1982 pl mn
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting
Tuesday, JANUARY 5, 1982
CCnJNCILJGHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30P.M.
.
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER:
Chafirperscn Stover called the regular PLANNING CCM1ISSION Meeting of Tuesday, Jan. 5,
1982 to order in the Council Chambers at 7:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bmce Benson, Janet Leslie, Kristi Stover, Richard Spellman, VemWatten;
Frank Reese arrived late.
Staff: Council Liaison Al Leonardo, Planner Brad Nielsen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Leslie moved, Benson seconded approval of Planning Connti.ssionMinutes of Dec. 15, 1981,
as written. Motion carried unanimously.
.
PUBLIC HEARING: IXI lABORATORIES - RESEARCH ESTATE: PlANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Public Hearing portion of meeting opened pursuant to Legal Notice published Dec. 23, 1981,
in the Sun Newspaper. Mr. Jol:m Worrall of Brauer and Associates Ltd., Inc., representing
Ron and Dee Jol:mson of 5355 Shady Hills Circle, presented a Planned Unit Development
concept proposal to build a Research Estate on 20 acres of land located immediately
south of the Shady Hills Subdivision on the eastem edge of Shorewood. This property
is presently zoned R-1. Attomey Jol:m Lee was also present on the Jol:msons' behalf.
Mr. Worrall pointed out the hilly terrain and poor building soils of said property.
Also, 2/3 of property is wetlands. He cited possible solar gain by use of south facing
hills and stated intent to preserve the vegetation on the site to the extent possible,
quoting 25% as maximum disruption to the site. The proposal allows for approximately
20 parking spaces. Mr. WQrrall contended that the site will not be visible by more
than one neighboring resident.
Although it was generally agreed that the proposal was very well designed, the proposal
met strong opposition from the majority of neighboring residents and interested parti-
cipants present at the public hearing. Letters were noted from Pete dndl~ti.ce Herbeit:.~-;.
911~/B-lc.aI1ck~12>i1:.J8ih, li.es and Carol Anderson;c9/ll/8l, Jol:m and Sue IXxison and
Carroll and Lucy Thurston, 11/30/81.
Those present who stated opposition were: Pat Malmsten, Bill and Patty Hoh, Les Anderson
Ray Anderson, Maria Malooly, Pete H rber, Mary Ann Romalia, Peggy Herman, Mike McHugh,
Dan Jol:mson, Robson Snyder, fun Pei ert and Robert and Elaine Vanden Branden. Addresses
are given on sign in sheet made ava lable at the meeting.
.
The main concems expressed by part es present were:
1. Present zoning is R-l and s ould stay R-1. Much concem mentioned with regard
to starting a precedent by hanging zoning and thus losing control over
development in the area. I is felt that there is enough corrmercial development
in area already with propos d apartments and townhouses on Vinehill (Minnetonka)
and. conmercial properties Highway 7 (Sambos and west of there).
2. What i:iE;p:r0p0sedcprojG!Ct'5hilldgoJ.:)~mkrupt or out of business? Zoning would
revert to original use as 'plained by Planner Nielsen. Please refer to
Planner's letter of 12/31/8 .
3. Much concern. was expressed . th regard to possible light assembly and the
manufacture of prototypes t king place at the site. It was explained by
.
.
.
PLANNING ca1MISSION MINUTES
- 2 -
January 5, 1982
3. (continued)
Attomey Jol:m Lee that the esearch Center would be a canputer laboratory-
strictly a research facilit and not planned to be a production facility of
any kin<:i. He added that t ere are three other locations where production
presently takes place (Elk 'ver, Eden Prairie and Monticello).
4. Additional traffic generat by delivery trucks and approximately 20 employees.
According to Mr. Worrall, s rictly UPS or similar size truck delivery is
expected once every other y or so.
5. Preservation of wildlife. . Worrall stated that maximum disruption of
vegetation, etc. would be 2 % as compared to 40% likely with residential
development on said propert .
6. Concem with effect of pro salon property values (possible lowering of tax base).
7. Access to the development a possible paving of new roads.
8. Drainage on easement from S dy Hills Park across Hennan property which
eventually flows into Purga ory Creek. Mr. Worrall indicated a possible
ponding area on the proposa site and referred to page 4 in the Report on
Hydrology.
Mr. Dan Jol:mson regarded the propos 1 as a good fonn of development and, although he
would like the property never' to developed, he feels it is inevitable. Mr. Jol:mson
cited concem that the City be kept infonned as to the number of employees, the
traffic generated and any new devel pment this project would possibly generate in
the future, should the proposal be pproved. Planner Nielsen explained that perhaps
a legal agreement could be drawn up between the City and the Developer whereby an
increase in the number of employees and/or units on the property would necessitate
council approval.
At 8:55 P.M. Chairperson Stover clo ed the public portion of the hearing. She infonned
those present that written cOInTIents would be accepted hereafter. She then asked the
Planning Commission Members for the r conments.
In answer to Leslie's question conc rning adjoining properties, Councilperson Haugen
explained that these properties are basically residential with the exception of
apartments to the east in Minnet
Leslie reiterated concem on draina e of easement property as mentioned .in #8 above.
She feels that this matter should addressed in any contract that might be written
as a result of this prOposaL
Mention was made of litigation pres ntly taking place between the Jol:msons and the City
of Shorewood. Watten voiced conce that action taken on this proposal might influence
the litigation.
At Spellman's request for additiona infonnation on activities to take place on the
site, Attomey Lee replied that 2/3 of the complex would be devot,ed to design and
drafting and 1/3 would be fabricati n of prototypes. He also indicated the proportion
of space to be divided half and hal. This was confinned by Ron Jol:mson. Spellman's
concem is that there is provision n the ordinance for conmercial use but not for
manufacturing and light industrial e.
.
.
.
PLANNING CGt1ISSION MINUTES
January 5, 1982
- 3 -
It was noted by the Planning Corrmis ion that the proposal would constitute amending
Ordinance No. 122 and theComprehen ive Plan and would necessitate special use by the
City of Shorewood. Chairperson Sto er referred to Land Use Policies, pages 27-31,
wherein it is stated that physical esearch is allowable, but not use of chemicals.
Watten moved, Reese seconded tab1i recornnendation on this POO Proposal until the
next regular meeting, February 2, 1 82. Motion carried tmanimous1y.
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, ad 'ournment of the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Motion
carried tmanimous1 y .
Respectfully submitted,
dtttt:xJ $4-
Becky R. Hunt
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING CGt1ISSION Meeting
_TueSday, JANUARY 19, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
e.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:50 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the Planning Commission Study Session to order.
ROLL CAlL
Present: Kristi Stover, Frank Reese, Richard Spellman, Vern Watten ( arrived 8: 10) .
CotIDci1 Liaison Bob Gagne
Absent:
Bruce Benson, Janet Leslie (prior corrmitment)
APPROVAL OF HINUTES:
Spellman moved, Reese seconded, approval of minutes of January 5, 1982 Planning Corrmission
Meeting as written. Motion carried tmanimous1y.
STUDY DISCUSSION: INFORMAL HEARINGS
In response to Chairperson Stover's request for input to the Planning Commission as to
what an informal hearing entails and what directives the Planning Corrrnission should take,
ChairPerson Stover referred to Administrator/Treasurer Urharnner's memo of 1/2/82. This
me.-no reviews the procedure for subdivision, namely: 1) Preapplication Meeting (Informal
Hearing); 2) Preliminary Plat Review; and 3) Final Plat Review.
Corrments and concerns of the Planning Coomission members were as follows:
2.
There was much discussion with regard to the suggested three step procedure as compared
to two steps. Watten feels preliminary hearing should be to become acquainted with
proposal and not to advise. Spellman agrees with lengthening the subdivision process
to three steps as it allows time for the planner to prepare a report to the Planning
C()Il'lnission. Reese feels that two steps is sufficient time in sulxlivision procedure.
He stated opposition to the type of system referred to in the City of Winsted letter
of 5/27/81 as he feels it causes bad feelings between the city and the planner.
One of the main concerns agreed upon was that the appointed officials.. of. the . Planning
Commission are not as qualified as the city planner to give official information
pertaining to ordinance specifications, etc., to a developer. It was felt that a',:,
meeting between the developer and the plarmer prior to the informal hearing is the
most beneficial method for the developer and the Planning Coomission members, especially
in regard to subdivision proposals from developers outside of the city's limits.
Concern was raised as to the necessity of devising a specific ordinance in this regard.
It was felt that perhaps a more general docunent could be written instead.
3.
In regard to Administrator Urhairlner's memo, there was question raised as to the
second sentence in paragraph 2, page 2, and it was felt that this sentence is
contradictory.
5. Stover raised concern regarding economic and political aspects involved--she feels
that costs incurred by the staff should be charged to the developer and that citizen
participation should not be bypassed in the procedure.
.ter much dkscussion with regard to the formality of the phrase "informal hearing" Reese
moved, Watteh seconded, recorrrnendation to thE1 CotIDcil tfut the nature of the informal
hearing be c~nged; that the informal hearingJ should be an interchange of ideas between
the potentia~ developer and the city planner-i-not necessarily imvolving the Planning
Ccmnission. I Motion carried on a 4 to 0 vote.:
I .
I
4.
,
,
PLANNING C~ISSION MINUTES - 2 - January 19, 1982
I
I /
.11e Planningl Corrmission members agreed on the advantage of delaying a vote on public
.iearings as ~t allows time for input from the citizens as well as the staff.
STUDY DISCUSSION: ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
The following revisions were approved:
Subdivision 2.bi(1) - Page 1-21: Should read "No mobile home, cellar, basement garage...."
Page 1-22:
Add "b. (5) Dwelling tmit shall be serviced with sanitary sewer, water supply a energy
supply system."
c.(l): Second line should read "official a registered land survey of said pr ses...."
pa~e 1-23
d. 5): Add at end - "within the buildable area."
e. Should read - "In the case of all multiple family, nonresidential developme ts and
single family lots where no drainage plan has been approved by the Colmcil, dra nage
plans shall be......
(Skip to Subdivision 3. Page 1-27)
Page 1-28
_. (2): Delete.
~Note on d.: Planning Corrmission members feel it is exception to requirements feel
it should be held in reservation till planner's review in case of legal questio --prefer
not to give any tolerance.)
IX! RESEARCH CENI'ER
1. Chairperson Stover advised that engineer will suh:nit report on drainage for proposed
development.
2. It was agreed by the coIIlllifssion members that an on site visit of the propos d Resea::,ch
Center is not necessary.
3. COlmcil Liaison Bob Gagne annolmced a request from the COlmcil that Planni Corrnnission
members suhnit individual recommendations stating specific reasons for or a ainst the
IX! proposal as it relate$ to the ordinance.
COUNCIL REPORT:
COlmcil Liaison Bob Gagne, a~olmced newly appointed Planning Ccmnission member Bob Shaw.
OTHER HATTERS:
Reese was asked to chair the lfebruary 15 Study Session of the Planning Corrrnissi
ADJOURNMENT
vJatten moved, Spellman seconded, adjournment at 9:50 P.M.
.
:::C:1Y~ lW
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Regular PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:45 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the Planning Corrmission meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Present: Kristi Stover, Janet Leslie, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson. Richard Spellman
arrived at 8:25 P.M.
Cotnlcil Liaison Bob Gagne and Planner Brad Nielsen.
Absent: Frank Reese, Vern Watten absent due to business meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINlTIES
Due to the absence of two of the Planning Conmission members, Leslie moved, Benson
seconded, tabling of approval of the minutes of the January 19, 1982 meeting tnltil
the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): . IXI Laboratories Pun Concept
Chairperson Stover addressed Engineer Norton's letter of 1/25/82 re access and drainage
for the proposed development and Attorney Lee's letter of 1/5/82 re title of said
property. Newly received letters of opposition were noted fran the Les Andersons, the
Snyders, the Peiserts and the Malmstens, and Chairperson Stover highlighted the main
concerns; basically, the proposal is for a manufacturing-type operation, there is a
loading dock, and road and sewer maintenance, pollution and fire protection would
become problems of the City. . ,
Chairperson Stover then asked for any questions that might be directed to the developer.
Stover questioned the loading dock referred to in residents' letters, to which
Mr. Worrall responded, "there will not be a loading dock and there will be no trucks
larger than UPS van size."
Question was raised as to what is involved in the fabrication and process of manufacture.
Mr. Worrall stated that the Jolmsons deal strictly with prototype models and obtain
patents for these models (six ri'lodels in'the. pas t year). Ron Jolmson went on to
explain that the operation involves electronic components, software (instructions)
and small mechanisms (disc drives) in the testing and manufacture of equipment
(prototype models) to be installed on customer sites. Hand operated machines are
used to test the precision of these models. Mr. Jolmson reviewed the "Activities to
Take Place" listed on pages 9-10 of the Brauer and Associates Pun ProposaL Stover
indicated concern as to whether "develop" (page 10) indicates physical activity.
Mr. Jolmson stated that the operation is business oriented and 80% of the activity
involves development and machining.
Leslie pointed out discrepancies of the proposed Pun in relation to the Pun Ordinance
No. 122 and the Comprehensive Plan (see itemized list given in No. 3 of the Reasons
for the Recorrmendation below). Mr. Worrall reiterated the intent for preservation
of the integrity of the neighborhood by minimal disruption of the land and preservation
of the wetlands; also that to the extent. possible, the proposal meets the environmental
impact objectives and policies.
Spellman moved, Benson seconded, recoIIlTIendation to the Cotnlcil to.deriythis Pun
applicatfon.Roll call vote was 4 ayes, 0 nays, and one abstention. (Leslie, Stover,
Spellman and Benson voted aye; Shaw abstained.)
.
.
.
Planning Corrmission Minutes
February 2, 1982
- 2 -
The reasons for this recorrmendation were given as follows:
l. The proposed use of the facility to fabricate components of canputer related
prototypes suggests manufacturing use. Pertaining to "nonresidential use" as
mentioned in Ordinance No. 122, Sulxli vision 2, this phrase implies that the
corrmercial uses of PUD's are intended to be in conjtmction with residential
portions of the PUD in question; furthermore, the entire ordinance is written
with residential implications.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. In addition to the fact that this proposal could lend itself to a manufacturing
type of process in an R-l district, are the specifics that it is not consistent
with the following:
PUD Ordinance..... Sulxlivision l. Purpose: a., c.,. f., g.
Comprehensive.. P1C1I1:
Environmental Policies, Page 25-26: #8, #9, #13.
Land Use Objectives, Page 27: #2, #4, #9, #15.
Land Use Policies, Page 29: #1, #2, #3, #7, #8.
Residential Policies, Page 31: #2 and #10.
Corrmercial Policies, Page 33: #12
Industrial Development Policies, Page 34: #3 and #4.
4. The PUD was not intended initially as a corrmercail or industrial use.
5.
The traffic problem on Vine Hill is already designated as a problem area.
6. Drainage of the Shady Hills pond area hasn't been addressed.
7. The property is zoned R-l and is surrotmded by R-l, is not a buffer, and doesn't
have transition fran land used as R-l to land used as industrial.
Much discussion followed as to the method of the vote and recorrmendations of the I
Planning Corrmission members to the Cotmcil. Mayor Rascop, Administrator Urharrmet,
Planner Nielsen and Cotmcilpersons Haugen and Gagne contributed to the discussioI]1.
Administrator Urharrmer explained the process whereby Planning Corrmission members.
suhnit written recorrmendations with their supportive reasons, separate fran the
minutes of the meetings, in order to speed up the process. Reasons given for fotmal
(written) conmunication are that it carries more weight and forces corrmission members
to review the reasons for their decisions very carefully; thus requiring greater I
responsibility for members to do their homework between meetings. Urhanmer advi~ed
that the recorrmendations be based on comparisons of proposals to the Comprehensive
Plan and the Ordinances; also on public testimony. He also sugg~sted possible
inclusion of support for the minority vote in the recorrmendation.
At 10:30 P.M. Leslie moved, Spellman seconded, adjournment of the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~~It Jt~.
Becky Hunt r
.
.
,
CI'IY OF SHQREVK)()D
REGUlAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 Cormtry Club Road
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
At 7: 40 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the rE gular Planning Corrmission Meeting of
Tuesday, March 2, 1982, to order in the Cormc i1 Chambers.
ROlL CALL
Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Le1:1ie, Richard Spellman, Kristi Stover and
Bruce Benson
Staff Pr sent: Cormci1 Liaison Bob Gagne, Pl!anner Brad Nielsen
Absent: Bob Shaw
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes f January 19, 1982: Reese moved, Spellman seconded, approval of the minutes
as writt~n. Motion carried rmanimous1y.
Minutes of February 2, 1982: Spellman moved, Benson seconded, approval of the
minutes as written. Motion carried rmanimous1y.
IXI REC<M1ENDATION:
Cormci1 Liaison Gagne informed the Planning Corrmission members that the Cormcil and
the Attorney will discuss the procedure relating to the Planning Corrmission' s
recorrmendations on sulxli vision proposals. Therefore, Reese IllOved and Leslie seconded
to delete the IXI Recorrmendation from the agenda for this March 2nd meeting.
