Loading...
062794 CC Reg AgP CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SCANNED MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1994 7:00 PM Following the regular portion of the meeting, the City Council will adjourn to a Joint Work Session format. No action will be taken at this time. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Mayor Brancel Stover Daugherty Lewis Benson C. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Council Regular & Executive Session Meeting Minutes - June 13, 1994 (Att. - #2 Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & adopt resolutions therein: A - A Motion to Approve Renewal of Assessing Contract (Att. - #3A Proposed Contract) B - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Request to Connect to Excelsior Water Service Applicant: James Robin Location: 23405 Academy Ave (Att. - #3B1 Proposed Resolution; #3B2 Letter of Request) C - A Motion to Approve Block Parties - - Mallard Ln, July 4th from 1:00 to 8:00 pm - Brentridge Dr, July 17th at 3:00 p.m. (Att. - #3C Letters of Request) 4. PLANNING - Report by Representative A - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Final Plat - Waterford 7th Addition Applicant: JMS Equities (Att. - #4A1 Planner's Memorandum; #4A2 Proposed Resolution) B - A Motion Directing Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact for the Concept Stage Plan - Heritage P.U.D. Applicant: Abingdon Development Corp. Location: South of Edgewood Rd approx. 700' East of Howards Pt Rd (Att. - #4B1 Planner's Memorandum; #4B2 Planning Commission Recommendation) oITY COUNCIL AGENDA JUNE 27, 1994 Page 2 of 2 C - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat - Johnson Hollow Applicant: Daniel Johnson Location: 27920 & 27944 Smithtown Rd (Att. - #4C1 Planner's Memorandum; #4C2 Proposed Resolution) D - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat - R. Bowman Second Addition Applicant: J. McNulty, representing R. Bowman Location: 20025 Manor Road (Att. - #4D1 Planner's Memorandum; #4D2 Proposed Resolution) 5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO PROVIDE SANITARY SITE DISPOSAL FOR WATERCRAFT AT HOWARDS POINT MARINA (Att. - #5A Planner's Memorandum; #5B Letter of Request) 6. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO WAIVE PENALTY FEE (Att. - #6 Letter of Request from Howard Strauss) 7. REPORT FROM LIQUOR COMMITTEE 8. REPORT BY LMCD REPRESENTATIVE RASCOP ON LEVY ADJUSTMENT FOR 1994 LMCD BUDGET & OTHER LMCD MATTERS (Att. -#8 LMCD's Memorandum) 9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 10. DISCUSSION ON POLICY ISSUES 11. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS - A - Report on Status of Sump Pump Inspection Program (Att. - #11A Staff Report) B - Report on City of Victoria's Grant Application to Control Eurasian Watermilfoil from Lake Virginia (Att. - #11B1 Proposed Letter of Support; #11B2 Supporting Documentation) 12. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS - Open Issues - Discussion 13. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS - (Attachment) WORK SESSION 1. JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Review Senior Housing Section of Comprehensive Plan 2. ADJOURN ** INDICATES TAX INCREASE OR FEE IMPLICATIONS 4.440 MAYOR Barb Branca! r Py COUNCIL Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1994 J` Immediately following the regular Council meeting the Planning Commission will join us for a work session on senior housing. AGENDA ITEM #3A: The proposed contract for assessing services with Rolf )10 Erickson for 1995 is an increase of $2,629 from this year. The total will be $41,389. This increase is due to two items: 1) a 2 1/2% increase in the cost of doing business; and 2) 69 new parcels over . the last year. In checking with Hennepin County they feel they would have to charge us approximately $10,000 more to do our assessing. AGENDA ITEM #3B: James Robin requests permission to connect his . property at 23405 Academy Avenue to the Excelsior municipal water system. The resolution approving the hook -up includes a standard water service agreement, which stipulates that the property owner will not object to a future water assessment in the event that Shorewood constructs its own system. AGENDA ITEM #3C: The Mallard Lane request for a street closure on July 4th for a block party is acceptable to the safety departments. The only stipulation is that City barricades will not be available that day. The requesting party will be responsible for utilizing movable barricades to *lock the street. The Brentridge Drive request is to block the street from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. on July 17th. City barricades can be dropped off and utilized for that function. Recommendation is for approval of both street closings. AGENDA ITEM #4A: Jeffrey Schoenwetter requests approval of the final plat for the three remaining commercial sites in the Waterford P.U.D. Individual site plans for each site will require further review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. AGENDA ITEM #4B: Abingdon Development Corporation proposes a planned unit development consisting of 19 new single family residential lots. Minutes from a rather lengthy public hearing are included in your packet. Among others, City water is a issue in this proposal. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept stage plan subject to certain modifications. The resolution requires a four - fifths vote for approval. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - JUNE 27, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM #4C: Daniel Johnson proposes to purchase property adjoining his at 27944 Smithtown Road to acquire the tennis court located on it. The Planning Commission and staff have recommended approval. AGENDA ITEM #4D: Richard Bowman proposes to amend a previous development agreement which would allow him to create one additional lot on his property. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval subject to several conditions. AGENDA ITEM #5: Staff recommends approval of a request by Howard's Point Marina to install a boat sewage pump -out station on their dock. Sewage will be pumped into the municipal sewer system. AGENDA ITEM #6: This request is similar to those in the past which claim that the check was lost in the mail and therefore they should not have to pay a penalty of $10.51. 1 11GENDA ITEM #7: This is the report of the consensus reached by the City Council at their previous meeting. The only change that is likely is if the Committee wishes to close the store on a day other than Tuesday, June 28, 1994 which was chosen only because it is the day immediately following the Council meeting. AGENDA ITEM 18: Bob Rascop has indicated a desire to report about the levy adjustment for 1994 and other budget matters regarding the LMCD. AGENDA ITEM #11A:, The material enclosed in the packet illustrates our efforts to close out the sump pump inspection program. AGENDA ITEM #11B: We have been approached by the City of Victoria to draft a letter of support for a grant application for Victoria to undertake Erasion Watermilfoil management in Lake Virginia. The letter Ili; the packet. If the Council concurs, it will be mailed the day ter the Council meeting. City Attorney Tim Keane will report on a professional that has been identified to work with the City on its dispute with the MWCC. Tim will be proposing that we enter into a Phase I agreement with Richard L. Voigt, Jr., P.E. of the University of Minnesota. AGENDA ITEM #12: Council member Daugherty requested that we place we place "open issues - discussion" on the agenda so members of the Council can feel free to raise any issue that they would like to discuss. .. . CI1Y OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1994 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CI1Y COUNCIL MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:04 p.m. A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call ~ Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty, Lewis and Stover; Administrator Hurm, City Engineer Dresel, City Attorney Keane, and Planning Director Nielsen. C. Review Ag~nda Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to approve the agenda for June 13, 1994, amended by adding Agenda Item 2.D. Approval of Corrected May 9, 1994 Council Minutes; moving Consent Agenda Item 3.C. to the Regular Agenda; and adding an Executive Session following adjournment of the Regular Meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A Board of Review Meeting Minutes -May 11, 1994 Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Board of Review Meeting Minutes of May 11, 1994. Motion passed 5/0. B. Reconvened Board of Review Meeting Minutes - May 23, 1994 Daugherty moved, Stover seconded to approved the Reconvened Board of Review Meeting Minutes of May 23, 1994. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Minutes - May 23, 1994 Daugherty moved, Lewis seconded to approved the Regular City Council and Work Session Minutes of May 23, 1994. Motion passed 5/0. ;fF~ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 1994 - PAGE 2 D. Corrected City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - May 9, 1994 Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the corrected City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 9, 1994, page 1, Consent Agenda Item A. Resolution No. 94-40...June 1, 199~May 31, 1995. Motion passed 5/0. (Correction underlined) 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for June 13, 1994. Stover moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions and Motions therein: A. RESOLUTION NO. 94-46, "A Resolution 'Granting a Temporary Sign Variance to Video Update." (to be removed no later than September 1,1994). Applicant: Andrew Schmidt. Location: 19465 State Highway 7. . B. RESOLUTION NO. 94-47, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Greg Karas." Location: 5600 Star Lane. - C. MOVED TO REGULAR AGENDA D. RESOLUTION NO. 94-48, "A Resolution Amending the 1994 General Fund Budget." E. RESOLUTION NO. 94-49, "A Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Funds." F. Motion to Extend Deadline to July 5, 1994-Appeal to Notice to Remove. Applicant: Sandy Hepp. Location: 24950 Amlee Road. Motion passed 5/0. . 3. C. A Motion to Approve a Ri2ht-of-Way Permit-Christmas Lake Road Lewis inquired about several aspects of the proposed improvements designed to deter traffic from circumventing a closed portion of Christmas Lake Road on private property (detailed in Nielsen's memoranda dated April 20, 1994 and June 8,1994). Because the work involves the public right-of-way, a right-of-way permit is required. The improvements, designed by the City in consultation with the affected residents, will be financed by the Christmas Lake Road homeowners association. Letters from Ms. Dawn Christesen and Rick and Susan Dyer, residents on Brand Circle, describe the problems. Lewis expressed concern that the improvements appear to be temporary. In addition, Lewis stated that while he was sympathetic with Ms. Christesen's problem with vehicles driving through her lawn and was not opposed to relief given in this specific instance, there are other areas in the City with cut-through traffic problems to which relief is not allowed and REGULAR CIlY COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 1994 - PAGE 3 approval would set a precedent for granting right-of-way construction. The closed-off portion of Christmas Lake Road is used for emergency purposes and requires access and maintenance in the interests of public safety. During discussion, the history of the closure of the road was reviewed and Councilmember Benson and staff responded to Lewis' questions and concerns. Benson moved, Stover seconded to approve a Right-of-Way Permit-Christmas Lake Road. Motion passed 4/1. Lewis voted nay. 4. PARK - Report by representative A Motion to Approve. a Change Order for Silverwood and Freeman Parks Regarding Handicap Accessibility and for Silverwood Park Grading Changes . Bruce Chamberlain, project manager, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., reviewed the purpose of Change Order #1 for the Silverwood Park Improvements and Freeman Park Trail Project (Project No. PK-1-94). The change does not represent an increase in the overall park improvement budget, but is essentially a shift in who performs the work. Additional work, increasing the amount of its contract by $4,838, will be completed by Expert Asphalt Company, the general contractor for the project. Chamberlain described the work which includes transporting soil from Freeman Park and grading to steepen the sliding hill in Silverwood Park and installation of asphalt pads for handicapped access to the play areas in both parks. Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to approve Change Order #1 for the SilverwoodjFreeman Parks Improvements (Project No. PK-4-94); Contractor: Expert Asphalt Co., Waconia, MN. Motion passed 5/0. . 5. PLANNING - Report by representative Commissioner Pisula reported on the actions taken at the Planning Commission's June 7, 1994 meeting. A A Motion to Approve a Final Plat-Mott Addition Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 94-50, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Mott Addition." Applicant: Whitley Mott. Location: Mott Addition. Motion passed 5/0. B. A Motion Authorizing the Placement of a Street Ught at the Intersection of Strawberry Lane and Strawberry Circle Daugherty moved, Stover seconded to authorize the placement of a street light at the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Strawberry Circle. Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CIlY COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 1994 . PAGE 4 6. A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING SEWER IN PARK BUILDINGS Hurm directed the Council's attention to the understandings between the Park and Planning Commissions with respect to screening of portable toilets in parks as follows: - Fencings and/or plantings on three sides should be used in the neighborhood parks to effectively screen the facility from the neighborhood. - Funds are not budgeted this year (1994) for screening but will be budgeted so it can be accomplished as soon as possible. - Regarding Freeman, the large Community park, toilet facilities need to be somewhat visible for park users. In addition, there are not immediately adjacent residential neighbors to provide screening for. Therefore, the extent of screening requirements in Freeman Park is significantly different from the neighborhood parks. . Lewis stated he could not endorse installation of the portable facilities (Satellites) without budgeting funds for accompanying screening. He pointed out that the screening cost (estimated at $200-$500 for fencing and plantings) is relatively small and should be expended to enhance the facility areas. Furthermore, Lewis strongly maintained that sewer service should be installed in the parks. Benson pointed out that while it is eventually intended to install sewer service to the parks, the cost is currently prohibitive based on seasonal use of the facilities. Park Commission Chair Jennifer McCarty added that ideally indoor facilities would be appropriate, however, the cost of running sewer lines, fixtures and attendants to open and close the facilities is not currently justified based on limited seasonal use of the parks. Hurm reported that based on the experience of other communities, vandalism is a problem in the indoor facilities. Nielsen stated the proposed Ordinance allows flexibility since it is not intended to defer installation of park indoor facilities indefinitely. He pointed out the Council retains authority to accelerate budgeting necessary . funds for the improvements. Lewis supported prompt installation of screening of the portable facilities, supported accelerated installation of indoor facilities at least in parks where sewer connection is nearby, and generally found the lack of indoor facilities at the City's parks unacceptable. Daugherty moved, Brancel seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 293, "An Ordinance amending Chapter 904 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Sewer Regulations." Motion passed 4/1. Lewis voted nay. