradual transition
from the surrounding single family residentiat a.rea to the development
and that maybe the townhouses could be located closer to the center
of the development instead of on the outskirt$.
Stover feels the ideveloper should justify the.density proposed, as
29 units is the ITIaximumautomatically allowable by ordinance versus..
46 proposed, by tq.e planner.
A public hearing has been set for April 15, 1980 before the planning
commission.
.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Henry Guenther, 5960ChtistmasLake Road
Henry Guenther presented a proposal to divide!his property into two
lots, the new lot to be 36,000 square feet. The planning commission
suggested increasing ~he lot size to 40,000 square feet in conformance
with the present ordinance,arrd submitting a preliminary plat to
the City Hall. '
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: George Larson Builders, Strawberry Lane and
Smithtown Road '
This discussion was tabled at the request of the ~pplicant.
I
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 2 -
March 18, 1980
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: SolbakkenDevelopment Co.
Rolf Hofstad, Eileen Gallagher and Michael Gallagher were present
representing Solbakken Development and presented a request to
subdivide R.L.S. #1 residue along Howards Point Road into 12 lots.
Present zoning is R-l and property consists of approximately 25 acres,
7 of which are designated wetlands.
The planning commission suggested that the small parcel abutting
Smithtown Road be included in the development rather than sold
separately as proposed by the applicant, and that the applicant
review the subdivision ordinance and submit a PURD plan that would
include some method of separating the development from the residential
properties nearby.
DISCUSSION: Subdivision and Rezoning Requests
Concern was expressed by planning commission members for residents
living near a proposed subdivision and/or rezoning to be contacted
prior to a public hearing being set in order that they be informed
of the discussion(s) taking place at the planning commission meetings.
It was requested that the council consider the suggestion that the
staff make a suggestion at the time of application for the applicant
to contact nearby residents about the intent to subdivide or rezone.
e Moved by Watten, seconded by Leslie, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M.
.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 1, 1980
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Meeting of April 1, 1980, was called to order
by Chairman Gagne at 7:43 P.M. in the council chambers of the city hall.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop and Stover; Council Liaison Haugen.
Reese, Watten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Stover, seconded by Leslie, to approve the minutes of March 18,
1980.
Discussion opened again concerning formal versus informal discussions on
upcoming subdivision and rezoning requests. It was pointed. out that some
requests are presented in.the form of a sketch whereas others are presented
in a much more formal manner,. such as the Amesbury plan for development.
The planning commission would like the council to establish a policy
regarding informal discussion, including, for example, the amount of
printed material requtred, sehedulesat;ld notification of future public
hearing, and cost, if any, to the City. They also reitel:"at~dthe concern
for neighbors to be contacted at the time of the informal discussion.
.
PUBLIC HEARING: . JCimesRruce Division, 1010 Holly Lane
Public hearing opened at 8:00 P.M. to consider the request of James Bruce
to divide into 3 lots the property located at 21100 West 62nd Street,
P.I.D. #35-117-23-44-0002, pursuant to legal notice p~blished.Arev$sed
preliminary plat date~-March L3., 1980;' waspresentedwhfcb. showed.revised
setback lines to comply with the ordinance.
It was pointed out that variances may be required, as the frontage of
the proposed lot 1 is 53ft. and 50 ft. for lot 2. It was moved by
Rascop,seconded by Benson, to app]:'ove this. lot split into 3 lots and
'to approve-the two. variances as well, ifth~y-are':requi-re(h.Mot;ionCariied-\:1ha.tl.in'louly.
There was some question: as to road frontage required by ordinance and
whether lakeshore property is treated differently, but it was felt that
variances, if deemed necessary in this situation, are justified due to
hardship. A motion was made by Rascop, seconded by Leslie, to request
clarification of. road. frontage required by ordinance, as it pertains
to lakeshore property. Motion carried unanimously.
e
DISCUSSION: Don Shaw Division, 22380 Murray Street
Don Shaw, realtor, presented a survey for the above property, owned by
Veda Vinning, proposing division of the property into two lots with a
20' driveway providing access to the back lot. The proposed driveway
would run parallel to the existing driveway of the neighbor to the west,
existing-driveway being 20'.
The planning commission looked Upon the 20 ft. road as unaaueptab!e, as
it is not wide enough for a public road and that it would run within
a few feet of the neighbor's driveway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 2 -
April 1, 1980
-
One suggestion was to 90mbine 2$ ft. with 25 ft. of neighbor's property
to the west which would provide'a 50 ft. public road for access. This
proposal received an unfavorable response from the neighbor; also, there
is a row of trees along the property line that might have to be removed,
which is undesirable to the applicant.
The planning commission ttheaLpcnm,1::~d.out.,thepc>sS'ibility - of obtaining access
to the property from the north {lnd suggested that the applicant contact
the owner of that property, and, submit a new plan.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Michael Hilton, 24140 Yellowstone Trail
Jerry Martin, realtor, was present to request a division of the above
property into 3 lots coT1taining approximately 43,800 sq. ft., 100,800
sq. ft., and 43,670 sq. ft.
.
The planning commission f06ked.pponthisdivision favora,bly:as faras<
being in compliance with the ordinance. Concerns voiced were that of
access to the back of lot 2 and, about future development of the property.
DISCUSSION: Howards Point Marina Rezoning Application
Gagne reported that pursuant to resolution being adopted, this application
will be referred back to the planning commission and will be taken up
at the April 29, 1980 meeting.
The planning commission requested that the attorney issue a letter of
explanation as to the status of the five buildings on the property
under bothche R-l and Lakeshore-Recreational zoning regulations.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Ga~ne,. to adjourn the meeting at 10:.00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
.
-
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL LIAISON
DATE: 3/7/80
The Planning Commission meetings for April
are scheduled as follows:
Tuesday, April 1
Tuesday, April 15
This will leave Tuesday, April 29 open in
case a special meeting is felt necessary for
discussion of the zoning ordinance, for example.
-
Becky Hunt
-
-
.
-
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 29, 1980
M I NUT E S
A special meeting of the planning commission was called to order by
Chairman Gagne at 8:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop, reese, Stover and Watten;
Council Liaison Haugen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes of April 15,
1980, as written.
Prior to the meeting being called to order, attorney's letter of April 28
was distributed and reviewed by the planning commission. Also submitted
were copies of the topog and sewer as-bui1ts from the engineer.
As requested in Resolution No. 27-80, the planning commission compared
the revised application for rezoning of Howards Point Marina, Inc. to
the Lakeshore-Recreationa1 Ordinance, No. 108, and submitted the following
findings:
Concerning page 3, Subdivision 4.A and C. of::the ordinance, it was
pointed out that Mrs. Adeline Johnston's site is within 5,000 feet of
Howards Point Marina and that the minimum number of slips to be
authorized is 10. It was questioned as to whether Mrs. Johnston's
site is considered an "existing authorized multiple use water
harboring boat facility"; therefore, whether rezoning of the marina
would be allowed under these specifications.
2. Building Uses and Setbacks - In ~onsideration of the attorney's letter
of April 28, 1980, the planning commission finds the building uses
to be as follows:
1.
a. Building A is illegal non-copforming
b. Building B is legal
c. Building C is legal non-conforming
d. Building D is legal non-confprming
e. Building E is illegal non-conforming
Ordinance No. 108 allows 2 buildings and in this application there
are 5 existing buildings and Buildings A and E are rental units,
therefore, illegal non-conforming use; also, it is felt that variances
are required for front yard setback (35 ft.) and rear yaJr.d setback
(75 ft./high water mark) as specified on page 5, I.3.a. and c. of
the ordinance.
3.
Parking Spaces - The parking plan as submitted does not comply with
the 50' side yard setback (page 7, L.5.). Also, the wetlands as
shown on site plan is incorrect and parking spaces are shown within
the wetlands area at the rear of the property (page 7, L.2.). The
planning commission feels that a variance is necessary for side yard
setback and they feel that the applicant should submit a new parking
plan.
Planning Commission
- 2 -
April 29, 1980
.
4. Screening - There is no screening to the south or to the east of
Howards Point Marina as required by ordinance (page 7, M.).
Much discussion followed relative to the existing conditions and the
history of the marina (as referred to in attorney's letter). It was
felt that the ordinance was designed basically for new construction and
that the existing conditions are an important factor in considering
this application.
Wattenthen moved to recommend that the Council consider the application
favorably provided the four areas of conflict are resolved. Motion was
seconded by Rascop and roll call vote was 4 ayes, 3 nays. Stover, Reese,
Gagne, Watten - aye; Rascop, Les1~e, Benson - Nay.
Discussion following the vote was as follows:
Stover - Feels that the ordinance was written as if there were no pre-
existing buildings; therefore, that the lake usage conforms to the
ordinance, but the use of the land does not.
e
Rascop - Main concern is that of increased density; both water traffic and autombbile.
Also, he- feels the application as suhnitted was in error and other concerns are:
1) -believes existing 1ega1non-confonning uses are in actuality illegal non-confonning;
2) side lot is in error; - 3) applicant should have requested variances for high water
and side lot.
Reese - Feels that additional boat docks would be in compliance with the
ordinance as written. Feels that the four items of conflict are more
technical in nature (as with the buildings being too close to the lot
lines).
Gagne - Assumes the Council will iron out the four areas of conflict as
interpreted by the planning commission.
Leslie - Feels the marina is beneficial to the location and to Shorewood
residents and wants to see the operation continue. Regarding her earlier
concern about increased auto and boat traffic, she feels that more docks
are acceptable with the assurance that they be available for use by
Shorewood residents.
Watten - Feels application is allowable with the four items of conflict
resolved. Feels greater density is forthcoming, but that there will be
a transition from power boats to sail boats which will result in a quieter
operation of the marina.
Benson's main concern was that the application was presented improperly.
Another concern not directly related to the vote was road width. Rascop
cited the driveway which provides access as being 20 ft. wide. Reese is
also concerned with the access roads within the development which he
feels do not comply with the ordinance (24 ft.).
4It Leslie moved, Rascop seconded, adjournment at 12:40 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
.
e
.
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 6, 1980
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, 1980, was called to order by
Chairman Gagne at 7:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop, Stover and Watten (arrived 9:20);
also Council Liaison Haugen.
Absent: Reese
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: George Larson, Strawberry Lane and Smithtown Road
Part of Lot 10, Aud. Sub. No. 247
George Larson, owner, and Pat Ginsbach, realtor, presented a survey and
a ~ketchproposing division of above property into 10 lots, each consist-
ing of 40,000 or more square feet.
The planning commission advised Mr. Larson of the requirement by ordinance
to! provide a well for a development of 10 or. more units and suggested he
coptact the staff for further information regarding a well.
PUBLIC HEARING: AmesburyWest P.U.R.D. - Don Hess
Dop Hess, Jim McNulty and approximately ten interested participants
we!r"e present for the continuation of the public hearing at 8:20 P.M.
Doh Hess presented Revised Development Schemes A and B, dated 5/6/80,
wh[ich decreasedthe density to 42 units and specified courtyard homes for
th~ southwest area of the development. Other documents presented
were: Planner's memo of 5/5/80, Jerry and Linda Peterson (20780 Garden
Ro~d) letter of 4/16/80, and B. Heimark (Amesbury Homes Association)
letter of 5/6/80.
In, response to the request for justification of the P.U.R.D. and the
density proposed, Mr. Hess offered the following aspects: 1) P.U.R.D.
al~ows this project to maintain separate identity; 2) ability for greater
side yard and setback from adjacent neighbors as compared to single
fa~ily development; 3) impact on vegetation isn't a factor of density;
4)i increased market value; 5) open space allows for recreation area
arid parks; 6) density and range reflect better flexibilit,y for marketing
purposes; 7) low proportion of school age children; 8) lower demand for
city services and better maintenance of the area by homeowners; 9) traffic -
ex~ect less as compared to single family development; 10) utility costs
ar~ fixed; 11) density range is well within that previously accepted
by! the City; 12) process of downward modification toward more courtyard
homes has been used and found to be acceptable in other communities.
The main concerns of the interested participants were: 1) maximum
depsity allowed should be 30 units; 2) feel they should be contacted
anp have voide in decision of access to the development and they don't
wabtcul-de-sac at south of ite to becomethru street; and 3) they
wa~t to see a concrete plan, as it changes each time presented. The
Eisert's requested that the ourtyard homes abutting their property
(2P585 Garden Road) be place 20 ft. to the east of where they are proposed.