MATTERS FR(l.1 THE FLOOR
Planner Nielsen infonned the Planning Corrmission of a Public Hearing to take place
before the Council on March 8, 1982, to consider the request of August F. Of stead
to sulxlivide approximately 12 acres of land at 26915 Edgewood Road into 8 lots.
Planner Nielsen presented his memo of 2/25/82 and asked Planning Corrmission members
for their input to the Cormci1.
Ron Of stead, trustee for the estate, explained the proposal and presented Exhibit F,
Resulxlivision Sketch.
It was generally agreed upon that this proposal offers a good plan for deve1opnent.
The main concern mentioned was that of landlocked property.
Making note of not having had the benefit of any public input to this proposal,
Watten moved and Leslie seconded, the following recorrmendatiort to the Council:
We s~uggeftt approval of the two variances involved with the splitting
off two acres with the house along Edgewood Road leaving a 50 foot strip
for future access. to the remaining 10 acres, said variances being:
1. 50' lot width for rear lot, and
2. substandard lot size after 50 foot access to rear is . provided
(in accordance with No's. 1 and 2, respecti vel y, On pages 1 and 2 of Planner
Nielsen's memo of 2/25/82) and also based on the recorrmendations No. 1-7
on page 4 of Planner's memo of 2/25/82, with the fol1owingrevisions:
1. Should be changed to read: "The suggested resulxlivision sketch
(Exhibit D) should be encouraged to include connection to an
overall area circulation pattern."
.
.
,
Planning Ccmnission Minutes
- 2 -
March 2, 1982
7.
Should read: "The 50 foot strip going to the rear of the site
should be treated as a public r.o.w......."
Above motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL LIAISON
1. Regarding the Hennepin County Railroad Right-of-Way alternate plan, Council
Liaison Bob Gagne reported that the Cities of Shorewood, Greenwood, Excelsior,
Victoria, Hopkins ,etc., reached a consenpus to leave a wide open trail
corridor and to disallow any motorized \\ih~eled vehicles (except snownobiles).
Gagne added that. the County will pull thel tracks at street crossings and pave
these areas. I
2. Council Liaison Gagne reported that the C~ty of Shorewood (Council is undecided
at this point as to a water system.
At 9:30 P.M. Leslie moved, Spellman seconded, ~djournment of the meeting.
Respectfully subnitted,
rb5{d/~ tAd-
Becky R. Hunt
.
.
.
CI'IY OF SHOREWOOD
PlannirigCOOlnission Study Session
Tuesday, March 16, 1982
..,Council,XhambeJ;s
5755 Country Club Road
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:40 P.M. Chairperson Stover called the Study Session of the Planning Commission
to order.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Kristi Stover, Bob Shaw and
Council Liaison Bob Gagne.
Absent: Richard Spellman, Bruce Benson, due to conflicting business schedule.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Reese moved, Leslie second~, approval of the minutes of March 2, 1982, with one
correction to the OfsteadProperty reconmendation; that being, to change the wording
to "suggest" instead of "reccmnend" in the first line of the reconmendation onpage-:.1.
M:>tion carried unan usly.
ZONING ORDINANCE ( mINUED STUDY)
The study of the ing Ordinance proceeded beginning with Page I-28, Section 200.03,
General Provisions, Subdivision 4: General Area and Building Size Regulations.
Following are the c ncerns and corrections noted by Planning Conmission members:
Subdivision 5: Off- treet Parki
Orements
Page I-30:
Change "eight and one-half (8~) feet" in second line to "nine (9)
sert "current" in between "of" and "licensed" in second line.
Planni
two lines on this
Commission members also request planner clarification of last
ge. [d~ (6~].
Page I-31:
feet."
Page I-32: In con 0 ction with above change, delete all reference to 8'6" from
Parking Lot Dimensions Table.
Page I-33: (j) Members request that planner review this section as they feel there
should be an allowance for loop drives which may require two curb cuts.
(k) Planning Commission members feel that there is a need for the planner
to develop a policy pertaining to water run-off for the engineer's use.
(1) ~lete "townhouse" from first line.
Page I-34: (0) Should read ... "Except for single family and two family dwellings,
all...."
f.(3) Second line should read "...street right-of-way." instead of
"street surface."
Page 1-35: (5) Request that planner review. Feel that "and add 5' setback from
side and rear yard lot line" should be inserted in last line before "in residential
dis tricts . "
(6) Feel that second line should read: "parking should be prohibited
in the first 25' from the property line of the front yard...."
.
.
.
Planning Conmission Minutes
- 2 -
March 16, 1982
Page 1-35 (continued):
g. Request planner explanation of "accessary" as used in f. (1) and f. (5)
Page 1-34; and g. page 1-35.
h. (3) ~lete "fee free."
Page 1-38: (28) Question whether 6 parking spaces be required for each Tennis Court.
Sulxlivision 6:' Off-Street Loading
Page 1-42: ~lete (2).
It was agreed by the Planning Conmission members to obtain a copy of restrictions
pertaining to mobile homes and to begin the next Study Session on the Zoning
Ordinance with Subdivision 7, M:>bile Homes.
REPORTS
Council Liaison fubGagne
1. Reported that Ofstead Property Subdivision request was approved by
Council.
2. Reported of the attorney and planner discussion pertaining to inclusion
of the following in Planning Conmission recorrmendations to the Council in regard to
sulxlivision requests: (a) every item should be given reasons for the vote;
(b) reconmendation should be given in the form of a resolution; (c) reconmendation
should include public opinion; and (d) a mtl~tr.w report should be given on two or
more votes. The attorney will issue directives on this matter.
Park Commission
Carol Chapnan was present to announce presentation of the Freeman Park Plan by
Ann Brockman before the Park Conmission at the April 5 meeting.
AllJOURNMENT
Watten moved, Leslie seconded, adjournment of the meeting at 10:05 P.M. Motion
carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
~.c4 yM-
Becky R. Hlmt
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORE.WOOD
REGUlAR PLANNING C<MfiSSION MEETING
TUES~Y, APRIL 6, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I. NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Planning Conmission was called to order by Chairperson
Stover at 7:41 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman, lZristi Stover, Bob Shaw, Planner Brad
Nielsen, Assistant Kathy West.
Absent: Bruce Benson, Vern Watten, Frank Reese.
EM>1ER'S PROPERTY DIVISION
(Agenda rearrangement - item #5 brought up by Chairperson Stover before 8:00 P.M.
Public Hearing), '
Mr. James Enmer, 5570 Covington Roa~ came ~fore the Planning Corrrnission to present
his request to divide Lot 3, Block 1, Noel ~oodAddition into two parcels, A to the
north and B to the south. The lot covers 78,000 square feet and the division would
cause one of the two proposed parcels (B) tq be approximately 2,000 square feet short
of the R-1 zoning standards for the area th4s requiring a varience.
Enmer stated a need to sell-one ..lot. He own~ and has his residence on Lot 4 to the
south of the property in question but did nqt see a possible rearrangement of lot
lines to meet zoning requirements forparce~ B .... Lot 3 as desirable. . Proposed par-
cel B contains a tennis court and would be tfetained by Enmer.
Enmer had not had the opportunity to react cio Planner Nielsen's report to the Plan-
ning Conmission regarding the proposal. He Ifelt that the divided Lot 3 could be de-
veloped but it would be up to the future buy.er to deal specifically with the issues
of access and sewer service. !
Planner Nielsen said developing the property probably would not cause area traffic
problems but the access on to the property ~as of primary concern in terms of both
safety and engineering. '
Planning Corrmission member Spellman address~ the topography and suggested the steep
drop in elevation of Lot 3 from Covington ROad requires careful study to determine a
safe access. Nielsen mentioned that a singlfe access to both parcels might be consid....
ered. He felt the City Engineer should addtl"ess the issue and the City Council could
!
.
.
.
PlANNING C<MfiSSION MINUTES
- 2 -
APRIL 6, 1982
EM>1ER'S PROPERlY DIVISION CONrINUED
approve the proposal conditional to the Engineer'~ approval, speeding up the process
for Enmer.
It was noted that future sewer service might require an easement on the north side of
Lot 4.
Leslie moved that the Planning Corrmission recoometjld the proposed lot split be sent to
the City Council for approval subject to an Engin~ering report satisfying the ques-
tion ofa safe and feasible access. Spellman sec<i>ndedthe motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Carmission recessed from 7:57 P.M. tQ 8:01 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICATION - VINE HILl' FLORAL PROPERlY
Planner Nielsen pr~sented the background on the F~oral property at 19465 State High-
way 7. The property in question was split-zoned C-3 to the north, R-1 to. the south.
The prospective buyer, Mr. Roger Anderson, would like to see the entire property
zoned Commercial. .
Nielsen noted that, the zoning discrepancy is a result of a City "house-keeping" error,
not uncarmon in older zoning maps, and it should be resolved.
Planning Corrmission members discussed the zoning to the west and south which is Resi-
dential (R-1), and to the east which is Coomercial (G-3). It was mentioned that the
adjacent Burger King property might have the same! zoning problem.
Listeners from the audience had questions regarding Coomercial zoning - its require-
ments and restrictions, and the pennitted uses. Chairperson Stover read the section
of Ordinance #77 pertaining to the G-3 district. 1 She also pointed out that the prop-
erty in question has been used as G-3 over the ye~rs and was Grandfathered into the
current zoning regulations. The present building! on the site meets the size restric-
tions outlined in !the ordinance. .
Mr. Mortensen, nei,ghboringproperty owner had que~tions relating to property lines on
the map. The Planning Carmission and the Planner! suggested he contact the County sur-
veyors for a clarification.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.
The Carmission members agreed that the City's zoQing error should be cleared.
Spellman moved, Leslie seconded, to recarmend to the Council that the south portion
of the tract of l~ known as the Vine Hill Floral property be rezoned G-3.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Public Heari~ was closed at 8:12 P.M.
SITE PlAN REVIEW -; IMDeC
Mr. Irwin Mandel of IMDeC preseI[1ted his proposal to develop an 18 unit multi-family
apartment complex I at the southwest corner of Glen Road and County Road 19. He stated
that the proposed !project fits the R-4 zoning di~trict requirements for height, width,
depth, lot coverage, size and p.'ilrking requirements. If the west side of the property
is considered to be the rear, t~e building could ,be moved two feet east to match the
rear setback requirement. The building as planned would be graded away from adjacent
property and any collection of '\(later would be diverted into a culvert at County Road
1? Mandel stateql the ratio of' building-to-Iot ~uld be small and that ~he accunula-
t~on of water would not be too great. The access would hopefully be a direct one to
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES
3 -
APRIL 6, 1982
SITE PlAN REVIEW - IMDeC CONrINUED
County Road 19 which. would require apprQval by He~epin County. There would be 42
parking spaces provided (the Ordinance Would requi.re 27 for a similar developnent)
and garages are proposed to the south arid southwest of the building. at some future
time. The developers would attempt to *etain the: natural site, leaving as many of
the trees to the south, east, and west 4s possible. The building would be concealed
from adjacent property, but would be visible from! County Road 19.
Neighboring residents expressed their cQncerns.
George Harrison, 24710 Amlee Road, ment{one..'<i problems with the culvert/drainage sys-
tem in the area. He noted spring flood!ng on the! properties to the south of Glen
Road and the need for the City to <;le-ic, the cul v~rt each year. He . felt there were
more problem runoff areas than had been! identified. He also noted that the line
from Glen Road to Amlee Read was not a ~ulvert, bvt a plastic pipe (PVC) measuring
about 6 to 8 inches. ! i
James Barchart, 5580 County Road 19, no~ed standi~ water in the area at the present
time, and that the land to .the west of ~s .proper~y is the worst. flooding location.
He said the sewers were a problem and had beenbrbught:up at meeting? e~911timeprop-
erty in the area was developed. He men1=ioned the: possibility of water overflowing
Glen Road.
Residents listed some of the causes of the area drainage problem as: the installation
of the sanitary sewer; filling by the ~ity; the! City changing the road elevation;
runoff from the shopping center and the! NSP lot; . Golf course drainage; and some
careless developnent in the area.
Council Liaison Bab Gagne added a bit oif history. Flooding has killed 3/4 of the
trees. Spectronix is in water now. A ~ownhouse developnent was proposed eight or
nine years ago but studies showed thecpsts of solving the drainage problems to be
ridiculous. Engineers determined that area stonn drains would be the solution but
the neighbors did not show much enthusiasm. The costs were estimated at $110,000
back in 1979.
The City and County were both involved in the problem. The only steps taken were
temporary -blocked, broken tiling in the area was blasted open. (The culverts be-
come janmed often, children sometimes the. cause. )
Jan Wells, 24696 Glen Road, mentioned that the lots near her property have standing
water, sometimes into the S1.IIlIler. She felt the proposed developnent would only
cause more back-up and flooding.
The residents outlined the drainage flow patterns and listed Crescent Beach and
Manitou Harbor as the ultimate direction/destinations for the . water. The culvert
under the Railroad property was also mentioned as a problem spot. No city seems
to have jurisdiction so area citizens take care of blockage.
David Littlefield, 24775 Glen Road, re-emphasized the severe water/drainage/flood-
ing problems and the possible loss of more trees,
Diane Schmuck, representing Spectronix, spoke of the finn's year-round water prob-
lems and described the corner of Glen Road and County Road 19 as a mud hole.
The public portion of the meeting was closed at ~:42 P.M.
Mandel, the developer, stated he was not aware of the extent of the drainage problems.
He received the City Engineer's report during the meeting and had not haq the oppor-
tunity to review it. Planner Nielsen contended t. hat the staff had irtfo~ed Mandel of
the problems. Their reports to the Planning Conmission and Mandel were 1elayed
because infonnation requested from Mandel was sufmitted late. !
. I
i
I
i
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES
- 4 -
APRIL 6, 1982
.
SITE PlAN REVIEW - IMDeC CONTINUED
The Engineer's report noted possible construction problems with the project because
of low elevation. The garage floors as proposed would be lower than the water level.
The discussion generated the following corrments fran the Planning Conmission to be
sent to the City Council:
.
Richard Spellman:
The developnent proposal was not prepared with the drainage problems in mind,
or an adequate ponding area.
Bob Shaw:
There is substantial need for further exploration and study of the drainage
problems involving the project and the whole area. The access on to County
Road 19 needs to be addressed also. The developer is strongly urged to look
at these areas of concern.
Janet Leslie:
The applicant did not seem to realize the extent of the drainage problems or
interdependencies of the area. He needs to become more aware of the problems
and consider the cost factors in developing the property and correcting the
situation. The City Couneil might look int0 the. possibilities of a bUilding.
mo:r:'itoriun for this entire drainage area.
Kristi Stover:
The citizens present at the meeting had basically one concern - the historical
drainage problem. The City Council should look closely at the City Engineer's
report. Having had the opportunity to review the City Planner's cooments, the
Planning Conmission feels that the proposed developIlent. does conform to the
Zoning Ordinance. -
General Conment to the Council:
The area needs further investigation by the City in regards to the storm sewer
/drainage problems.
The Planning Conmission recessed from 9:15 P.M. to 9:21 P.M.
MATTERS FRavt 'IRE. FLOOR
Staff Reports
Chairperson Stover noted a problem with the timely sul:mission of staff reports to the
Planning Comnission It was suggested that if staff information and recorrmendations
are not provided ~ days in advance of a meeting, the particular agenda items in-
volved be tabled.
.
REPORTS
Council Meeting, March 22, 1982
Council Liaison Bob Gagne: on vacation, no report.
Kristi Stover:
1) Inter Study - Council is pennitting a storage building damaged by fire to
be repaired.
2) An Encephalitis prevention program is coming up fran Hennepin County.
3) The Council okayed a Planning Carmission request to have the Planner attend
some Sttrly Sessions rather than Regular Conmission meetings.
PLANNING CClvMISSION MINUTES
- 5 -
APRIL 6, 1982
'. REPORTS CONTINUED
Planner Nielsen was asked if it could be arranged for him to work at a few Study
Sessions. Achninistrator Uhrhanmer stated that he would investigate the possibil-
i ies of funding the Planner's time with Coomunity Developnent Block Grant (CDBG)
'es .
P rk Corrmission Meeting - April 5, 1982
Kristi Stover:
The presentation of the Freeman Park. developnent proposal was started.
The plans are on display in the City Hall office.
0URNMENl'
Leslie moved to adjourn, Shaw seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M.
Respectfully sul:mitted,
. 7(~W~
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
I.
.
CI'IY OF SHORE.WOOD
REGUlAR PIANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUES~Y, APRIL 20, 1982
COl.JNCa aJAMBERS
5755 COUNl'RY. CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
I
I
MINqTES
I
CAlL TO ORDER
Chairperson Stover called the April 20th Study~sessio$ to order at 7:42 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Late:
Absent:
Frank Reese, Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Ktisti Stover, Bob Shaw.
Richard Spellman arrived at 8:01 P.M. I
Bruce Benson. I
1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~TED APRIL 6, 1982
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to approve the minutes ftan the April 6th Planning
Commission meeting.
CONTINUED STUDY OF 'TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Planning Corrmission began discussion of the Ordin4lnce on page 1-42 of Section
200.03 Sulxi. 7 r-bbile Haines. A memo regarding new St*te legislation on mobilel
manufactured housing franthe League of Minnesota Cities was sent by Councilperson
Jan Haugen. The Commission deferred discus.sion of the topic until they had the op-
portunity to review it, and Richard Spellman would be! available to lead the discus-
sion on Ordinance Sulxi.' s 7, 8 and 9. ..