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 8. DISCUSSION ON POLICY ISSUES - None. REGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 1994 - PAGE 5 9. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS A Report on the Chaska Road Traffic Study Keane reported that recent State legislation permits a local government unit to adopt a 25 mph speed limit on segments of roadway 1/4 mile or less without conducting a traffic study. Keane suggested the Council may consider this authority as an option to deal with traffic problems on Chaska Road, if the stretch of Chaska Road at issue fits the limited interpretation of the legislation. B. Engineer's Report on 1994 Bridge Inspection . Dresel reported the yearly inspection of the Shady Island Bridge detected 3 rusted steel beams that pose a threat to very heavy traffic. The bridge's sufficiency rating is now low enough to possibly qualify the City for state and/or federal funds to replace the bridge. Dresel recommended actions to keep the bridge safe: 1) post the bridge for a 6-ton axle weight limit immediately; 2) authorize preparation of corrective drawings and obtain construction quotes for an interim fix to the bridge using MSA funds; 3) apply for replacement funding. The Council's consensus was that the Engineer should pursue the safety recommendations and prepare specific courses of action for the Council's consideration. C. Engineer's Report on 1994 Local Drainage Maintenance (LDM) Projects . Dresel reported that under the Council's established criteria, 2 drainage concerns meet the criteria for maintenance. With respect to drainage problems along the north side of County Road 19 east of Lawtonka Drive, which is eligible for cost sharing with Hennepin County, Dresel indicated negotiations will continue with the County and definite construction plans and cost estimates will be prepared for the Council's consideration. Dresel reviewed 2 options to address the continuous water flow from building sump pumps along Near Mountain Boulevard. He explained that the preferred option to install drainage pipes will be investigated with the property owners and right of entry and easement needs will be considered. Results of the study will be provided to the Council. 10. MAYOR AND CI1Y COUNCIL REPORTS Daugherty stated residents in the Sweetwater Circle/Near Mountain area report that a Public Works' project appears to be incomplete. The staff will investigate the matter. 11. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Mayor Brancel stated the Council will consider employment matters and potential litigation during the Executive Session. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES June 13, 1994 - PAGE 6 Daugherty moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting subject to approval of claims to an Executive Session at 8:00 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECfFULLY SUBMITIED, Arlene H. Bergfalk Ftecording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATIEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR . . CIlY OF SHOREWOOD CIlY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1994 CONFERENCE ROOM 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 8:08 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 8:08 p.m. Roll Call Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Stover, Benson, Daugherty, and Lewis; Administrator Hurm, and Attorney Tim Keane. The Council held general discussion with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation. No action was taken. . ADJOURN Mayor Brancel adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. ATTEST: BARBARAJ.BRANCE4MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CIlY ADMINISTRATOR . 1 ~~ . . TO: Jim Hurm. Shorewood City Adminlstrator Al Rolek. Shorewood Finance Director For Shorewood Mayor and City Council members FROM: Rolf Erickson, City Assessor 473-1844 DATE: June 16. 1994 RE: 1995 Assessment Contract Fee Term of Contract: September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995 Current contract amount: $38.760.00 Requested amount for 1994 Assessment: $41.389.00 Requested increase: $2629.00 Number of new houses in 1993: 100 New Parc~ls since last year. 69 My request for increase is based on the following two factors. Cost of living/doing business (2.5%) Cost of appraising additional properties (Parcel Growth) $969.00 $1660.00 Total $2629.00 Please note that I have incorporated and ask that our contract reflect my new business status. If this amount is acceptable please present this to the council at the next meeting. If you have additonal questions, please let me know. :ft:3A CONTRACT FOR ASSESSING SERVICES This contract is made this first day of September, 1994, by and between the City of Shorewood. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called the "Municipality") and Rolf Erickson Enterprises,Inc., dba Southwest Assessing, 14520 12th. Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 (hereinafter called the "Contractor"), The Contractor represents that its president is a Licensed Minnesota Assessor as required in Chapter 273 of Minnesota Statutes and that he is a qualified real estate appraiser, The Municipality represents that it is a separate Assessment District within the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota. . ASSESSING SERVICES: The Municipality hereby contracts for and the Contractor hereby agrees to cooperate with officals of the Municipality and the County of Hennepin in performing 1995 assessment services as defined in Minnesota Statutes, The Municipality agrees and acknowledges that the manner and the method used in the performance or the assessment duties will be under the control and direction of said Contractor. VALUATION NOTICE HEARING: The Contractor agrees to work with the Shorewood City Administrator to set a date for the local board of review and to dedicate five days for answering calls and inquiries from Shorewood residents concurrent with valuation notice mailing. CONTRACT PRICE: In consideration of the services rendered by the Contractor, the Municipality shall pay to the Contractor at the above stated address, the sum of $41,389.00, payable in twelve (12) installments of $3,449.05 beginning by the last day of September, 1994 and ending by the last day of August, 1995. . The following services are to be billed separately on a one time basis. NONE. FURNISHING OF EQUIPMENT: The contractor shall provide all transportation necessary for the performance of the services contracted for. The Municipality shall furnish all equipment and supplies necessary for the performance of the services contracted for, including a current set of aerial photographs. ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: The Contractor shall attend the local board of review meeting on a date selected by the Municipality and the Contractor and not to exceed three other Municipality council meetings during the term or the contract. Page Two Shorewood Assessing Contract LEGAL STATUS: The parties agree that the contractor is not required to maintain office hours, shall not receive retirement benefits, health insurance benefits, or any other fringe benefits offered to employees of the Municipality and shall, in all respects be deemed an independent contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Contractor and the Municipality have executed this Contract this day of 1994. ~ City of Shorewood (Municipality) by Rolf E. A. Erickson President, Southwest Assessing (Contractor) . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A SHOREWOOD PROPERTY OWNER TO CONNECT TO THE EXCELSIOR MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM WHEREAS, James Robin (Owner) owns real property within the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood owns a municipal water system which does not presently serve the owner's property; and WHEREAS, Owner is desirous of connecting to the Excelsior Municipal Water System; and WHEREAS, Owner has executed an agreement with the City of Shorewood specifically waiving any claims or defenses to a future assessment for water by the City of Shorewood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Water Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A on behalf of the City Council. 2. That said Water Agreement be filed with the City Clerk for future reference in the event that Shorewood extends water service into Owner's property. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 1994. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk .8 SI " . WATER CONNECTION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1994, by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and James Robin, (the "Applicant"). WHEREAS, Applicant has an interest in certain real property (the "Subject Property") located in the City of Shorewood at 23405 Academy Avenue and legally described as: "Lot 3, Block 1, James Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and WHEREAS, the City owns a muncipal water system which does not presently serve the Subject Property; and . WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to interconnect with the Excelsior Municipal Water System and pay to the City of Excelsior any connection charge therefor; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to permit Applicant to connect to the Excelsior Municipal Water System provided that Applicant agrees to the provisions contained herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Applicant shall have the right to interconnect with the Excelsior Municipal Water System and pay to the City of Excelsior any connection charge therefor. . 2. All work involved in such interconnection will be done according to City specifications and under City supervision and all expenses and costs connected therewith will be paid by Applicant. 3. In the event that City extends the Shorewood municipal water system to serve the Subject Property at some time in the future, Applicant agrees to pay any assessment in connection therewith on the same basis as all other properties assessed at that time, and Applicant herewith specifically agrees to waive any claims or defenses to said assessment based upon a theory of no benefit because of the water connection allowed herein. 4. It is further agreed by and between the parties that this Agreement shall run with the land and shall benefit and be binding upon their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. ~";b',~ A t I ... . . 5. That the Applicant record this Agreement with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Title within thirty (30) days of Excelsior's approval of the connection. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHOREWOOD James Robin, Applicant Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . . STATE OF MINNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 199_, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared James C. Hurm and Barbara J. Brancel to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the City Administrator and Mayor of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said City Administrator and Mayor acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 199 _, by James Robin. day of Notary Public . . James Robin 23420 Park Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 ') - 27 May, 1994 Mr. Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood Planning Director 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood. Minnesota 55331 Re: Lot 3. James Hill Subdivision Dear Brad: Please consider this letter a formal request for water service to Lot 3, James Hill, located at 234xx Academy Avenue. Shorewood. This request is consistent with the discussions which took place with the Shore wood Planning Commission and City Council during the subdivision process last year. Attached, please find a letter from Carl Zieman, Excelsior City Administrator which describes the availability and cost of this service. Thank you for your continued help. Please call me at 474-3946 if you have any Questions. . ~&~ . . CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRO STReeT eXCELSIOR, MINNeSOTA 55331 TELE: 612-474-5233 May 27, 1994 Mr. James Robins 23420 Park Street . Shorewood, MN 55331 . RE: Water Availability - James Hill Dear Mr. Robins: In response to your inquiry, the City of Excelsior has a water main located in the street right-of-way on Academy Avenue which is available to Shorewood residents that abut this water main. The City has sufficient capacity to allow for future connections in this area. In order for a resident of Shorewood to connect to this water main, the Oty of Shorewood would need to authorize and request the connection. In addition, the City of Excelsior has a connection fee that would need to be paid in advance of any connection being done. . If I can be of any further assistance or if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 474-5233. Sincerely, c:~ Carl Zi City ( CZ:cj cc: Brad Nielsen ,- ..... . COLONIAL ,;: Mutual Funds 1\ ~, L)eo.v- I( ~~S t ~ ~ ~\Je.&\- -+av- ~. QAd~ ~-r- ~0" 'o\o~iL ~~ 6~ - ~0\'--{ l~, (CiQy Q-\- 3! C)C) . - 9,' 0-0 (lrY\ . ~\.eDSe.- Cn~ VV\-L C rkd; Cu.LL\l'O\--i · ~/O-Co(dC) \ \*- '-P ro.u~ ~\.f 9u~-\-t~~ (\).- ~~ ~ you, I~ . Drll.-n.+r,' d'1-<- 1) ('~ v~ =IF 3 C. .J '....r-t-...;; J. -'=,,~ TI_IE 8:51 LASERMASTER P-02 June 21, 1994 Shorewood City H~ll Attn: Terry Dear Terry: First, let me apologize for not realizing that the Council ha.t; to approve these types of requests. HOld I known, I would not helve put you under the gun this way. I would appreciate anything you are able to do to get our request approved. The neighbors on our block would like to hold a block party for the 4th of July. Per our discussion, r am submitting below the information you 'will need to help make a determination. . have been selected as the chairperson for this event; therefore, you may direct any communications regarding the event to me. We would like to barricade the following court: My address is: Date: Time: Mall,\rd Lane 5442 Mallard Lane Monday, July 4, 1994 I :00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. We will not be holding our own fireworks displays; however, we will helve individual fireworks for the kids. I have drawn a map below of the area. Mallard Lane is the last right turn off of Wedge wood Drive. Wedgewood Drive extends about one block past Mallard Lane and ends in a court also. So there is access for vehicles to turn around and also plenty of parking. . Thanks for all your help! Carey Holladay 943-9141 or 470-7401 S~..\:~~\O:)~ ~(')~~ ,. . .3 ~ " c< c. 0" ~ tJ.b \.;:t. ~ l-&.f..:r "' .; MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD - 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612) 474.3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 21 June 1994 . RE: Waterford 7th Addition - Final Plat FILE NO.: 405 (94.15) Having received final plat and site plan approval for the commercial strip center (Waterford 6th Addition), Mr. Jeff ~choenwetter now proposes to plat the three remaining commercial sites. The final plat of Waterford 7th Addition (Exhibit A) is consistent with the previously approved preliminary plat. Site plans for individual sites will still be subject to Planning Commission review and Council approval. Park dedication fees and sewer connection charges for commercial properties are calculated on a residential equivalent unit basis (REV). Each 20,000 square feet of site area represents one REU. The fees for Waterford 7th Addition are as follows: . · Park dedication - 157,101 sq. ft. -:- 20,000 = 7.85; 8 x $750- = $6000. . local san. sewer access charge - 157,101 sq. ft. -:- 20,000 = 7.85; 8 x $1000 = $8000. .- It is recommended that the fmal plat be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title insurance commitment for review by the City Attorney. 