.
e
e
Pl~nning Commission
May 6, 1980
- 2 -
Th~ planning commission discussion consisted primarily of the wetlands
on 'the site, particularly the southern-most ponding areas, and the
grading that may be necessary to alter these ponds as proposed.
In reaction to the concept plan only, Stover moved, Leslie seconded, to
submit a conceptual statement to the council that it is the planning
commission's feeling that this land meets 'the requirements for a P.U.R~lD.
and that the following reservations concerning the P.U.R.D. be considered:
1. That the density should not be more than 30 units.
2. That the traffic pattern may pose some problem as far as public
safety is concerned, particularly to the south of the development.
3. That the wetlands ordinance and storm water system be considered
regarding the proposed possibility of filling or moving the existing
ponds in the southerly portion of the development.
4. That the transition between zones be as gradual as possible
(preference for courtyard homes on the southwest boundary).
5. That excessive revision to the natural contours of the land be
considered.
MOtion carriedlD:"lanimously. .. Discussion following the motion was as foll.ows:
Stover - feels it is important that the road configuration be considered
in future action.
Leslie - prefers Scheme A over B, but feels more specific data should be
submitted.
Watten - is concerned with urbanization of the countryside and feels
there is a responsibility to retain the character of the land; also that
the surrounding single family area loses some of the quality with the
density proposed.
Rascop - isn't real concerned about density being greater, as long as
the natural features of the land are preserved. Indicated a preference
for Scheme A.
Gagne - would like to receive input from council based on planning
commission's findings.
On roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Leslie moved, Benson seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:13 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 20, 1980
e
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 1980, was called to order by
Chairman Gagne at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Gagne, Leslie, Rascop, Reese, Stover and Watten.
Liaison Haugen.
Benson
Also Council
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Reese, seconded by Watten, to approve the April 29 minutes as
amended (revision to Rascop comments on page 2). Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Rascop to approve the May 6 minutes. Motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Amesbury WestPURD, Don Hess (continued)
Haugen reported on the discussion that took place at the May 12 Council
meeting. Planner's memo of May 9 was also noted.
Don Hess presented Plan C for the development which proposed a maximum
of 44 units (3.0 units per acre) and specified townhouses on the east
side of the development. Mr. Hess indicated that an effort will be made
where possible to allow for a greater setback by moving the courtyard
homes in the southwesterly portion of the development as far east as
the terrain will permit.
e
There was much concern voiced by the Planning Commission regarding moving
the wetlands within the development. Mr. Hess referred to the ponds as
"intermittent" and claimed any changes that might be made would be done
without altering the storm water drainage system. Watten recomm~nded
that proper soil tests be made to assure that water retention of the
ponds will remain the same as in their natural state.
Rascop voiced concern with density because of grading and taking down of
trees; also possible traffic problems, particularly in the south of the
development.
After much discussion a motion was made by Watten to recommend that the
Council grant conceptual approval of Plan C for the Amesbury West PURD,
given that only courtyard homes be built and the maximum number of units
would be 30. Reese seconded for discussion, which resulted in the
following amendments to the motion:
1. Moved by Rascop, seconded by Reese to allow townhouses as well
as courtyard homes. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Moved by Watten, seconded by Rascop, to retain the placement of
the proposed courtyard homes as indicated on Plan C. Motion
carried unanimously.
.
3. Moved by Leslie, seconded by Rascop, that emergency vehicle
access from the south be provided. Motion carried on a 4-2 vote.
(Gagne, Leslie, Reese, Watten voted aye; Rascop nay; Stover
abstained.)
e
e
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
- 2 -
May 20, 1980
Don Hess and Jim McNulty then presented the proposed PURD to the Park
Commission for its consideration.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Jim Dutcher Proposed Division
Wild Duc~ 2nd Addition- Outlot A
Jim Dutcher proposed division of Outlot A i~to 4 lots for doubles, each
consisting of 20,000 or more square feet. ~augen pointed out an easement
over the property by the City and the Plann ng Commission then recommended
that Mr. Dutcher take this matter to the Co~ncil for its consideration.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Donna Christy Propose~ Combination/Division
20090 Excelsior Boule~ard . .
Donna Christy, realtor, representing Williap and Viola Lyons of above
address presented a proposal to combine lot~ 48 and 49, Aud. Sub. 141
and divide (from east to west instead of no th to south) into two equal
lots of 35,719 square feet. Mrs. Christy w~s advised that variances
would be required for lot size, road fronta~e and for a 35' road which
is proposed. The Planning Commission felt his proposal provides better
use of the land as there is a pond on lot 4~.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: Terry Hirschi Propose~ Division
20555 Manor Road, Mtk~. Manor Lot 7
Terry Hirschi, potential buyer of above property, presented a proposal to
divide into two lots; front lot approx. 1/2 acre and back lot approx.
one acre. Because this is a long, narrow lpt and the frontage is only
100 ft., the Planning Commissipn did not favor this division and informed
Mr. Hirschi that he would need to extend th~ existing driveway or obtain
a permanent easement from the owner of lot p.
Moved by Watten, seconded by L~slie, to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
e
e
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 17, 1980
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting of June 17, 1980, was called to order
by Chairman Gagne at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop, Reese, Stover and Watten.
Council Liaison Haugen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Reese, seconded by Leslie, to approve the minutes of May 20,
1980, as written.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: P. J. and Rita Wartman Proposed Division
5840 Cathcart Drive
Rita Wartman presented a proposal to divide Lot 1, Block 1, Afton
Meadows into two lots consisting of 35,000 and 36,000 square feet.
~resent zoning is R-1. The planning commission looked upon this
division as unfavorable, as the sizes of the lots do not comply with
the present ordinance and the variance from the ordinance is in excess
of 10%. It was suggested that Mrs. Wartman discuss this proposal with
the council members.
DISCUSSION: Don Shaw Proposed Division, 22380 Murray Street
Don Shaw appeared for a second time to present a plan for a driveway to
provide access to the back lot of his proposed division, but he did
not come up with a 50 foot road as was recommended by the planning
commission at the April 1, 1980 meeting. The planning cpmmission
suggested that he pursue the possibility of access from the north, as
Bracket Road (a private road) off Apple Road provides access to the
neighboring property owned by the St. John The Baptist Catholic Church
(35-117-23-33-0009 and -0010).
The planning commission then discussed garage size as to how. it. shoUld be -.,
specified_ iin.~the ordinance. It wassaggested that the following specifi-
cations be incorporated into the ordinance 1) that the garage size be
restricted to a certain percentage of the ot size; 2) that the garage
be restricted to a certain percentage of t e size of the house; and 3)
that the construction of the garage be of design compatible to the
main structure.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Stover, to ad ourn the meet!ing at 9:00 P.M.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt, Secretary
e
e
.'
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 8, 1980
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission Meeting of July 8, 1980, was cal]ed to order by
Chairman Gagne at 7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Absent: Watten
Chairman Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Rascop~ Reese, Stover.
i
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes of June 17,
1980 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Donna Christy Proposed Repubdivision, Lots 48 and 49,
Aud. Sub. 141, 20090 Excelsior Boulevard
At 7:45 P.M. public hearing opened pursuant to notice published June 25,
1980. Donna Christy, realtor representing William and Viola Lyon~
presented a sketch plan taken from a preliminary survey, indicating the
proposed resubdivision.
Planners memo of June 25, 1980 and engineer's report of July 7, 1980
were addressed. Mr. Jim Waldo, 20250 Excelsior Boulevard, and
Mr. Don Jakel, owner< of 5405 St. Albans Bay Road, were present as
interested participants and didn't voice any objections to the
resubdivision. Letters from P):1illip Watterberg, owner of 20240 Excelsior
Boulevard, and David and Patricia Thiede, 20145 Excelsior Boulevard,
stated no objection to the request. Objections to the resubdivision
were expressed by James V. Beal, owner of 20050 Excelsior Boulevard,
in his letter of July 8, 1980.
In reference to engineer's report, the planning commission would like
to find out the lowest level of the floor,. pertaining to sewer service....,
ability.
There was much concern voiced by Donna Christy and planning commission
members as to the discrepancies in the square footages of the lots and
the amount of wetlands on the given property. The following figures
for wetlands were given: applicant (surveyor) - 9,860 sq. ft.;
planner - approximately 23,000 sq. ft.; and the engineer - 21,850 sq.. ft.
Moved by Rascop, seconded by Benson, to table the public hearing until
the August 5 meeting with the provision that the planning commission
receive confirmation nf the actual square footage and actual wetlands
of the site and that the planner, engineer and surveyor come to.an
agreement as to the figures given. Motion carried unanimously.
ponna Christy was advised to contact the qity ~ngkneer in regard to the
sewer problem and other discrepancies. The cul-dr-sac configuration
presented by the planner was also pointed out.
Public hearing portion of the meeting convened at 8: 15 P.M.
It
e
--
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 2 -
July 8, 1980
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The planning commission requested that a work session on the subdivision
ordinance be set for the July 22 planning commiss.on meeting or,
if possible, that a joint meeting be arranged wit the council in this
regard. It was also requested that the planning ommission members
receive paperwork and necessary information befor hand to prepare for
the work session.
Moved by Benson, seconded by Reese, to adjourn th meeting at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Becky Hunt
Secretary
.
e
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 22, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne
at 7:30 P.M., July 22, 1980 in the council chambers.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Gagne, Benson, Watten, .Les1ie, Rascop, Reese, and
Stover. Also present: Attorney Kelly, Planner Nielsen, Councilman
Shaw, and Liaison Haugen.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES-Ju1y 8th Meeting
Stover requested a correction in the minutes of July 8th.
To delete: Public hearing portion of the meeting convened at 8:15 P.M.
To re-word "Moved by Rascop, seconded by Benson, to continue the Public
Hearing at the next meeting, August 5th."
Stover moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chairman Gagne stated that tonight's meeting is an informal hearing
for input on the proposed family subsidized housing from the city
attorney, council representatives, and the public in attendance.
Councilman Shaw Comments:
The Medical Center Development, including the family subsidized housing
and elderly housing complex, were presented to the City Council at a
special meeting, February 19, 1980. It was processed through various
government units. The Medical Center has already been approved but
there is need in this area for subsidized and elderly housing and
Shorewood is rated very high for this project. It is incumbent that
we take a look at this proposal in light of the future. The presen-
tation involves the usage of land which is in keeping with the general
outlines of the Comprehensive Plan, as worked out by the Planning
Commission and the Council. The state planning requires a fairly quick
decision by Shorewood or the funding will be offered to another community.
INFORMAL PRESENTATION -'FAMILY'SUBSIDIZED AND ELDERLY HOUSING
Gerald Mundt of Wallace & Mundt Architectural Firm of Minneapolis, was
present representing the developer, First American Care Facilities, and
presented the latest addition of the site plan.
He stated that the developers and city staff have been working almost
2 years on the project; the entire site to be developed in 3 phases:
1] Family Housing
2] 5 Floor -.78 unit Elderly Housing
3] More Family Housing near the highway or a care center.
"It was our intent to develop family housing and elderly housing together,
to be financed through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, which is
established by the state government with guaranteed backing of the state;
they sell the bonds, and from these sales, finance the project. Once
they finance these projects, they are developed along the guidelines of
HUD, section 8, financing method.
.
e
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
-2-
July 22, 1980
As things developed, it was found that the Minnesota Housing would no
longer finance elderly housing.
Shorewood went through a screening to determine if they could meet the
criteria for the site; such as a close shopping area, bus service, and
utilities available. When developing in Metropolitan area, there is
another body which we tie into - The Metropolitan Council. Their criteria
and regulations are being developed through the Comprehensive Plan.
At this point, the project has been accepted for 40 townhouses near Linden
Drive and Yellowstone Trail. The schedule thus far:
I
I
1] We have designated a sChematic~I' site plan with d,esigns of the units.
2] We have made presentation to t e Minnesota Hou,sing Agency.
3] We have a good contractor for I he project.