Page 1-43, Subd. 10 Essential Services
Janet Leslie noted much of this section to be of a City housekeeping nature. She
had no questions or objections to what was written. there were no other coninents
from the Planning Commission. .
Pa~J-45, Subd. 11 Signs
Frank Reese felt this section was acceptable. Questif>nS were raised by other Com-
mission members about signs in transitional; districts! between coomercial and resi-
dential, and for advertising home occupatiQns. I
(Richard Spellman arrived at 8:01 P.M.) I
Page 1-46, (6) Freestanding Signs... . ,
After a discussion of the height of freestanding sign~, Watten moved, Reese seconded,
to lower the maximum height limitations in Sulxi. 11. Signs, subsection b. General Re-
quirements, paragraph (6) fran thirty-five feet to t\~nty (20) feet.
The motion carried. Ayes: Reese, Wattten, Stove:tj, Shaw.
Nays: Spellman. . 1
Abstain: Leslie T requested clarification fran the Planner.
The Planning Commission debated for some time where ~h the Ordinance to cover square
footage restrictions for signs. . i
Spellman moved, Watten seconded, to add to,Subd. 11 Signs, subsection b. General Re-
quirements, a provision limiting the area of freestar}d.ing signs to twenty (20) square
feet.
The motion was defeated. Ayes: Spellman, W4tten.
Nays: Reese, Lesl~e, Shaw.
Abstain: Stover - Ipreferred to see square footage
restrictions add~essed in the specific Zoning
Distritts as oppqsed to the General Requirements.
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES
APRIL 20, 1982
- 2 -
STUDY OF 'TIlE ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED
Page 1-47, (3) Sign pennitted in Residential Districts
(a) Subdivision Plat Signs.
It was suggested that the City put up signs when a developDent is proposed., reqw.r~ng
the petitioner to pay (as in Edina) and have them erected before a public hearing.
Page.I-48, 1-49
The Planning Commission noted that the Districts in this subsection were misnamed
R-B and B-1, 2, 3 and should be rewritten to conform to Shorewood Ordinances.
Page 1-48, (5) Signs Pennitted in the ".B-1" District.
(b) Business Signs.
The Planning Commission agreed. this paragraph was confusing. Clarification fran the
Planner was requested. It was suggested that a period be placed after "fifty (50)
square feet" and the rest of the first sentence be deleted. Leslie also questioned
the difference between the intent of paragraph (b) in subsection (5) page 1-48 and
paragraph (b) of subsection (6) on page 1-49.
Page 1-49, (6) Signs Pennitted. ilin Other Nonresidential Districts.
(d) Advertising Signs (Billboards).
Spellman moved, Stover seconded, to simplify this subsection to. read - Advertising/,
Billboard. signs will not be allowed.
The motiOIl carried unanimoUSly.
It was further suggested that tllts reference to Advertising Signs (Billboards) be
removed fran Page 1-49, (6), and be added. to the list of Prohibited. Signs on Page
I-50 as paragraph (5).
Subsections e. and f. of Subd. 11 Signs were okayed.
The Planning Commission returned to Subd. 7, 8, and 9.
Discussion on 7 Mobile Homes was postponed to allow for research on the new State law.
Page 1-42, Subd. 8 Land Reclamation.
Mention was made of a Deephaven Ordinance regarding changing grade. In the discus-
sion it was noted that drainage and wetlands protection are addressed elsewhere in
the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. No Changes were noted.
Page 1-43, Subd. 9. Mining.
The Commission agreed to leave this section as written.
Page I~52, Subd. 12 Home OccUpation.
There was considerable discussion as to what was the nature and objectives of para-
graph a.
Shaw moved, Watten seconded, to strike the following phrases in paragraph a. Purpose:
(first sentence) . . . "prevent competition with business districts and to" should
be deleted.
(second sentence) "In addition, " should be deleted and the sentence should
start with "This subdivision..."
The motion did not carry. Ayes: Shaw, Spellman, Watten.
Nays: Leslie, Reese, Stover.
Further debate involved questions of what a "Home Occupation" is, coomercial versus
residential competition, zoning and subdivision regulations as mechanisms for control.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION sruDY SESSION MINUTES
-s-
APRIL 20, 1982
. STUDY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE - CONTINUED
Page 1.,..52, Subd. 12. Home OccUpation.
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, to change paragraph a. of Subd. 12 to read as
follows:
I 'Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to. provide a means through
theestablishrnent of specific standards and procedures by which hane
occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeo-
pardizing the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding
neighborhood. This subdivision is intended to provide a mechanism
enabling the distinction between pennitted home occupations and can-
mercial occupations, so that pennitted hane occupations may be allowed
through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing
process. II
The motion carried unanimoUSly.
The Planning Conmission noted that the next Study Session would begin on Page I-52,
Subd. 12 Home Occupation. paragraph b. Application.
.
.
REPORTS
City Council: Bob Gagne reported that the Council would vote on the IXI P.U.D.
proposal at the April 26th meeting. Another item from the April 12th meeting was
the IMDeC proposal. The Council agreed with the Planning Corrmission that the pro-
ject met all City requirements. The neighboring residents were unhappy with the
pro ject and were investigating legal action. So far no building permit had been
applied for.
ADJOURNMENT
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to adjourn. The meeting was closed at 10:01 P.M.
Re$pectfully submitted,
f(~ -VMk
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORE.WOOD
REGUlAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNI'RY CDBB R(W)
7:30 P.M.
M I. NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Stover called the May 4th meeting of the Planning Coomi.ssion to order at
7:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Frank Reese, Vern Watt!en, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman, KristtStover,
Bob Shaw, Council Liaison Bob Gagne.
Late: Bruce Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Watten moved, Leslie seconded to approve the minutes from the Planning Conmission
meeting of April 20, 1982 as written.
DIETZ LOT DIVISION
A revised survey was pmsented to the Planning Coomi.ssion by Bill Dietz to accanpany
the application made by Virginia and Kathryn Dietz for rearrangement of the lot lines
between lots 69 (A) and 70 (B), Auditors Sub. No. 141 (5285 St. Alhans Bay Road) .
Planner Nielsen saw no problems with the new survey which moved the proposed dividing
lines approxima.tel.Y 30 feet to the north.
The Planning Conmission members discussed the future develop:nent of lot A if sold.
Nielsen felt it would probably be more easily developed after the proposed rearrange-
ment of lines. About six acres would remain and the distance along St. Alhans Bay Road
would be approxima.tely 540 feet. The Conmission and the Planner agreed that a single
street or cul-de-sac would probably be necessary to subdivide lot A. rlircel B would
remain as is. Nielsen noted that the property in.question was zoned R-1 and the lots
to the north were in the R-2 zoning district. He felt the develop:nent of this property
would not adversely impact the property to the north.
Reese moved, Watten seconded, to recorrmend that the City Cotmcil approve the subdivision
application to rearrange the lot lines between lots 69 and 70, Auditor I s Sub. 141, as
shown in the revised survey B.
The motion carried: 6 ayes, 0 nays.
REPORTS
(Agenda rearrangement - item #1 s 7 and 6 brought up by Chatrperson Stover before the
8:00 P.M. Public Hearing)
Gity Council Re~rt: Council Liaison Bob Gagne repJrted that the City Attorney was in
the process of . rafting a resolution denying the IXI PUD proposal as per Council re-
quest. Other items that came up before the Council included: . lake. access; signs for
rezoning I subdivisions were being made; there was further discussion on the IMDeG pro-
posal and the drainage, pending and storm sewer issues.
Park Conmission Report: Council Liaison Tad Shaw ~tated that the initial Freeman Park
proposal was nearing finalization. The Park Gorrmission. was reviewing applicants to fill
:ttiTO vacant positions. Bob Shaw noted that the BMX track had been resurfaced and high--
-:lighted a special July 10th race. The Planning Carmission noted a lack of representa-
:tion fran the Park Conmission at some of the past meetings.
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUl'ES
MAY,4, 1982
- 2 -
MATIERS FR<l1 THE FLOOR
There were no matters fran the floor at this time.
PUBLIC HFARING: TINGEWOOD PUD PROPOSAL
At 8:04 P.M. Chairperson Stover read the le al notice pf the Public Hearing as pub-
lished on April 21} J 982.
(Bruce Benson arrived at 8:06 P.M.)
Mark Koegler of Schoell and Madson, Inc. pr sented an introduction to the Tingewood
PUD proposal as applied for by Adrian Johns . The site is bOtmded by Highway 7 to
the furthand west, Radisson Entrance to t east, residential property and Radisson
Inn Road to the south. Koegler noted that t contains about six acres with rolling
topography and mUch tree cover. He defin~d three drainage areas: 1) east toward
Radisson Entrance; 2) north toward Highway ; and 3) to the southwest of the property.
The soil type was listed as well drained.
Koegler mentioned a 1973 preliminary plat d discussed the alternatives considered for
the current proposal. It was agreed that d veloping the property intbsix single family
detached tmits would re Ore sigmificant al erations to the site and the drainage. The
develop:nent as now propos would have a cl tered approach with three structures con-
taining twelve mits. It would utilize a p ivate cul-de-sac twenty feet in width and
off-street guest parking uld be provided. A manicured landscape arotmel the tmits
would be maintained and st of the site d remain in its natural state.
Koegler described the bui dings as single Oly type structures and he passed aromd
a photo of a 'similar mite He stated that Ot would be condaniniun type ownership of
the mits and that exteri r maintenance, snow removal, etc. would be handled by a home...
owners association. Rec ational vehicles would rot be stored at this site. The mits
would be in the $65,000 0 $75,000 range, probably attracting yotmg professionals or
retiring people - a mix f occupants. Koegler estimated the project would generate
about 78 trips per day 0 ch he felt would be fewer than a development of single family
dwellings.
Koegler listed the ad van ages of a cluster type develop:nent as proposed:
- 82% of. the tree co er would be retained providing a buffer between Highway 7' and
neighboring proper ies.
- The density range as within the limits of Shorewood!s Comprehensive Plan.
- The develop:nent wo d preserve the natural environment of the site.
- The architectural tyle should integrate with the single family homes in the
neighh<:>rhood.
Chairperson Stover asked for corrments fran the audience.
Jim Davis, 2~885 Radisso Inn Road, emphasized the desirability of the Christmas Lake
area for developers but intained that the single family atmosphere should be protected.
He noted that the .develo r's motive is to maximize return on investment and not to live
in and enjoy the area. 0 s concerns included increased drainage proble1ns; effects upon
the water table and well if twelve families roove in; safety factors. due to increased
traffic on blind and na ow roads; and the adequacy of the streets to handle the addi-
tional cars. i Davis and aul Seifert polled area residents and presented a petition.
Although sane people wet"l missed, no one appeared to be for the. proposal according to
Davis.
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES
- 3 -
MAY 4, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED
Davis felt as a result of this project, property values would go down, the area \\K)uld
be inconvenienced, wells might dry up, wet basements could be a problem, and safety
problems \\K)uld increase.
Eleanor Goocman, 5570 Shore Road, expressed concerns aver the proposal's effects upon
neighboring lots and the lake. She noted a 1939 easement .on lot 11 whereby fourteen
off-shore property owners had purchased the lot and its lake front for use as a pri-
vate beach. She questioned the developer's plans for lake access. The developer
stated that at this time private access ,to Christmas Lake was not planned as part of
the proposal. Headdedtthat-;ftwou}d.be by way of a public beach.
Kathy Schwartz, 790 Pleasant: View Road - Chanhassen, expressed her interest in the en-
vironmental quality of Christmas Lake as a nearby property owner. She made note of a
Corps of Engineers hearing last year in which the deterioration of the lake was discus-
sed; the possibilities of its future decline and the effect this might have upon prop-
ertf values surrounding the lake. She listed the following areas that the City of
ShOltewood might consider carefully.
1 ) To allow for five day holding of. water from a 25 year storm to protect the
lake.
i 2) Access to this holding pond to insure cleaning.
3) No direct runoff from the street into the lake.
4) A survey of present runoff be taken to set limits for the developr1ent and to
assure that the developer is not rewonsible for currently existing conditions.
5) Careful restrictions be imposed during excavation - particularly if any clay
soils are present. No straw bales be allowed for storm water retention but
berms be utilized instead.
6) A'.limnblogist be hired at developer expense to guarantee lake protection~
Artljlur Lukens, 20915 RadissOn Inn Road, felt that in addition to the other statements
made, the safety hazards. and traffic problems on Radisson nn Road were very important.
Drainage and loss of property values should be considered also. Peggy Lukens asked
why the property was being developed at all with the probl ms involved.
Barb and ~slie -Nelson, 20820 Radisson Inn Road, felt that both the cluster concept and
the plan to leave most of the tree caver undisturbed were ood points of the proposal.
They were concerned about the trafficr and safety problems.. 0 th the road, and winter
conditions. 'Ihey asked tbat the drainage and water acces questions be addressed.
Sam ~ordon, 20665 Radisson Inn Road, lreiterated the poor c it ions on Radisson Itm Road.
He questioned the. desirability of a dlusteringof this siz and felt that R-1 zoning was
suitable. He suggested that drainag~ problems could proba ly be solved with storm sewers
but it should be the developer'sobl~gation.
Other local residents who voiced con4erns over drainage pr blems, water quality , wells
and safety/traffic issues were Mr. arid Mrs. Horton Brooks, 21195 Radisson Inn Road,
Mary Poulter, 20845 Radisson Inn Roa4, Mr. Arsts, 20960 Ra isson Inn Road, and John
McKellip, 21020 Radisson Inn Road. ~. Brooks noted that at one time they had lost
their well when the lake was being pt;mped.
.
.
.
PlANNING COM1rSSION MINUTES
-4-
MAY 4, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED
Bob Fayfield, 6005 Christmas Lake Road, spoke on behalf of the Christmas Lake Associ-
ation. He emphasized two points to the City of Shorewood. He stated that the City
had exercised good planning in zoning the area for single family dwellings. The res-
idents are happy with it. They would like to see the Gity.act consistently in its
zoning administration and discourage spot zoning. He read a letter written by the
Shorewood City Cotmcil to the City of Chanhassen concerning a proposed developnent at
the south end of Christmas Lake a few months ago. The letter urged Chanhassen to protect
the rights and property values of others living in the areaarld consider rezoning the
area R-l with liO,~ s'quare foot lot requirements to keep the property comnensurate
with the surrotmding properties. .
The public portion of th Hearing was closed at 8:57 P.M.
Chairperson Stover noted that the letters the Planning Conmission had received were
consistent with the eve ng' s discussion. Cbmnissiemffiembersquestioned the developer
in regards to the water upply, the structures, future inhabitants, drainage surface,
soil types, access, stre t size, road dedication and. maintenance, easements, the home-
owners consortiun and de sity.
Adrian Johnson stated t t the buildings as proposed would each have two 2 bedroom and
two 1 bedroom tmits, Wit 1~ to 2 baths, and a one car garage space per tmit. He agreed
that the nature of the d sigp would limit the nunber of people. Johnson projected that
the occupants would be i the $36,000 to $50,000 family income range.
A canparison was made as to the hard surface area for this type of developnent and one
of six detached family d llings. Total roof area for this proposal would be 11 ,100
square feet:, plus parking and driveways would probably equal 26,000 or 27,000 square feet.
Vern Watten estimated t t six singl~ homesi:at 3,000 square feet each with paving might
double the hard surface rea developed.
Koegler noted that the s ils were Heyder Sandy Loarn - well drained. He felt that there
were no problems with po ing on the site.'.Janet Leslie asked for clarification in
regards to drainage from the neighbors to the west of the proposed developnent. They
stated there was a probl during heavy rains but it was suggested that six single fam+
ily homes might cause mo e problems than the clust red developnent.
The proposed street woul be. 400 feet in length 20 feet wide with a turning radius
that would acccmnodate rgency vehicles. The de elopers felt this was the only fea-
sible access. There wil be impact from the devel pnent but Koegler felt that- itWduld
not be substantial. The street would be a private road maintained by the homeowners
association. Utilities (sewer) would be public wi h the appropriate easements as re-
quired by Shorewood. 1<0 gler stated they could no guarantee that the future homeowners
would keep the road pri te indefinitely ~ noted that it was not very likely, lobking
at other consortiuns, t t they would turn the roa over tbtha.City. Frank Reese ob-
served that the road as lanned encroaches upon t lot to the east. Johnson owns both
properties so no easeme problems were-noted. It was suggested that traffic flow would
probably follow the same course whether the develo t was clustered or single dwellings.
The developer was asked . f he would consider dedi ting a 30 foot strip along Radisson
Inn Road to alleviate t ffic problems. He-respo ed that it might be considered.
The Planning Conmission suggested that the develo r consider the possibilities of low-
ering the density of t proposal anywhere from si to ten tmits. 'The developer had not
looked into ibat this ime. The Conmission agree that the clustering concept was ac-
ceptable but the higher !density was a concern. y also felt they needed more infor-
mation as to the area water supply and depth of we ls, possibly involving a study. mre
detailed plans on draincige and utilities would be rt of the next stage.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES
- 5-
MAY 4, 1982
. PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED
Bob Shaw made some suggestions as 0 items that might be considered in makit'lg the Pun
contract. He felt that clustering seemed to be the most efficient use of the site given
the topography.