2. Park dedication fees and sewer access charges must be paid prior to release of the plat. 3. The plat must be recorded within 30 days of Council approval. cc: Jim Hurm Joel Dresel . Tim Keane Jeff Schoen wetter A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~AJ WATERFORD 7TH ADDITION 3 \ /1 i r- _':-';. ~ - - - ...'. ../1. _' 000 I ~~ c I .J 1-' Ie, .' ~, c~ .~ C'J I i'r "C I .~' "-n" ",_ c-) _. VCt./1 "I":""/~A,,/ :;: I ,. , .~ ....0 .~ -.0 I ..,:;.... , ~.., ~~ "'0 I 0 <II .~ ~~ I -, , ,,., h .. J.. :J I "'-'. 'r l .': / .,. I r,., ~ - - - I I I I c\ I ,~ ~l ' .- I ~" .'J I ~- " ~~ ." "",-J :..i:: -~ I " , - !-;: ~ - ,,~ - " ----- _.' I~ r"\~ 'b .., " ;;rJ:'V:,/'l ~~ I ,'1" -0 ,,1./0 - r1/~.~' -' - r - - I -- -- ,- ~- I I 1.:\ , I I SHOWN ON TH:: =:..A T. / ~ ,I "II,.., I I"" " " Jr (1!' t.<j-:{:;}~;' ..s-~~,,;"\.. f4,\,"""'...1r:t s.....t,~ [" o.T- ...( -r~,L- e,f' J . r (,;' t .. ...I /' .'" ,If nn,T,"'-'^' ,-,VL/lIIV: '" VI oc~ <O\; -~, / i- .. ...,/1' .. IJIA ~::-:)::-r.:)I-' ,,~/~/\i V:\V ","'''' !.,.c}.. . . . ,< 7'~~t""" <" " " ,.'/ ,i- - ~ ::":..::~~ ~ ./ : '"' . to ; i: '00 : ,/ 0';)"",':J , ~ '0 .,'0 ~I ~,O' ~1f'.'J1 · I I r~11 ;'V \ \ . \ \ I . l~f1 .r I / IN 300 : FEET I I I o 60 ~ SCALE 120 1,80 BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED o DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 20281. DRAINAGE AND UllLliY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: .- ':'i '1 . ~"O . - -- .J.. ~;b,+ A _ .l. __. BEING 10 FEET IN '....10 Tn. AND ADJOINING LOT LINES. UNLESS OTHERW!SE INDICA TED. AND SEING 10 FEET IN WIDTM AND ADJOINING RIGrli OF WAY LINES AS SHOWN ON lri:: cLA T. ...,.w" CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF WATERFORD 7TH ADDmON WHEREAS, the final plat of Waterford 7th Addition has been submitted in the manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statues, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Shorewood; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: . 1. That the plat of Waterford 7th Addition is hereby approved. 2. That the approval is specifically conditioned upon the terms and conditions contained in Shorewood Resolution No. 100-90, approving a revised Development Stage Plan for the Waterford P.U.D., and the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated 27 June 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval for the plat on behalf of the City Council. 4. That the final plat, together with this Resolution, shall be filed and recorded within thirty (30) days of the date of certification of this Resolution. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 1994. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATIEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk 'fA Z "j #~ . . T C) N v EIDEN . II 1t,1 2.3 100,1 COM PAN Y Mayor Brancel and Shorewood City Council City Hall Shorewood , MN June 23, 1994 RE: Heritage PUD Concept Plan Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: In an effort to reduce the length of my presentation on captioned agenda item on June 27, 1994, it is my intention by this letter to provide you with a synopsis of our comments on our project and the Planning Commission recommendations regarding it. Unfortunately it does not appear that the final draft of the Planning Commission minutes will be available much before this letter must be to the City Clerk for inclusion in the June 27 agenda packet. Because of this I may not address all issues raised during the Hearing and discussion by this letter. I will address any oversights with my verbal comments at the Council meeting. Initially it should be noted that the Planning Commission, particularly Chairman Rosenberger, conducted the Hearing and subsequent discussion concerning our application in an organized and fair manner. The rules of procedure for all parties to the Hearing were clearly stated in advance and were strictly adhered to. This was my first Planning Commission Hearing in Shorewood, but I have attended literally hundreds of hearings in other cities, and I can therefore appreciate how well the hearing was conducted. I was not permitted to address the Commission following the Hearing except in response to Commissioners' direct questions, but I understood that would be the case in advance. Since the "right" questions were not forthcoming from commissioners, there are a number of inisunderstandings and issues that were raised both by commissioners and the public that I could not address until now. Perhaps the resulting Planning Commission recommendation would have been different had I been able to address those matters at that time - perhaps not. . We consider ourselves to be quality and professional developers. I personally spent a large portion of my career as a professional city planner serving local government in the same function as Brad Nielson. We currently have development projects under way in 5 different Twin Cities suburban communities. Our philosophy in approaching a new development site has always been to retain the natural site amenities to the maximum 4100 BERKSHIRE LANE- PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55446-16121559-0251 FAX 16121559-1258 #Lt1J extent possible while utilizing the development tools available in local zoning ordinances. Weare not the type of developer that emphasizes adding value to development sites by Comprehensive Plan Amendments or large doses of variance from the zoning ordinance standards. While our land development division must show a profit, our goal is to create attractive neighborhoods for the Tony Eiden Company home buyer. Our earliest task in reviewing a site for potential development is to carefully analyze what is available to the site within the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Our initial project pro forma is based on those findings, and a purchase decision results. Sites that are overpriced in relation to potential development by the existing Comprehensive Plan are bypassed. The Heritage site in Shorewood was approached in just such a manner. Your staff will confirm that there has never been a thought of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, major wetlands encroachment or wholesale zoning variance during our discussions of development of Heritage. The site lent itself to the PUD mechanics due to the convoluted . property lines, substantial wetlands and other unusual site features. The Zoning Ordinance appeared to allow for a 10% density bonus under certain negotiated conditions. Staff advised us that the bonus was seldom granted so we decided to forego that option as well. We could justify the feasibility of the project for homes of the value Tony Eiden Company builds, even with the relatively high costs of assembling land from 4 different owners. We proceeded with our project understanding that it would be within the standards of the Zoning Ordinance PUD specifications. The key element of those standards is to maintain a project density of 1 dwelling unit for each 40,000 square feet ofland area of the site, exclusive of road right-of-way and wetlands. It was with these understandings we directed our project engineers to proceed. Their marching orders were to avoid any wetland encroachment and steadfastly maintain the 1/40,000 standard. Aside from the issues oflake access use and City water, the staff report to the Planning Commission confirmed our understanding of the basic concept . compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. From my notes of the meeting it appears that the approval recommendation of the Planning Commission is upon the following conditions: 1. No lot may be under 35,000 squarefeet in area 2. The lake access lot must be deleted from the PUD Plan. 3. The "island" outlot must be dedicated to the City (as opposed to our proposal for Homeowners' Association ownership). 4. Any existing tree removed over a certain dimension must be replaced on a caliper inch for caliper inch basis with trees of not less than 3' diameter. 5. An analysis by the City Engineer of the City water options for the site. While not made a condition of the approval recommendation, the Planning Commission repeatedly made it clear that they also expect the developer to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project even though the project proposes no activities of the nature or scale that mandates such a review under Environmental Quality Board Rules. We have carefully reviewed those conditions as to our ability to comply, and the impact on the project. All of the conditions will have an impact (particularly financial) on the project. Even so we have can and will agree to comply with those recommendations as follows: . I. The 60 foot lake access lot will be deleted from the project. We do not as yet have a disposition for this real estate, valued by the Assessor at over $50,000 - even as unbuildable. I understand Mr. Eiden was recently (since the Planning Commission meeting) offered less than 10% of that value for the lot by an adjoining property owner. 2. We will modify our plan to dedicate the island outlot to the City, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. We will comply with a reasonable reforestation condition. 4. We will adopt reasonable measures to accommodate future City water service to the site. This could include off street easements or similar measures. . 5. We will immediately initiate preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet consistent with EQB Rules. The project will be a joint venture of Franklin Svabowda Associates and Sather Bergquist Engineers. We have also carefully reviewed the impact of the Planning Commission recommendation that no lot be less than 35,000 square feet in area. Our greatest concerns reside with that recommendation. The impact of that recommendation is substantial, both to the viability of the project; and, we submit, to the City in general. We also submit that at least a portion of the basis for the Planning Commission recommendation in this regard may be founded on misunderstandings regarding the details of our proposal; the character of neighborhood surrounding the site; and the function/purpose of a Planned Unit Development. IMPACTS TO THE PROJECT As we noted in our PUD Concept Statement the combination of highly irregular property boundaries (resulting from historic land divisions); significant wetlands to avoid; and linear site shape the available options for site design are extremely limited. To accommodate the stated City objective of a continuous street from existing Noble Road to Edgewood Road dictates a lotting layout with little flexibility (if wetlands are to be preserved) As a result, reconfiguration to produce lots all at least 35,000 feet in area reduces the Net New Lot Count from a proposed 19 (not 21 as repeatedly stated by the public and commissioners during the Hearing and discussion) to 15. Because of the wetland/roadway/shape constraints of the site, the loss of four lots from the density allowable per the Comprehensive Plan using the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance results in very significant project pro forma consequences. While project revenues will drop over $300,000 there will be little, if any, reduction in project expense. The street, sewer and site grading costs will remain virtually the same with 15 lots as with 19 lots. The infrastructure efficiencies of the PUD ordinance are very clear in this case. The partial abandonment of the concept by an arbitrary lot size floor has predictable negative consequences. IMPACTS TO THE CITY . The recommended lot size floor, and the resulting reduction in project lot count not only impacts the developer, but the City as well. While these impacts may not be as dramatic and easy to quantify as those to the developer, they will occur. As we address those, it is important to recognize that the Planning Commission recommendation effectively reduces the project density from the stated Comprehensive Plan 1.0 Units per Acre to .78 Units per acre. The recommendation for a lot size floor does not bring the project in to compliance with the Plan, but denies this project the density clearly anticipated by the Plan at this location, and all other sites similarly land use classified in Shorewood. A recent study by the City of La keville, more recently confirmed by another study completed by Springstead, Inc. for the City of Plymouth, confirms that residential development with values in excess of$200,000 per unit are Revenue Positive to cities. This means that the tax revenues from residential properties of that or greater value will more than off set the actual cost of providing the full range of municipal services to those residences - much in the same manner that commercial/industrial development provides the same leverage, but to a lessor extent. . A sketch of the impact of not allowing four homes valued at $400,000 each would result in about $10,000 per year "lost" tax revenue per house per year to all taxing entities. In sum that would mean perhaps $8,000 per year lost to Shorewood alone. Over a 60 year projected life cycle for the homes that amounts to nearly $500,000 lost to Shorewood without inflationary considerations. Perhaps half of that amount would be net dollars over cost of services rendered - a seemly important consideration in a community such as Shorewood, with little commercial and no industrial tax base existing or anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. A more subtle impact to the City by adtspting the lot size floor recommended may be a lessening of confidence by developers, home builders and Shorewood property owners in the validity of the Comprehensive Plan and (at least) the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. If the developer and land owner is to be rather arbitrarily precluded from the density specified by the Plan by the introduction of unpublished minimum lot size standards, the specter of planning/zoning by neighborhood referendum may be substituted for community wide comprehensive planning/zoning policy. The PUD regulatory tool is firmly based on the precept that the purpose of community planning and zoning is to establish community structure and character by focusing on the number of dwelling units permitted in a given area. It is dwelling unit count that drives community wide issues such as infrastructure (sewer, streets and other utilities) and demand for municipal services and schools, not lot sizes. Use of rigid lot size standards to control density results in inefficiencies and environmental encroachment with resulting negative impacts to both the developer and the community. . OTHER FACTORS In formulating its recommendation regarding a minimum lot size for Heritage the Planning Commission debated the appropriate number to use. Clearly there was no policy in that regard to guide them, or to insure consistency of treatment between Heritage and PUD's that preceded it, will follow it in the City review process. No specific reasons were stated for the use of35,000 square feet as a minimum, such as established policy or precedent. . During the Hearing both Mr. Nielson and Commissioners made repeated reference to a residential development proposal by Lundgren Brothers. I understand that this proposal involves a very similar site directly across the wetland from the Heritage site. I understand also that the Lundgren project is of a similar scale and land assembly complexity as Heritage, and is situated in an area of Shorewood with a Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and zoning identical to the Heritage site. Lundgrens are proposing lot sizes very similar to those of Heritage, but a dwelling unit density 30% greater than the Comprehensive Plan would allow at that location, and 65% higher than the effective density of Heritage if the 35,000 square foot minimum lot size condition is maintained as recommended by the Planning Commission. During his staff report and subsequent Planning Commission deliberation Mr. Nielson made repeated