Now we need to finish our preliminar& plan and costing and go back for
preliminary improvements and paper wprk. The density now changed to
8.6 units per acre, screen, planning along Ye llowston, e Trail, and an l
8% grade is acceptable.
The cost of each unit is in the neighborhood of $38,000.
Example: A person earning $5.00 per h ur could rent a 2 bedroom uni
at a subsidy of $175.00 per month for 2 bedroom unit. This is com~
parable to a $300.00 per month rental nit".
INTERESTED CITIZEN 'PARTICIPANTS
Mr. & Mrs. Grant Suddendorf
Mr. & Mrs. Steve Gregg
Mr. & Mrs. Gene Clapp
James Hallman
Roger Lubke
Mr~:& Mrs. Greg Strobl
John Schmidt
Rachel Leonardo
6050 Riviera Lane
4020 Yellowstone Trail
4115 Yellowstone Trail
6170 Club Valley Road
5915 Minnetonka Drive
4410 Wood Drive
3930 Yellowstone Trail
5845 Country Club Road
CONCERNS OF PARTICIPANTS:
1] How units to be heated?
2] The water plan -
How paid for? Who connects 0 the line? Who carries well debt?
Who maintains the line going through the street once installed?
3[ Who is holding the equity of subsidized housing project?
4] Will we be able to get phase 2 - elderly housing?
5] Communication between public and Planning C mmission & Council
on the current progress of the project, whe e to look for notices?
6] Who will:lcare and maintain project for snow mowing etc?
7] Playground for children. Is 50 x 100' lot e ough to take care of
that number of children?
8] Possibility for before and after school day care for c~ildren to
keep them out of shopping center and street .
9] If your area is rezoned, are you notified b
10] How will screen between the project and res
11] Traffic problems out of Yellowstone Trail,
12] Zoning of the area?
registered letter?
dential property?
inden Drive to Hwy 7?
Assurance was given that these issues would be addressed at the formal
Public Hearing; public notice for this hearing will be posted in the
Sun Newspaper in the legal section.
.
e
.
PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETIN~
- 3 -
July 22, 1980
i:
BRAD NIELSEN~ PLANNER I
Brad Nielsen, planner, prelsented the first draft copies of the P.U.D.
Planned Unit Development Dlistrict ordinance for distribution to the
Planning ~ommission, Cit~ I~oun~il,. and Staff. This district allows
for the m1.xed uses of th1.SI i pro Ject.
I
He stated that the prelimi~ary Comprehensive Plan has been approved by
the city and submitted to i~he surrounding communites. October 31, 1980
it will be officially sub1ttted to Metro Council for review and comment.
Reese moved that August 191~h be designated for a meeting to study the
P. U. D. ordinance (green cOiI!>y) and that Brad Nielsen be at that meeting.
Rascop seconded. Motion cicjlrried unanimously.
, ,
II
ADJOURNMENT II
"
Les lie moved the meeting a1djourn: 11: 20 P. M. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
d ~~ 4-fivJJ
Bobbie ~bvik, Acting Seclretary
." :
x
-.
e
....
\
.
JOINT MEETING
CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 28, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 Country Club Road
5:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
A joint meeting of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission
was called by Mayor Frazier at 5:35 P.M. on Monday, July 28th in the
council chambers.
,ROLL CALL
Council present: Mayor Frazier, Keeler, Haugen, and Shaw. Naegele absent.
Planning Commission present: Gagne, Reese, Rascop, Benson, Stover, and
Watten. Leslie absent
Staff present: Engineer Norton, Attorney Kelly, Attorney Sanders, and
Clerk Wiltsey.
Many residents were in attendance.
, ,PURPOSE:
The Mayor called the meeting to set procedures and a tentative time
schedule on the proposed development for moderate income and senior
citizen housing as well as the P.U~D. amendment to Ordinance No. 77.
It was explained that the amendment will be part of the final zoning
ordinance under the Comprehensive Plan - which is due on October 31,
1980.
The tentative schedule is:
August 5th:
,Planning Commission
1] Developer's formal presentation nf the moderate
income housing development, Shorewood Estates
2] Study of P.U.D. Amendment
August 7th:
Bus tour to view similar housing in other areas.-
for Council, Planning Commission, Senior Housing
Committee, and other interested parties.
August 19th:
Planning Commission
1] Hold Public Hearing on P.U.D. Amendment
2] Continue Review of the Family Housing Plan
September 2nd: Planning Commission
1] Vote on P.D.D. Amendment
2] Public Hearing on Moderate Income Housing
development plan
September 8th: City Council
1] 1st reading of P.U.D. Amendment
September 16th Planning Commission
1] Vote on Housing Development Plan
.
e
.
JOINT MEETING
COUNCIL-PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-
July 28, 1980
September 22 - City Council
1] 2nd reading and adoption of P.U.D. Amendment
2] Vote on Moderate Income Family Housing Development.
It was noted that 40 units of moderate income housing has been approved
for funding by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; the latest plan
being proposed, calls !for 8.6 units per acre.
Kristi Stover felt that the number one problem is the density.
The role of the Planning Commission was reviewed, and since the existing
Zoning Ordinance does ,not provide for this type of construction, the
P.U.D. Amendment is necessary at this time, to provide for this develop-
ment and also any future townhouse developments.
A tentative date for a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commis-
sion for final review of the Subdivision Ordinance was set for the 15th
of August.
Meeting Adjourned 6:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
J"/J () ~ .
J~~.' /ld4
Elsa I. Wiltsey, ~rk
.
e
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 5, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne
at 7:35 P.M., August 5, 1980 in the council chambers.
ROLL CALL
Members present were: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Reese, and Rascop.
Absent: Watten and Stover. Also present: Planner Nielsen, and Council-
man Shaw.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tabled to meeting of August 19th.
Chairman Gagne announced that tonight's meeting is not a Public Hearing
but a formal presentation of the entire P.U.D. development site. "There
will be no public input from the audience here tonight.u
There will be a notification in the Sun Newspaper for the Public Hearing
which will be held on September 2nd on the project.
September 19th a Public Hearing is scheduled for the Ordinance.
Brad Nielsen - Planner
"First step that we are suggesting is a general acceptability of the idea
of subsidized housing project; whether that was generally acceptable to
the City of Shorewood.
Second - an evaluation of the project based upon the Land Use and Land
Use Plan." .
ANNOUNCEMENT: Gagne
"The bus tour is scheduled for 6:00 P.M., Thursday, August 7, 1980. The
bus leavilng from City Hall."
!
!
,DISCUSSIqN ON MEMORANDUM (Review Schedule & Process
Suggestiqns to changes:
Rascop: Question 1
- Add to Para ra hD. -Political & Philoso
(Subsidized housing, what do you want?
Question 2 -A~LandUseCompatibility/Acceptability
Add - access (major access)
Question 3 - This begins the process, but answered at a
later date.
TIME SCH~DULE(Lastpage)Changes
Augustl 13th 1. Review subdivision ordinance.
2. Discuss statistics and back~round on question
#1 - (General acceptability)
2. Include discussion of question #2
(Concept Stage only)
hical
August 19th
Septe~ber .2nd
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 2 -
August 5, 1980
.
FORMAL PRESENTATION OFENTIREP~U~D.DEVELOPMENTSITE
(Gerald Mundt, representing First American Care Facilities)
Site 1 - Roughly 9.85 acres (Approximately 10)
Site 2 - 1.83 acres
(Proposed development service office type structure or plan)
Site 3 - 3/4 acres
SITE I -TOTAL of 40 UNIT TOWNHOUSES
2 Bedroom, wood frame, with basement
5 Story housing for elderly (center of projebt)
2 Story 100 bed (plus or minus) care center or nursing home
50 beds per nursing station
2 nursing stations
Total - 118 living units - 12 units per acre
(78 units elderly housijng)
The developer would pay
them to the city.
Building coverage 11%
Parking 20%
Open Area 69%
i 0
for construct~on of roads and then dedicate
I '
,
(includes 2 ponds)
Comment: Janet Leslie "Note~ P.U.D. and prOJoect are two separate things."
I
e
DISCUSSION.. OF . ORDINANCE. (Green. Copy)
Points touched upon and ~mphasized:
Planner Nielsen: P.U.R.D. - limits development to residential only.
P.U.D. - permit~ (if city desires) non-resid~ntial
uses, more flexibility. Gives the city
more control.
Page 1 - Item C - "accessory" would like definition.
Page 2 - Item J - setbacks - establiSh organization
* add - "internal"
- Paragraph D - higher density means less private open space.
Would like to see figures and guideliines in writing.
Page 4 - Paragraph F - "Staging of public..... *add (park dedication).
Comment: Rascop
" Reese
" Shaw
Paragraph G - Density determined - 10% allowance up or d~wn
No stage can exceed 125% of proposed resid~ntial
density.
- Like to see it easier to go below percentage.
- Filing amendment might be a wa~
- Suggest may be worded a little more clearly.
e
Page 5 - J. Roadways
Pertains to roads not going to be dedicated. Doe 't include
driveways.
M. Setbacks
*Change 1. recognizing - not "reorganizing."
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 3 -
August 5, 1980
. Page 5 - L -
2. (Minimum allowed for excess parking - townhouse parking
is tighter - allows room for at least one car on street
per unit. 20 feet based on 20' parking space)
possibly restructure sentence
20 feet for.eachunit (singular)
3. Depends on if windows are on the walls or not. Will
solar effect this paragraph? Different restrictions on
South side? Take into consideration solar access.
Page 6 -
Paragraph 4 - Think about rewording to provide more protec-
tion to village, citizens and community.
Page 17 - 4. "to .be extended for not more than one year"
leave as is
Page 18 - Reese Comments - re: annual review - "Very good."
QUESTIONS READ INTO RECORD BY CITIZENS
Steve Gregg - Yellowstone Trail
e
1] Would like to see written description of the project. Simplistic
summary description. Would like documents to look at.
Nielsen - "There is a requirement to that effect."
2] A financial impact statement provided for in the analysis in terms
'of the financial impact or burden or advantage that is to be accrued
as a result of the project - - similar to an environmental impact
statement - - pertaining to financial aspects, gains or losses.
3] Density. Net land area to be applied to residential use. Residen-
tial based on total land area - - doesn't seem to!be complying with
the intent. How are you calculating the density <j>f a given P.U.D.
land its conformance with the guidelines that are ~stablished in the
'Comprehensive Plan? Is it useable land area? Isiit an area that
is net of other than residential development?
P.U.D. should have very specific definitions of calculations of
denSity.
"You will get
Gagne
answers at the Public Hearing."
I
i
HAMILTON MAY - 5764 Echo Road ! I
8 'questions all of them take genesis out of t~e last:!: two cases; the
first of which came from the State by RochestrAssociation of Neigh-
borhood vs the City of Rochester and then the Cedar ,Riverside Environ-
mental. !
lJ. W... hat knowledge do we have for need (SUbSidilred hO~...sing) for senior
citizens? What studies can you provide us? What irequests can you
provide us?
.
~
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 4 -
August 5, 1980
I
:
on thelvalue of adjacent
perfor~ing an inverse con~
proper~y in putting in
e
2] What affect will subsidized housing have
land realty? Are you people going to be
'demnation, taking 1/2 the value of other
subsidized housing across the road?
,
3] What are the municipal requirements goirigto be~ What traffic studies
do you have? What sewer and water requirementsp. Fire and police
protection? What additional schools will we hare?
4] What about the environmental impact? Has an en~ironmental impact
statement been prepared or will it be prepared ~n connection with
this? I
,
5] I would like to have somebody look into the his~orical concepts of
subsidized housing. What effects has it had onl neighborhoods
crime and things of this nature? :
6] Coordination between the ordinance and comprehe~sive plan.
7] What about the watershed requirements?
8] Spot zoning considerations. ,
Looks like cla sic spot zoning, if that is the I,~ase, it is basically
illegal. Talk to Frank Kelly about that.
e
i
RACHEL LEONARDO~ 58 5 Countr Club:Road I
'I This ordinance pens the door to high densityd~velopment. This type
of development eeds this ordinance. "City-type:" development. I
would like to .s e Shorewood a residential communiity (on flag) changed
to Shorewood, a city on the South Lake Shore." I
" The proposed Se ior Citizens (site) lies in Min~ehaha Creek Water-
shed and will require a review by the district. I I
GREGORY SUDDENDORF - 6040.Riviera Lane !