1) A 30 foot dedication be IDa e along Radisson Inn Road.
2) Reduce the nunber of. tmits from 12, to 8 or 9.
3) Stipulate a requirement fo owner occupancy.
4) Request very deep wells.
5) Increase the size and value of the tmits to be consistent with the area.
.
Frank Reese felt the clustering ,concept works to the benefit of a site.with steep slopes
and that the planned tmit approach is a good one given the tmusual geographical features.
Watten moved, Stover seconded, to defer recorrmerldation of the Tingewood Pun proposal tm.,...
til the Jtme 1, 1982 meeting of the Planning Conmission allowing time to conSider quest-
ions raised during the hearing in regards to water supply, drainage, and. road widths.
The rootion carried tmanimously.
Chairperson Stover noted that additional written corrments would be accepted through
Jtme 1 st when the Cormnission would take action on the issue.
The Cormnission suggested that the developer might ~onsider the points brought up in the
hearing for discussion or clarifieation at the next meeting. They would not. require
additional plans at this stage and they discourage~ the developer from bringing in an
entirely new proposal. Planner Nielsen suggested there was room in~the Pun proCess for
some negotiation between the Planning Conmission atJd the developer.
DISCUSSION OF FUI'URE STUDY SESSIONS
Bob Gagne reported a request by Charles Crepeau for annexation to Excelsior. Thisre-
quest was partially due to the way his property is zoned. The issue of a light indus;;';'
trial (manufacturing) zone might be addressed by the Planning Conmission.
Funding for the Planner's attendance at stUdy sessions. had not been finalized yet.
Chairperson Stover related that the Cotmcil ~uggested adding a Certificate of Occupancy
to the Zoning Ordinance i~vol ving a final injpection by the Building Inspector.
I I
ADJOURNMENT I I
Reese moved, Leslie seconq.ed, to adjourn. 'Tljie motion carried tmanimously.
The meeting was adjourned lat approximately 1~:10 P.M.
I
.
Respectfully submitted,
1(~ 1AJMk
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORENlOOD
PlANNING OOMMISSION STUDY SESSION
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Stover called the May 18th Study Session to order at 7: 45 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Janet Leslie, Richard Spellamn, Kristi Stover, Bruce Benson, Frank
Reese, Council Liaison Bob Gagne, Assistant Kathy West
Late: Bob Shaw arrived at 8:13 P.M.
Absent: Vern Watten - conflicting business schedule.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUI'ES - DATED MAY 4, 1982
Benson requested clarification on the date of the letter referred to on page 4
of the minutes.
Leslie moved, Reese seconded, to approve the mi.nutes of the May 4, 1982 Planning
Conmission meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
MATI'ERS .FRCl1 THE F1.OOR
It was noted that the Tinge'WOod P. U.D. proposal 'WOuld be on the June 1, 1982 Agenda.
Council Liaison Gagne mentioned a letter received from the Department of Natural
Resources regarding access to Christmas Lake .
CONI'INUEB STUDY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Planning Conmission began discussion of the Ordinance on Page I-52.. Home
Occupation with a review of the changes made in the :Burpose section at .the last
Study Session. It was suggested that the primary purpose is to protect residential
neighborhoods as stated in the first sentence of the Purpose paragraph. Secondarily,
it is to prevent canpetition with conmercial districts so .as not to provide 'an 1..U1fair
tax advantage through home occupations. Third, it isto p:oovi.de a distinction between
the t'WO types of home occupations - the Permitted and the Special Use.
Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to direct the f>,lanner to rewrite the Purpose section
of Home Occupations addressing the residential district/home occupation's canpetition
with the conmerciall business district.
The motion carried Unanimously.
Reese further moved, Stover seconded, to modi~ a motion from the April 20, 1982
meeting so tqat the second sentence of Paragraph a. Purpose (Page I-52) reads as
follows: "TIiis subdivision is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the dis-
tinction bet~en pennitted nome 6ccupations and special home occupations, so that..."
The motion carried.... . ,ayes : Stover, Benson, Reese. Leslie
nays: Spellman, Shaw
Paragraph b. ,Application.
After discus$ion regarding the reference to farming, Spellman moved, Benson seconded
to delete,'tll~ last sentence of Subd. 12 Section b. (Page I - 52) - "This subdivision
shall not be iconstrued, however, to apply to home occupat:4ons accessory to farming."
The motion carried- ayes: Stover, Shaw Spellman, Benson
nay: Reese
Abstain: Leslie - felt the motion was urmecessary
PLANNING CU+tISSION STUDY SESSION MINUI'ES - PAGE 2
MAY 18, 1982
. CONTINUED STtJt)y OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Section c. Prpcedures and Permits (Pages 1- 52 through I - 54) was okayed by the
Plarming Ccmn:ission.
Section d. Requirements - General Provisions.
Paragraph (e) i-Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to add "current};y licensed" between
"except" and 1 'personal automobiles... ".
The motion carried unanimously.
Paragraph (i) - Leslie moved, Stover seconded, to change the hours to Q:OO P.M...:and
7:00 A.M.
The motion canied tmanimously.
(2) Requirements - Permitted Home Occupations
Paragraph (c)!
Reese moved, Stover seconded, Shaw BIIe'ided, to change paragraph (c) to read as fol-
lows: '"'Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess of
that which is! permitted in accordance with Subd. 5 Off':"Street Parking Requirements
of the General ProVisions.
The root ion ca;rried unanimously.
After further discussion, Shaw moved, Reese seconded, to s.trike paragraph (c) as
amended and have the Planner. rewrite the section.
The motion ca;rried unanimously.
The Planning !Comnission agreed that parking accessory to home occupations should
meet the requirements for off-street parking in Subd. 5. In addition, permitted
home occupations should not create a parking demand in excess of that which can be
accommodated in an. existing driveway.
.
(3) Requirements - Special Home Occupations
Paragraph (a)
Reese moved, Stover sec~ed, to direct the Plarmer to rewrite paragraph (a).
It was noted ithat a ref~rence to one additional employee who does not reside on the
premises shoUld be incotporated.
The motion carried unanimously.
Paragraph (d)
After discus~ion, Spel~n moved, Reese seconded, to have the Plarmer rewrite
paragraph (d) under section (3). Requirements - Special Home Occupations so that it
matches paragraph (c) upder section (2) Requirements - Permitted ~ Occupations.
The motion cqrro ed unanj.motiSly.
Paragraph e.. confo~ng Use.. . .
Reese moved, is llman seconded, to add "within one year from the date of enactment"
after the seco s.enten~e of paragraph e.
The motion carr ed unanimously.
SECTION 200.07 AIl1INIS'1I'RATION L CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
.
The Plarming'
occupancy as ire
o ssion agreed to review the proposed section on certificates of
sted by the City Council. i
.
.
.
PLANNING CCMb:s ION STUDY SESSION MINUTES - PAGE 3
MAY 18, 1982
i
i
, Spellmanmove41, Reese seconded, to delete from Sulxil. 1 "Except
for farm buildi s," and start the paragraph with "No building...".
The rootion ca . ed unanimously.
Stover rooved,' ese seconded, to recoomend that the City Council ame1f1d the current
Zoning Ordinanc to include Sections 200.07 and 200.08 relating to (1$rtificates of
Occupancy as '.sedbythe Planning Comnission, and further, that this amendment
be put into eiff ct upon approval.
The motion ca . ed unanimously. .
Chairperson Sto er noted a traffic problem on Garden Road and West yme.
REPORTS
Council Liaison Gagne reported that the Council heard Jim Miller' s r~quest to
divide his pr'o rty; okayed the Resolution denying the IX! proposal; i received
a Cable 'IV r~po ; approved the Freeman Park concept stage proposal presented
by the Park . ssion;and noted the upcoming Board of Review.
AnJOURNMENr
Shaw moved, Spe lman seconded, to adjourn. The rootion carried una.n.iIioously and
the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 P.M.
w
Kathleen West, latu1ing Assistant
.
.
.
CIIT OF SH
REGULAR PlANNI CCM-1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1 982
I
I
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755COUNIRY cLUB' ROAD
7:30 P.M.
'MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stover called the Jme 1, 1982 Planning Carmission meeting ~o order at
7:41 P.M.
ROLL. CALL
Present:
1
. Jane Leslie, Kristi Stover, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Comcil
Liai on Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, and Assistant Kathy West
Vern Watten arrived at 7:43
Ric rd Spellman arrived at 7: 52
Bob warrived at 8:08
Late:
It was noted t t the current Zoning Ordinance #77 contain a section on Certifi-
cates of Occupa cy. It ~as !agreed that the Planning Coomission's. review and sub-
sequent motion s noted in the May 18th . nutes does not require any action by the
Council.
Reese moved, St ver sec~ed, to approve the Minutes of the May 18, 1982 Planning
Coomission Stud Sessionias written.
The rootion carr. ed manimously.
TINGE.WOOD P.U.D. PROPOSAL;... CONTINUATION FRCM MAY 4J', 1982
Chainnari Stover distribu~ed copies' of a petition s!i-gned by Christmas Lake area
residents and'P esented at the May 4th lic Hearipg.
Adrian Johnson, applicant, stated that h was asking for concept stage approval
of the proposal with no changes incorpor ted.
The Planning . ssion reviewed some ar as of coooern from the Public Hearing.
They agreed tha drainage plans should carefully addressed at the next level,
the P.U.D. deve opnent stage. 'AiLso disc sed were traffic related concerns such
as safety facto s on Radisson Inn Road; possible land dedication along Radisson
Inn Road;. the ture of the private road into the proposed developnent.
The Planning C ission raised question e ,the City water policy.. It was. noted
that at this t. e no pol:f..cy changes had en made apd the requirement. for a .well
for any develo nt greater than 10 mit is still in effect.
ChairPerson Sto er asked! the deve~oper t clarify a! c~t in the May 4th Minutes
regarding lake ccess. Mark Koegler (Sc II and Madso~) stated that prior to the
last meeting th y were ~ware of any pr. vate access ~" did not plan for lake ac-e
cess for the Owners I Association at his time. . U~e pf the .lake would be.ttmoilgh
a suitable pubL. c access' if one were p . ded by the Cit~ or the D.N.R.
The Planning . ssion ~oted density as the major prqbl~ with the proposal. It
was agreed that clustereQ housing is mor appropriate igi~en the geography of the
area than,singl detached dwellings. It was also not~d that the density of the
neighboring lot equals about J. 5 per ac e. The prpI>qsal at 9 total tmits would
be about thats density. The develo r stated that tpe project would not be
economically fe sible if! the nunber of its..went f'ronjI 112 to below 9. This would
raise the sale ice per'mit from $65, - $75,000 #0 ~1oo,OOO.
The public sect' on of is ,agenda itr was closed.
.
,
.
JUNE 1, 1 982
- 2 -
The Planning 0 ssion discussed the procedure for, rnc1Jdng a reconmendation to the
City Council. ey debated whethercto accept or deny ithe' entire proposal, or to
suggest appro a Idenialwith qualifications. ! I i
Shaw moved, s ie sec~ed, to recomnend approval of jthe proposed P.U.D. plan as
presented.
The motion fao1 d to carry,:,in a roll call vote:
aye: Watten ! , I
nay: Leslie, Spellman, Stover, Shaw, Benson, Reese
Reasons for t e negative vote were wade and voted ~ individually in the form of
motions as follows: !
1) The density (1 units) is too high for tn,e Eixisting roads - specifically
Radisson Inn R.9ad, and the R-1 residentieJil 4~racter of the neighborhood.
,
Moved by Stover, seconded by Spellman. j
Motion carried: ayes: Stover, Spellman, ~w, Benson
nays: Leslie, Reese, Watten
2) The unsafe road conditions currentiy exisiting iin the area would tend to be
increased by the addition of 12 \mits as propqsed.
Moved by Leslie, seoonded by Benson. .
~tion carried: ayes: Benson, Shaw,Stover,Les1~e
nays: Reese, Spellman, Watyen
Upon further discussion" Spellman moved, Reese secqnded" that the Planning Coomis-
sion reccmnends that the I City Council approve the 'Dingewood P.U.D. proposal subject
to densttyi::no greater t~ nine total units.
The motion carried unalhi(nous1y. .
Stover moved, Reese secohded and amended, and Shaw amended , that the P1aming C0m-
mission further reconmends to the City Council to include ~he following items in
the P.U.D.:'Deve10{ll1ent Agreement if approved: · "
. I
- a drainage plan subject to the City Engineer's iapprova1
- a requirement that the private road be upgraded to City Standards by the
deve10per/owner~ if said road is ever to be ~ over by the City
- that the privat~ road be completely on the1 P.U.p. plat
- that a thirty foot dedication be made a10rig Radisson Inn Road
- that no accessory vehicles, such as recreational. vehicles or boats, be
stored outside on.the site. .
- a requirement for a deep carmon well
In addition,
- the Planning Coomission encourages and stJj'ongly recomnends that a require-
ment for owner occupancy be included in t+heDeve10pnent Agreement, st.1lr-
jec to the City Attorney's opinion
that the City water policy be looked ,into
The amended tion carried unaimous1y.
.
.
.
PIANNING C(M{[SSION MINUTES
- 3 -
JUNE 1, 1 982
TINGEWOOD PROPOSAL - CONTI
The Planning Coomission reque ted that the final t~ reoomnendations for approval
be sent to the City Council f r a Public Hearing to be scheduled ~t the next pos-
sible meeting.
DEIKEL PROPERlY DIVISION
, to table this item until I the next ~gular Planning
for Deikel can ,be presenq.
Leslie moved, Stover second
Coomission meeting when a re
The motion carried unanimousl .
CREAPEAU PROPERlY ZONING
Planner Brad Nielsen present
Charles Crepeau, Crepeau Ibc
attorney, Jom Lee, had made
Excelsior.to allow the conti
pans ion of the operation.
In his report Nielsen outli
issue:
a report and gave the background infonnation regarding
, at 23443-5 Smithtown Roqd. He no4ed that Crepeau's
request for detacbment/atinexation ~ran Shorewood to
tion of his business and lpermit improvement and ex-
four options the City could f()llow I to resolve' ,the
1) 'I1ake no action.
2) Vary or amend th Zoning Ordinance to allow,expansionjof the non-
cpnforming use. 'i
3) i Approve the deta nt/annexation request. i
4a) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufacturing in tf:he R-5 district.
b) Rezone the prope y to an existing conmercial district;:, then amend to
include fabricat 0 on/manufacturing., i I
c) Create a newzono district allowing manufacturing a$ a permitted or
conditional use. .
The Planner reconmended that the City create a new zoning district and any concerns
or limitations be incorporate into the ordinanc. Nielsen cautioned that all
possible effects of the acti~must be considered. Dis~ussion of I the situation
also involved the zooing of he neighboring prope tes., It wCJ!s n<ptedthat there
is sane question as to the 1 gality of the R-C zo for i the ShbreWood Nursery.
It was suggested that Crepea 's use of the labd s ould fue studiedi and if determined
acceptable sane way of givi him legaL stat~ s uld 00 addrelsse<)l.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to put the Cre~au Ong I issue Pn the next Study
Session agenda. .
The motion carried: ayes: Les'lie, Shaw, Spellm,an, Benson
nay:
REPORTS
City Council- Bob Gagne re rted from the May 24 hCoUIflcil ~tim.g that Liquor
Licenses had been approved and the Councili gra ted a i 90 day[ petmitto Jim
Latterner for use of a mob e home (tr{ivel trail r) on! his prpperty.
PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUl'ES
JUNE ~, 1 982
. REfOR'I'S.. - CONTINUED
Park Conmission - Staff reported that th,e City Council had appoint~ Launisse
Cousins and Marty Jakel to fill the Cqrrmission seats vacated 'by~.G6elttelman
and Bob Nyga4rd. Also noted was a request for the Planning Carmission to con-
sider the st~tus and develop:nent cf Eqreka Road as a collect(j)r street in con-
junction with the Eexpansion of Freemar} Park.
Planner Nielsen introduced Anne Bronken :of Northwest Associated Consultants as the
planner who had been working with the Pqrk Corrmission on Freeman Park.
AnJOURNMENI'
Shaw moved, S~llman, seconded, to close the eting. The motiqnearried unanimously
and the meeting was a.djourned at 10:09 *.M.
Respectfully ~ubmitted,
.
'7{~r/~
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
,
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUL~~ PLANNING COMr1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
M I HiD T E S
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stover called the Planning Co~ission meeting to order at 8:28 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Richard Spellman Kristi Stov~r Bob Shaw, Frank Reese
, , ,
,
Absent: Janet Leslie, Vern Watten, Br~ce Benson
Also Present: Council Liaison Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant West
(Due to the late start, the Agenda was rearranged)
.