reference to the similarity between Heritage and the Lundgren proposal. I understand that both the Planning Commission and the City Council have informed Lundgrens that a Land Use Plan amendment to attain the proposed 1.3 dwelling units per acre is not likely to be approved, and that they (Lundgrens) should maintain the 1 unit per 40,000 square feet of dry land standard found in the PUD ordinance. No condition regarding a minimum lot size in addition to the Zoning Ordinance standard for PUD density has been added or suggested to Lundgrens such as it has been for Heritage. During the Hearing on Heritage members of the public testifying admonished the Planning Commission to set a minmum lot size in keeping with the character of the existing lots in the neighborhood. Since there was no other reason stated by the Planning Commission for recommending the 35,000 square foot lot size minimum I can only assume that the condition was in response to the demand of the public in that regard. To a large extent Heritage will become a self contained neighborhood. To the south and west large wetland areas will separate Heritage from existing or any future development making any lot size differentials meaningless. In addition, even where there is adjacency to existing residences (east and north) Heritage is oriented away from those residences, facing the opposite direction. Where there is a direct relationship to existing lots, at the Noble Road extension and at Edgewood Road intersection the lot sizes of Heritage meet or exceed those existing. Indeed, a large portion of the impacted neighborhood as defined by the 1000 foot radius of Public Hearing Notice includes lot sizes far less than the 20,000 to 30,000 square feet minimum proposed in Heritage. Many existing lots of 10,000 square feet and less are found along Edgewood Road, with resulting density far in excess of that proposed in Heritage. We believe Heritage,. as proposed, provides a smooth transition of lot size-rrom the 40,000 square feet per lot of Boulder Ridge on the East to the 10,000 square feet found along Edgewood Road adjacent to the site. . Substantial study and effort has gone into the proposal for the Heritage neighborhood. As home builders the development efforts of our organization firmly focus on creating neighborhoods that are attractive to our buyers and assets to the community and those already residing in the vicinity. To that end compliance with community comprehensive plans and adopted land use regulations continues to be our corporate policy. The purpose of Public Hearings is to solicit information that may be beneficial in the design of a new neighborhood, as well as to better inform those that may be impacted regarding the details of a project. Several positive suggestions came from the Public Hearing on Heritage, as well as from the combined wisdom of your Planning Commission. Even though there are negative financial impacts to our project from many of the resulting Planning Commission conditions, we are prepared to incorporate most of those conditions in the Heritage design. For the reasons we have noted, however we must appeal to the City Council to exclude from your action the condition regarding a 35,000 square foot minimum lot size. We submit that the negative project and community impacts of that restriction will far exceed any perceived benefits. We also submit that the apparent reasoning for the recommended restriction - compatibility with existing lot sizes in the vicinity - would be accomplished with the Heritage Concept of 1 dwelling unit per 40,000 square feet and lot areas as we propose. Finally, we submit that the density and lot sizes we propose are consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD section of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. As such, the Planning Commission recommendation regarding a lot size minimum becomes, at least in the case of Heritage, unstated policy with substantial implications to an applicant. . . . I will be in attendance at your meeting of June 27 to review the comments found here for the benefit of the public and address any questions you may have regarding these matters or any other issues concerning Heritage. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our submissions. Sincerely yours, Abingdon Development oration/Tony Eiden Company MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 June 1994 . RE: Heritage P.U.D. : Concept Stage FILE NO.: 405 (94.09) BACKGROUND Mr. Charles Dillerude, representing Abingdon Development Corporation, has submitted plans for the development of approximately 32.65 acres of property located south of Edgewood Road, approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The developer proposes to assemble five parcels, two of which have existing homes on them, and resubdivide them into 21 single-family residential lots (see Exhibit B). . The site is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and is also subject to the requirements of the S, Shoreland District. Approximately 11.35 acres of the property exists as designated wetland, leaving J9.5 acres of buildable area, exclusive of proposed road right-of-way. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: .- North - Single-family residential; zoned R-1A/S East - Single-family residential and vacant; zoned R-1A1S South and West - Designated wetland; zoned R-1A The property slopes from the northeast to the southwest. An island of dry ground rises out of the wetland in the southwest corner of the site. Rather than attempt to develop this island, the developer proposes to preserve it as common open space, using the buildable area to plat lots somewhat smaller than 40,000 square feet on the upland portion of the site. To accomplish this the developer requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. ~ The applicant's proposal is explained further in his letter to the City (Exhibit C), dated ..1 2 May 1994. . =ffY.6J A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore RE: Heritage P.U.D. Concept Stage 1 June 1994 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. PuI:POse of P.U.D. Requirements, standards and procedures for planned unit development are set forth in Section 1201.25 of the Shorewood Zoning Code. Use of P. U .D. is considered quite appropriate for the development of the subject property. A number of the provisions contained in the "purpose" paragraph of Section 1201.25 apply to the property: 1. Clustering the allowable units for the property onto the upland portion of the site preserves the island in the wetland. ' . 2. Preservation of the island precludes disruption of the wetland for access and utilities which would be necessary if the island were developed. 3. Assembling the parcels provides for very orderly development of the subject property, allowing the completion of Noble Road and eliminating a very substandard cul-de-sac length. ' 4. Preservation of the island and wetland and the proposed density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of land area are consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Maintaining the island as common open space enhances the environment and protects the views for lots abutting the wetland. Common ownership of the island provides enjoyment for all residents within the development. . 6. The proposed P.U.D. generally maintains setbacks and lot sizes of the R-IA district at the periphery of the project. B. Conce.pt Stage PUI:POse. Subd. 6.b.(1) sets forth the "immediately significant elements for City review and comment": 1. The proposed development density, one unit per 40,000 square feet is consistent with Shorewood' s existing Comprehensive Plan as well as the density proposed in the Comp Plan Update currently being studied by the City. It should be noted that the P.U.D. takes advantage of the oversizing of Lots 1 and 13 (existing homesteads), but suggests that those lots will not be part of the proposed homeowner's association. It is recommended that deed restrictions be placed on those lots stating that they can not be further subdivided. - 2 - Re: Heritage P.U.D. Concept Stage 1 June 1994 Since a survey with detailed area tabulations is not available as of this writing, it is not recommended that a specific number of lots be approved. Rather, concept stage approval should simply state that the forthcoming plat for the property (development stage) should maintain the 1/40,000 density. 2. As mentioned earlier the extension of Noble Road and its connection to Edgewood Road is consistent with the City's plans for the area. . It is highly recommended that the 20-foot pedestrian access to the island (between Lots 10 and 11) be developed as part of the required site improvements. It should be landscaped and clearly delineated on the site. 3. The applicant's proposal to dedicate Outlot A to the City is consistent with Shorewood's Wetland Code. If the proposed homeowner's association is to own Outlot B, an easement must be dedicated over the designated wetland area. The third common space area - the lak:eshore parcel - raises serious concerns. The 50-foot, quarter-acre parcel exists as a nonconforming use, containing a dock with no principal dwelling on the lot. The first concern is the legal status of the property. One-seventh of the property is owned by a..landowner not involved with the P. U.D. If that individual does not agree With the proposed use of the parcel, what authority does he have in the approval process? The City Attorney recommends that a title opinion be required in order to sort this issue out. . Perhaps more significant is the potential impact of the increased use (the developer is not clear on ho\y the lak:eshore parcel may be used) on nearby residential property. The parcel is over 350 feet from the nearest lot in the project and 1500 feet from the furthest lot. By contrast,. the two homes adjoining the lak:eshore parcel are only 80 feet apart. The narrow width of the lot and the proximity of existing homes preclude adequate screening or buffering. It is reasonable to expect that the increased use of the lot by 19 new families would have an adverse impact on the existing properties. 4. The general layout of lots is acceptable. While actua1lot dimensions will be evaluated as part of the development stage review (preliminary plat), it is important to specify that the two lots on the east end of the project should m~t R-1A standards. Any reduction in lot area should occur west of Lots 12 and 14. It is also recommended that the R-1A setbacks (50' front, 50' rear and 10' side) be maintained throughout the project. - 3 - Re: Heritage P.U.D. Concept Stage 1 June 1994 Lot 18 ends up with a 50-foot frontage on Edgewood Road. The developer states that he has attempted to swap equal land areas with the resident to the west of the 50-foot strip, but that the owner is not interested. The homeowner. should be urged to reconsider this offer. Without the 50 feet, he does not have enough width on Edgewood for two lots. The concept plan shows lots platted into the designated wetland. Section 1102.06 (Wetlands) of the City Code states that "no part of the wetland conservation area shall be platted for residential use...". This should be corrected on the preliminary plat. . 5. It is conceivable that site improvements for this project could be completed this year (not including the final lift of blacktop). The developer projects a build-out of the homes in as little as two years. C. Utilities. While it is somewhat premature to discuss utilities in the concept stage review, certain issues are worth mentioning now. Sanitary sewer is readily available for the development according to the City Engineer. Although City water is some distance from the site, the Council has directed staff to suggest ways for new development to provide for City water. This topic is due for further study and discussion in the next 30-60 days. Storm sewer/drainage will have to be addressed as part of the preliminary plat. . D. Park Dedication. The City's park planning does not include acquisition of additional land in the area of the subject property. While it is assumed that fees will be required in lieu of land ($750 x 19 = $14,250), the Park Commission should review and comment on the proposed development. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding, the proposed P.U.D. is generally consistent withShorewood's Comprehensive Plan and the stated purpose of the P.U.D. provisions of the Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the Concept Plan be approved subject to the following: a. Lots 1 and 13 should be required to record deed restrictions stating that they will not be further divided. b. Concept approval should allow one unit per 40,000 square feet of net buildable area (as opposed to a specific lot count), based upon more detailed survey information to be provided in the development stage of the P. U .D. process. - 4 - Re: Heritage P.U.D. Concept Stage 1 June 1994 c. The proposed pedestrian access to the commonly owned island should be developed with the site improvements, and clearly identified as being owned and maintained by the homeowner's assocation. d. Protective covenants for the P.U.D. should clearly set forth provisions for protecting the wetlands (Le. no dumping of yard waste, no fencing, no site alteration, etc.). e. Serious consideration should be given to elimination of the 50-foot lakeshore parcel as part of the P.U.D. The developer should also provide a title opinion for this.parcel, explaining the rights of the one-seventh owner. . f. Lots on the east end of the proposed road should comply with R-IA district standards (width, area and setbacks). g. R -IA setback requirements should be maintained throughout the P. U.D. h. The owner(s) of land adjoining the "panhandle" of Lot 18 should be encouraged to swap an equal amount of land for the 50-foot strip. L Lots shall not be. platted into the City's designated wetland. j. . The development stage revieW'" of the P. U.D. process should explore ways to provide for future water extension to the site. . k. The City should consider requiring a tree inventory and negotiate some kind of reforestation program as part of the P.U.D. - 1. Any portions of the P.U.D. abutting Edgewood Road should provide additional r.o.w. to bring Edgewood into compliance with r.o.w. standards (50' width). m. The developer must provide conservation easements for any Wetland Conservation Act wetlands outside of the City's designated wetland. . cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Chuck Dillerude Park Commission - 5 - .. _ $ ' .. Y E , 1 �, E', . �1.• �l ,I. V . w I V - 1), W s { i c e " I s .n ,- .) . r %I -. um._.. ;N..al ., ' NY. a._ :r • » ' s s . H R, �1. 'I 1 _ A .� t 1 ^ 1 P‘ ___.." ___.- • 4 ''', . i ____,, , . 7 a - bra 7 _ AgillIllIll 6yv - sl A , x. i � x 1 u 8 �_ r V, .. \K s 9; rtxr " 1... i • 0 » � --Nm , ofi \ I , iikiii , i , • ' ...-. -------- ' 8 • MOM ? •r; I • g . J il:a Y \ N , ,I 9 . it s \A d f 1 1 .. p i Y 3 - \ s );:9 , i .. - �' r ., .1•• V 0 • I _ ... -. _.. • ' $- • M._ i_....e 4 . \ '� ` - v 1 0 i n � I %it 0.. \' • '• \ a 1 U V p \, 1011 ,. \,\.,z 4 4 . ‘ - cZ e, 10,a-- , , 4 - -, ! �. • i s 0 • • .a Rp; '-. 0 : • - ! '� `, , 9 .• ,' ,.�r �� Y It . _.:�* � } ') 6 ( '.^.l r! i a• ,I. N 4 d' 1141 i i i I ;a'�° °� � •1 • w. >w �• 4' a ' .. K } l'V 1 - 1 = �` , a M ' •R.y . ` 19 --i ne • a SAHVIAOH ', ts s - -i + ■ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Heritage P.U.D. LAKE MINNETONKA . f i e4 \--.\-. ... / 4' \ et".*741,A.IVItat.____ � � r••=- --yam' _ ;� era � a ► �.1 ' 1 - I 1~�`�tr AAlt -1:7:_-_ ...� > � �� r � - --C �.: - -� .-- AI ! . • sw tac► �7�lsi iii � '� a�� r1.����•lr�' _ _- � _ � . i 11 7 - I V) , Z , f i r P r �,1* 950 ■' ,p, Or �r A,fi... (1 a 4 \ 0 -.1.marifili,470... j , 0 • 1 " ioi� u ' �i, I O i i.,4„.........„.,,.,e i. ._ \, _ 4. i \ ,,, 50 21 1` \ 7 filo � � � \ �\ 19 I k 041111 _,..„ 14 10 .........,__, 18 iiik \ .) \ lik \ \N. \ 7 � \ g60 I .4I WINEL _Ara' \ I \•.. 