" Would like to see an evaluation of the need and Idemand. Would also
like considered and discussed, the number of un~ts per acre. (site)"
ROBERTREUTIMAN~5915GalpinLakeRoad I
He favored the need for senior citizens to have a development here
within range of shopping area and road.
e
RACHEL LEONARDO
1] Metropolitan Council's position - have to have low cost housing
before we can have senior citizens.
2] A good chance that the Medical building is not [going to get off
the ground for the tilme being. Mandatory to ha~e medical building
there in order to have Senior Citizens. :
,
,
'S:UGGESTIONS i
I
1] Try to have a newspaper reporter present for mqre coverage. Write
to the Sun. :
2] Reese - "Get signs put up on land about proPosJ!d development."
3] Leslie - "I make a recommendation that we send a request to the
Council that they persue looking into this mat er of having signs
that are put on possible rezoning or on rezoni~g requests or
subdivisions." I
I
!
.
e
e
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
_ 5 _
August 5, 1980
Seconded by Rascop.
All i Favor.
Moved by Leslie, seconded by Gagne that the meeting adjourn at 10;10 P.M.
Respectfiully submitted,
~~~/ ~~
Added after Adjournment:
Greg Suddendorf:
"What is the background of First American Care Associ,ation as to their
corporate charges, their length of existence, and co~plete financial
statement on the corpol:lation1"
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Steve Frazier
COUNCI L
William Keeler
Robert Naegele, Jr.
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR
Elsa Wiltsey
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD- SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 - (612) 474-3236
August 15, .1980
MEMO: To Planning Commission and Council
From: Elsa Wiltsey ....1/5115.
A tentative meeting had been scheduled for 6:00 P.M.. 00 Tuesday
as a joint meeting for review of Question #1 of the memo from
from the Planner dated 13th of August 1980 - re:
Shorewood Estates Revision Process (Yellow 17 page report)
e
Indications are now that the Council will not have a quorum
so the Planning Commission will hold the Public Hearing as
scheduled at 7:30. The recommendation on Question No.1, will
be sent to the Council for their vote as soon as a meeting date
can be set.
For that reason, the planner feels that no advance session will
be necessary and the 6:00 joint meeting is cancelled.
The Planner.is sending a memo relative to the schedule change
by direct mail.
e
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne at
7:35 P.M., August 19, 1980 in the council chambers.
ROLL CALL
Members present were: Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Reese, Rascop, Watten, and
Stover. Also present - Liaison Haugen, and Planner Nielsen.
PARTICIPANTS AT PUBLIC HEARING
Keith Bedford
Paul Swanson
Mr. & Mrs. Suddendorf
Bob Shaw
Mr. & Mrs. Strobl
Hamilton May
Judy Marshall
Jim Hoban
Kitty Francen
Lovell H. May
Jan Lapin
Roger Lubke
Chris Cerache
24375 Wood Drive
4670 Lakeway Terrace
6040 Riviera Lane
5745 Echo Road
24410 Wood Drive
5765 Echo Road
5320 Eureka Road
5525 Manitou Lane
24875 Yellowstone Trail
5165 Echo Road
Yellowstone Trail
5915 Minnetonka Drive
Yellowstone Trail
.
Also present:
Representative for Ellsworth Johnson developer - ROGER GORDON
Memb~r of Dayton, Hermann - PHILLIP GETTS
Representing Shorewood residents - Lake Linden Drive & Yellowstone
trail - GRAHAM & GETTS
APPROV~L OF MINUTES
Motion made by Reese, seconded by Watten to approve the minutes of July
22nd as written. ~otion carried unanimously.
Phillip Getts, representing Shorewood residents, offered comments on the
proposed PUD ordinance which would amend the general zoning ordinance and
pointed out to the Planning Commission that the notice published in the
Sun Newspaper was defective and suggested the meeting be adjourned and
have lawyer redraft the notice to set forth the purpose of the meeting and
have it held at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
Hamilton May also asked for a two week delay.
Gagne: Declared that there was more than enough information to proceed
with the Public Hearing.
Liaison Haugen asked for a 5 minute recess; at which time she called the
city attorney for information. .
Back in session; Liaison Haugen reported that the City Attorney had in-
structed the Planning Commission that the notice was indeed legal and to
continue the Public Hearing. Representatives of the citizens had adequate
time to serve an injunction on the city to stop the Public Hearing.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 2 -
AUGUST 19, 1980
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 3 -
AUGUST 19, 1980
Nielsen:
"Density only pertains to the residential portion of a project.
Density would not be spread over the entire project."
!
May: "Adjourn this meeting for 2 weeks and get specific answers
to all the ~uestions that you have heard here tonight and have
them pub1is .ed so that we can get away from the problem of having
a 1awsuit.n I
!
"That has already been addressed."
"We will now! close the public input and open to Commission members
here for cOllnments and questions."
I
,
.
Hamilton
Haugen:
Gagne:
1]
2]
On publici input.
2 hearints recommended
Density ssue needs to
and defi ed.
I
5 day ti~e period - all material must go to the Planning
Commission before their meeting so they may study proposals.
(one at concept and one later on).
be expanded, more clearly specified
DISCUSSION:
3]
REESE: Made a motion to hold over the hearing on the P.U.D. to September
2nd, at which time we would entertain a motion on it."
Motion seconded by Rascop. Motion carried unanimously.
.
Gagne: September 2nd we have Shorewood Estates.
10:00 P.M. - 10 minute recess
RECONVENED - Read through memorandum "Northwest Associated Consultants"
Yellow! Copy
Q 1] Is the proposed project acceptable from a general policy perspective?
Roger Gordon spoke briefly on project financing. Some discussion followed.
Q 1] Discussion on housing need - who is allowed in project - families
or singles or both.
Bob Shaw - "I would question the fact that you can specifically exclude
singles from a.deve10pment and you might: run into discrimina-
tion prob1ems...community does not want a lot of high turn over
which would be associated with rental - type facilities.
Again referred to NAC - yellow copy.
Reese: "Maybe there are some housing in other communities that we ought
to look at.
Watten: "I think going out in smaller areas and seeing what subsidized
housing looks like in a rural area, Mound, Spring Park etc."
.
I
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 -
AUGUST 19, 1980
Memorandum to the Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
From: N.W. Associates - Dated August 13th - Shorewood Estates
READ ALOUD
Gagne re d from Housing & Assistance Plan (Blue Book - last page).
Motion b Leslie: Vote on the question: .'.!'Is trh.e suhsidi'zed.J.ow,and moderate
income family housing in Sh6rewood generaily acceptable?"
Reese:
Second for Discussion.
Watten: Proposed amendment - "The last part should read "acceptable
from a general policy perspective- as originally stated on
the planner's report."
Benson seconded. Unanimously in favor on amendment.
IS SUBSIDIZED LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILY HOUSING IN SHOREWOOD
ACCEPTABLE FROM A GENERAL POLICY PERSPECTIVE?
Watten: No
Stover: Abstain
Ayes - Reese, Gagne, Leslie, Benson and Rascop.
DISCUSS QUESTION 1.
Stover:
Benson.
"Why even bother going into this question?
"Is the proposed project acceptable?"
We have reworded it.
Vote: Unanimous - NO
Benson moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:30 A.M.
Seconded by Rascop - Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Cermak, Acting Secretary
"
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City
of Shorewood will ho~d a Public Heartng at 7:30 P.M., August 19,
1980, in the Council: chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755
Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, on the application of
Gordon L. Schmidt, P~tricia M. Schmidt, John W. Mc Cartney, Marilyn
M. Mc Cartney, John ~. Millet and Margaret M. Millet for an amendment
,to Ordinance No. 77,: rezoning the hereinafter described property to
a P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District:
Lot 32, Auditor'b Subdivision No. 133; Lot'19, Linden Park;
and the North 295 feet of Lots 16 and 18 (as measured at right
angles to the No~th line of Lot 18), Linden Park, all in HeBnepin
County, Minnesot~.
The foregoing described property is generally located in an area
bounded on the east Py Ltnden Drive, on the north by Yellowstone
~ Tra~l, on the south py State Highway, No.7, and boundeG on the
west by a line paral~elwith and 50 feet easterly of Riviera Lane.
The P.U.D. amendment generally would permit development of neigh-
borhoods or portions! thereof incorporating a variety of residential
types to be governedl by the specific provisions of the proposed
amendment which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The applicants herei~ specifically propose development under such
proposed amendment oif 40 moderate income townhouses and senior
,
citizen housing. A1Il persons desiring to be heard will be heard
at such Public Hearilng.
Dated:
Augus t 1, 19180
<>
l,,:>t~~jJ,'1!;(:;Z;~A ,
E sa I. Wiltsey
City Clerk/Administr
Published in the Mirlnetonka Sun
!
the 6th day of Augu~t, 1980 and the 13th of August, 1980.
,
-
.
.
M E M 0
:
!
TO: PLANNING CPMMISSION
FROM: ELSA WILTS~Y
RE: AGENDA
DATE: AUGUST 29, 1980
AGENDA
NO. '
3 Bra4 Ni~lsen will have with him, for your meeting,
the !PUDI Ordinance with certain revisions per your
recJmme!ndation.
, i
4 Bra4 wi~l present that portion of the new zoning
ordtnan~e that deals with home occupations and
gar4ge ~izes for your discussion and policy recom-
men4atipns to the Council.
I '
Kip!Johpson has asked for a permit to install gas
pumps in. conjunction with his "Little Store" at
Vine Hi~l Road. He qas asked to be heard on an
informa~ basis to discuss the zoning ordinance re-
quirements. He is comparing his operation to the
"7-11" Stores in the area that have gas pumps with much
smaller lots.
6 On Agenda'for'PreseritatiOri.Only:
5
Public hearing will be set after the PUD Ordinance
has been adopted by the Council.
7 Introducing the new secretary - Darlene "Dart" Fahrenbruch.
Dart will be at the Planning Commission to take
notes. Please try to make your motions complete
as you want the worded, as this subject is com-
pletely new to ere
NOTE: Donna Christy has
redivision of the
rarily withdrawn application for
property on Excelsior Boulevard.
.
.
.
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 2, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne
at 7:35 P.M., September 2, 1980 in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
All members present; namely, Gagne, Benson, Leslie, Reese, Watten,
Stover, and Rascqp. Also Liaison Haugen and Planner Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINutES
Rascop thought t~minutes on the last page (page 4) of the August 29
1980 Planning Co~mission minutes were reversed. It was determined
that Question #11 should read: "Is the proposed project acceptable
from a general pb1icy perspective?" Gagne stated that Question #1
was in reference I to the "overall subsidized housing" and that
Question #2 was ~n reference to the "specific plan for 40 units."
Gagne made a mot~on to approve as amended, and Benson seconded.
Motion carried upanimous1y in favor of.
,
RECOMMENDATION 0' P.U.D. ORDINANCE
Amendment to Orrinance No. 77)
Planner Nielsen,
request by the P
the Planning Com
his memorandum d
dum referenced t
was a review of
draft.
of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., upon
anning Commission, submitted to each member of
ission as well as to Liaison Haugen, a copy of'
ted September 2, 1980 (blue copy). This memo ran-
e P.U.D. Ordinance Amendment, File No. 758.09, and
he corrections and modifications to the original
Each item on the memorandum was discussed, and some portions resulted
in motions being made:
During the cours~ of this review, Stover made a motion that a
recommendation fpr the second public hearing should be held at the
developmental stfgeat the option of either the City Councilor
the Planning comrission. Reese seconded. Motion carried unanimously
Also, reference was made to the original (green) draft, Page 5, L.1.
"No single townhbuse structur~sha11 contain more than six (6) dwelling
uni. ts." After m ~Ch discussion, Watte n moved that prov~. sion be made
to change the nu ber qf dwelling units from 6 units to 4 units.
Stover seconded. There were 5 nays and 2 ayes-Watten and Stover.
The motion fai1e , with the number staying at no more than six (6)
dwelling units. I
. I
..
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-
SEPTEMB~R 2, 1980
Also, Stover made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend
to the Council approval of the proposed P.U.D. Amendment,1 27.A P.U.D.,
as revised by the September 2nd Planner's Report, and thel public
hearing recommendation and motion passed earlier tonight ~y the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Leslie. There were si~ ayes and
one nay (Rascop). Motion carried. .