DEIKEL PROPERTY DIVISION REQUEST
John Giblin, an attorney with Smith, Juster, Feikema, Malmom and Haskvitz Law Firm
was present to represent t1r. Deikel. Deikel's request was to divide his property
located at 27960 Smithtown Road into two lots, A and B. The Planning Commission
reviewed the planner's report on the division. Mr. Giblin asked that the Connnis-
sion consider reducing the lakeshore footage in Parcel B to at least 100 feet.
planner Nielsen expressed concern over what effect the reduced size would have on
the lot width at building lines in the future and recommended against it. He sug-
gested that sketches be presented of any new requests to allow measurement of the
building lines. He also noted that the square footage in proposed lot 2 of Parcel
B would probably be reduced, perhaps below 40,000 square feet. The Planning Com-
mission agreed with the Plann~r's report and the additional recommendation.
.
Reese moved Spellman seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of the
, ,
Deikel lot division request (as originally presented) based on the specific recom-
mendation~ outlined in the Planner's report:
1. The previously approved plat for the Bay Park Addition should be considered
a resubdivision sketch and recorded with the lot division. It will then be
used as a guide for any future resubdivision.
2. Any future resubdivision of the southerly parcel will be done as a formal
plat.
3. The southerly parcel should not be divided until the private road has been
dedicated and improved. It should be noted that the road should be extended
as shown on the previous plat.
4. Drainage and utility easements should be provided along the borders of the
northerly parcel.
The recommended conditions should be specifically stated and recoreed with the
County so that any future owners are aware of them. The request and this report
should be subject to review and comment by the City Attorney and City Engineer.
.
.
.
REGULAR PL&~NING COllliISSION MEETING - 2
JULY 6, 1982
DElKEL PROPERTY DIVISION REQUEST - CONTINUED
The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
APPROVAL OF THE NINUTES
Reese moved, Stover seconded, to approve the minutes dated Tuesday, June 1, 1982
as written. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
REPORTS
City Council: Bob Gagne reported that the Tingewood P.U.D. proposal came before
the Council at their June 28th meeting. A vote will be taken at the July 12, 1982
meeting. The Council heard a request by the American Legion for a gambling ordinance
in Shorewood. Negotiations on the Police Contract were in progress. Gagne noted
that the Council was concerned about poor attendance by Commission members at the
Planning Commission meetings. Important items for the Commission to work on are
the 11obi~Manufactured Homes Ordinance needed by August 1st, and the proposed
Zoning Ordinance by October 1st.
Mayor Rascop was present and reiterated the need for completion of the Zoning
Ordinance. He also noted that the Council is currently working on an Assessment
Policy and that the Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing on the
issue later in the summer or early fall. He discussed the Police contract negoti-
ations and noted meetings with the Auditors over the audit report and financial
statements.
DISCUSSION OF PENDING MOBILE H011E ORDINN~CE
It~tated that a public hearing would be held at the next meeting regarding Mobile/
Manufactured Housing.
The Planning Commission reviewed planners Nielsen's draft of the proposed Ordinance.
He explained that the ordinance amendment creates a 1"10bile Home Park District (R-6)
which is a rezoning. He noted that a city's greatest authority lies in the rezoning
process. The Ordinance as proposed controls or limits the uses - permitted, condi-
tional and accessory; dimensional regulations - height, lot size, yard setbacks,
and structural bulk; design/operational standards for mobile home parks; site plan
requirements; design standards; and the review process.
Nielsen said the Ordinance as drafted refers to mobile homes rather than manufactured
housing because construction ~tandards might overlap with those acceptable in
Shorewood. Commission memb~rs agreed that buiiding code requirements should be
the same as for any permanent structure in the City. It was noted that the
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 11EETING - 3
JULY 6, 1982
.
DISCUSSION OF PENDING MOBILE HO}iE ORDINANCE - CONTINUED
restrictions written into the Ordinance might limit the types of mobile homes but
could not discriminate or prohibit them. Nielsen emphasized that the "R-6" district
could not be made more restrictive than the other districts; they would have to be
amended to include those restrictions.
The Planning Commission suggested the possibilities of requ1r1ng mobile home parks
to be served by municipal water; and that the mobile home parks might be combined
with P.U.D.'s. It was noted that paragraph #9 "General" under Section C "Design
Standards" is a 'catch-all' statement for anything not covered specifically else-
where<. in the Ordinance.
Commission members discussed requiring a minimum size for structures but it was
noted that consistancw between zones was necessary - this is not required in other
zones. The Planning COIDruission agreed that civil defense shelters should be pro-
vided.
.
It was suggested that mobile home units be double-wide or perhaps a minimum of 15
feet in width. Another suggestions was that 50% of the long dimension of the
building should have a minimum of 20 feet in width. The planner noted that this
would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would apply to the primary
structure in all zoning districts. A requirement for garages with all new construc-
tion would also necessitate an amendment to the entire Zoning Ordinance.
Nielsen mentioned that he would be writing definitions to differentiate between
mobile homes and manufactured housing for the Public Hearing on July 20, 1982.
CREPEAU PROPERTY - CURRENT/FUTURE ZONING DISCUSSION
The Planning COlTIffiission continued their discussion from the June 15th meeting re-
garding the detachment/annexation/rezoning request made by Charles Crepeau for his
property at 23445 SmithtownRoad. planner Nielsen continued with the report he had
outlined at that meeting. It was noted that the City Council wanted input from the
planning Cormnission regarding the request.
.
Nielsen was recowmending the creation of a new zoning district which would allow
light manufacturing/assembly as a permitted use accessory to a primary commercial
(retail/sales) operation - a service trade type district. He noted again that the
City has the greatest authority through rezoning. The intent of the new zoning
district is to recognize the use of the property as it currently exists.
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION HEETING - 4
JULY 6, 1982
.
CREPEAU PROPERTY - CURRENT/FUTURE ZONING DISCUSSION - CONTINUED
Reese moved Stover seconded to recommend that the City Council instruct the City
, ,
planner to draft a narrow scope ordinance creating a zoning district in which retail
sales is the primary use with conditional uses that might include light assembly
incidental to the retail sales use.
The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
ADJOURl\fHENT
Shaw moved, Reese seconded, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned at 10:16 P.H.
.
Respectfully submitted,
I<.~-W~
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stover called the Planning Conunission meeting to order at 8:20 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Richard Spellman, Kristi Stover, BobiShaw, Vern Watten.
Absent: Frank Reese: conflicting business schedule
Bruce Benson
Janet Leslie: excused
Also Present: Council Liaison Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant West.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Shaw moved, Spellman seconded, to approve the minutes of the July 6, 1982 ~eeting
as written. The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
PUBLIC HEARING: PENDING MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE
Chairman Stover read the legal notice of the Public Hearing as published on
July 7, 1982 in the Sun Newspaper.
City Planner Brad Nielsen gave background information on the proposed ordinance
amendment explaining that new State Legislation has disallowed the prohibition of
mobile homes through municipal zoning. He noted that in drafting the proposed
amendment he used suggestions from the League of Minnesota Cities (;l.Ild he contacted
other cities to compare their handling of the legislation.
Nielsen noted that the proposed ordinance amendment addresses and provides for
mobile homes within the City, setting up relatively stringent standards. The amend-
ment creates a Mobile Home Park District, R-6, (minimum 10 acres) which meets the
Statutory requirements. To develop a mobile home park requires a rezoning of property
by the City and that the developer go through the conditional use process. Permitted
uses are single family detached dwellings, and public or quasi-public parks and play-
grounds. Specific standards for the Mobile Home Park District were based upon those
for single family dwellings requiring 10,000 square feet per lot, other lot specifi-
cations, yard setback requirements, and building height limits as in the R-5 district.
The ordinance amendment also requires compliance with the Shorewood Subdivision Ordi-
nance ~ a conununity building with laundry/toilet facilities which is adequate as a
civil defense type shelter.
Design standards are set up for the Mobile Home Park District. The Planning Commission
suggested that the square footage requirements be noted as excluding wetlands, and it
be stated that the overalL density shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment has site plan and home owner association requirements. Also noted were
requirements for parking, utilitj:es, landscaping, storage and maintenance, etc.
Nielsen presented the amendment ~l!ldefinition for a mobile home emphasizing that a
mobile home is readily movable as manufactured. The amendment requires that this
mobile unit be anchored to a pennanent foundation if placed in Shorewood.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 2 -
JULY 20, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING CONl'INUED
Nielsen noted that setbacks from the "R" District boundary had been dropped from the
original draft, along with structural bulk requirements. Subd. 6 (Design...Standards)
paragraph A.5 contained additional statements regarding the community building - "of
concrete or masonry construction" and shelter for "all" residents. c.6 f. - "All
mobile homes shall be connected to a public or central water system. If was added as per
Planning Commission request from the first reading. There was:added discussion, oyer
the requirement for a "public" versus a "central fI water system.
Bob Reutiman, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, asked if there were any areas in Shorewood planned
for a mobile home park. Nielsen responded that it would be up to a developer to apply
for a rezoning. A discussion of available property followed. '
Carol Chapman, 27280 Edgewood Road, noted that if a mobile home park develops in Shore-
wood, she felt maintenance rules would be very important. In regards to the community
shel ter, she suggested that the wording be more specific than "severe weather" and
refer to tornados. It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance allows mobile homes in the
City on a temporary basis for emergency situations. Also noted was that mobile home
park lots must be divided for individual ownership.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M.
The Planning Commission continued discussion over the ordinance amendment. The
"public" or "central" water system was deba;ted further. It;was noted that the City
has a stonn water p~a.n',and that the City Engineer should review any drainage/runoff'
plans for a mobile home park.
Nielsen further clarified the definition of "mobile home" noting that manufactured or
prefab housing was not addressed because of possible similarities or overlap with
existing construction in Shorewood. He noted that the definition was based upon the
Statute 's wording. It was again stated that a mobile home isdesigned as a movable
uni t with running gear. The Shorewood ordinance amendment requires that this mobile
unit be fixed to a pennanent foundation.
Nielsen also noted that this ordinance limits the use of mobile homes to residential,
and only in certain areas. It was added that generally to be used on commerciaLprop-
erty a mobile home would have to meet commercial building codes.
Shaw moved, Stover seconded, to recommend that the City Council adopt as an amendment
to Ordinance #77, the proposed Section 22C "R-6" Mobile Home Park District as amended
by the Planner's 20'July 1982 memo; plus a statement requiring a minimum of ten acres
excluding wetlands; plus a statement that the density be in compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The motion carried unanimously (4-0).
The public hearing was closed at 9:17 P.M.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Staff noted items that will be coming before the Planning Conunission: the special
assessment policy; Crepea1il: rezoning; subdivisions requiring public hearings; a
petition to change Country Club Road, Lake Linden Drive and Wood Drive to one way
streets; changes in the Park Dedication Fees in the ordinances; and the Miller/Shore-
wood Forest subdivision request.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- 3 -
JULY 20, 1982
REPORTS
Council: Bob Gagne reported that the Council had a reading of t:tle proposed gambling
ordinance; is considering a rental license to identify, license and regulate rental
units in the City; gave concept approval of the Tingewood PUD proposal at a total of
nine units; and discussed. the Police contract.
FURTHER MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
The Planning Commission discussed poor attendance and late meeting starts during the
summer months. Chainnan Stover requested that Janet Leslie be granted a leave of
absence through August due to special schedule conflicts. The Commission agreed to
the request and it was noted that Commission members should make a special attempt to
attend all meetings and arrive promptly at 7:30.
Discussion of attendance also included the policy of three unexcused absences as a
basis for removal from the Commission. It was noted that the policy had been in effect
when meetings were monthly. The Planning Commission suggested that allowable absences
be changed to 25% of the meetings per year (6 meetings).
ADJOURNMENT
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned at 9:46 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~~VVM6-
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR. PlANNING CXM1ISSION MEEl'ING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY. CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.M I NUTKS
CAlL TO ORDER
(,1lairman Stover called the meeting to order at
ROLLCAlL
Present:
Absent:
7: 51 P.M.
Stover, Shaw, Watten, add Spellman
Benson - excused
Reese - excused (Business)
Leslie - excused
Also Present: cptmcil Liaison Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant West
APPROVAL.OF.MlNUtrEs
Spellman moved, Stover seconded, to approve the minutes of the July 20, 1982 Planning
Corrmission meetipg as written. The motion carried unanimously.
SUBDIVISION REQl$ST ,... SHOREWOOD FOREST
Planner Nielsen hoted that John and Jim Miller wished their sulxlivision request to be
tabled tmtil a la.ter date.
CREPEAU PROPER'lY! REZONING
The Planning ConInission stUdied the first draft of the "c,...4", Corrmercial Service
District amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendment was prepared by
Planner Nielsen at the request of the City. The Conmercial Service District would
give the Crepeau property at 23445 Smithtown Road confonning Zoning status. Nielsen
noted that a Canprehensi ve Plan amendment would be p1:!'esented at the next meeting to
accompany the Ordinance amendment. !
The Planning Corrmission discussed and questioned secthons of the proposed amendment.
It was noted that the listed "pennitted uses" were ~es that tend not to generate
their own traffic but make use of the existing traffilc. These pennitted uses also
would not compet~ with other conmercial districts in the area.
The Corrmission noted concerns over possible outdoor storage and that the requirements
for screening and landscaping be emphasized. 'Theumaxirnum impervious surface to area
ratio was questiOned.
It was suggested that that the amendment should keepconmercial low key; that COII6
mercial uses should not be encouraged to spread along Cotmty Road 19. It was noted
that uses might be limited to lake-related businesses.
Ingress/egress from the area in question (Crepeau property, Garden Patch, Shorewood
Nursery) were seen as problems..."Conselidation of access points was suggested, perhaps
as part of the conditional use pennit. The drainage in the area was also noted as a
problem and that a site plan review would be appropriate.
Outdoor display of irrlventory or storage were seen as possibly potential problems.
The following changes / comnents were made to the amendment:
Su1xl. 2Pennitted Uses
Delete: A. Bakery goods...
C. Convenience grocery
D. Dry cleaning establishments
Replaced with agreed upon list of Pennitted Uses:
A. Canvas produets sales and repairs
B. Enclosed marine supply sales ("boat and..." deleted)
C. sery
D. ruit and vegetable stand (perishable food proch.1cts)
PlANNING ca+1ISSION
- 2 -
AUGUST 3, 1982
.
fRElPEAU PROPERTY NING -. CONTINUED
Subd. 3 Conditi . 1 Pei:mitted Uses
The Planning " ssion agreed that Section A.. . AutOmObile repai:r~ .. should
deleted.
d be changed to read "Open and outdoor starage as. an accesso
". . .as a principal or...".
Section B.. 4. hould read "A landscape plan is provide subject to approval
the City COl.ID.c" 1."
Section C. sh d read "Open or outdoor saie..and display as an accessory use
provided that:' deleting "service", "rental", and "a principal or".
Section C. 2. should read as corrected Section B. 4., "A landscape plan...".
Watten moved, Spellman seconded, to delete SectibnE. (Building trade contrac
tor's shop...) in its entirety. The motion carried + Ayes: Watten, Spel1ma ,
and Stover; Nay~ Shaw.
Subd. 5 Dimensional Regulations
A. Building height maximum - changes:
.
1 . Allowable stories 1
2. Principal structure (in feet) 1"s
Nielsen noted that the chahges would be incorporated into a second draft for revie
at the next study session, along with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. A public
hearing on both amen.clplents will probably be held by the Planning Corrmission of Sept
ember 7th.
PlANNING C<:M1ISSION B!YLAWS - DISCUSSION
Copies of ''model'' bylaws were distributed to the Corrmission and discussion was
tabled l.ID.til a later ~eting.
REPORTS
City Col.ID.cil: Bob Gagne reported that at the July 26th meeting the Col.ID.cil granted a
limited plumbing permit to Larry Wilson for his accessory structure on Woodside Road;
Joe Gorecki requestedj that he be allowed to pbase/stage development of Oak Ridge
Estates; held the sepond reading of the proposed Gambling Ordinance; received the
III (InfiltrationlInfrLow) stilly fonn the Engineer; passed the Mobile Home Park District
amendment to the Zonit'1g Ordinance; discussed a resident petition to change traffic
patterns on Col.ID.try Ciub Road, Lake Linden Drive, and Tee Trail/Wood Drive; and
continued discussion of Vine Street/Lake Hooper Road closing.
Park: Staff noted tl$t the Park Carmission was studying signage for City Parks; ice
rink management; and the agreements with athletic associations.
ADJOURNMENT
Watten moved, Stover ~econded, to adjourn.
meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M.
The motion carried tmanimously and the
.
Respectfully subnitted,
-K~~
~thleen West, Planning Assistant
.
'.
.
CITY OF SHOR.EWK)()D
PlANNING COM:1ISSION STUDY SESSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB Rcw)
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO. ORDER
Chainnan Stover called the meetipg to order at 7:52 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Richard Spellman, and Kristi Stover.
Absent: Vem Watten - Business Conflict
Janet Leslie - Excused'
Also Present: Council Liaison Bob Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant Kathy West.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Spellman moved, Stover seconded, approval of the Minutes franthe Planning Corrmission
meeting of August 3, 1982.
The motion carried tmanimously.
MATTERS FRCl1 'lliEFLOOR
There were no matters brought up ifrom the floor at this time.
"C-4", CCM1ERCIAL SERVICE DISTRICT :,.. CONTINUED DISCUSSION
The Planning Corrmission studied Planner Nielsen's second draft of the proposed amend-
ment to the Zoning Ordinance, the "C-4" District.