1111101 .. , QUTLOT A i ' ---,, (8.7ACRES) \ . ; � / 1 - 4, A t , it I NI -<■1 1 _ --- .9so ■ i r. \ OUTLbT • Et — ` ; .� \ \ ( 4.5 ACRES) / �'�� OUTLOT OPEN S • • - - 930\ a. t' s. 4/ 4 4 -' At k 44 4= 4. 100 50 0 50 100 200 SCALE IN FEET • GROSS UPLAND AREA EX UlDNG ROADS Exhibit B 1851,000 So.FT.1+ 40,000 SQ.Fr. = 2 SUBDIVISION CONCEPT Note: This is an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes from 7 June. It contains their recommendation relative to the Heritage P. U .D. concept stage plan. A draft copy of the complete minutes from the public hearing are included in your packet also. If you have any questions relative to this matter please call me prior to Monday night's meeting. Brad Nielsen . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 8 Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed to set a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq.ft. for this development. The Commissioners reviewed and discussed each of the conditions (a. through m.) recommended by the staff and agreed on modifications to selected points. . Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the Heritage Planned Unit Development concept stage plans, proposed by Mr. Charles DilIerud, representing Abingdon Development Corporation and Tony Eiden Builders, to be located south of Edgewood Road, approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road, subject to the staff recommendations a. through m. detailed on pages 4 and 5 of Nielsen's memorandum dated June 2, 1994, modified as follows: b. Concept approval should allow one unit per 40,000 square feet of net buildable area. with a minimum lot size of 35.000 sauare feet of area. (as opposed to a specific lot count). c. The proposed commonly owned island should be dedicated to the City in exchange for 2 Park fees. j. The development stage review of the P.D.D. process should include a hydrology study and report from the City Engineer. k. The City will reauire a tree inventory and negotiate a reforestation program with a minimum of 3" diameter replacement trees as part of the P.D.D. Motion passed 7/0. The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting. Written comments regarding the recommendation may be mailed to the Councilmembers and staff at City Hall for receipt prior to the meeting. The Chair recessed the meeting at 10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m. +bL ..- - .. MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L " Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 2 June 1994 RE: Johnson Hollow - Preliminary Plat FILE NO.: 405 (94.08) BACKGROUND . Ms. Elizabeth Lindow proposes to sell part of her property at 27920 Smithtown Road to Mr. Daniel Johnson, 27944 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). " The purpose of the division and combination is for Mr. Johnson to acquire an existing tennis court, located to the east of his property. Together, the lots tota1l69,735 square feet in area. They are zoned R-lA/S, Single: Family ResidentiallShoreland. After the division/combination (see Exhibit B), Ms. Lindow's lot will contain 58,535 square feet of area, and Mr. Johnson's lot will contain 111,200 square feet of area. The two existing lots and three others are served by a private road, most of which is located on Ms. Lindow's property. As a result of the subdivision/combination, approximately 600 feet of the road will now be located on Mr. Johnson's property. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Although the applicants' intent is rather simple, it is complicated by strange lot configurations, cumbersome legal descriptions, and the existence of the private road. In "an attempt to simplify matters to the extent possible, the applicants have been asked to formally plat the division/combination. There is no intent to tamper with existing use or maintenance agreements for the pirvate road at this time. Review of the final plat, however, should ensure that the rights and responsibilities of all parties using the road will be maintained. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore # lei ... ....,. . . Re: . Johnson Hollow Preliminary Plat 2 June 1994 It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicants must provide up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinions or title insurance binders for both existing properties. 2. The final plat must be submitted within six months. 3. The final plat must provide drainage and utility easements 10 feet on each side of all ~pertyli~. . 4. The final plat should include a wetland conservation/drainage easement for the designated wetland on Lot 1. 5. Since no new lots are being created, park dedication fees and sewer connection charges will not be required. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Daniel Johnson Elizabeth Lindow - 2 - ..... o >- ...... ... <-1 ~\ ,.... "'""'" .tft - "'!? :!? '- . Sl: ..., '\. , ::'J'- ... ... .... /,{j-' .' r, t1 ,.., ,.., ~ '--~'"9iz""""'" , . ~I -, I I ,.... \C atl ,-- ~-tk----- ZJT.l9 >- <( CO ~ ;J. ~ :J ~ lIIM!Jn ~ ..:1 ~ ,.,- . :x: l- e: o z (:) o N II z :s: o t- , - ,... Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Johnson Hollow - Preliminary Plat .,. . " ~~ "'-/~:_') /..- ",. - >' _-1.~ ... ,~' .... l I :; -~ ~ -<,~ ~ -\::. ~ 7--r -3 ~ i'.. f"(; ~~~..~ . I. i ~-I '.~ , . " ....... ,~"'" HI" ,.'':;:- """'..... -- ",..,. lie$ lJ~o.:fIJHt1l5 -m/11 tl1-':JlllU)C 3ij0 Exhibit B PRELIMINARY PLAT CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO.____. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPRO V AL FOR JOHNSON HOLLOW WHEREAS, Daniel 1. Johnson (Applicant) has an interest in certain land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary approval of a plat to be known as Johnson Hollow; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been- duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 2 June 1994, which Memorandum is on file at City Hall; and . WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 7 June 1994, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of Johnson Hollow is hereby granted. 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's Memorandum dated 2 June 1994, and the terms and conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 7 June 1994 on fIle at City Hall. . ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 1994. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm City Administrator/Clerk 4GL. U' I .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 3 June 1994 RE: R. Bowman Second Addition - Preliminary Plat FILENO.: 405 (94.10) BACKGROUND . In 1990 the City approved a subdivision for Mr. Richard Bowman, allowing his property at 20025 Manor Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) to be split into two lots as shown on Exhibit B. Since the property was located in Shorewood and Deephaven, it was actually divided into two lots and two outlots. The outlots were legally tied to their respective adjoining lots so that they could not. be developed or subdivided without City approval, and without constructing a city street. Right-of-way (Bowman Court) was dedicated for future construction of the street. The two lots would share Mr. Bowman's existing d~veway until such. time as a road was built. Mr. Bowman now requests that the southerly portion of the property, Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot B, be resubdivided into three building sites (see Exhibit C). He also asks that the development agreement required as part of the original plat (see Excerpt - Exhibit D) .be amended to allow the replatting without constructing the street. Staff reports (dated 5 July and 3 August 1990) relative to the original request are attached for further background (copied in yellow). ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION One of the concerns in the original plat was that the subdivision not be allowed to circumvent the City's requirements for city streets. Properly controlled, Mr. Bowman's current request does not violate the City's Code or the intent of the original approval. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore #1/)/ Re: R. Bowman Second Addition Preliminary Plat 3 June 1994 Despite creating three building sites from one, the common driveway will still only be shared by Mr. Bowman's existing residence and the new Lot 2. Lot 1 will access directly from Manor Road in Shorewood, and Lot 3 will access directly from Vine Street in Deephaven. As a result, Mr. Bowman's driveway need not be upgraded to private street standards (20 foot wide, paved surface). The future public street need not be constructed until such time as Outlot A is replatted. As in the previous development agreement, Outlot A must remain legally tied to Mr. Bowman's existing homestead parcel (Lot 1, Block 1). . It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following: 1. The development agreement must be amended to provide: a. That Outlot A must remain legally tied to Mr. Bowman's existing lot. b. That Lot 3 will be accessed via Vine Street. c. That Lot 1 will be accessed by Manor Road. d. That Lot 1 can not be resubdivided in the future. e. That structures built on Lot 2 will treat the municipal boundary between Shorewood and Deephaven as a property line, maintaining required setbacks. . f. That Lot 2 can not be resubdivided in the future. 2. The developer should submit, as part of the final plat, proposed protective covenants for all the lots, which clearly set forth the conditions in 1. above. 3. The protective covenants shall clearly advise future owners of Lots 1, 2 and Outlot. A that Bowman Court is a public street which will be constructed at such time as Outlot A is developed or subdivided.- The future road will be constructed to City standards, solely at the expense of the party proposing to develop or subdivide Outlot A. 4. A final plat (including mylars) must be submitted within six months of approval of the preliminary plat. 5. The applicant must provide, with the fmal plat, an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title insurance binder for the property. - 2 - . . Re: R. Bowman Second Addition Preliminary Plat 3 June 1994 6. The applicant must provide evidence that the City of Deephaven has approved the proposed plat. 7. Upon approval of the final plat the applicant must pay park dedication fees (2 x $750) and sewer connection charges (2 x $1000) for Lots 1 and 2. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Richard Bowman Jim McNulty Mark Gronberg - 3 - = , I~ lJ(] -;.: I : __J ~ ON r~ ~ l.'-t I~ :::, t ON a. i'6t/l ;:i- J.fA..II....H .. " w'i,,,,, ::: ~ ... ..;:.: ~~ ; .~ ~ ~ ~~ rt Ita .t! . I ..:e .:c ~ ... -~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ = ~h . -? ~;; " ::l 0: :l! .:; :e II: . ~ a~= :~~ :- ;;; .. ~= :: .: :!': 001 I oot . . ::: a 001 ~ a ""=:!J JU . - -. ",..e -E ~ ge- I I , " I I ~ ,. . ~~ -'" ':' It. . Q~ .. ~.... :;; ;.,.........-...-...-....... ..__.....~-;-_........... - S 10' ..in ~ .:;, -::: = .to -.99',. :~ . ~, ~- . ~ ;:~ ~'It,. ."0 ~2 .~.. 0'" =: s ~ .~.. "'k, @ 11 ~ I r---J-o'-~!'" JOG : "I" 2 ~_ .., W ;e::: ~ __L_.~____. 'f~~~"'" ...., I~ f .rut"" ! , r- .. I : \ : \ , " E ~ ~\ I ... .~'Lll ...'"": ~ "~~C',' J .........__...........h..... .~........... - ---.......-........--....'1- ,;:; L .)~. , ,,.,. ~;........ .:;. ..,------..-.....----........-........... ......It..'l' I .... -:e ,~ :09 ~ ,. ... 7~\\.\. ~ ..; ~_~ ,,~\~t -t- \ii .....~ .. .. N3AVN.l~OQ HIJ S3lI gg1;iz .___ QOO.lI.31lOHS f .<UJ "At n ... -: 1!1~ 1!1 ~., ~ .1 ~ - ! () ;:; t9-N. ~W\' a~ ~ 2 ::: ^, '" ., -~ @O'i)W !'I~ -; @ Exhibit A SITE LOCA nON R. Bowman Second Addition - Preliminary Plat ;;::3 . - ' VI- , -u. Q-. a: . O:::~, I.U V'l 3: -. I.U 0: VI -' :::0. a: 0: 0=. _u VI V'l , I , ., I , I , , I , , I ~ 0::. ~: ~ It .. i I I I I i J ::1 ~l ~I I , if .... L11 (r; If..; .... -~ -..[ . ..l... rl- ~ 5J c? 41 " <:: "T I ~. / / ":i \.. . ,'... ."A 't.. \ \ . ....~~;1- / ;'-_ ~- S89"'24'15ftE294.87--- ...J ,'4 U '.J ~'...JO. I\.V. 1-, '- .... No,fh I... of SW~ i NE* .se.. z!> ' Seg-44'4g"E 337.15 --, ~1F~'-;------ --:'1 I '.1 i - ; ". ""'al.d Hills.d. St. VINE. Hill Ha.: I I ,.... [ i ~orlhllft"ofloIZ ' ..TKA' , 1-': C"....on of North (.'ens.ion Jfost~ I I ,n. 01 CoI Z I,n< of Lot t I I , Wcd lOne ~lal of I :~,:'lJf H'U. E'GHTS MTI(A fo.t.d, lin. of : I I Lot Z . I I I I ! I I ~ 1'1 ::: J I ~ 2 . I .. : i'" I I : I 1> I Hrs. MrKA. I I I Soulh l'n(. oj lot z. I ~ I VINE HILL H('.HTS /'iTMA. 1 ! ,,~ t!::" _ ~87"2~'3d'E ~22.75 ..... --- . Not.fh ,;,,~ of Le.l 3 - - --, I I I I I .. ~) 2: ~ Q Q:: 0 <f 0 tOj 0 ! : NMth I,n" of Sf ~ ~wf3 S.... ZS T. 1(1, -I- " :--~ ~- "'",.ot... H.U..... Sf. ).. l"-- ~ 'Nett ~ I ~c+ to4.c4jL/ 'q' \- ~ " -- ~ o /" 0./ ~ G\ .. ) OUTLOT I i .....Vocatc.:.1 West A"""uc., VINE. Hill I.... If!! I~ z O' o "T .....:> -, .':"1:.' /I) ..... " . Ew.lcl'1s;ot1 ,,{ Norfh I."e, 0; l,.r3 A r...... ..... ,; .'--. .)..... .'1< ... .: -1 ~ :r: . :::0",9" . , ~~ (-SUr"V~Y I;n. 1. H 87.W 362.tiZ , ,/ , ..._~. ~..ShtJ,..I';"QS :S#tf'oWO en pial ./ VINE HILL HEI6HT5 MfKA ,I: I.: " 1_:'\ KI:: f-:ClC.PE i~ U _I OUTLOT Wofer' ele....ahon of Hoof'etO La ke 011 5-150-'10 We o'_n,dunar'k i$ ft\4nhotc ri", "'4'''3 wutof ,-.r Ho~ Co.,f. 'l?i.. elev . %0.81 R., 11161/ 0 . I~Z.t. ~'. N eg'43 'I~"W 550.94 L....J :) <! I il :: ':.-.:;~ .- . " ~:~'~4%O:~ r::~~~~~,,;J Wc.'5t lute ,.f Leot e. . .;:,.:: .~-~~i: ' :"."t.. . . -- .~:::~~.- ..:-'"'::... Exhibit B R. BOWMAN ADDITION Two lots and two outlots R. BOWMAN SECOND ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MCNULTY CONSTRUCTION OF lOT 1, BLOCK 2. & OUTLOTS A AND B, R. BOWMAN ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA . ..... s ~"_'49'e 337./5 (r >:1 : '"~ 1>roinage ami utility easements (ryp.) , I I I I I ~ I I J I , '"- I I i:i I I 11 I I t I I ~ j I I ; n I I ~ I I ":l: I I. ; 0 U i ~ 0, I ~ ..; I~ I VI : ~ I I; 1<3 i::, I ~ - t \,~ ~ I~ ". \ ~ ~~," '. \, ov#ot A ":.-' ~+'()OO~$<f./f. I I I -' SB7'U~'E L:: 322.75 ...~ r_ ..,., ;.~ . ., c. '.10 ...... ....' Al67'W -, I I III ~ a, b - ~ ,'" ....J. ULSZ ':..;; HOOPER LI-t<E Ow".r 1?<.II4"/ ". &,.,,,..,, 2<<:>.5 Mo_r~ .c~Mi..r,M'7 ~~S31 .5u/xl/"id4r: I'1cNulry Consrrv&.,.ion 400 ~,,,,J A~ SQ. ~II;"" "flO ,",pits M" $64<01 ~Y""fb'fllt:"': HiI'*. S.6tr>,.Jz<"1 (PIli", Gm"Pe'Y,JA<. #!>Z. ~me.(. Aoe ~ 14,(,e />1" 66361, " <{ .. .... I I Exhibit C PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT ""'.lr . ,. .. -* . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and acceptance by Shorewood and Deephaven of the final plat of R Bowman Addition, at-:ached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B, Shorewood, Deephaven, and the Developer agree as follows: 1. niPROVEMENTS WITHIN PLAT. No improvements are contemplated to be installed within the plat at this time. Developer acknowledges that t.~e public street platted as Bowman Court is not now open and is not now maintained or plowed by Shorewood or Deephaven and that neither City has any intention or obligation to open or maintain said street. Developer agrees that in the event Developer constrUcts a sewer lateral line, such lateral line shall be in Bowman Court and shall be constrUcted and installed in accordance with engineering plans and specifications approved by the Shorewood and Deephaven City Engineers and the requirements of applicable City ordinances and standards, and that all said work shall be subject to final inspection and approval by the City Engineers of Shorwood and Deephaven. After the improvements have been completed and accepted, Bowman Court shall be maintained and plowed by Shorewood. 2. REPLATTING OF OUTLOTS A AND B. Developer agrees that Outlot A and Outlot B shall not be considered as buildable lots until such time as they are subdivided and replatted as numbered residential lots. At such time as either Outlot A or Outlot B is ~eplatted, Developer shall pay the full cost for the development and improvement of Bowman Court in accordance- with all ordinances and standards applicable to public streets within the City of Shorewood, together with the full cost of all other improvements which may be required by Shorewood at the time of replatting. Developer acknowledges that it shall be required to enter into an amended Development Agreement with Shorewood and Deephaven at the time of replatting either Outlot A or Outlot B, and to comply with all procedures and requirements of the Shorewood and Deephaven subdivision ordinances then in effect. 