POLICY RECOMMENDATION
Request from R. Miller - 5455 Valleywood Circle - for [garage
permit variance as to size and its relation to home oc[cupations.
Miller presented two letters from two of his neighbors; ~amely,
Mrs. Peter Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle, and Richard S. [and Claire
T. Maddux, 5425 Valleywood Circle, giving their permissioln for the
garage. I
Reese made a motion that the Planner, Nielsen, continue ~urther study
on home occupations and garages, and that the matter be ~ontinued over
to the next Planning Commission meeting. Rascop secondeq the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Rascop made a motion that the Planning Commission recomm~nd to the
Council the issuance of a building permit for this garagd for the
storage of automobiles and incidentals. Seconded by Lesllie. Motion
carried unanimously. Thus, it is to go to the Council aqd be put on
its agenda for their next meeting; namely, Monday, September 8, 1980.
I
I
!
I
INFORMAL DISCUSSION
Request from Kip Johnson
ordinance as to 10 size
pumps.
of "Little Store" to discuss zoning
requirements on his request to ~nstall gas
The Planning Commi sion took no real action, but turned qown the
request, primarily because it felt there was a reaT ser~ous traffic
problem on the roa there. .
INFORMAL REVIEW I
New plan submit ed to Council for subsidized Family aqd Elderly
Housing.
Much discussion, b t nothing was established. No motion !madeour
anytlilimg. Gagne f It that the Planning Commission membe1:1s should have
more time to study the situation. It cannot be discusseq privately,
yet it should be studied more in depth by the Planning Cqmm~ion members.
Moved by Watten, seconded by Rascop, to adjourn the meeti[ng at 11:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
l>M1.-F~
Dart Fahrenbrpch, Acting Secretary
.
MEMO:
SHOREWOOD
TO ALL AREA RESIDENTS
DATE: 8/20/80
.
.
\:\ _,~:(!:_,:::_l('.;,.
(......Jln rt )
CI'lY Of' ........
NOTICBOF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Plan, nln, COllUllllalon of the Cl,ty
of Shorewoocl wID bold a Public Hear-
l~~at 6~a::e'lr.,~:~~2':roi~:
Shorewoocl CIIY ,Hall '870 Country
Club Road, Shorew'ci;idri!:lDne,ola, 011
b':'r:Va'~rlt#::. f:L fo::~I~~~:=
Unit Development "to be located On
the followln, described property:
Lot 32, AuClltor'. Subdlvlalon No.
133; Lot II, Linden Park; and the
North 211 feet of liola 18 and 18 .
(a. mea.urect4t' rllht alllle. to'
the North IInt",f :Lot 18), Linden
Park, all In Hennepin County,
Mlnne.ota." ,'," , '"
The forelolnl delcrlbed property I.
lenerally located In an area bounded
on the ea.t by Linden D'!'lve, on the
north by Yellow.tone Trail, on the
.outh. by State HlPway No. 1,and
bounded on the weil by a lIDe ~rallel <
~~e.and 50 f~~ ea'terl~~f Ivlera;
The propo.al of the appllcut I. for
the development of 40 moderate in-
come townhou.elll!lla and .enlor"
citizen hou.lnl on the .uI1ject proper-'"
ty. All perIODS de.lrlnl to be heard
will be heard at .uch pUblic bearlnl.
; ,ELSA I. WILTSEY
City Clerkl AdmlDl.trator
Dated AUI.H, 1_
(Aul. 20" 21"I_)-LAKE
'~~
~,
e
e
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne
at 7:40 P.M., September 16, 1980, in the Council Cambers.
ROLL CALL:
A quorum was present:
Also present:
Absent:
Gagne, Reese, Rascop, and S over.
Liaison Haugen and Planner ie1sen
Benson, Leslie, and Watten
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of September 2, 1980 minutes were held ov
meeting on October 7, 1980, because of only a quor
until the next
being present.
~,
STUDY SESSION:
Planner Nielsen submitted to the Planning Committe a rough draft of
the section on home occupations which will be inc1u ed in the new
Zoning Ordinance.
1
A discussion was held regarding the size of houses and lot sizes
pertaining to a formula to be worked out regarding garage sizes.
It was relayed back to Planner Nielsen.
Also, the Planning Committee wanted to look at the proposed use of
home' occupation before making any comment.
RECESS: 8 :50 PM.
RECONVENED: 8:55 P.M.
SLIDE PRESENTATION:
A slide presentation on the State Planning Agency' P.U.D. Develop-
ment was shown.
Moved by Reese, seconded by Stover, that meeting a journ at 9:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
-p~f;JJWY~
CDart Fahrenbruch, Acting Secretary
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MAYOR
Steve Frazier
COUNCI L
William Keeler
Robert Naegele,Jr,
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
CLERK-A MINISTRATOR
Elsa Wiltsey
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . ( 12) 474-3236
TO
FROM:
DATE:
All Concerned on Planning Commission
Bob Gagne, Chairman
September 23, 1980
REF: SPECIAL PLANNING-COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 30,980,
TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M.
At the last Planning Commission Mee~ing on September 16, 1 80, a
uorum of only four Planning Commission members were pre e t.
,...
.
feel that the issue of the number/size 1imit(s) of gar
e1ationshipto the house sizes and lot sizes, and the i
orne occupations is too important for only four members
1anning Commission to vote upon.
herefore, I am calling a Special Planning Commission Me
n Tuesday, September 30, 1980, at 1:30 P.M., in order t
n a policy to recommend to the Cou~ci1.
believe that this action should represent more than th
ajority of the Planning Commission~For this reason, I
11 of you to attend.
f all cannot be present, the vote will be taken anyway.
~~1
.
NOTE: Enclos~. dh
notices: Gal in
Arne bur
I
I
A 'M';denJ COm
unity on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
rewith are copies of two Public
ake Woods, October 7, 7:30 P.M.
-West, October 7, 8:00 P.M.
s in
e of
the
t4ng
10te
.-4[
., ..
.
~ .'
to'
.
.
.
1
C 'IY OF SHOREWOOD I
P ING C<M1ISSION SPECIAL ~ING
'S EMBER 30, 1980 I
I
MINUtES AS AMENDED
C TO ORDER: ,
Planning Comnission meet+~ was called to order by Chainnan Gagn~. at 7: 46 P.M.,
S ptember 30, 1980, in the C<p-ynci 1 Chambers. 1
~ LLCALL: : I !
se present: Chainnan Ga~, Benson, Rascop, Reese, Stover, and Liaison Haugen.
se absent.: Leslie and ~atten. '
i
PROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER' 211980. am SEPl'EMBER 16' 1980 MINUTES:
S over ma e a motion, and Re se seconded Qpprova1.
th minutes were approved all present.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COl.JNI'lR.y CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
I SUE OF THE. NtMBER/SIZE LI T s). OF GARAGES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE HOUSE SIZES
LOT SIZES: !
Much discussion occurred as 0 how to draw the line or if a line shoUld
drawn in relationship to the I nunber and sizes of garages and houses. I
I I
Stover' reminded the P1anningl_ ~ssion of the three suggested specificat ons
to be incorporated into the ~nance that was mentioned in the Junel 17, 980
Planning Comnission minutes;, namely, (1) that the garage size be resttrict d to
a certain percentage of the Ft size; (2) that the garage be restric~ed t a
certain percentage of the si e of the house; and (3) that the consttilctio of
the garage be of a design co atib1e to the main structure.
!
1
Cooments relative to the dispussion are as follows: compatabi1ity of destgn
between the. gara e (s) and the., house, how a garage relates to be. ing an ac c ssory
on the property, what is conjsidered closed and open accessory structures,
zoning ordinance, can a gar.flge 00 used for a business driveway access ont the
street, can a ga age be usedj for storage purposes, the size and how many t'
garages are pe ssib1e, whf. can be termed "enclosed" versus "open" st", tures.
Stover's conment for the rec;brd. "I think. the use of a person's garage s auld
be covered tmder home occtJP8jtion." I
Gagne and the ot rs disagrled, stating that the Planning Comnission or t1[te
Council does ha" the right to ask .bat the purpose of the garage is to ~
designed for. I
Stover moved, Rascop s~londed' that it be recorrmended to the Council t.mt
they amend the z 'ng ordi ce for accessory uses in the residential dis~ricts;
namely, that (1) enclosed a cessoryuses do not exceed the size of the pq.ma.ry
use that the z ng allows, ,and (2) that the accessory bui1ding(s) be of ~
design compa.tib~. to the ma~n structure. Motion carried unanimously. I
I I
ISSUE OF H<:l1E OC' ~TIONS: I I
Haugen reporte t tt e iss'l!1e of home occupations came up because of a dilsa-
greement between........ heattomeii , Frank Kelly, and the planner, Bra dNi e1sen;:,. as
to the wording 0 the propos d home occupation section of the zoning ordi ce.
Kelly believes i should be 'ef and to the point; Nielsen feels it has t be
detailed. A dis sion ens . d with sone of the following conments: i
, I '
STOVER: Conf ion lin (2) I b and the definition of Home Occupati I
RASCOP: Why...' scri.nu... Onate I against a guy just because he has a arage. II say
let's e1imina e (2) b. I
I -1-
.~tI
-
I!'" .'
r"
.
.
.
S
ER 30, 1980
,
I
STOVER: The rage ~ S+uld be tmder "home occupancy."
RAScOP: Inspe tion of a house does notappe 1 to me.
I
BENSON: I haVl a tendenc)\' to agree with Bob Inspection of a is a
little too muc . I
I
REESE: Becaus of increa~ing complexity, I eel there is a ne
present City 'nance is not doing the job ymore. The close
downtown, the re ordinances there are. Pe haps one day we wi 1 be faced
with an indust 'al zoning. The more develo d, the more restri tive we
become. I fee that this is in order and I eel that it needs orne more
thought, and t basic scope is good. We ha: e to work on those items that
are shades of ay.
GAGNE: My firt thought is to agree with Ra cop. Then I see a 1 the other
things. Howe r, lam opposed to inspection of the homes.
Further discussi involved examples of people ether in
their garages, sements, or living room, for a very wide variety fuses.
Sales and manufac ing representatives, writer , photographers, tckers -the
list can be long. All types of activities, whe r on a full-itime or on a
part-time basis. Hobbies turn into businesses. Semis break down he road
with no money av: ilable to make repairs. PoIlu ion problems. Whe does one
draw the line in a zoning ordinance?
STOVER MADE A ION, SECONDED BY RASCOP, of. a roposal that a.fte the Council
has reviewed thi letter, that there would be a joint-meeting [to 'scuss the
wide range of c cems that the Planning Corrmis ion has come up wi h.
l\TED that the Council should 1 k at Frank's (At omey Kelly)
ested changes on his proposal, and then have la j int meeting
because of the 'de range of philosophies and d' versities in opi . on of the
Planning Comniss' on. The suggested changes fro the Planning i ssion on
Frank's proposal are as follows:
1. On Page 3 eliminate (2)(b).
2. On Page 4 the last sentence, "In no ins ances shall the
occupatio advers~ly affect the characte of the uses pe
in the 'ng Distfrict in mich the pro rty is located." Should
be delet and tr~sferred to Page 3 a interjected as It "g".
3. On Page 3 tmder ~ Oc~tions., the ollowing sentence should
be delete: "In GaSes of home occupation as defined h~rei , there
shall be over-clhe-counter sale of merchandise produced ff the
premise, cept fck those products that are not marketed sold
in a whol sale or 1 retail outlet."
i
The ~tion carried unani~usly.
I
NEW BUSINESS: Gagne remifnded the Planning Corrmission of the publ' c hearings
on 'fuesday, October 7th: i "Galpin Lake Woods" at 7: 30 P.M. and" sb..rry-West"
:~; Rascop nnt J. OIled and Gagpe secon:led, tbe meeting.. adji~tion carried unaniroouslY. :
Respectfully submitted,
Qahkf~
Dart. Fahrenbruch I
-2-
.,
.