The Conmission noted that tmder Subd. 3 - Conditional Pennitted Uses, D. - Lake dredging
operation, 2. the text should read "... be in compliance with A of this Subdivision."
It was noted that the currently existing lake dredging operation might not ltIeet the
setback requirements outlined in ,the amendment, possibl~ necessitating a v:ariance.
Reese moved, Benson seconded, to ,recarmend that the second draft of the "C-4",Coomercial
Service District amendment with corrections be the final format to be presented at the
Public Hearing on September 7, 1982.
The motion carr:.i:ed tmanimously.
Planner Nielsen presented the firist draft of an amendment to Comprehensive Plan Report
#4 (September 1981) Policy PlanLqevelopnent Framework.
Page 78.
The Planning Corrmission discussed the section relating to industrial type uses. Term-
inology in the text was subject. :t:o~_debate.:iand t Carntission felt that "industrial"
was not appropriate to describe the existing use in the area. The definitions of
industrial/manufacturing/fabrication were discus ed. The Planner was asked to rewrite
the section, replacing the tenn ihdustria1.
It was noted that the area in question (Smithtown Road/Cotmty Road 19 near the Excelsior
border) must be recognized as different from reta'l corrmercial. The primary use is
service carmercial, with fabrication or assembly s an accessory use. Previous reference
in the Comprehensive Plan to the lake dredging co pany will be deleted and it will be
considered to be an appropriate use in the area. Nielsen noted that the City is study-
ing ways to recognize pre-existing uses while at the same time limiting future conmercial
service activities.
PIANNING COM<1ISSION STUDY SESSION
- 2 -
AUGUST 17, 1982
.
CONTINUED
Page 81.
Nielsen explained that creating and establishing a Corrmercial Service District in the
area 'tIK>uld not be considered spot zoning. He noted that this area <is regarded as an
extension of the corrmercial zone at the Excelsior border. It was agreed that the area
is unique and current uses are activities which relate to enjoyment of the lake.
It was suggested that the second sentence be changed to read: "A fourth district may,
however, be created to recognize i pre~sting uses which provide lake oriented services."
deleting "with an industrial natUre."
.
Page 117.
After discussion of the section, it was suggested that the following changes be made:
Paragraph 1 of the amendment -
"Also located in the northeast corner of the District are t'tlK> nonconfonning uses.
which could ee-eOt1Gidc~ooU5trilll i:a naan-e. A lake dredging companyoperatei:.
under a special pennit...farid a dock sales and fabrication operation is located..."
Paragraph 3
'.'. . Several factors tend to suggest that the corrmercial .fH:leUGtrilll service activi-
ties now existing as nonconfonning uses may be acceptable for the area: 1) neither
the dredging company nor the dock ffiflftif"'lleturing sales' and fabrication business..."
Paragraph 4
"An additional corrmercial district has been proposed which would allow corrmercial
service activities which may ~~ialcharactcr involve limited assembly/
fabrication as an accesso to on-site retail sales."
". . . The corrmercial . 1 seMce activity..."
Paragraph 5
". . . County Road 19. is already felt to be l:eaaeEI utilized beyond. its capacity."
" .. . Secondly, . . . corrmercial I induGtr~ seFvice, the area..."
In addition, it was noted that the Zoning map on page 75 of the Comprehensive Plan
'tIK>uld be updated.
The Planning Conmission agreed that the changes should be incorporated in the amendment
for the Public Hearing on September 7th.
Reese was excused at 8:52 P.M.
.
CONTINUED STIIDY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Subd. 13. Flood Plain Develo}:lnent
No changes were noted for this Subdivision.
Sulxl. 14. Re ations A licable to Lake' Shoreline Pro . rt
It was noted that the text was taken from existi Ordinance #77. Comparisons were
made with Section 200.24 "S", Shoreiland District f the proposed ordinance.
It was agreed that the foIl wing changes should made:
- a. "NostnlCture of any kind shall be bui t within fiftY ~50) sevent~';"five (75)
feet.. .mininun d stance maybe reduced to tfti:rty fblC 05) fifty (50) feet."
- e. "No dock or whar , .. .within H:>ve~j. tWenty (20) feet of the side lot line. .'.'
It was noted that the ordi ce should be consistant with I.MCD requirements.
.
PIANNING ca+1ISSION STIJDY S SION
AUGUST 1 7, 1 982
-3-
CONTINUED STUDY OF! THE ZONING ORDINANCE
Subd. 15. Wetlandi Developnent
No changes were noted for this subdivision.
Subd. 16. Subdivision of TWo Famil or qramini li>ts
No changes were nofed for this subdivision.
Sulxh. 17. . Plan Renew
No changes were noted for this subdivision..
The Planning Coomission noted that review of the fi st section of the proposed zoning
ordinance was completed. It was agreed that one a itional study session 'tIK>uld be
used to evaluate cprreutions before sending .it on t the CounciL.
. REPORTS
Park CoomiSSiOf
Staff reported tha the Park Conmission had been requested to study policies regarding
advertising signs ,'n City parks. It was noted that the current and proposed Zoning
Ordinances disallo~ pre-existing signs in Freeman rk. The Park Conmission requested
that an addition be made to the sign section of the proposed zoning ordinance allowing the
J3ark Coomission to: recorrmend suitable advertising signage in City parks subject to all
other provisions o~ the Zoning Ordinance and appro 1 by the City Council.
The Plaming Coomi sion reconmended that the Park . ssion send their request to the
City Council for r view.wheh. the propesed 0 inance is passed along. .
. City Council
Council Liaison Bo Gagne reported from the August 9, 1982 meeting that the trial date
for the City VS R Johnson case has been moved to tober 28~ 1982 due to a scheduling
error; the Counci approved the Deikel subdi visio request; Minnetonka State Bank
asked for approval of a desing rearrangement for t 'ir drive-in facility at the Shore-
'tIK>Od Shopping Cent r; Near Mountain developers ap oached the Council regarding asses-
sment policies; c tinued the discussion of the -way street request for Country
Club Road; passed an Exhibition Driving Ordinance; approved pay vouchers for the
Badger Field pumph e; approved seal coating for some City Streets; continued the
discussion of prob em geese on Timber lane; and re . ewedsignage and traffic problems
in the Shore'tlK>Od pping Center parking lot.
.
from the floor.
AnJOURNMENf
Benson moved, Shaw seconded, adjournnent. The moti carried unanimously and the
meeting was adjo ed a 10:05 P.M.
Respectfully sutmi ted,
J(~
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETIl\.G
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
.MINUTES
CAlL. 10. ORDER
Chainnan Stover called: the September 7, 1982 meeting of the Planning Coomission to
order at 7: 36 P.M.
ROLL CAlL
Present: Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, Janet Leslie, Richard Spellman,
Kristi Stover
Absent: Vern Watten (business conflict)
Also Present: Council Liaison Gagne, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant West
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Spellman moved, Reese seconded, approval of the Planning Ccmnission minutes dated
August 17, 1982 as written.
motion carried unanimously.
re were no matters from the floor at this time.
LIC HEARING.,... SUBDIVISION APPLI,cATI0N :,..., LARRY BADER
public hearing was called to order at 7:47 P.M. Chainnan Stover read the legal
n tice as published on august 25, 1982.
rry Bader presented a request to sulxlivide property located at 24035 and 24115
Y, I lows tone Trail, lots 32 and 33 (respectively) of Auditor's Subdivision No. 133.
der distributed a new plat of the Sulxlivision (to be called MarilY'nwood) show-
i eight lots - seven planned as single family residences, one (south lot #7)
"th the use undecided. Bader noted that he was working with the State of Mime-
s ta to obtain deeded access to lot #7 from Highway 7. Access to the rest of the
s lxlivision 'WOUld be via Riviera Lane and a new cul-de-sac to be named Riviera
C"rcle. Access to Lot #1 (northern....,ynostliot) is planned from Yellowstone Trail
wayyof a drive that two other homeowners use.
der noted that the original plat showed nine lots. The ninth lot contained a
n-made pond which Bader intended to fill with dirt from lots 4 and 5. The
C" ty Planner stated that City Ordinance showed this pond as a designated wetland
a that this plan would need research by the City Engineer and Attorney.
der also noted that a neighboring property owner was interested in trading
land on Lake Linden Drive for a section of lot #1.
der asked about the possibility of having lot #7 (the southern....,ynost lot) rezoned
t corrmercial. He was infonned that such action would require a separate appli-
c tion and an additional public hearing before it could be considered.
lic. Corrments: Nancy Turner, 23980 Yellowstone Trail, asked why she bad not
en contacted afuut the public hearing. Staff explained that property owne~s
s listed in 1982 Tax records) within five hundred feet had be sent noticesj.
.
.
.
PlANNING CXM1ISSION MINUTES
- 2 -
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING .,....GONTIINUED ;,... BADER
Turner noted objections to the raffic that the proposed subdivision would add to
Yellowstone Trailand the safety problems resulting from the increase. She also
questioned the intentions behind the Lake Linden Drive/lot #1 land trade.
Gail Jomson, 6180 Riviera Lane, noted opposition to corrmercial develop:nent of
lot #7, stating a preference for residential.
Bader explained that economics favor developing that portion of the property as
coomercial. He noted that he was interested in developnent which would not harm
the existing environment. Given the terrain he felt that the eastern side! of
lot #7 was most buildable.
Nancy Turner stated that she preferred residenti.al develop:nent also.
Paul Swanson, 24460 Yelllowstone Trail, sugge~ted that one plan be developed fbr
the entire area rather than allowing a portion to be sold off and developed in
the future. He added that a traffic plan should also be developed for the! area.
l0rraine Jolmson, 6060 Riviera Lane, expressed concern over possible danger to
area children because.~6f increased traffic. She noted that she preferred ]resi-
dential develop:nent.
. Bob Reutirnan, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, questioned the Planner ~egarding the Compre-
hensive Plan's suggestions I for the area. Nielsen noted that :the southern portion
suggests medium density - 3 to 6 units ~r acre, and 1 to 2 uhits per acre for the
northern section. Reutiman felt that the 'developer 's proposa[l would have less
imp;lct . upon the area than if he waited until the Camp Plan wept into effect, allow-
ing higher density. He also pointed out that Riviera Lane is a dedicated street
and most of the residences on the west side of the road are one half acre lots. He
felt conmercial develop:nent would increase the tax base for the city and that the
area would benefit.
Gene Clapp, 24115 Yellowstone Trail, said he had hoped for a neighborhood meeting.
He felt traffic would not be a big problem with the large lots.
Paul Swanson questioned whether ingress/egress had been considered from Lake Linden.
Drive. Bader noted that it seemed economically less feasible, that he bad not
really looked into it.
Ibn Nielsen, 6030 Riviera Lane, questioned the time frame for the developIlllCtltl. Bader
noted that he would like to de lop the property in two years, begiming inmediately
after approval with lot #1. He estimated selling ,price of $150,000 to $225,000 for
the residences and indica ed t t he would be drilling wells.
Audrey Heinsch, 6100 Rivi ra La e, asked whether access to the southern lot would
ever be via Riviera Lane, alia 'ng through traffic. Bader noted it was not planned,
,that he preferred a~buffe zone.
The public portion of t
closed at 8:44 P.M.
The Planning Commission i;sed questions regarding the proposed land trad~. It was
noted that it might not a buildable lot.
The Planner noted that was hesitant to make a recorrmendation on the ne~ plat
presented at the meeting til he had the opportunity to stuiy it. - Areas bf concern
for the Planning Coomission were Minnehaha Creek Watershed DistrictapproVial and
access to the southern lot. It was noted that drainage problems should be addressed
in the final design. Different zoning for the southern lot should be requested as a
separate,action (with a lpublic hearing) similtaneous to the preliminary plat for
the subdivision.
.
.
.
PlANNING CXM1ISSION MINUTES
- 3 -
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - BADER
The Corrmission felt that most of the lots proposed met the current Zoning Ordinance
standards for the R-1 District.
It was noted that access to the southern lot fran Highway 7 might be more acceptable
at the southeast rather than the southwest corner.
It was suggested that Bader work on a plan for the entire property. He stated
that he would t\Ork with the City Planner, the State for access, consider the
alternatives and come back at a later date.
Reese moved, Spellman seconded, to table the subdivision request until further
action by the developer and continue the hearing at such time.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Corrmission recessed for five minutes at 8:56 P.M.
I
SUBDIVISI N APPLICATION - RICHARD NIGLIO
Jolm Cro h, an attorney fran Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty and Bennett Law Firm repre-
sented Niglio at the meeting. Crouch requested that the property located at
20025 n r Road, lot 16 Auditor's Subd. 141, be divided into two parcels. The
northe rcel would contain the existing residence with about 3.25 acres and the
remaini southern portion would be approximately 5 acres. Crouch noted that the
Planner's report dated 2 September 1982 proposed an acceptable understanding as to
limitat' 0 s on develop:nent of the southerly portion until such time as a develop:rient
;;J.greeme t is proposed and the City approves it. He added that the request at this
time is 0 1 Y to divide the. lot into t-wo portions.
In res n e to Planni Conrnission questions about adjaeent:property in Deephaven,
Crouch 0 ed that he d not spoken with the City of Deephaven regarding future access
or util' t . es to that p operty. He said division of land in Deephaven seemed to caUse
no prob and the s ivisionLin Shorewood did not appear to raise questions or'
issues . h the City 0 Deephaven.
Crouch ed that at t . s time there is no develop:rient plan which ties into the
Deepha n portion of t e property. The divisioniiiShorewood is to enable sale of
the res'd ce in the n rth section apart fran the rest of the land.
Gonce s expressed hat the c nt driveway sits of the southern portion. Crouch
explai d that a poten ialdrivewa was shown on plans for the northern portion.
There s a question a to the fut e of the garage in Deephaven. It was noted that
there i possibly an:a tached gara e with the house making the issue of the detached
garage -. rtant.
Nielpe nbted that he th the City of Deephaven and they had not expressed
concern oyer the subdi . sion reque t. He added that their interests were not the same
as Shorewpod's - Deep yen would not ervice the lots with utilities.
I
Spellman ~ved, Reese econded, to re oomend that the . Council approve the simple sub-
division request subje t to an agre nt v;hich limits further develop:rient until plans
are flPPro}red for all b the remaining property, including the portion in Deephaven.
The motiop carried usly.
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MI
-4-
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
S
TINGEWOODP.U~D~. PROPO-DEVELO~{[STAGE
Developnent stage plan for the Tingewood P.U.D. proposal, Radisson Inn Road,
were presented by Mark Koegler, Schoell and Madson, Inc.
Koegler noted that the new site plan is similar to the concept stage plans.
There are now nine units as suggested by the Planning Corrmission and Council.
Some modifications were made in the cul-de--sac to fit the natural grade, and
to accannodate evergency vehicles. The units are in an attached townhouse con-
figuration. Some architectural changes were noted due to the change from twelve
to nine units, and the expected sales price rose from $75,000 to the $125,000/
$150,000 range. The impact on the site has changed little; about 78% of the
tree cover will be retained. Guest parking is still planned off the cul-de-sac.
. Grading - Koegler noted that. all but two of the units are walk-outs. They are
positioned on the site to utilize the natural slope, causing less site disturb-
ance. The road is planned to leave the tree cover; some fill will be required
and a retaining wall. The slope of the road was noted as being most steep at
the entry to Radisson Inn Road - about 7~ % grade.
Utili ies - Koegler stated that the sewer system will tie into the existing man-
hole n the street (Radisson Inn Road). The water system will be a conmon well
as re "red by the City..... six inches in diameter, twenty gallons per minute. The
well, as proposed, will be located in the center median area with a distribution
or pr ssure tank and four inch lines to the units.
Drai e - Ko~ler noted that the street drainage had been directed to the south
end 0 the cul-de-sac. Roof drainage has also been brought forward to the road.
Catch basins and a stonn water retention area will be used. A benn winding
thro the existing tree cover would fonn the retention area. Koegler s.ta.ted
that he amount:. of water held would not remain long enough to affect the tree
cover, even as a result of heavy rains.
Lands a i-The proposed lanscaping for the developnent was described by
Koegl r as simplistic. He noted that they intended to retain the tree cover
and t t the median area would be undisturbed. Major tree planttngs are planned
aro the units, along with foundation plantings. The home0wners association
will responsible for maintenance:;of the landscaping. Water for plantings will
come romcthe pump building in the center island.
owner hi - Koegler added that the developnent will have nine individual lots
owned by each resident and a carmon lot #10 under the, association's control. He
noted that a right-of-way is planned for the eastern side of the property to
"clea -up" Radisson Entrance. Land will be dedicated along Radisson Inn Road as
reque ted by the City. The property lines along the private drive have alpo
been hifted fifteen feet to the east placing the drive entirely under the flssoci-
ation's ownership.
Koegl r noted that the owner of lot #11 had suggested an even land swap witP. the
devel pers to clean up lot lines.
Koegl r noted the following points in response to questions from the Planning
Conrni sion and the audience.
au lot #10 is corrmon open area but not recreation space, leaving it in its
na ural state.
.
.
.
NG CCM1ISSION t1INUI'ES
- 5 -
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
TI 0 P. U. D. PROPOSAL CQNI'INUED
Planner Nielsen toted thatltne Citys'Engineer had suggested duel catch bcisins,
two on each side of the st~et - due to the grade, and ~t the crown of 'the
road be adequate to force 1:pn-off into the basins. Koeg~er said that the basins
shown on the plans were on the property.
Koegler noted that the pro j~ct I s engineers felt that four inch lines areEadequate
to serve the developnent. He added that. the developers ~uld prefer to : let the
water system stand as is, With the smaller lines rather! than six inch lines as
proposed by the City Engin~er. At such time that a municipal water system comes
in, the haneowners' associajtion would be assessed for si){ inch lines and the hy-
drant would be added at thait time. Keegler noted that with the proposed twenty
G.P.M. well, the hydrants v.tould be useless for fire prot~ction, and woulld only
serve to flush the lines.
Koegler noted that the wat~r system is two dead ends rat'per than a loop' system
due to cost factors and t~ size of the developnent.
He said they had not checked with the fire department fot" their suggestions on
the hydrants or water systetn for fire protection.
In regards to questions about watering the cOIIlDOn area, Koegler estimatEtd that
thesoddeq area around the $its and the center ar~a would need to be wattered.
This would probably be suprjlied fnom the pressure I tank. .
The Planning Corrmission noted ithat many of the issues from fhe concept stage pro-
posal haclbeen addressed. Th~y felt that drainage hadbeeni a critical pro'l1>lem and
agreed tliat the City Engineer !needs to expand on thej issue pefore final aPI>roval
of the d~velopne t.: 'i
!
Shaw mov~d, Spel n seconded,j to recannend that the! City Cpuncil approve t(:he
develo~nt staplans for T~ngewood P.U.D. conting~nt upop the resoluti0I1l of
the drainage a water/hydran~ questions; thatgrad~ng pertnits be withheld until
these ispues are resolved and lapproval is granted byl the Wa~ershed District.
The motiOn carri d unanimousl~.
PUBLIC HEARIOO - PROPOSED~; TO THK CD1PREHENSIVK PlAN
Chainnan Stover called the public hearing to order at 9:45 P.M. and read the
legal notice of said hearing as published on August 25, 1982.
Planner Brad Nielsen presented a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
which would recognize pre-existing uses located on County Road 19 near the Shore-
wood/Excelsior border. He noted that the action came about from a request by
Charles Crepeau, Crepeau Docks, 23425-45 Smithtown Road, for detachment/annexa-
tion of his property to the City of Excelsior.
The Planning Corrmission studied the area with the City Planner and developed
Canprehensi ve PUm revisions to include the following areas:
Page 74 - "Industrial" land use category should be changed to "Service C0m-
mercial" . (Crepeau property should be designated as such.)
Page 75 - A "Ccmnercial Service" larxLuse category should be added (to incltrle
the Crepeau property.)
.
.
.
.
PlANNING CXM{[SSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
- 6 -
PUBLIC. HEARIOO. -' CCMPREHENSIVE' PlAN' AMENll€Nf -
Page.78 - A description of the lake dredging canpany and Crepeau's dock fabri-
cation and sales operation as corrmercial service activities is added. This para-
graph notes them as "unique and even necessary relative to the enjoyment of the
lake". The text states that the businesses are non-conforming uses and do..not
fit any of the City's current conmercial zoning districts. The City is studying
ways to recognize the pre-existing businesses without encouraging further develop-
ment.
The paragraph entitled" ndustrial" is deleted.
Page 81 - The first pa agraph is changed to read "Cbrrmercial Districts" noting
that a fourth district ma be created to recognize preexisting uses which provide
lake orEnted services would probably be limited to the area in question.
"Some fabrication would allowed by conditi~l use permit when accessory to
corrmercial activity."
Page 11 T - The lake dredging and dock sales / f~brication operations are added to
the list of uses in District 9 as non-conformiJig uses.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are deleted and replaced witih a discussion of proposed land
uses for District 9, noting that "particular atttention should be given to the
non-conforming uses" listed before. It suggesties that current land use designation:;
and zoning for the area might be inappropriate.1
The text notes that an additional ccmnercial d~strict has been proposed to recog-
nize the existing uses. It also emphasizes th4t traffic/safe access points need
to be addressed and that the area, as an entry. into the Citf. ' I needs consideration as
to screening find landscaping. 1
Gary Minion, Shot-ewood Nursery, expressed concern over the Nur~ety's status. It was
noted that the Nursery's R-C zoning ~uld remain and it would f~tinue to serve as a
land use buffer. I
Bob Reutiman felt the amenchnents and suggested Zoning Dlstrict.re too restrictive
and would not serve much of the public.
The public protion 6f the hearing was closed at 10:05 P.I'1.
Spellman moved, Shaw seconded, to recorrmend that the Council amend the Canprehensi ve
Plan Report #4 to incorporate the changes listed in the City Planner's memorandum
dated September 3, 1982.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Public Hearing was closed at 10:06 P.M.
",
.
PUBiJ:CHtl\RING - PROPOSED Al€NIHm' TO 1lIE ZONIOO ORDINANCE (#77)
Chainnan Stover called the Public Hearing to order at 10:07 P.M. and read the
legal notice as published on August 25, 1982.
Planner Nielsen presented the text for the "C-4", Ercial Service District.
The new district is intended to recognize areas c.onaim "ng pJ:1 eexisting businesses
whose services are primarily for the ccmnunity and urrounding area. The amend-
ment addresses pennitted uses, conditional permitt uses, permitted accessory
uses and dimensional regulations for the district.
.
.
.I
.
PlANNING CC>>1ISSION MINUTES
- 7 -
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
PUBLIC HEARI~' -, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENIl>1ENT - CONTINUED
I
Jotm Lee, representing Charles Crepeau, re'quested that some changes be mSde in the
text:
(undereennitted uses)
"Fresht'ruit and retail produce sales"
"Enclosed boat ~ dock and marine supplies sal~s"
------- ...------
He suggested the permitted and conditional uses be oPened l..'lP, possibly to any use
of similar type. He also noted that some of the minirrun ldtic1standards be, adjusted
to allow some existing businesses to confonn, such as side lot requirements, rear
lot line, and allowable stor,tes. He added that he felt the County would not like
the idea of combined access/egress for businesses along County Road 19.
Charles Crepeau, noted topographical features / problems along County Road 19 that
restrict development on his property. He stated that the only buildable spot is
on an old roadbed. He added that a culvert passes through the area arrl Excelsior
has a twenty-five foot easement which cannot be built upon. He felt that five
to ten foot setbacks would allow unifonn angles and placement of new and old buildings
along County Road 19.
The Public portion of the Hearing was closed at 10:22 P.M.
The Planning Conmission considered the requests made by Lee and Crepeau.
The following motions were made and voted upon to incorporate~changes in the pro-
posed "C-4" District:
Shaw moved, Reese seconded, to amend Sulxl. 2 Permitted Uses, item B., to read:
"Fresh fruit and produce store (retail)".
The motion carried tmanimously.
Shaw moved, Spellman seconded, to amend Sulxl. 2 Pennitted Uses, item C., to read:
"Enclosed dock and marine supplies sales".
The motion carried tmanimously.
Shaw moved, Leslie seconded, to amend Sulxl. 5 Divensional Regulations, Section C,
item 2 - sideyard setbackrequirements, to read: a minimun of 20 feet total, with
not less than 8 feet on either side.
The motion failed, 2 to 4. Ayes: Shaw, Leslie
Nays: Spellman, Stover, Benson, Reese
Shaw moved, Reese secoqded, to amend Sulxl. 5 Dimensional Regulations, Section A _
Building Height l'1ax:Lrnum, item 2, Principal Structure, to increase the maxi.nun height
requirement to 25 feet.
The motion carried. Ayes: Shaw, Benson, Leslie, Reese
Nays: Spellman
Abstain: Stover
Reese moved Shaw seconded to amem Sulxl. 5 Dimensional Regulations, Section B -
Minimun lot' size requir~ts, item 2 - lot width at building line, to read:
a. Buildings built prior to adoption of this section -,75 feet
b. Buildings built subsequent to adoption of this section - 100 feet
The motion carried unanimously.
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES
- 8 -
SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING - ZOONG ClIDI
E' AMENIHNr .;.. CONrINUED
Shaw moved, Reese seconded, 0 amend Sulxl. 5 Dimensional Regulations, Section C -
item 2 - Side: Building lin to lot line (minimun), to read:
a. Buildings Wilt pri.or............................
b. Buildings built subsequent............................
The motion carried unanimously.
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to amend Sulxl. 5 Dimensional Regulations, Section C -
item 3 - Rear: Building line to lot line (iIiinimun), to read:
a. Buildings built prior..................... '... . ...
b. Buildings built subsequent............................
The motion, carried unanimously.
8 feet
20 feet
20 feet
30 feet
Spellman moved, Benson seconded, to recorrmend that the Council approve the proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, "C-4", Corrmercial Service District, as amended
above.
I
The motion carried unanimously.
The Public Hearing was closed at 11: 07 P.M.
REPORTS:
City Council - Bob Gagne reported from:the August 23rd meeting. Items noted were
approval of permits for a tennis accessory structure for Larry Wilson; the geese
problem on Timber Lane; Cable TV agreement; Country Club Road traffic pattern
was discussed.
Park Comnission - Launisse Cousins reported that the Bark Coomission meeting was
not held because of a holiday.
MATI'ERS. FRCM TIlE. FLOOR
Reese noted housing assistance workshops sponsored by the Metropolitan Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Leslie moved, Stover seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unani-
mouslyand the meeting was adjourned at 11 :16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
1(~VV'~~
~tl~een West, Planning Coomission Assistant
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHORENl)()D
REGULAR PlANNING C<MfiSSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
m I f\ u...+e s
~' U J.) A
CALL TO. ORDER
Chairman Stover called the October 5th Planning Coomission meet' ng to order at
7:46 P.M.
ROIL CALL
Present: Benson, Re~se, Watten, Leslie, Spellman, Stover, Shaw
Also Present: CotD1c~l Liaison Gagne, Plarmer Nielsen, Assistan West
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minut(.es dated September 7, 1982 was tabled unti the next meeting .
MA'ITERS FRCM TIlE F'LOOR
There were no tters from the floor.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICATION - LARRY BADER/MARILYNtmD
Chairman Stover call~d the public hearing to order at 7:45 P.M. and read the legal
notice as published qn September 22, 1982.
Larry Bader was present to discuss his application to rezone t southern 2.71
acres of lots 32 and 133, Auditor's Subd. 133 (24035 & 24115 Yel owstone Trail).
The request was to cqange from R-1, Single Family, to R-4 Multi le Family Resi-
dence rather than c~rcial as originally planned in his subdi . sion application.
Bader noted that acc~ss was planned to the southern lot from Linden Drive
and that a fifty foo~ road easement could be provided in the - e. He added
that he was still wo1j'king on access from Highway 7.
Bader stated that he !was planning eight double hcmes (16 units) on the southern
portion, rather than! four quads as ~hown on the plans he had pr sented. He ex-
pressed a desire to d,.....evelop the no,hern section of the propert - planned as
single family dwellings - as soon a possible, but would wait the southern
portion. .
It was noted that t~ issue of the ~/wetlands had not been r: solved. A sug~
ges" tion to trade the it"" was no...... ted IS needing, further research the City Attor-
ney and Engineer. I .
The audience questioned traffic and access/egress, and the nun r of units for the
entire project.
I
Bob Reutiman, 5915 Galpin Lake Road~ noted that traffic access ran .the southern
lot (multiple family request) was p armed via Lake Linden Drive or Highway 7, not
Riviera Lane. At this time agreeme ts for easements were liste as verbal. .
Bader noted that five single family lots were planned to access onto Riviera Lane
and one single family lot onto Yell wstone Trail. Riviera Circ e (proposed cul-
de-sac) would not be needed with the present configuration of 10 s. The existing
house on lot 6 and the southern lot (R-4 request) were planned 0 access via a
future road off of Lake Linden Dri v .
.
.
.
PlANNING C<MfiSSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1982
- 2 -
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST':'" BADER (con' t)
Gene Clapp, 24115 Yellowstone Trail, noted that he felt the proposed developnent
matches \\hat the area'residents had wanted - large lot single family residences,
some doubles, and a buffer area.
The public portion of the hearing was closed at ,8:05 P.M.
'!he Coomission suggested that the developer present a definite plan. It was
noted that the proposal was not in approvable fonnas presented at the meeting.
Spellman moved, Watten seconded, to reccmnend that the rezoning request be denied.
'!he motion carried - Ayes: Benson, Watten, Spellman, Shaw
Nays: Reese, 'Leslie
Pass: Stover
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION':'" CONTINUED DISCUSSION FRG1 THK SEPTEMBER 7th PUBLIC
HEARING', -', BADER/MARILYNWOOD
'!he Planning Coomission noted confusion over the changes in the plans during
the public hearing and difficulty in separating the rezoning request fran the
subdivision application. Discussion with the developer included the possibil-
ities of giving conceptual approval; changing fonn an R-4 rezoning request to
a P.U.D. application; concerns for access; single residences on the southern
lot; ccmnercial versus residential; the southern portion as an outlot; compli-
cations with the existing house on lot 6; the density of the proposal; and
giving direction to the developer.
It was noted that the public portion of the hearing for the sulxlivision request
Md been closed on September 7th.
Shaw moved, Leslie seconded, to reconsider the motion denying the rezoning re-
quest, amending said motion to table the request rather than deny it.
'!he motion carried - 5 to 2 - Ayes: Benson, Reese, Leslie, Stover, Shaw
Nays: Watten, Spellman
Leslie moved, Reese seconded, to continue the public hearing discussion on the
subdivision application.
The motion carried tmanimousl y.
Leslie moved, Stover seconded, to place the continued discussion of the appli-
cation on the October 19, 1982 Planning CoomissionAgenda.
'!he motion carried - 5 to 2 - Ayes: Benson, Reese, Leslie, Stover, Shaw
Nays: Watten, Spellman
'!he Planning Coomission recessed for five minutes at 9:15 P.M.
CONTINUED STUDY OF, THE. ZONING ORDINANCE
City Planner B ad Nielsen answered questions the Planning Coomission had raised
in their revie of the proposed zoning ordinance.
It was noted t t new issues and problems, had come before the City relating to
signs. It was agreed that the plarmer should redraft the sign section of the
ordinance. A stion of the legality of prohibiting billboards was directed
to the City At orney.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MI~
- 3 -
OCTOBER 5, 1982
. STUDY OF '!HE ZONING ORDINANCE (con't)
.
.
Other items discussed were:
AtcessorySttucttires
Ordina ' '. Hi h water Mark: Definition is statutory. Does not apply to
to wetl s.
. Residential Facilit: Definition is statutory. Refers to full-time,
twenty- our hour facility; separate fran group or day care.
Building Official: Common title for a building inspector.
(Variance) '. BOard: Council \\IOuld act as the board.
Out.:...patient Care: Not applicable in Shorewood - the Planner suggested
: deletion.
PUb!Lic Waters: typographical error: Section 51.21 should read Section
'200.24. Definition is statutory. -'
M:>bille Hbines: New ordinance amendment should be inserted.
Marina: Should be campared to L.M.C.D. ordinances. Change "small" to
, "water".
Nursing Home: Planner will research skilled care and the number of
, individuals listed (2 or 5).
It was sugg~sted that zero lot lines and solar access issues should be defined
andaddresst:rl in the ordinance.
AIlJOURNMENr
Leslie moved, Watten seconded, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and
the meetingi was adjourned at 10: 28 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
tu~~ :!:!~ant
.
.
.
CI'lY OF SHOREtmD
PlANNING C<M1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO, ORDER
Chainnan Stover called the October 19th Planning Conmission meeting to order at
7:45 P.M.
ROll CALL
Present: Reese (left at 8:16), Leslie, Spellman (arrived at 8:26 P.M.), Stover,
Shaw (arrived at 8: 26 P.M.), Benson (arrived at 8:05 P.M.), Watil:e1i1,.
LiaisOn Gagne, Planner Nielsen, Assistant West
APPROVAL OF '!HE MINUI'ES
Reese moved, Leslie seconded, to approve the minutes fran the September 7, 1982
Planning Corrmission meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
Approval of the October 5, 1982 meeting minutes was tabled until later in the
meeting .
MAITERS. FRCM, '!HE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor at this time.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HE'ARINGS: MARILYMroD DEVELOPMENT/BADER
. 24035 & 24115 YELLOWSTONE TRAIL
a) Request to rezone the southern-most 2.71 acres of lots 32 & 33, Auditor's
Subdivision 133, from R-l, Single Family, to R-4 Multiple Family.
Reese moved, Stover seconded, with the developer's agreement, that the public
hearing be continued. to some future date for the purpose of allowing the devel-
oper to amend the rezoning request to a P.U.D.; the date to be established in
the future. Notice of said continuation will be sent to neighboring residents,
as before, noting date and time of the meeting.
The motion carried unanimously.
b) Request to subdivide lots 32 and 33, Auditor's Subdivision 133.
Chairman Stover stated that this was a continuation of the public hearing held
September 7, 1982. It was noted that the subdivision request had been amended.
Larry Bader, applicant, explained that he was proposing., six residential lots, all
at least 40,000 square feet in area. The cul-de-sac planned fran Rinera Lane
was eliminated; lots 5 arid. 6 will access/egress via driveways to Riviera Lane.