-
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PlANNING CXM1ISSION SPECIAL MEETING
SEPI'EMBER 30, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNrRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
CAlL TO. ORDER:
The Planning Corrmission meeting was called to order by Chairman Gagne at
7:46 P.M., September 30, 1980, in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL: '!hose present 'were CHairman Gagne, Benson, Rascop, Reese, and. Stover.
'!hose absent were Leslie and Watten.
Also present: LiaisQn Haugen.
APPROVAL OF THE SEPrEMBER2, 1989 and SEPTEMBER 16, .1980 MINUTES:
Stover made a motion, and ,Reese &econded approvaL
Both minutes were approved by all present.
ISSUE OF THE NUMBER/SlZELIMIT(s) OF GARAGES IN RElATIONSHIP TO 'TIE HOUSE SIZES
AND LOT SIZES:
Much discussion occurred as to how to draw the line or if a line ~ hould be
drawn in relationship to the nunber and sizes of garages and hOUSE s.
Stover reminded the Planning Con$.ssion of the three suggested spE cifications
to be incorporated into the ordimance that was mentioned in the Jt l11e 17, 1980
Planning Corrmission minutes; narn$ly, (1) that the garage size be estricted
to a certain percentage of the lcPt size; (2) that the garage be rE stricted to
a certain percentage of the size of the house; and (3) that the construction of
the garage be ofa design compatible to the main structure.
Corrrnents relative to the discussion are as follows: compatabilit~ of design
between the garage (s) and the house, how a garage relates to beitll; an
accessory on the property, \\hat is considered closed and open aCCE ssory
structu~ zoning ordinartc~s, can a garage be used for a busine~ driveway
access onto the street, c<;1n a gat'age be used for storage purposes the size
and how many garages are .~nnissible, what can be tenned "enclose(" versus
"open" structures.
Stover's conment for thetecord: I "I think it should be covered it home
occupation. If anybody warits to, use his/her garage for whatever _;:' se, it
really bothers me that the ICouncil asks for it. I think it's nonE of our
business that we ask the 'OWner ot person. However, when we get t< the issue
of horne occupation, then I think: we ought to ask what a person's 1 arage is going
to be used for."
Gagne and the others dis~gl+eed, $tating that the Planning Coomiss on or the
Council does have the ri$t14 to ask what the purpose of the garage is to be
designed for. .. · I
Stover moved and Rascop seconded, that it be recomnended to the Co mcil that
they amend the zoning ordinance for accessory uses in the residen ial districts;
namely, that (1) enClosed.. 8l. ccessp. -ry uses do not exceed the size 0 the primary
use that the zoning allows, and (2) that the accessory building(s be of a
design compatible to the !IJ4lin sttucture. ~tion carried unanimou ly.
-1-
'I ·
. ~'
.
.
e
PlANNING CCM1ISS~ON SPECIAL MEETI~G
,
SEPTEMBER 3 , 1980
ISSUE OF Ha1E ocmJPATIONS
Haugen reported !that the issue of home occupations came up because of a
disagreement bet~en the attome ,Frank Kelly, and the planner, B ad Nielsen,
as to the wording of the propose home occupation section of the z i
ordinance. Kelly believe$ it sh ld be brief and to the point; Ni Is feels it
has to be detail~d. '
A discussion ens'-iJedwith some of the following conments:
HAUGEN: I aminot co~rciall oriented, but I am very much ag
a home busine$s that 1is compe . ing against me when I have to. pa
head for a bu:.tlding, parkingreas, etc. I feel that this is
I ,
HAUGEN: I ami against. going i and inspecting somebody's home ior
to a .license,iunless ~here is ,a complaint. People will complai to
the City but 1j1ot to tpeir nei r of whom they are complaini .
REESE: Anyon~ who is: self loyed has a right to work in the" ho e,
but the minut~ they ~ve an loyee or employees, it probably is t en
considered a ~iness., If y have trafficking back and fort to
and. fromtheit house, rather ban the person going out to the t
then it begin$ to be over-the counter.
S1'OVER: Conf~sion in (2) bad the definition of Home Occupation.
RASCOP: Why cfliscriminate aga 'nst a guy just because he has a gara .
I say let's etiminate (2) b.
RASCOP: I have a brother who is handicapped and who took on a franchise
by manufactur~ng golf balls i his own home. Eventually he built it
into a busine~s where two to hree women come to his home and help
make thegolfi balls, as well s two or three women caning to the house
to pick up ne~ded materials a working out of their own homes. It's
important tha~ a guy can make a living and. attempt to stay off of welfare.
,
BENSON: I hate a snow,plow d plow snow during the winter. Every
once in awhilt, but not ori. a teady basis, I have anot er person come
and help me . I go alomg with Rascop, I feel that we s ould not restrict
the use of th home. ' ,
,
STOVER: Ith~nk we should ha e certain restrictions, ust so that there
will bea legfll basis when. a if things become IOOre omplicated. It
is not that Ii objectt<p a iha occupation zoning ordi nce, it's just
the wrong zonf-ng area. ,
, .
RASCOP:Thro~ it out. i Inspe. tion of a house does not appeal to me.
!
BENSON: I have a tendency to agree with Bob. Inspect" on of a house is
a little too ~h.
-2-
.~
.
.
.
..
i
I
i
I
PLANNING C<Mv1IS~ION SPECIAL MEETING
I
SEPI'EMBER 30, 1980
i
,
REESE: Beca!' e of increasing complexity, I feel there is a need and that
the present ity ordinanc~ is not doing the job anyroor. The closer you
get to downt ',wn, the IOOrel"" ordinances the,re a"re. "perha, s one day we WI. "II
be faced wit an industrial zoning. The roore develope, the IOOre restric-
tive we beco . I feel that this is in order and I fe 1 that it needs some
IOOre thought~ and the bas~" c scope is good. We have to work on those items
that are shaqesof gray. !
!
GAGNE: My f~rst thought is to agree with Rascop. I see all the
other things.1 However, I, am opposed to inspectif of he homes.
MRS. ClAPP (In audience wrticipant): While rai ing family, I manu-
faC~be1~' I ir used anyIxxlY'$ ca~ cept ~.""" regular ~.
Further discusSilon Involved examples of people USl.ng~t!1ei_=hOmes,~;whether ~n
their garages, &sements, ori living room, for a very wide' variety of uses.
Sales ani manufadturing representatives, writers, photogra hers, truckers, -
the list can be ilong. All types of activities, whether a full-time or on
a part-time bas~s. Hobbies turn into businesses. Semis eak do'Wn the road
with no roon y atailable to make repairs. Pollution probl Where does
one draw th liqe in a zoning ordinance?
i
STOVER MADE A MqrION, SECONDED BY RASCOP, of a proposal t t after the Council
has reviewe this letter, that there would be a 'joint-mee ing to discuss
the wide ra e ~f concerns that the Planning Corrmission s come up with.
i
IT WAS FlJR~l\TED that the ColIDcil should look at Fra's (Attorney
Kelly) pro sal and suggested changes on his proposal, a then have a joint
meeting be use of the wide range of philosophies and di rsities in opinion
:: ~~ $~~,,:i:. ~~~$ted~..frant '''~~fulDrission
I
1. On P ge ~, eliminate (2)(b) .-
2. On P ge +, the last sentence, "In no instances sha 1 the home
occ atiqn adversely affect the character of the es permitted
in t zqning District in tlhich the propery is lac ted." shoi1ld
be letld and tran,sferred,to Page 3aoo. . interject d ast Item, "g".
3. On P ge , under, Home Occupations., the following entence should
be let d: "In cases of home occupation as defin d herein, there
shal be I no over-the-colIDter sale of merchandise oduced off the
prem. se, except for those products that are not ma ted and sold
in a who~esale or retail outlet."
I
ED UNANIM:>USLY
i
NEW BUSlNES: ~gne reminded he Planning Corltnission of he public hearings
on Tuesday, Oct~ber 7th: Galp n Lake Woods at 7:30 P.M. nd Amesbury at 8:00 P.M.
I
RASCOP MaTI NED iAND GAGNE SECO ED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 9:45 P.M. Motion
carried tma iroofl Y .
Respectfull srnrmitted,
Q~lh I
llirt Fahren
i
-3-
CITY OF sHokwoon
PLANNING CCM1ISSION REGUI.AR
octonER 7, 1980
ING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNI'RY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
"
.
MINUTES
CALL TO, ORDER:
The Planning Coornission Meeti was called to arder by
October 7, 1980, in the Counci Chambers.
irman Gagne ~t 7: 35 P.M.,
ROll CALL:
Those present: Gagne, Be son, Rascop, Reese, Stover, Watten, Liai,son Haugen
Those absent: Leslie
"GALPIN lAKE OOODS" CANCELlATI N OF PUBLIC HEARING AT 7: 3 P.M.
Chainnan Gagne explained that he Galpin Lake Woods had en cancelled and that
it was to be rescheduled and n tice given.
RECESS: 7:39 P.M.
RECONVENED: 8:00 P.M.
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 30 1980 MINUTES:
Reese made a rootion, seconded y Stover, to accept the mi tes AS AMENDED. Motion
carried unaniroousl y .
).~, PUBLIC IJE:ARm; =ING "AMFS URY-wEST/MoNUL'!Y <?NS~ ON" -8;00 I'.~.;
;11\ ({, Wattenrooved, and Stover sec d, t the p hc hear~ on Amestury- st be
I (f eontinued until the 21st of Oc ober, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., since the petitioner
. was not present. Notices will be sent accordingly. Motion carried UI'la.p.iroous1y.
The reason for the date of Oct ber 21, 1980, is because of the November 4th
Election and Armistice Dayon ovember lIth.
Ha1E OCCUPANCY:
After the public hearing of sbury-West, the. meeting on HCl1E OCCUPANCY is to
be strictly a "study" meeting, on October 21, 1980.
, to adjourn the meeting at(a ;;J P .M. ~, tion
\~ '
ADJOURNMENT :
Rascop rootioned, Benson second
carried unaniroously.
Respectfully submitted,
Qcva;-F~
Dart Fahrenbruch
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980 M I NUT E S
~~
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
~
HOME OCCUPANCY:
The Home Occupancy issue was discussed among the members of the
Planning Commission for about ten minutes.
Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded, that the home occupancy ite. be
tabled until November 18 and that each member of the Plannin~ Com-
mission write an ordinance relative to the nuisance factor and the
extent of home occupational activities. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motioned by Stover, seconded by Gagne, to adjourn the meeting at
11:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
.
;"",,-,-._.:i-'
. ,
'-j; '.~
}"'-, ,
''It;~-,,..:''''
~>:f
Respectfully submitted,
l{Q~ -f-(l.t'~.i?'1J.J.~)a-c1v
Dart Fahrenbruch
II '
.
e
.
, x'~rSti Sn,lIE~~ ~ME CkVP~TlbA) ~PoJ...,-
PURPOSE: To maintain the residential zoning as residential use,
recognizing that persons have the right to use their home in the way
pthey wish - as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of othe~s.
A "home-occupation permit" shall be required if:
1) that part of a business which is conducted in the home requires
~ ~han the normal office equipment (i.e. paper, typewriter, files,
phone, etc.) or household equipment (i.e., sewing machine, washer,
iron, oven, etc.)
2) If your business is completely operated at your home (residential)
property, including garage. ~ ~~ J.~ "...~~
Permits will be granted under the following conditions:
1) no noise
2) no traffic greater than an average house.old ~~
3) no oversized vehicles (damage to r~ads)
~) no signs or advertising ~ ~.
5) no electrical interference tQ adjoingig property
6) no retail sales
7) no alteration .... the residential buildings (house, garage, etc.O
of
8) no pollution - air, water, etc.
9) nothing that infringes on normal (tranrui1ity) of residential area
. . 'gv
~(1i1 f .
...
. .
.
SHOREWOOD
I
MEMO: Council and
Planning Commission
DATE: 11-10-80
REGA3.DING:
Planning Commission Minutes of
October 21, 1980
On Page 3., of the abovementioned minutes, there
should ,be one more addition in St~ver' s motion,
and that 'it should replace the first. amendment
that she made.
Please DELETE: \' 1. That Block 1 and
. Lots 1 through 10 in Block 2 contain
no more than 14 courtyard units and
that the total project not exceed 30
units of either townhouse or courtyard
units; .~
and PUT
IN ITS PLACE: "1. That Sunset Lane
or Garden Road shou~dnotbeused~.fori
an egress into the project, and.~hat
this matter should be left up to the
Council to decide."
,"
--
SHOREWOOD
MEMO: Council and
Planning Commission
DATE: 11-10-80
REGARDING:
Planning Commission Minutes of
October 21, 1980
On Page 3, of the abovementioned minutes, there
should be one more addition in Stover's motion,
and that iti:should replace the first amendment
that she made.
Please DELETE: \\ 1. That Block 1 and .
Lots 1 through 10 in Block 2 conta~n
no more than 14 courtyard units and
that the total project not exceed 30
units of either townhouse or courtyard
units; II
PUT IN ITS PLACE: "I. That Sunset Lane
or Garden Road should not be used for
an egress into the project, and that
this matter should be left~up to the
Council to decide." !":
and
.
.
.
I
i'a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980
M I NUT E S
- _. - - - _. -
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.
Members present: Chairman Gagne, Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie,
Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Kristi Stover
Robert Rascop
Members absent None
Also attending Liaison Jan Haugen, Developer Jim McNulty,
Planner Don Hess
APPROVAL OF MlNUTES:OF OCTOBER I, 1980:
REGARDING: Amesbury-West/McNulty
Reese moved, Gagne seconded, that the October 7, 1980 minutes
should be changed back to what was actually motioned by Watten
and seconded by Stover; namely, "that the Amesbury-West public
hearing be CANCELLED until further not'ce." Further, that
8:41 P.M. was the time that the motion was made and that said
time was to be a part of the minutes.
Further, it is not proper to cancel a
~ request from the developer. Therefo
motion is AMENDED to read (motioned by
Watten) that "the Amesbury-West public
until further notice." Motion carried
(Because this kind of situation had ne
the knowledge of anyone present, it wa
word the original motion which resulte
wording of the original motion.)
Further, that the adjournment time be
read 8:45 P.M., rather than 8:35 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMESBURY-WEST McNULTY CO
Rascop expressed his concern about the
range of Amesbury-West. He believes t
been notified by another notice of pub
that they, if so desired, could have b
Further, Mr. Jim McNulty, the petition
for being late at the scheduled 8:00 P
1980. Because there was already a pub
Woods) scheduled at 7:30 P.M., he felt
come at the scheduled time of 8:00 P.M
usually take at least a full hour, whi
about a half hour late. McNulty had n
first public hearing on Galpin Lake Wo
cancelled.
ublic hearing without
e, the aforementioned
Reese, seconded by
hearing will be CONTINUED
unanimously.
er occurred before to
unclear as to how to
in confusion with the
mended and corrected to
STRUCTION:
people beyond the 500-fobt
ose people also should have
ication in the newspaper so
en at tonight's meeting.
r, explained his reason
M. meeting on October 7,
ic hearing (Galpin Lake
it was not necessary to
since public hearings
h resulted in his coming
t been informed that the
ds had previ:ously been
.
.
.
. ,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980 M I NUT E S
PAGE 2
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
Chairman Gagne opened the Amesbury-West meeting to the public at
8:07 P.M.
Audience participation involved the following people:
Bruce Boyd
20755 Garden Road
Morris and Gail Eisert
20585 Garden Road
Bill Stover
4755 West Lane
N. Stanley Stake
4870 Regents Walk
Bruce Heimark
4810 Regents Walk
Concerns brought up by them included discussions on the changing
of the plan or alteratio s of the natural easement terrain; the
filling of the pond whic would result in it being moved over and
thus 50-60 feet closer t the Eisert home, and who would be res-
ponsible if flooding did occur; paths and roadways which may
result in snowmobile, mo orcycle, and bicycle traffic; and the
equalizing of Shorewood/ eephaven density in Amesbury area.
Bruce Heimark was fairly
West. He stated that Kr
the Planning Commission
biased and inftuencing 0
Liaison Haugen answered
each member of'the Plann
in opinions an~ that eac
thinking and an area in:
pleased about the
sti Stover should
oard immediately,
hers to her side.
concept of Amesbury-
remove he self from
accusing er of being
y stating that the Council
ng Commission because of th
one of them represents a g
he City of Shorewood.
and picked
ir diversity
oup of
Gagne officially closed th~ meeting to the public at 8:50 P.M.
RECESSED 8:50 P.M.
RECONVENED: 9:00 P.M.
.
.
.
..
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980 M I NUT E S
PAGE 3
After discussion on draina$ , Gagne asked that Engineer Norton be
RED FLAGGED regarding "the' rainage problem of ' road variance pathway,
and if there is going to be a problem on Unit No. 23-the wetlands
problem."
There followed a discussion of the path ay system.
Watten motioned, Stover sec nded, to e iminate'all townhouses from
the project and limit the c urtyards t 24 units or 12 buildings.
Motion fails: 6 nays and 1 aye (Watte ).
Reese motioned, Leslie seco ded, that . t be recommended to: the Council
that they approve of the Am sbury-West with the following variances:
1.
ent, being that Block 1, and
ve no more than 14 townhouses
total project have no more
The first modificati n or amend
Lots 1 through 10 of Block 2, h
or courtyard units, nd that th
than 30 dwelling uni s;
2. The second modificat on is to n t approve the Sunset Lane
road vacation, leavi g that up 0 the Council; and
3. The third modificati n is to re uce the black top in front
of Lots 12 through 1 and the e st and west sides of Lots 19
and 20, all in Block 2.
It was also motioned by Sto er, second d by Watten, to add to Reese's
motion the following amendm nts:
1. That Block 1 and Lot 1 through 10 in Block 2 contain no
more than 14 courtya d units and that the total project not ~
exceed 30 units of ether townhouse or courtyard units;
2. That the wetland cha ges be approved by the City Engineer; and J
3. To take the trail sy tern out of the project.
Upon vote, the motion of Re se's, including the amendments motioned
by Stover, carried. (6) ay s, and (1) nay. Watten was against the
m. otion(s); R.ascop sai. d yes., wit h reservat1'.0. n on the trail system. He
said if the trail starts somewhere but en s nowhere in particular,
he is not in favor; however, if the trail is a part of a greater plan,
then he would reconsider. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
~..,
.
.
".
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1980 M I NUT E S
PAGE 4
COUNCIL ~HAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROA
7:30 P.M
HOME OCCUPANCY:
The Home Occupancy issue was discussed among the members o~ the
Planning Commission for about ten minutes.
Leslie motioned, Gagne seconded, that the home occupancy i~em be
tabled until November 18 and that each member of the Plann~ng Com-
mission write an ordinance relative to the nuisance factor and the
extent of home occupational activities. ~()tion carried un~nimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motioned by Stover, seconded by Gagne, to adjourn the meeting at
11:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
l(anL~~
Dart Fahrenbruch
,
.
.
~
..
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGillAR PLANNING C<M1ISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 1980
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
Chainnan Gagne call~d the meeti~ to order at 7 35 P.M.
ROLL. CALL:
Members present:
Chainnan GagnJ, Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie, Frank Reese,
Vern Watten, Ik-isti Stover, b Rascop
I
I
Members absent:
None
Also attending: Liaison J<;in Ha~en, Architect/ lanner of Gerald Mundt of
Wallace & Mundt ; Maria Fuller, ~o ject Supervis r of First American Care
Facilities; Joe Gor~cki, Realtot of Maxwell Rea ty; and Planner Brad Nielsen
of Northwest Associfited Consultejmts, Inc.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: !
Janet Leslie motion~d, Bob Rasc~p seconded, tha the October 21, 1980 Plan-
ningComnission minutes be appr<J>ved. Motion ca ied unanimously.
! i
PUBLIC HEARING: SHOlIDVOOD. ESTA: !AMElUCAN CARE. FACILITIES:
The Shorewood Estat~s/American re Facilities blic hearing was opened at
7:45 P.M., by Chai n Gagne bylreading the pub ic notice as it appeared in
the Lake Minnetonka SlID on Noverpber 5, 1980.
Chainnan Gagne was dvised to c~ntinue the publ c hearing to another date
because the City's ttorney, Fr~ Kelly, stat that the First American
Care Facilities had failed to ptovidethe City . th the required docunents
as set forth in the P.U.D. Ordi1j1ance, and these documents are necessary for
the Planning Corrmis ion to have i in order to pro rly 1..1IXlerstand and review
the request. '
!
Liaison Haugen also advised thai: it is a requir t that the Planning
Corrmission have in eir hands the necessary i onnation five days prior to
the public hearing, in order toigive them time 0 study the documents.
Planner Brad Nielse had receiv,d his infonnati only two days ago, \\hich
was an insufficient time for hirtJ to prepare for this public hearing.
,
Another problem is hat the Arc~tects Wallace
spe7ifications for our acres ifstead of the te
ordl.nance. I
Mundt had prepared the
acres as required by the
Watten moved, and R ese seconde<iI, that (1) the lic hearing be continued
to December 2, 1980; (2) that tljle specification be according to the
original ten-acre plan instead 4>f four acres, d (3) that the City Attorney
Frank Kelly and the City Engine~r Jim Norton be present, as well as Planner
Brad Nielsen. Motion carried ubanimously.
The Planning Corrmission recessed at 8:05 P.M.
.
.
e
.
\
. ~ CITY OF SHOR.ENKX)D
REGUlAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
OOVEMBER 18, 1980
PAGE 2 OF 2
'Ihe Planning Corrmission Meeting reconvened at
lD1E.OCCUPANCY:
Gagne re-opened the Planning Corrmission meeting at 8:12 P.M. to discuss
the issue of Home Occupancy. He explained to t eatrlience that that Cotmcil
had requested the Planning Conmission to come with something in regards
to the Home Occupancy issue because the City ha recei d numerous and various
complaints. ~ ____ _
-----
Kristi StO'~Ter presented to the Planning COl11Ilission her proposal for Home
Occupancy, ia copy of \\bich is attached.
A discussion followed in \\hich questions and pr blems were. posed; namely,
(1) Does the Planning COl11Ilission want an ordina ce, or shall we add to' the
present ordinance? (2) If we're going to add to it, do we want specificially
a, b, c, d..., or a more generality? (3) Ib we nd the definition of the
ordinance? (4) The problem of enforcement; \\by add another ordinance or
pennit \\ben the present ones are not. enforced? 5) Having inspections of
homes? (6) How to renew a pennit: annually? Doe pennit stay with property
if it is sold? (7) What constitutes a disturban e to one person is no problem
to another; (8) What about grandfather clauses? ..
Watten moved, Benson seconded, that the Planni Corrmission add to the defini-
tion that is already established in the Ordinan e No. 77. Motion carried
unanimously.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, for the date of cember 16th, for the next
discussion of the Planning Corrmission' s Home I Oc upancy meeting and that the
members be prepared.
LiBiisot'Laaugetl : also stated tha the Planning I Co
deciding. ftther or not they . sh to pursue 4
\\hole thing out and recorrmend t the Cotmc~l
ornER BUSINESS:
Liaison Haugen stated that "th
Planning Corrmission has done 0' behalf of th~ C
express "the Cotmcil' s thanks 0 you all and Iho
on the Planning COl11Ilission." Iso, "The entiire
'yoeman's service' on our beha f."
. ssion has the option of
Ordinance or to throw the
op it.
ppreciates everything the
cil. " She wanted to
that you all will continue
tmcil knows you have done a
ADJOURNMENT :
Rascop moved, Gagne seconded, hat the meeting a journ at 9:35 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
i!rvd ~
Dart Fahrenbruch
Secretary
NOIE: P.S. As of this date, ovember 26, lQ80, nothing more has been left
with the City Attorney Frank lly, the City Hal offices, Planner Brad Nielsen,
or Engineer Jim Norton. Since there is no fu: er infonnation to' pass on to' the
Planning Corrmission, the Atta y makes the ~co ndation that the Public
Hearing on the Share~ Estat s/American Care F cilities be continued far anather
thirty days in arder to' give e applicant a~ ap rttmity to' comply. If they
rail to comply, the matter w.LL be stricken.
AI
.l...
.
.
.
CI1Y OF SHOREWOOD ! +
REGULAR PIANNING cx:M1ISSION ING
IECEMIlER 2, 1980, ~y I
PAGE 1 of 3
- -
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNfRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
~!.!!gI~~
CALL TO ORDER: .