The proposal also delineated four outlots' - A (the southern-most lot - not to be
developed at this time), B, C, and D (to be conveyed to neighboring property
owners solving driveway and square footage problems).
Planner Nielsen noted that a resubdivision sketch had been presented demonS.trating
that outlot A could be divided into three parcels meeting R-1 zoning standards
by exterlding the existing Riviera Lane cul-de-sac. He added that the developer's
stated intentions for outlot A involved requesting higher density (possible P. U.D.)
PLANNING C<M1ISSION MEETING
-2-
I
I
TUESDAY, ~BER 19, 1982
.
.
PUBLIC HFARING - MARILYMroD SUBDIVISION REQUEST - conti red
if access can be gained from Lake Linden Drive. He also noted that lot 6, con-
taining the existing McCartney house, is large enough to be split into two lots.
It was suggested that road easements be obtained on lot for the possible ex-
tension of the Riviera Lane cul-de-sac in case the outlo is develoPed into
three single family lots.
In regards to the wetlands/pond question, it was noted t t a trade. was planned.
It was suggested that it be handled as a variance to the wetlands ordinance.
The public hearing w s closed at 8:16 P.M.
The Planning Comniss on di.scussed access, traffic, and e sement concerns.
Stover moved, Watten seconded, to recprnnend that the Cotm il approve the amended
request to subdivide lots 32 and 33, ,Auditor's Subdivisi 133, subject to the
following conditions and restrictionsi:
- Existing "ldings which a$.. planned to be r
by May 31, 1983.
- An outlot be created for the purpose of a po ential cul-de-sac
from viera Lane .
- Any Waters ed District conc~rns be resolved.
- Utility ea ements be incre$ed to twenty feet.
- Property I nes between lots! 5 and 6 be straigh ened.
- A question as to the adequa~y of Riviera Lane cul-de-sac be
addres ed by the City Ehgineer.
- The resubd vision sketch be! recoroee with the
The motion carried
The Planning Corrmiss
Stover moved, Leslie
to the wetlands ordi
area be exchanged fo
area.
The motion carried
seconded, to recbnmend that the cil grant a variance
ce so that apwoximatel y 11,000 s re feet of ponding
approximately 1i1 ,000 square feet 0 designated wetland
i
B, C, and D be legally
&:49 and reconvened at 9:01 p.m.
I
I
APPROVAL OF THE MI
Leslie moved, Benson seconded, toapgrove the minutes 0
Planning Canni;ssion eting with one I addition - that t
Planning Conmission eting will be rtoved to November 9
The motion carried nimously.
the October 5, 1982
November 2, 1982
1982 due to elections.
.
CONTINUED STUDY. OF
Council Liaison Ga
moratoriun onadve
for an advertising
i
ZONING ORDINANCE': "SIGNS"
reported that the City Council ba recently placed a
ising signs through April 15, 1983, and revoked a permit
ign located at Highway 7 and Chris sLake Road.
I
.
CONTINUED sruDY, OF ZONING ORDINANCE': "SIGNS" .:.. con ii1ued
Planner Nielsen pres nted a rough redraft of the sign se tioo of the Zoning
Ordinance. The PI "I)g Conmission reviewed the text a made the following
cOO1Ilents :. I
Section b. (1) Permi tf Signs (g) - it should be added hat lake shore prop-
erties may have two 2 real estate or rental signs - on on the road and
one on shore. . i
Section b. (1) Permi t~d Signs (i) - it was suggested t t the size limitations
on owner..-occupant sign might be increased.
Section b.(2) Prohibi ed Signs (b) - typographical erro - "initiates" should
be "imitates". I
I
Section b. (2) Prohibited Signs (f) .,.. it was suggested that a period be placed
after "... permanent suWports" and that "except for those signs on fences {inside)
of baseball parks." be ide1eted. The Planning Coomission felt that the policy
affecting this item ne$ds further study.
I
Section c. General ProVisions (4) - the Coomission discussed limiting the nunber
of permits per individtkl by (a() the use of additional fees; (b) a limit of two
permits per year; or (c) a limitation of 14 days per year.
Section c.Genera1Prohsions (6) - amend to read - "All signs which require
permi ts shall display.! .".
Section d. Nonconformik Signs (2) (b) - the five year requirement was questioned.
I
Section e. District Re$ulations (1) (0) - it was suggested that the square footage
(60) on Subdivision PI<jlt Signs be studied further, perhaps changed to two signs,
4 x 8 feet, 32 square feet each. In the last sentence "developed and/or sold"
was suggested as a pos$ible change.
Section e. District Re~ations (2) (b) Business Signs - 36 square feet was sug-
gested rather than 60. !
The Planning COOlIliSSiO+ agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting.
i
MA'ITERS. FRG1 THE. FLOOR I
There were no matters from the floor.
I
I
REPORTS: CITY. COUNCILI- OCI'OBER 1,' 1982 MEETING
Agenda items reported ~re - disc ssion of an ordinance regulating parks;
- Chri tmas Lake setback variances
- the omprehensive Plan Amendment
-the "ng Ordinance Amendment
- Skip rette building permit for a game roan
-3-
TIJESDAY, OCI'OBER 1 9, 1 982
PLANNING C<M1ISSION
.
ADJOURNMENT
Watten moved, Leslie s~conded, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and
the meeting was adjourfed at 10:4 P.M.
.
Respectfully submitted~
~' I
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
I
i
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORFJroD
PlANNING CCMvIISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNrRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
I
MINUTES
CALL'. TO. ORDER
Chainnan Stover called the N<bvember 9,
order at 7:42 P.M. i
ROll. CALL
i
982 meeting of the Plannink COOlIlission to
I
i
i
i
I
, Kristi Stover, Bruce Be4on, Frank Reese,
Nielsen, Assistant West. i
Present: Janet Leslie, Rid~rd Spel1ma
Cotmcil Liaison Gagne , Plp.nne
Absent: Vem Watten, Bob SlItaw
APPROVAL OF TIlE MINlTfES
I
I
i
I
I
from the <>ptober 19;
1982 '
il
Spellman moved, Benson secon.(jled, td ap ove the minutes
Planning COOlIlission meeting ~s writ:ten.
The motion carried tlI18.nimous~ y. i
MATTERS FRCM THE FLOOR I I
Chainnan Stover noted that the City1 Co il is studying appointment procedures to
fill vacancies on the City C<ixmn.ssiPns she re.quested input froin the Planning
Conmission. TI'1ree points wet-e made: I
1) The Council! I makes the ppointments, therefore thel Council should
also conduct the ip.te ews. I
2) Planning Co#nrl-sSioP, me hers shoul, d be appointed ~. 0 represent
various geotraphic~l a eas of the City if possible.
3) The Plannin$ Conmi~sio should be allowed to choo~e its own chainnan.
i . I
, ~ ' I
Chainnan Stover informed theil COOlIlispion of upcoming Planning Insti~ute workshops.
,I I i
Reese noted that he had atte$ded a semi r on housing alternativesl. He suggested
that a joint meeting with tht CO\IDciil scheduled to discuss thisl topic and other
relevant issues. Ii' I
I
CONTINUED STUDY OF TIlE, ZONIm ORDINANCE
i I
Discussion regarding Planneril Nielsen's edraft of the sign section of the ordinance
continued from the October 1 ~th meeting.
Nielsen noted that the ordi4nce requir son-site signage to be incidental to the
operation (business~, on the $ite. In 2 through C-4 zones, the amount and size of
signs are related to buildi~ size rath r than simply stating a maximum square foot-
age. He explained a new fortpula that es 1 (f% of the gross silhouette of a building
as:se:enfrom the street for tJile total si area. It was noted that two silhouettes
would be used to calculate tJile sign are for a comer lot. A maximum of three signs
would be allowed, the total ~quare foot ge of the three not to exceed the 10% figure.
Nielsen presented examples f~r comparis bfthe.existing am propoped ordinances,,,
It was noted that in the cas~ of multip e tenants, the total allowable sign surface
area would be split between 'the tenants.
I
'I
.
.
.
PlANNING CCM1ISSION MINUI'ES
-2-
NOVEMB~R 9, 1982
STUDY OF 1HE ZONING ORDINANCE - COntinued
The Planning Corrmission suggested that' a maximum size limit be place upon any single
sign. Nielsen noted that consistancy with the past was important. It was suggested
that 150 square feet be considered. They also discus&ed possible problems with the
10% fonnula noting that there might be a hardship witij. certain lot configurations.
Nielsen noted that relating signs to building size adqresses the design element of
scale. Sign ordinances from Excelsior, Edina and Pl ' th were referenced. It was
noted that Excelsior relates the sign size to the fro t footage of the building and
the lot size.
Nielsen added that he had not included the locatianal requirements for signs. He
noted that he would propose basically what is set up on the existing ordinances.
DiscuSsion of the sign ordinance and part one of the oning oroinance was tabled
until the next meeting.
REPORTS
City Council rr\eeting: Council Liaison Gagne and Chai
the Council had:
- Approved the Tingewood p~elo 0 nary plat.
Discussed a request for . 0 cipal water on Mill Street
and Apple Road.
- Renewed discuSsion of .ahouernoving ordinance.
- Approved the C-4 Conmercial Service District amendment
to the Zoning inance.
- Approved the MarOlynwood s ivision request.
Stover reported ,that
AillOURNMENI'
Reese moved, Benson seconded, to adjourn. The motipn carried unanimously and the
meeting was adjourned at 9: 11 P.M.
Respectfully suhnitted,
--,(~-W~
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1982
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Ghainnan Bruce Benson called the December 7, 1982 Planning Comnission
meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Comnission members Janet Leslie, Richa Spellman (late), Bob Shaw,
Bruce Benson, Frank Reese, VeTIl Watten Council Liaison Bob Gagne;
Planner Brad Nielsen; Assistant Kathy West
Chainnan Stover (prior comnitment)
Absent:
APPROVAL OF 'TIlE MUNUI'ES
Leslie moved, Reese seconded, approval of the
Planning Corrmission meeting as written.
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
tes from the November 9, 1982
MATIERS FR<l1 'TIlE FLOOR
Watten moved, Benson seconded, to cancel the
The motion carried unanimously (5-0).
.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING REQUEST -. SCHMIDI'
Acting Chainnan Benson called the public hearing to order at 7:45 p.m. and read
the legal notice as published on November 24, 19 2. Larry. Bader and Gordon
Schmidt were present to make a request to have a parcel of land located on Lake
Linden Drive rezoned from R-1, s;Lngle family to R 3, ~wo family. The parcel is
legally described as lots 19, 20 and the south 41 feet of lot 21 Linden Park,
Hennepin Co., Minn., plus outlots B and C from t, e proposed Marilynwood sub-
division - a portion of lft 33, Auditor's Subd. ,33.
It was noted that the exipting building on lot 2 is a duplex owned and occupied
by Schmidt. Outlot C (Marilynwood) added to thil property would create adequate
square footage to make th~ lot conforming. I.
Harold Johnsen, 6055 Lake I Linden Drive, and Bob 'eutiman, 5915 Galpin Lake Road,
were present for the hearjing. They noted no op sition to the request for rezoning.
1
Plarmer Nielsen noted thaF the City mapsi'show we lands on lot 19; the exact size
had not been detennined.. I Johnsen, Reutiman and hmidt explained that there had
been a swamp which draine(ltnto Lake Linden, but I the area was filled when the
sewer went in; the propefty is now dry. It was noted that the City does not
have a procedure for amen <ling the wetlands map, t a variance could be requested
if needed. Bader added that they were plarming 0 take soil tests later.
The. public hearing was closed at 7:56 p.m.
Some Comnission members noted that two family re idential seemed to be a good use
of the property. Concern over the location of t e drive and the designated wet-
lands were expressed.
1982 study session.
..
.
I
I
1
I
REGULAR PlANNING CCM1ISSION MEETING MINUTES - PAfE 2 DECEMBER 7, 1982
I
PUBLIC HEARING - CONrINUED I
A motion was made by Reese, seconded by Leslie, to reconmend that the Council
approve the request by Schmidt and Bader to rez~e the previously-mentioned prop-
erty from R-1 to R-3 subject to the following:
a) Finding by the City Engineer as to the size of the designated wetlands
b) Outlots Band C be rezoned R-3 atthet:ime the Council reviews the
final plat of the Marilynwood subdiVision
The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
The Coomission recessed at 8:04 p.m. and reconvened at 8: 14 p.m.
MATTERS FRcM THE FLOOR (Agenda rearranged)
Reese tnoved, Spellman seconded, to appoint Bruce I Benson as Planning Conmission
Chainnan for 1983. The motion carried unanimous~y.
.
CONTINUED STUDY OF THE WNING ORDINANCE
a) REVIEW OF PART I CORRECTIONS
The Goomission agreed to study the revisions individually and move the discussion
to the January 4, 1983 meeting.
b) STUDY OF PART III, PAGES III-1 THROUGH I I-18
SECTION 200.09 ESTABLISHMENI' OF WNING ClAS IFICATIONS
Planner Nielsen noted that the proposed rdinance has a number of new res-
idential dist;ricts. Still to be added to t s s~ction are the ''R-1D'', Mobile-
Home Park_District, and the "C-4", Coomercia Service District. A new zoning
map will be drafted to go along with the t
SECTION 200.10 "R-1A", SINGLE FAMILY RESID IAt DISTRICT
Nielsen noted that the proposed "R-1A" i ba~ically the same as the current
R-1 zone; the lot requirements are consist t with the old ordinance (',000
square feet). Changes were made according t State statutes. The Coom" SS10n
suggested that item a. "Fanning", under Pe tt~ Uses (Subd. 2), be ma e a con-
ditional use. Item c. ''Living quarters.. .", und~r Pennitted Accessory ses
(Subd. 3), should be attaehed to principal s ructures.
SECTION 200.11 ''R-1B'', SINGLE FAMILY RESI IALi DISTRICT
Nielsen pointed out that in this zone th lot requirements (30';'00Q quare
feet) and setbacks are scmewhat smaller that the I "R-1A" zone but the lar e lot
character is maintained. Fanning activities are! cut as lot sizes decrea e, and
the nUnber of individuals pennitted to r nt ~lso decreases, reflecti the
number of parking spaces availabl . ,
SECTION 200.12 ''R-1C'', SINGlE F LY RESID IAL DISTRICT
Nielsen noted that this distr ct is very similar to the present R-2
(20,000 square feet).
''R~lD'', M)BILE HCME PARK DISTRICT
The Coomission was informed 0 a recent ttorney General's opinion 1:1 lating
to IIlobile home zoning districts. Nielsen s ested that the Conmission "ght
want to review the section again fore fina adpption of the omnance.
.
.
.
.
,
REGUIJAR PlANNING C<M1ISSION MEETI G MINUTES PAGE 3
DECEMBER 7, 1982
CONTI~ STUDY OF THE WNING ORD NANCE
, ,
SECTION 200.13 ''R-ZA'', SINGlE 1VK) FAMIL REs;mENTIAL DIS'lRICT
This zone is consistant with he present R-3i ~istrict.
J
SECTlbN 200.14 "R-2B", SINGLE 1VK) FAMIL RE~~DENTIAL DISTRICT
~ielsen noted that this dist ct (15,000 squkit:e feet-single, 20,000-double)
is srrjaller, more dense and urban nnature. '
SECT~ON 200.15 "R-2C", SINGlE 1VK) FAMIL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(110,000 square feet-single, 1 ,ooo-doubl ) It! was pointed out that use of
this !zone would probably be limit ,perhaps near! a shopping cen~er, etc.
I " ,
SECT]ON 200 .16 "R-3A", MULTIPLE i\MILY RESI ENTl4\L DISTRICT
'" 'Ijhis district starts with two family h s, not single, and adds townhouses,
quadriaminiuns, and four tmit dwel ings. Nie sen noted accessory uses are more
limiqed here. The Coomission dis ussed incl inglrequirements for the minimun
siiZe !of tmits on lots. It was po nted out t t a! complex formula would be in-
vol.v~ given the many different h using styl s. Reese noted that a minimun size
per $it might be more appropriat for remod ling rather than new construction,
and ~ttached rather than detached dwellings. Nie)lsen suggested further sutdy of
the ~deas presented. I '
SECr~ON 200.17 "R-3B", MULTIPLE i\MILY RESI 14 DIS'lRICT
, 'I1his section is the same as t e present -5 district. It will be the most
detls~ zone in the City. ,
I '
The qoomission agreed to continue Part III a the! next meeting.
I
I
~
City ICmmcil - Liaison Gagne repo ed conti~ dilscussion of the advertising r,
I sign issues. It w. s noted tlt this was Gagne's last meeting
, ! with the Planning . ssion, his tenn ending in December.
P~ pmm.SSion - Staff reported hat the Pa k ~SSion had just finished
, working on the pro sed Freeman Park developnent plans; began
a Park Capital Imp ovement Fund ~et; and developed a policy
to manage the ice inks. '
I
~
Watt~ moved, Spellman seconded, 0 adjourn. The! motion,carried U11.8.nimously and
the $eting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
I
ReSpet:tfu11y subnitted,
~ "1A/.J
I
Kathleen West, Planning Assistant