Chainnan Gagne call~d t
ROLL CALL:
Members present:
1980 Planning Corrmis-
e, Broce Benson, Janet Leslie, Frank Reese,
Kristi Stover, b Rascop
cilwoman; and Attomey
Members absent: Notle
APPROVAL OF MINUIES! OF
Frank Reese, Vem Watte
sion minutes be appjrove
PUBLIC HEARING - PAUL
"ALBITZ ADDITIW'
Chainnan Gagne opened e paul1lbitz hearing
public notice as it! a ared iTheLakeMinne
Mr. Paul Albitz' s atto y, J s Van Valke
petitioned for apprpval of a ivision of Lot 1,
into three (3) lotsi.
Chainnan Gagne rea~ ala a le ter from Mrs. W" liam H. Horgan, Sr., 4365
Enchanted Drive, Mojund hat s received in th office on November 25, 1980,
and ~ch expressed! her opposi ion to the divi on. Also, a letter from
James Ferguson rece~ ved in th office on Decem r 1, 1980, opposing the
division.
Block 1 EnChanted Gardens,
7:45 P.M. by reading the
nka SlID on November 14, 1980.
, represented Mr. Albitz tIho
Block 1, Enchanted Gardens,
Upon opening discusision to the public, the fol wing people participated:
-Bill Horgan,! Jr., son 0 Mrs. William H. Horgan, Sr.
-Vernon E. Fa~ber , 43 Enchanted Drive
-Bob ReutimaQ, 59 5 Galp' n Lake Road
-Gregg Suddertlorf, 5695 tar Lane
Bill Horgan, Jr. stated that five families waul liked to have been at tonight's
meeting and wish to! spe at t next Planning orrmission. Really a bad time
bec;ause of the holidays. (Ga e replied the Co . ssion has no control nor the City;
things are put on ~I:it a enda en brought to th City.) .
Other concems br~ht up incl ed: are you p1'1 posing to fill the swamp? What
about sewer connectiins? Fire ccess? What are .the square footages? Can
Albitz meet the setbacks on t Lake?-if alla d, it will cut off views.
,
I
CITY OF SHOREWOOIP
REGULAR PLANNINGiCCM4ISSION MEETING
DECrMBER 2, 1980 [ TUESDAY - MINUTES
PAGE 2 of 3
- -
Upon further. dis~ussion, Watten IOOVec;t, . S~ove: seconded, that the ~l~ng
Corrmission deny the request of the d1.V1s1.on 1. to three lots and ll.nut 1.tto
two. An aye vote means no. Gagne-aye, Bensa -aye, Stover-aye, Watten-aye,
Leslie-nay, Rees,-abstaining, Rascop-abstaini . The motion passed;
therefore, the rrquest was denied.
I
Bob Rascop: Ifclmyone out there would like t write a letter, it would still
be a part of the 1 minutes.
!
Kristi Stover: ..1. or the re C01'1.d, I again would like to request that we get
written material in time to read it before a eting. This material .we
received tonight just does not give us time t study it.
RECESSED: 8:15 I
RECONVENED: 8: 21
!
. WILLIAM AND . PYE/REXWELCH SPECTRONIX NC. -R:15 P.M. Auditor's
SUbdiVision No 133 LOt 6 that art 1 . east of the West 1827 7 10 feet.
Gagne opened the~lic hearing at 8:21 P.M. reading the notice as it
appeared in the .ke Minnetonka Sun on NoVi r 19, 1980.
!
Mr. Rex Welch 1 pe. itioned the Planning Corrmitt e to have the property at the
Auditor's Subdi. sion No. 133, Lot 6, that pa lying east of the west 1827 7/10;
P.I.D. No.. 33-11. -23-17-0022, to be . included n the ReSiden. tial-Conmercial
zoning district. ather than in the Residentia -4 zoning district.
He further reque4ted a Condi. tional Use penro.. . t pur. suant to Ordinance No. 9~. '
establishing the iR-c District, to use the exi ting structure as an executive
office building~or spectroniX., Inc., \\hose iness is the operation of ~. n
electronic engin~ering consulting service. !
Welch explained .lhat their plans are not spec fid, but rather they have ~de-
lines from mich to build. The business is stom designing for computer! type
control systl;'11lS . Ot; primarily grain elevators as.."l1 as for other types I of
business. Most. ftheir business takes them ut of town. Does not involve
manufacturing. I. 1
Also, he desired !all five acres in order to intain privacy for themselv~s
as well as for t~eneighbors; and that it wo d serve as a buffer in order to
cut down noi$e. lB$cause of the high cost of ental-comnercial properties,! he
would rather buY.1 !
Chainnan Gagne r~ad aloud the first paragraph from Attorney Kelly's rePOrt
dated December l,i 1980. He then opened the dscussion to the atrlience, of
whom some that r~sponded were as follows:
-Jim Well ,. i24695 Glen Road
-Jim BatilC e~.. I, 5580 County Road 18
==1~... ? 241'90 ~~~ ~ :try Club Road
-Sherry i , 5570 Shorewood Lane
-Dave Tur $0 , 24670 Amlee Road
-Dave L~t te~ield, 24775 Glen Road
-Tom Sto ~ ~4845 Glen Road
At 9:07 P.M.; ~rman Gagne closed the meeti to the public.
I '
! I
I .i
r".
.....
.
.
.
, ,
A
.
.
.
~
CIIT OF SHOREWOOp.
REGUlAR PLANNING I CQlvMISSION MEEI'ING
DECEMBER 2, 19801, TUESDAY - MINUTES
I
PAGE:} of 3 I
i
Q.Jestions and cohcerns are! noted as follows: t exactly would R-c z ing
pennit? Concern~ not so tnuch about Welch's t e of business as with t tj of
future expansionl. I Concerned with the establis ing of a precedent for wc<xners
if Welch were tolleave. Restrictions greater residentia1-coIIIrercia1 t~ on
Residential-4? P:)esGideon property have ahi torica1 marker? A traff c .
problem - Pye' s{:lti veway and access to Cotmty oad 19? Parking area- re I are
the ten cars goipg to be? Noise problem ofca s in and out. Concerns f ~n1 y
one entrance I ~b ~ sun in eyes. Railroad near 'Y. Cannot have a drivew. y !
directly onto Coprilty Road 19. fuving of drive y. Spectronix, Inc. iness
preferable over ,I.for example, a 29-unit rnultip e dwelling'?
Attorney John Sa~ers: If a rezoning of the p operty to R-c ~re gran
Pyes/We1ch, and~'ll1bsequent1y they were to dis ntinue the use of the p
then (1) the ne~ owner me proposed to use the property would be zoned
and within thatizone would not have to comeba k before the Planning
and the Cotmci1.1 : In other woros, if the new 0 rproposed to use the
property for onel of the uses provided for in e ordinance as being pe
then he would dol so without having to obtain yapprova1 for that use
the City. Howev~t, if the new owner proposed 0 make use of the prope
a fashion that ~$ listed among the conditiona uses ttrrler the R-c z
he \\UU1d have tol$o through the same process 0 app1id:ion and hearing
the Planning CorrMssion and obtain a Conditio 1 Use Pennit from the
,
Rascop motioned~hat two motions be made: one on zoning, and if that
then make a motioo on the Conditional Use Penn t. Leslie seconded.
motion carried uPammous1y.
I
Since the first (nOtion passed, Rascop motioned Leslie seconded, that
recOIImendation ~ imade that the zoning of this parcel be changedfrom
Upon vote, the rrnttion carried, with six ayes a one nay (Watten).
Upon further disct!Ission, Rascop motioned, Les1 e seconded, for a re
for approval of the Condi iona1 Use Pennit if he applicant wi11cotre
the Planning CorrInl;.ssion "thin 60 days to pro de a site plan to show
and to improve access to he street and all of the conditions of the ~
comnercia1 ordinaJ1ce. fu ion carried tmani.rrt> 1 Y .
The next step was for We1 to talk to the Cit Administrator and atto
. PUBLIC HEARING-SHJ>REWOOD STATES I AMERICAN CARE FACILITIES INC.
Chainnan Gagne .~tmced hat the Shorewoodhe ring had been continued
January 6, 1981. IGagne r ad aloud a letter da ed December 1, 1900 f:J:'1
L. Johnson, Boaro!Chai , of First American re Facilities, Inc.,
explained the doctiJments re in the process of being completed and s
available for the :next P1 "ng Corrmission tree ing.
Stover motione , Gagne se onded, that the pub1 c hearing be continued
January 6, 198. fution arried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Rascop motione
carried tma "
the meeting a
10:30 P.M.
..........
-
,~.
.
e.
.
Janet Leslie, Frank Reese, Kristi to~er ,
ITY OF SHO D
PIANNIN C<l-1MISSION MEETING
ER 16, 19 , TUESDAY
'AGE 1 of 2
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RO
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
TO. ORDER:
irman Gagne called the meeting to order at
LL CALL:
embers present:
7:30 P.M.
Chairman Bob Gagne,
and Bob Rascop'
Liaison Jan HaUgen,
rs absent: Bruce Benson am Vem Watten
PROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2 1980:
Janet Leslie motioned, Kristi Stover seconded, that the December 2, 1900 Pl~nning
Cornnission minutes be approved. . fution carried unanirrously.
APPROVAL OF. WILLIAM AND HELEN PYE/REX WELCH SPECI'RONIX. INC. CONDITIO USE
PERMIT:
After Irn.lCh discussion, Stover motioned, Leslie seconded, that the Planni g i
Cornnission recorrmend to the Council approval of the Conditional Use Penn' t ~
that the historical sign not be obstructed by the Spectronix, Inc. sign. MOtion
carried unanimously.
8:00 P.M.
8:05 P.M.
Recessed
Reconvened
Ha1E OCCUPANCY ISSUE:
"'-After a discussion and a review of Kelly's memo dated 9-8-80 and his
dated 8-29-80, it was agreed that Home Occupancy is needed. The main
addressed was "Should we have a Home Occupancy ordinance?" The COImlents
response follow, resulting in (4) ayes and (1) nay-Rascop^
Rascop: No, because in the ~xisting ordimance there is already a
set of standards an<li rules and regulations that, if enforce ,
would take care of 90 percent of our problems.
Stover: Yes, because obviou$ly we are still having problems with
the current ordinance. The Council appears to be having
to solve people's problems. We at least need one or
possibly the current one amended; I think it is something
that ~hould be addressed.
,.
Gagne
Yes, we need one, or one of two things: We need another
one, or we need to add to the present one to strengthen it,
because we will be running into it rrore and more. I do
think we should have some rules and regulations.
Yes, I feel additional infonnation is necessary about home
occupancy. I feel that present definitions are partially
successful but incomplete. Perhaps an enlargement or
another section is needed.
Reese
"to
CITY OF SHORENl)QD
REGUlAR PlANNING CClvMISSION MEETING -STUDY
DECEMBER 16, 1980, TUESDAY
PAGE 2 of 2
.
Leslie: Yes, we should have some kind of Home Occupancy ordinance.
The one we have seems to be unenforceable-whether in
actuality it's not enforceable or that it's too vague.
Either to make it more specific or to beef up the present
one.
Reese motioned, Leslie seconded, that the foregoing corrments be passed to
the Council; namely, that (1) Home Occupancy is acceptable, and {2) that
we don't know whether or not an ordinance is needed. Motion carried omously.
GARAGE VARIANCE:
During discussion, Reese referred to Paragraph A .under the proposed gara e
ordinance (per attachment to Attorney Kelly's memo dated December 1, 19 ) and
reconmended that the accessory building or garage size be controlled mos
stringently by the three following criteria in that...
1. ten per cent of the lot area shall not be exceeded,
2. 1,000 square feet for garage or <jlccessory building shall not
be ex,ceeded, and
3. the accessory building shall not. exceed the size of the primary
struCture.
e
Reese moti~d,Rascop seconded, that the Planning Comnission make the r conmen-
dation to t~Cot.nlCil that we act on the! garage problem when we deal wi the
proposed suQdivision ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
AllJOURNMENT: :
Leslie motiqned, Rascop seconded, the meeting adjourn at 9:00 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Respectfully: su1::xnitted,
/Qaa-
Dart FahrenQruch, Secret ry
.