3. TRANSFERANCE OR CONVEYANCE OF toTS AND OUTLOTS. Developer agrees that until such time as Outlot A is replatted, Outlot A shall not be t.-ansferred or conveyed separately from Lot 1, Block 1; and Lot 1, Block 1 shall not be transferred or conveyed separately from Outlot A. Developer further agrees that until such time as Outlot B is replatted, Outlot B shall not be transferred or conveyed separately from Lot 1, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 2 shall not be transferred or conveyed separately from Outlot B. 4. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. Shorewood agrees to furnish sanitary sewer service to the plat providing the following conditions are met: a) Sewer lines shall be constrUcted, installed and maintained by the Developer in accordance with Shorewood's specifications as set forth in the City Sewer Code, and all work perfoJ:111ed shall be subject to final inspection and approval by Shorewood. b) Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permi ts and paYing all Shorewood fees relating to sanitary sewer hook-ups, including the trunk and equalization charges, as set out in the City Sewer ( be owed to other agencies sucl Exhibit D Control Commission. EXCERPT FROM BOWMAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Dated 16 October 1990 -2- "-, .... MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 HEMORANDUM TO: PT~NNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 5 JULY 1990 . ;-......-----..-.- RE: BOWMAN ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (90.1t) BACKGROUND Mr. Richard Bowman requests preliminary plat approval to divide his property located at 20025 Manor Road (see Site Location map - Ey~ibit A, attached) into two lots. The request is complicated by the fact that the subject property is located partly in Shorewood and partly in Deephaven. . The portion of the site located in Shorewood is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 7.57 acres. The Deephaven portion of the site is also zoned for single-family residential development and contains 9.18 acres. The site is characterized by dramatic changes in topography, two designated wetlands and approximately 1000 feet of shoreline on Hooper Lake in Deephaven. The applicant's home is situated on the high point of the property and is accessed by a driveway which wraps around the larger of the two wetlands, into Deephaven and up the hill. The applicant proposes to split the property into two lots as shown on Exhibit B. Since both parcels are considerably larger than R-1A zoning requires, we have asked the applicant to provide a resubdivision sketch showing how the parcels could be redivided in the future. This plan is shown in Exhibit C. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Although the applicant proposes only two large lots at this time, the City needs to concern itself with further future development. In addition to the municipal boundary which divides the property, the natural features of the site pose significant problems for such development. The evaluation of the proposed plat should take the following issues into consideration: A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Bowman Addition Preliminary Plat 5 July 1990 A. Municipal Border. The applicant has apparently contacted the Hennepin County Recorder's Office which has advised him that a single parcel of land can straddle municipal boundaries within the same County. The County simply issues two tax numbers for the same parcel. The City Attorney advises that such practice can, however, be problematic. Questions which arise include, but are not limited to: Which City provides services? (police, fire and utilities) Which City's setbacks are used? Whe~e are setbacks measured from? ~fuerever the new house is located on proposed Lot 2, the other city will be deprived of taxes from the improvement. If, for example, it i.s built near Hooper Lake, Shorewood may end up providing services without benefit of the taxes generated by the home. . As a practical matter the municipal boundary creates a property line. As such the division should be considered as a four-lot plat. While it would be very easy to simply consider the two lots which would be located in Shorewood, ~he City must still be concerned with the Deephaven portion or the development, since it appears likely that access and utilities will have to corne from Shorewood. B. Future Resubdivision. The purpose of a resubdivision sketch is to demonstrate that the initial division will not adversely affect future division of the property. The applicant may believe at this time that the land will not be further developed in the future. However, just as he proposes to divide his land, it is reasonable to expect that future owners will want to divide theirs. . The plan shown on Exhibit C actually raises more questions than it answers. For example, the proposed cul-de-sac encroaches into the larger of the two wetland areas. Also, it does not extend far enough into the site to provide frontage for the northeasterly portions of the site. Since the proposed road is located entirely on Lot 1, that owner will control the future development of Lot 2. One way to avoid such a problem would be to require the future road to be platted at this time. A development agreement and possibly protective covenants could provide for the existing driveway to be shared and maintained until such time as either owner wished to further develop his property. While construction of a City street would be costly on an individual basis, particularly for Lot 2, at least the r.o.w. would be available to either party. The proposed division should not be used to circumvent the City's requirements relative to public streets. The applicant indicates that a future buyer has plans for a home on Lot 2. It is recommended that the proposed house location be shown on the preliminary plat. Whichever lot remains vacant should then be platted as an outlot, legally tied to the other portion of the lot by a protective covenant to which the City should be a party. - 2 - . . \ Re: Bowman Addition Preliminary Plat 5 July 1990 C. Deephaven Approval. As of this writing it is not known if the proposed plat has been reviewed or approved by the City of Deephaven. They will undoubtedly be concerned with the division because it could leave the northeasterly portion of the site landlocked. They may wish to require that parcel to be designated as an outlot similar to the suggestion in B. above. The applicant should show both Deephaven's and Shorewood's setbacks on a revised resubdivision sketch. Deephaven should also be asked to comment on their policies regarding private roads and street frontage in the event the cul-de-sac can not be extended far enough to the east to serve all of the northeast portion of the site. The City Attorney should be asked to comment as to what, if any, kind of agreement may be necessary between the two cities. D. Drainage, Utility and Conservation Easements. The Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance requires drainage and utility easements 10 feet on each side of side and rear property lines. The Wetland Ordinance requires conservation and drainage easements for designated wetland areas. These easements should all be shown on the preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION The proposed division leaves several issues unresolved. It is therefore recommended that the plat be tabled at this time. The resubdivision sketch should be redone to address the items raised herein. Specifically: 1. The municipal boundary should be shown as a property line. 2. Th& applicant should identify how utilities will be provided to all portions of the plat. 3. Respective setbacks for Deephaven and Shorewood should be shown. 4. The location of the home proposed for Lot 2 should be shown. The other portion of the lot should be shown as an outlot. 5. The cul-de-sac should be extended further to the east and shifted to the north 10 feet so that the middle portion of Lot 2 is at least 150 feet in depth. The plat should be revised to show the future street dedicated. 6. The applicant's attorney should work with the City Attorney to draft necessary protective covenants. 7. The applicant should provide Shorewood with Deephaven's comments relative to the plat and to the prospect of one or more lots being served by a private road. - 3 - ) . . t' '" Re: Bowman Addition Preliminary Plat 5 July 1990 8. Drainage, utility and conservation easements should be shown on the preliminary plat. 9. Contour lines should be shown for the Deephaven portion of the plat. 10. Once the resubdivision sketch is found to be acceptable, the preliminary plat should be revised to reflect the approved changes. It is suggested that these items be resolved within 60 days. BJN: ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Richard Bowman George Stickney - 4 - , ~- ~: r , : ._J (;) -J- ..=.. .. :r ON C' t 011 O' " :::1 :;, .~.u..,. ... 'I' .~ al .. .~ ~ ~~ ~i -~ ~ ... on lit ." if! ,..t :e := ~...".. ~ ()Jill ~ ~ --...---...----..- ..-----......---- 2~_ -.e ..t; :: '-.. ."..~ ." U ~. . I @ a ;t, ~..~ 1:; .,.- - ~ , '. ~.. .4, ..;...... '. .....----.--.......-..--.... ','111:-- .. ~ ~ -i ~~ - .... A,.........., ,,\\.\. ~..2 ",1.- .....- ...... \() .~.~.~~.............' iF .. ( ~\ I "':;"" J "-""'. "IJ ......... .. , NlA_r.o OOOlIMHS AU~ ~ AU:) . . . . -. .... ::: ... .S'Ul ... .; ..-...--.............- S3II gg . l . tr, t ~~ OUO "3 1) ~ ^, ft~ i ... .' .. :;; -~ @ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION a;: as : .... . V)...... I _UI 0-' a:. c: .... j ~~, ::x 0, ::!!j' lB. ; .... '" '" , I , , I , I , , I , , I Il .. c- ~, ~ II.: .. ... u ... ... '" ... ... , .1, I..c ""'I.',NI1':~I:~ I., lion ..., (-, !;.~~ ~ ,4.0.. . o'i tI '" -- "it '. ", . . ".":t .' .... '. . ........ :.:::;~! '. ..... ...... :'t ~ I:) VI . . ..... :~.~:., '., 587 *ZJ ):,.~ )U.7~ .J ... ... ~ . ("0"1"" '~~-',NAV~A/ ....., ..... .' .... :..J .: 1 t !:.' (, III :....... ." .-- .... -.. '" '---'" - ..------......-.. .....---.....". Ho 0 per Lake 7 - /.- " : .. ~f~o ~k.. ..;..";.. . ..... ..zoo ;t .. .....~ ~ o '" "-. t. ,...... ! ~., :{. . '.~ .. . ;, .- . ~t.; . !t. ,!~::; }.} Ot . f'''';~; ;,.t:::J. . .,\;~: .1:{;';: .......:., ':'~l '~:l:'" . ':1::;. ..;}....; " ~r ~ '.' ',:.' '.~ -~.; .:i~, .,):> ,~". t . : ~ "f.; ..\:: . :,::" :..;F :"~jf.r :: . "''', ..... "J.~ '. ! ~; . ,~. '.! . ,.:', ';'; Exhibit B PRELIMiNARY PI.AT , " .~ . ~ ., '" '. " "t 00 .-' ..... ~ >t . " II; :'87 "OJ(" I 1-- 3Z2.7f> J 1 ':- .:.... N ... .. 5 ,~ ~ ::' o t/') . 'lI.lIGO:l' ",.11'. '. . . ...-... .. _............ \ \ Hooper' Lake , i /' ../ .-" , . ~ ... ;. ll.~ ~ ! ~ o VI ... )Jort ~ ...lO+ to ~Ie. Sw.:o' "NI:. '{~ ol/ie-t;.. ZS '1':' Z~ t;t "-"'yc. ., ._.~_~.J:'~".~__..... . ~:?~ ~ -STREET' ..~"'\ .~~ , "~./' .00 COFFIN & GRONBERG. IN ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS. PLANNERS LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 1990 Exhibit C RESURIHVlSION SKF.TCII r MAYOR Jan Haug'", CO UNCI L Krittl Stover Robert: Gagne 8arb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 .. (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN . DATE: 3 AUGUST 1990 RE: BOWMAN ADDITION - REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FILE NO.: 405 (90.12) Mr. Bowman's plat was tabled at the July Planning commission meeting, pending resolution of a number of issues raised in our 5 July staff report. Since then the City Attorney and I have met with the Deephaven City Attorney and Engineer, the applicant's realtor and his surveyor to discuss the plat. Following is how the issues have been resolved: 1. The revised plat (see Exhibit A) shows the municipal boundary line as a property line. . 2. According to the Deephaven's Engineer, virtually all utility service will come in from Shorewood, due to site topography. 3 . Both Shorewood' sand Deephaven' s setbacks have been shown on a revised resubdivision sketch (see Exhibit B). 4. A possible location for the new home on Lot 1, Block 2 is shown on the plat. More importantly the setbacks show the amount of buildable area on the lot. The undeveloped lots have been shown as outlots. 5. The cul-de-sac has been shown as a dedicated street and has been extended eastward. While part of the right-of-way still encroaches into the large wetland area, there appears to be adeqUate room for the paved surface of a future turnaround without encroaching into the wetland. 6. The Shorewood and Deephaven City Attorneys will prepare the necessary legal documents with the final plat. In addition to protective covenants, the city Attorney recommends a development agreement. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . , . . Re: Bowman Addition Revised Preliminary Plat 3 August 1990 7. It is reasonable to expect that future development of the Deephaven outlot will involve some access by private road. Deephaven allows private roads. 8. A note on the preliminary plat states that drainage and utility easements will be provided on each side of front, side and rear lot lines. 9. It is recommended that contour lines for Outlot A be shown at such time as it is replatted. 10. The preliminary plat (Exhibit A) reflects the aforementioned changes. Based on the preceding, all issues have been satisfactorily resolved. As a result it is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved as revised. The recommendations contained herein should be incorporated into the development agreement to be prepared with the final plat. As a final note, the final plat should include a street name for the future road. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton William Engelhardt W.tlliam Soth Richard Bowman - 2 - .,,: ..A. ......,.'-.-.:"~,'.....W'-,,":c.. ----...., . ..... ... " " .; ~ .... .' J ~ ou"/"!. o "/"4 -.... ~_.f7: ::...... ..':,. ..: ..~. ".0"' ~ ., 'Il .- :',!.,~ 2.~ J ~.~:... ! . . .... ... ~ .. A ..... --...., , i Hoof'el'" Lake / ,..' /' . -.~........ ."'..'!:"'_ :SCJt>..... .s~~,... -- -.-.-- FILE COpy .. - I .(' ~~/./"" ~...._.. Exhibit ~ReLIMNARY PLAT REVISED . . Addit~on Bowman ." .. f POSSIBLE FUTURE SUBDIVISION . ....... ~ ~ ... , ~ ," . , .~ , .. ... *I-c: .,,.. ___.. .......,;................ ,. tc -.-......, '-*.....~ "...."W "". .. t " .. .. '=' . 011 C'. ".. .. . .... - '" . ';. . Ha 0 p e ,.. Lake I / . ~~/ . :s-J..f....... 4. .. )'''' ~..S:.~~r .'t"' ~ "'-0. SCALI: 1 INCH .. 100 FEET OAn : JU\.Y 31. 1990 Exhibit B REVISED RESUBDIVISION SKETCH - ~ . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR R. BOWMAN SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, Richard Bowman (Applicant) is the owner of certain land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary approval of a plat to be known as R. Bowman Second Addition; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 3 June 1994, which Memorandum is on fue at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 7 June 1994, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of R. Bowman Second Addition is hereby granted. 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's Memorandum dated 3 June 1994, and the terms and conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 7 June 1994 on file at City Hall. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 1994. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm City Administrator/Clerk 4DL MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 23 June 1994 RE: Howard's Point Marina - Request for Sewer Pump-Out Fll..E NO.: Property - 5400 Howard's Point Road Mr. Jerry Brecke has requested approval, on behalf of the Marina, to install a boat sewage pump-out station on their dock. As you know, Howard's Point Marina currently exists as a nonconforming use in the R-IAlS, Single-Family Residential/Shore1and zoning district. As such there are strict limitations on any expansion or increase in their use of the property. While it is anticipated that some increase in boat traffic may occur due to the pump-out facility, it is not expected that vehicular traffic will increase. Most. of the Marina's nonconformity exists on the landward portion of the operation. . For this reason, and given that the LMCD and DNR both feel that the pump-out presents a public benefit from a pollution prevention an(public service perspective, the City Attorney and I recommend a liberal interpretation of the nonconforming use provisions. It is suggested that the pump-out be viewed simply as a new piece of equipment, not unlike the gas pump which was allowed to be changed recently. The City Engineer advises that it is simple to install a meter on the equipment so as to deterrirlne the appropriate sewer charge; Staff will investigate whether additional sewer access charges (SAC) will be required by the MWCC. Based upon the preceding it is recommended that the pump-out station be approved. cc: .. Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Jerry Brecke A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 5A. . . June 2, 1994 Mr. Jim Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Hurm: The increased use and increased size of boats on Lake Minnetonka has again prompted the LMCD and now the Department of Natural Resources to pursue a solution to the absence of sanitary site disposal for water craft. Letters from the LMCD and the DNR are attached to this memo. The Federal and State Departments have pointed out that the installation of a pump out mounted on our gas dock probably does not fall under a city rule or guide, they may be correct. It would be our intention to connect the pump out pipe to the city sewer system using the existing provision that was installed when the city wide sewer system was completed. We have applied for the grant as specified in the DNR letter to us. Because of the need on the west end of Lake Minnetonka, I anticipate that our grant will be filled sooner rather than later. If you feel we should discuss this with the council, please place this matter on the agenda for June 27, 1994. Sincerely, HOWARDS POINT MARINA JB/cr HOWARD'S POINT MARINA 5400 HOWARD'S POINT ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-4464 ft:;8 William A. Johnstone Chair, Minnetonka To~c:e~~air. Tonka Bay May 27, 1994 Douglas E. Babcock Secretary. Spring Park Robert Rascop Treasurer, Shorewood Mr . Jerry B:-ecke . Mike Bloom Howard · s POl.nt Marl.na Minnetonka Beach 216 Water street Albert (Bert) Foster Excelsior. MN 55331 Deephaven - -, James N. Grathwol Excelsior Ronald Kline Minnetrista Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Mollet Victoria Thomas W. Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Joseph Zwak Greenwood BOARD MEMBERS Orono {) 60% Recycled Content 30% Post Consumer Waste LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160. WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 . TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dear Mr. Brecke: The LMCD Board finds that commercial marinas provide valuable public amenities on Lake Minnetonka. One such amenity marinas provide is pump out service. . There are currently no marinas with pump out service on the western side of the Lake. The addition of a pump out service at Howard's Point Marina would be a beneficial public amenity clearly needed on South Upper Lake. Would you be willing to consider as early as this boating season? discuss if this is something you provide. adding this service Please call to would like to Thank you for your continuing cooperation in helping "Save the Lake". . Sincerely, DISTRICT Technician c: J. Grathwol R. Rascop D. Babcock ~rMT~T~@'IT' &\ ~LNDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA . 55155-40 DNR INFORM'" TlON (612) 2~!~F 24, 1994 Mr. Jerry Brecke 216 Water st. Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Sewage Pumpout Information Request . Dear Jerry: I discussed your inquiry with Michael McDonough, of our Trails and Waterways staff. He is currently undertaking a survey of pumpout facilities throughout the state. According to his research there are currently no pumpout facilities on Upper Lake. The research was undertaken to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Vessels Act. This Act funds improvements and installations of sewage pump out facilities through a grant program administered by the MNDNR. If you are interested in a grant application please contact Michael MCDonough at 297-2798. It is important to note that the demand for grants is greater than the current funding supply. If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me. . Sincer. .el~.~, " -~. --._.~?'- Lawrence M. Killien Water Access Specialist Trails and Waterways 500 Lafayette Road st. Paul, MN 55155-4052 CC: Michael MCDonough AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Howard J. Strauss 4967 Devonshire Circle Shorewood, MN 55331 (612) 474-8213 June 2, 1994 Mayor Barbara Brancel City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 . Dear Ms. Brancel, The records will show that I pay my water and sewer bills very promptly and well in advance of the due date. For the second time in a matter of months, I discovered that my account was not being credited when I failed to receive the cancelled checks back from the bank. I immediately brought this to the attention of the folks in City Hall who could only tell me that they had no record of receiving a payment and that they have had other complaints where the checks were apparently lost by the Post Office. They also indicated that, in spite of my showing them my records, they had no authority to cancel the late penalty. I therefore paid the bill including a late penalty of $10.51. . It seems tremendously unfair to me that I should be penalized regardless of who or how the check was lost. At the least, I think the late payment penalty should be forgiven, but I was told that the Council would have to authorize a refund of the late payment penalty. I would therefore like to ask you to request the Council to do so in my behalf. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, ~~~a" ==IF/.c; READINGS o 0 o 0 496800 520000 o ST o SW 23200 WA P:J;lq~ . SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CODE eXPLANATION 4967 DEVONSHIRE crR PLAN FOR SPRING CLEAN SATURDAY. HAY 21!!!! FOR j 2.63 59.55 41.. 'S4 ..:..- I PREVIOUS 8AL .00 UP '. . . '. . June 27, 1994 STATEMENT BY THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL On May 15, 1994, the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department conducted a check of licensed liquor establishments relating to determining the potential of sales to minors. A female Reserve Officer was asked to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages at fourteen establishments. The Shorewood Municipal Liquor Store was among the nine businesses that illegally sold to the underaged Reserve Off icer . The City liquor store management has taken action to suspend without pay the part-time employee who mad~ the sale. In addition criminal prosecution will be pursued in this case as against other area establishments where such sales were made. Beyond these actions, to re-emphasize how seriously the City takes its regulatory responsibility, the city of Shorewood is closing the Municipal Store for one day and suspending all sales Monday, July 4th. The City will redouble employee education efforts and continues to commit to assuring the community that no underage person is able to purchase liquor at the Shorewood Municipal Liquor Store. JH/tln 61494.1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT .JUN - if'" -- . ,'.....'-.;. ......,,,....:. May 31, 1994 TO: FROM: Executive SUBJECT: Levy Adjustment for 1994 LMCD Budget Requirements The LMCD board has adjusted the 1994 budget which affects the levy amount due for 1994. . You will recall from previous correspondence that the 1994 LMCD administrative budget was reduced from $103,SOOto 2 . to accomplish two objectives: Bring the total 1994 budget within .00242 percent of the levy allowance and Reduce the LMCD fund balance to a six-month operating level, half of the reduction to take place in 1994 and the other half in 1995. $25,117 1. Shorewood's adjusted 1994 levy is $9,790 based upon the total revised budget of $88,117 including $63,000 for the milfoil operations. This compares to a previous 1994 levy amount before the adjustment of $17,665. A refund of $7,875 is enclosed. . . The mil foil operation is included in the levy as a part of the municipality's agreement in support of the LMCD. Previous correspondence addressed the question raised on the voluntary aspect of the mil foil funding. The LMCD board thanks the mayor and council for their patience and cooperation in working with the LMCD on the fund balance adjustments which have taken place this year. ### cc: Bob Rascop #2' City of 8ho~ewood C/O 5755 County Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 PAY TO mE ORDEn OF: OS/25/94 00009723 . Communities 5/94 levy refund OS/20 . 9723 7an:i.00 0.00 7a70.00 TOTAL '" 97,875.00 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. WAVZATA BLVD., SUITE 160 W A VZA T A. MINNESOTA 66391 612-473-7033 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, N.A. WAVZATA, MN 55391 17-1-910 00009723 9723 **** SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE & 00/100 DOLLARS DATE AMOUNT OS/25/94 ******$7,875.00 City of Shorewood C/O 5755 County Club Road Shore wood, MN 55331 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~~ :I ~ 5001. 2q 2,,1 "'00 q 7 2 jll' I ':0 q ~OOOO ~ q,: June 16, 1994 FIBAL REPORT ON MWCC MATCHING GRANT FOR THE SHOREWOOD INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONTROL GRANT The Shorewood Clear Water Inspection Program covered the entire city. A City map and copy of the initial contact letter to all Shorewood property owners is attached to the report. Of the 2,325 units or residences in the City of Shorewood, all but 56 have had an inspection to assure us no clear water is entering the sanitary sewer. These remaining units include the rental housing units which were requested to have the inspection done in conjunction with the rental housing inspection and therefore were allowed a longer timeframe. A total of 15 properties currently are considered to be in non-conformance and must fix the problem and be reinspected. This represents approximately 1% of all properties in Shorewood not conforming to the Ordinance. Of the properties...J.nspected, 62 or 2.7% could have been possibly pumping clear water into the sanitary sewer but were corrected prior to the initial inspection. During the entire program, an average of 7% were not in compliance because of various 'reasons, including the use of flexible piping. Two inspectors were hired to implement the program for the city. Some inspections are also being done by the city Building Inspector (mostly rental uni ts) . The chart below is a summary of the payments to the inspectors as the program progressed. Because the total payout to these inspectors is greater than $20,000, ten thousand of which is to be reimbursed from MWCC, other expenses such as mailings, administration, and Building Inspector and Secretarial time are not included here and will be absorbed totally by the city. . . 11/1-13/93 11/4-12/93 11/15-22/93 11/15-27/93 11/23/93 - 12/9/93 11/29/93 - 12/11/93 12/10-22/93 12/13-29/93 TOTAL 1993 12/27/93 - 1/6/94 12/30/93 - 1/13/94 1/10-25/94 1/26-27/94 1/14-31/94 2/1-15/94 2/16/94 - 3/4/94 3/7-21/94 TOTAL 1994 TOTAL PROJECT GRAND TOTAL INSPECTORS INSPECTORS M. MAL.'i P. TIPKA 1,580.00 2,110.00 940.00 2,020.00 1,040.00 2,080.00 1,370.00 1,840.00 8,050.00 4,930.00 1,078.00 .1,590.00 1,560.00 420.00 2,510.00 2,110.00 1,430.00 140.00 7,780.00 3,058.00 15,830.00 7,988.00 23,818.00 ~IIA With the submission of this report, having received $5,000 early in the program, the City hereby requests the remaining $5,000 of the MWCC grant as per our grant agreement dated September 20, 1994. Sincerely, ITY OF SHOREWOOD i ~v\.14 C Vt<fVYv'\ . ames C. Hurm, ucity Administrator Enclosures JH/tln . . . . LET'l'ER # 1 MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Roo DaughertY Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson Nine letters were sent. CITY OF SHOREWOOD . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 June 20, 1994 Re: Dear Property OWner: In October of 1993, the Shorewood City Council adopted an ordinance prohibi ting discharge of clear water into the sani tary sewer system. A sump pump inspection program was established in response to huge increases in sewer charges from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. The program was initiated to assure the MWCC that clear water was not entering the system ~ia sump pumps and roof drains. The City carried out a city-wide inspection program of each uni t (whether or not the property had a sump pump) to ensure compliance. A number of letters and reminders have been sent throughout this program. Your last quarterly utility bill included a $100 surcharge because, for whatever reason, your property was not inspected or did not successfully pass the sump pump inspection. Your property is one of only nine single family residences in the City that .are not in compliance at this point. The second quarter billing.. will be delivered in the next couple weeks and will include a $100 surcharge for each of the three months for non-compliance with the clear _ water discharge ordinance. This amount will continue to accrue on your billing until verification by the City Inspector that a sump pump inspection has been successfully completed. Please contact City Hall at 474-3236 (Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a-.m. to 5: 00 p.m.) to schedule an inspection. If your - property is inspected before the end of August and found to comply, a full refund or credit of this surcharge will be issued. Our main obj ecti ve wi th this program - is to verify compliance. Your bzmIediate response is important. Sincerely, 9t~::1 st~~~: ~s' C. HJl:n~ ~ity Administrator JH/tln A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore LE'I"rER # 2 Six letters were sent. MAYOR 8arb 8rancel COUNCl L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612)474-3236 June 20, 1994 Re: / Dear Property Owner: In October of 1993, the Shorewood City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting discharge of clear water into the sanitary sewer . system. The City carried out a city~wide inspection program of each unit to ensure compliance. Your property was granted an extension to June 15th to repair your sump pump ~ A follow-up inspection has not been scheduled or completed. Your second quarter utility bill will arrive within the next couple weeks and will include a $100 per month surcharge for non- compliance with the clear water discharge ordinance. This surcharge will' be refunded or credited if your property is inspected and' found 'in compliance with the ordinance prohibiting discharge into the sewer system before the end of August, 1994. Please call 474-3236 (Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) to arrange an inspection time. Thank you for your immediate attention and understanding. - Sincerely, TY OF SHOREWOOD am~f~ City Administrator . JHjtln A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . LETTER #3 ~AYOR Barb Brancel COUNCl L Krist; Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson Twenty-seven letters were sent, representing ~ifty-one units. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612)474-3236 June 20, 1.994 Re: Dear Property Owner: In October of 1.993, the Shorewood City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting discharge of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. The City carried out a city-wide inspection program of each unit to ensure compliance. Your property was excluded initially as we anticipated completing both the rental housing inspection and sump pump inspection at the same time. Since the beginning of both programs, you have been personally contacted or have been sent a number letters and/or reminders explaining the procedure and urging compliance. To date neither of these inspections have been scheduled. Your second quarter utility bill will arrive within the next couple weeks and will include a $1.00 per month per unit surcharge for non- compliance with the clear water discharge ordinance. This surcharge will be refunded or credited if your property is inspected and found in compliance with the ordinance prOhibiting discharge into the sewer system before the end of August, 1.994. Please call 474-3236 (Monday thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) to arrange an inspection time. Thank you for your immediate attention and understanding. Sincerely, C~y OF SHOREWOOD U ,~ d/ ~'\J2..I C (:/1."l/'/f.A/\ J es C. Hurm, 'ty Administrator JH/tln A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis Bruce Benson . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 June 28, 1994 . .Wendy Crowell Ecological Services section Division of Fish and wildlife Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road _ st. Paul, Mn 55155-4025 Dear Ms. Crowell: As directed by the Shorewood City Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting I am writing in support of a grant application from the City of Victoria for management of Eurasion watermilfoil in Lake Virginia. Al though just a small area of Shorewood and Hennepin county is touched by the- shores of Lake Virginia, we share in Victoria's and the Department of Natural Resources' concern for Eurasion watermilfoil. . We app::r:eciate Victoria"-s efforts in managing the problem and strongly encourage the Department of Natural Resources to award this grant to Victoria. Thank you for your consideration. . Sincerely, CITY OF SHOREWOOD James. C. Hurm, City Administrator cc: Shorewood Mayor & City Council Victoria ~ayor & City Council JH/tln A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore #115 J FACSThfiLE COVER PAGE CfI'Y OF VICTORIA 7951 ROSE P.O. BOX 36 VICTORIA, MN 55386 PHONE 443-2363. . . . .FAX 443-2110 DATE: & / 1111 /q4 ~TAL PAGES 6ncl1jCfjng cover) 5 PLEASE DEUVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: J ~ Wurrn . COMMENTS: ~ CO #J- U1-fO.,~ . r:rn cf.11.L !) AJ R f v%O~f)/C&h . (I;ljfj tJiR """ ..;- U "~~~~' Pl~~ . -CfitQJL. ~ r-j \JD~ IA QJ.d ~ ~ / U I _I )/I--~fY;.~ ~ rx-- J~a(}t - "~. . Or/A ~~. f l1.t. tJi..:f-1 t1 Vifi -kdaw ) - . L 11 .. Il ~ J...J U. "L crotnJ;l /1> l .fTL,Lh(lJ.. Jl LIl .J1 ~f +n .lU..4AAM.7J -..J R. <40 l<-i. ,~ 7J #lJ, LA) -L 1 I " ,.../ ( : -. a,/V- p' ~uJCC( FROM: ki Y'A-bIA:"l{ J{)t.~ Yf)Y) ~- ': ~fJ6Y+- ~ p~~'VV~ ~1/...1u-VL. our ~4Orf$ # JlB;2. TOO III aOO.n::nlOHS - .UD .;-..;-..;- YI'HO~;) IA .;{O .UIJ on;; ~tt ;;"[9 rid (;0: 9! vt 04/27/94 Availability or funds from. the M.i.rm.eso-ca Depa=t:!ILe!:lt of Natu-.......u R.esources iIl~994 for maD.a.gement or :Elu...-asian watezm:ilfoil in la.~es where 'CaSt efforts to control the ulant have !lei ther el ;m;-n::tted it or oroduced significant and long-lasting reductiOns in its abunlj~-nce., The amounts of f"'1JD.ds avallab~e :for individual lakes were determined by allocat::i..ng $~,500 for each lake. Eor lakes with more than 1..30 littoral ac::esJ that is pote!ltial habitat for mi.l.foil, the aIII.O'mlt of funds was bcreased by adding $200 per acre for 2% of the number of littoral acres above 1.5 0 acres. ' REGION LAKE COUNTY now L~'l~,r_AC DNRFONDS 3 Green Chisago ~3.004~ U27.8 58~1 3 Rush Cbisago J.3.0069 :1..892.0 8468 3 Clearwater wright 86.0252 :1..455 . 0 6720 3 Uttle Waverly Wright 86.0~06 330.0 2220 3 Waverly .-. Wright 86.0ll4 ~4:1...0 1.500 6 , Otter AIloka 2.0003 328.0 22~ 6 Ba:varla ea....-ver ~O.OO1.S 65.0 1.500 6 Lotus Cazve.!: 1.0.0006 ~82 . 0 :1..628 ~, 6 ]/f..iI:mewashta Carver :1..0.0009 37:1...0 16 . 6 Pierson Carver ~0.0053 ~~9.0 6 !tiler Carver ~0.0002 ~l.o.o 00 6 v~. CaJ::ver ~O.OOJ.5 30.0 1.500 6 W'aconia carver 10.0059 1560.0 7540 6 B:r:yant E:ennet:lin 27.0067 64.0 1..500 6 Calhoun Eerm.eoin '27.003~ 2S3~O 2032 6 1ia:r:I::'iet Eenne:Oin 27.00:1.6 ~06.0 1.500 6 Inde'CeJidence '. .E:epne.~;i.n--.. . ..,' " 27 _0~7!S .' 42S . 0- . - -2600 -. --=--'6-" - ,-~",,'....-.-r' - . ,-. J - ~ HeD:c.e~:iiJ. . 27 . '0~60 230.0 ' l.S0 0 LOn$" ."- 6 Medicine EeJ:Ine-oin 27.0::l.04 3$7.0 2488 6 MimletOIika E:eme-oin 27.0:1.33 5900.0 24500 6 Rebecca He:rmeuin 27.0.292 1.38.0 J..SOO 6 Sarah Rem::!.etJin 27.01..91. 264.0 l.9S6 6 Scl:m1idt Eemlepin 27.0~02 34.0 ~500 6 Lower Prior Scott 70.0026 368.0 2372 6 White Bear Wash":;ng't:OIl 82.0267 1.31.4.0 61..S6 94087 > ... . ~.Y .,. soo~ (IOO,l\ffiIOHS - .liD .;--..... Vnl:O~.JL\. .;i0 ,liD on;; ett Z1:9 n.;i SO:9! f16/9!/90 then the DNR will wOI:k with incorpo:raIed lake associarlons.. To cOmplete this application for funding, O.lg~niornrions mnst provide: 1) a lake map on which areas of ~.{mL~ watermr1foil and areas to be treated are m2f'horl, 2) a description of other plant species found in the area, 3) a description of metb.OOs to be used, 4) a description of :mtiMpated benefits, and 5) an estimate of the nmnber of people who would benefit. . If the DNR approves the applications for a lake, the O.l1;a"j~~tion will. be asked to sign a cooperative agreement for this program. To p:roc:2ed with m~~~ of milfoiI, the orga;oj~on mnst solicit at least three (3) competitive bids for the proposed wolk and select a co:atraCtor to do the WOK Lists of licensed commercial applicators of aquatic berbicides and licvon~ operatoIS of mech~mc:U..barvester.s are attJ~hM.. Exceptions to this requirement will be made for OtV..h~tions such as the Lake MilInet.onka Conse:J:vation District, the :Minn~lis Park and Recreation Board, ar Hennepin Pa:rks that have es:mlished programs for management of miIfoiL 0Dly one Aquatic Plant Ma.na::,oement ~ for control of Emasian WG1c1 III Moil wiD. be .issned, free of cbarge, for' an individual. lake in 1994. This limit does not restJ:ict individDal property owners .from applying for permit~ for aquatic plant ro~agement adjacent to.their property. . The outside ~~tiOt1 will. pay for the work, biD. the DNR for a specified amount, and be,.~.:'. 'I'he..DNR _"'n ' ".do. l....:-..] ". h :eSt . .... Umier1iIis ..... . _:. W.LU.p%'O'VJee1'ee.,..<t.:JO_~~~.w enreqn elJ"~ ....___ ...__ .......:_.._... .- program, the DNR is 1lQt ob1igate1i to do 6aI. ycyS or superviSe applications. Reimbursement by the DNR will reqai:re that .yom orgarrlz3:Jion. apply for the progmn and be ~ted.. After the work is completed, yom: ~~tion .m.ust provide the DNR witl1: 1) 'ReCord of bids :received, 2) copy of tbe ori~l invoice from the contractor, 3)' maps Of areas with "E~~~n w~,al1.ilfoi1 and areas treated., 4) a description of other plam: species fonnd in the areas treated, 5) a descrlption of methods used, "-t 6)a 9~OD. of benefits, and T) an estimate of the .IDIID.ber of people who beufO!fitteii ~ . We hope mat this prog.cam wiD. promote the wise 1Tl~vement of Em:asian v..-ate> n1 iTfoil in :Minnesota's lakes.. Gootim13tWn of this pilot program beyond 1994 wiD. depend on jts effectiveness and 'av:rlIabiIity of funds. If you plan to apply for funding, please follow the, :instn1ctions in this annmmcement C3.Iefuny and mail completed: fmms to the address given below. If yon 1ia:ve any, questions., please phone the Section of Eco.logical Services at 612- 296-2835. ' Eco1ogicil Surices . Mii:mesota. Detl&rtmeDt of Nataral Resom:ees Box2S . . soo I..a.&.ycttc ~. St. PaD1 MN 55155-4025 (CW -.22 AF 94) .page 2 , .' ~ STATE OF . ~~~~@u~ DEPARTMENT ;} 'i\i ..JI.:: 'I ~ 5 :S::j!.;. OF NATURAL RESOURC:E:S : : ; \ \. L--.. --- 500 LAFAYEiTE ROAD . ST. PAUl, MINNESOTA . 55~5&-40 i2 f" _ . .__..-_y_- ONR IN FOR.\tA TION (612) :2'6~157 June 13, 1994 City of Victoria , ~Ti";lm Porter, City Ailmini~tor 7951 Rose , Vlcto~ MN 55386 Dear Ms POlter, Enclosed please find a copy of the annoUIlcement of availability of funds from the ~esota Department' of Na1mal Resources for management of ~masian watermilfoiL The announcement will explain what is available; and how you can go about applying.for ftmds. If you have any questions about the announcement, please give me a calL 11<?Ok forward to worling with you tbis summer. Sincerel, .~ . ..7 iii i Wendy Crowell : Ecological Services Section Division of Fish and Wildlife (612) 282"- 2509 enclosure ..~' ''',.;': . . ... ..~ . AN eQUAL OPPORTUNI1Y E.\iPLOYER hh-nT ~a -aT.ion .Announcement of aYailability of funds from the Mjnn~ Department of Natural Resources for m~n~gem~nt. of Eurasian watermiJfoil .J\s you may know, the DNR. bas conducted control of milfoil on many Minnesota lakes in the past five ye3l'S.. Much of this wo:dc was done on a 'cost-sbare' basis. tbat involved participation of lake associations, conservation d.istr:icts, .ID.1IIIi~liti~, and sim1'~r organizations in paying for control woik:.. These coopeI31i.ve efforts were ~Ilpts to eliminate milfoil. from.:lakes, the DNR's highest priority for contto1 work, and will be continued in 1994. The purpose of this announcement is to moIm. lake associations, conservation districts, municipalities, and ~in1'i1aT organizations of the availiability in 1994 of State fonds for Trffi~ement. of Emasian wa.termilfoil in ce.1taia. Minnesota lakes. '!be DNR will. make funds a:vai1able to outside Of~'li(atiODS (See attached list) for management of milfoil on lakes where past efforts to elintim1te milfoil neither eradic:at.ed the plan1: nor prod11ced sig1lfficant, long- lasting reductions in its abttnmn~. In soch lakes, eradication of milfoil does not appear to be ,. feasible with cm:rent teclmology and a:va:ilable funds. To be eligible for ~ PIOgI3ID., a lake must have at 1~ one pubJic access. These fundS, are intended. to. pay far ma~gement of Emasian watermilfoil mat Yo'iD. benefit a -. -...~~...o!~~.and ~ gener-U P.ub)ic whoJ]se.aJ~~ad,'~'Va.~~'e~. wildlife, and native plants. These funds may not be used for cOmo! worktb3t Would . - -.,. ., otherwise be done by private individuals under a D:N:R pem1it to comrol aquatic plants. In acldiri~ these fonds may nOt be used for control of aquatic pJmtts other than Pmasia.n WVP.T11111foi1. WOIk: eligible for reimbUIsement inclYtdes: 1) Comrol of Emasian wa~1foil in areas of high use such as cbann~s from share to off-shore areas, accesses, or in areas where valDable fish, wildlife, and native plants are present.. Control may be done by the foTIowil;1g methods: a) Use of 2,4-D berbicide, b) MecbaDical,contro~ .. c) PriDing done by band. 2) Control of Emasian. W~r111 ilfoil in t.be vicinity of an access to reduce the ~~~I~ mvsport of milfoil from a Jake by boat.eIs coming off the lake at the access. . . ~ 3) SUtveys- of ~oiJ:. done by a contractor in support of control wOIk. Organizations'tIJat apply for ~ available tlrrough this" pIogram. wiJl be required, to ~ and submit the :rtrnched application fOIIDS: one for :funds from tile DNR and the other for an AquatiC Plant ~oement pe:rmit. On some lakCs there ma:y be m~ than one Organ1~rlon with an iut.erest in m~T1~eing Eurasian ~ateJ.nlllfoiL The DNR will. first seek to woI:k: with lIl11IticipaliP such as conservation, wa:tersh~' or paXx districts, cities, or C01IIIties. If no such ~7:ttion exists OF is willing to 1'ml11age miifoil 'on an individual1ake, - '.P30ae 1 coo 1m <IOO~i:nrOHS - .ilD ,..,..- YIHOl..JH dO .ilD (In;; ctt ;;L9 YV.:l to:9! t6.'9V90 "- .. .. CK NO CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JUNE 27, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING TO WHOM ISSUED CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JUNE 9. 1994 13893 13894 13895 13896 13897 13898 13899 13900 13901 13902 13903 13904 13905 13906 13907 .3908 3909 13910 13911 13912 13913 13914 13915 13916 13917 13918 13919 13920 13921 13922 13923 ...3924 .3925 13926 13927 13928 13929. 13930 13931 13932 13933 13934 13935 13936 13937 13938 13939 13940 13941 13942 13943 patricia Helgesen Alan Rolek US Postmaster Bradley Nielsen First State Bank Commiss of Revenue I~ Retirement Trust city cty Credit Union AFSCME Local #224 Child support Enforcmt Anoka cty supt/collectn Wendy Davis James Hurm Bradley Nielsen Joseph Pazandak Shorewood Park Foundatn pera Pera Commiss of Revenue Armor Lock/Alarm svc Elk River Concrete Fina Fleet Fueling Henn cty Treas Henn cty Treas Metro Waste Control Com Cellular Telephone Co. Minncomm Paging Mn State Treasurer Minnegasco Northern states Power pepsi Cola Co US West Mr. Robert Preuss Air Refrigeration Bureau-Alc/Tob/Firearms Bellboy Corp Boyd Houser Candy/Tobac Midwest Coca Cola Day Distributing East Side Beverage Co Griggs, Cooper and Co Hoops Trucking Johnson Brothers Liquor Mark VII Mn Sun publications pepsi Cola Co Ed Phillips and Sons Quality Wine/Spirits The Victoria Gazette Void Govt Fin Ofcrs Assoc PURPOSE Sec 125 reimb Mileage/expense reimb postage for machine Jan-May mileage payroll deductions payroll deductions Payroll deductions payroll deductions payroll deductions Payroll deductions payroll deductions Sec 125 reimb Mileage Sec 125 reimb Mileage/film reimb Playground donation payroll deductions payroll deductions May sales tax Alarm system maint Manhole supplies-pking lot Gasoline purch cty fees-prop acquisition Property taxes May SAC charges Cellular phone air time Beeper service Johnson-Fclty operator license utilities utilities Pop machine rental Telephone svcs Release of escrow Cooler maint Tax renewal Liquor purch Misc purch Misc purch Beer and misc purch Beer and misc purch Liquor and misc purch Liquor and misc purch Liquor,wine,misc purch Beer and misc purch Advertising Misc purch Liquor,wine,misc purch Liquor and misc purch Advertising Cert of Achievement TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED -1- AMOUNT 630.44 70.38 750.00 346.84 5953.87 973.70 621. 57 468.00 119.10 92.50 139.44 140.00 28.35 100.00 90.21 30861. 57 25.00 1989.12 5456.00 42.00 1619.76 157.15 25.50 13.69 4752.00 10.92 14.38 15.00 11.63 1450.06 11.53 48.93 1200.00 320.00 500.00 1348.16 664.59 305.35 1475.70 6470.55 3874.76 258.40 530.43 4968.45 113.69 54.80 977.56 371.18 40.00 350.00 80.852.26 " " CITY OF SHORE WOOD CK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JUNE 27, 1994 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION l3944 ABDO, ABDO, AND EICK AUDIT SERVICES AUDIT SERVICES AUDIT SERVICES AUDIT SERVICES AUDIT SERVICES *** TOTAL FOR ABDG, ABDG, DEPT. AMOUNT PROF SER 2,3l0.00 WATER DE 308.00 SEWER DE 308.00 -------- 462.00 -------- 462.00 AND EICK 3,850.00 l3945 ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO. FREEMAN-CULVERTS l3946 B & J AUTOMOTIVE TIRE REPAIR l3947 BOYER TRUCK PARTS VEHICLE MAINT PARTS 13948 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUS. ~3949 C.H CARPENTER LUMBER 13950 CAT CO PARTS AND SERVICE SPRING CLEANUP MAILBOX POSTS VEHICLE t1AINT 1395l CHANHASSEN-CITY OF ANIMAL CONTROL 13952 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT OIL/GAS CAP l3953 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. STREET SUPPLIES 13954 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNIC. RADIO REPAIR l3955 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC. COFFEE SUPPLIES l3956 DWIGHT SCHULTZ CONSTRUCTN BLACK DIRT-PLAYGOUND 4If3957 ESI COMMUNICATIONS RELOCATE PHONE LINE 13958 ESS BROTHERS AND SONS INC MANHOLE REPAIR SUPPLIES 13959 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. JULY PAYMENT ASSESSING SUPPLIES *** TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. 13960 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF SIGNAL LIGHT UTILITIES 2ND QTR SAN SWR CHG *** TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR-CITY OF PROJECTS 4ll.20 PUB WKS 42.00 PUB WKS 483.31 RECYCLIN 16,119.89 CITY GAR 24.46 PUB WKS 75.88 PROT INS 3,256.30 CITY GAR 39.98 STREETS l32.24 PUB I,AIKS 208.50 l1UN BLDG l06.00 PARKS & 3l5.00 MUN BLDG 116.49 CITY GAR l60.82 PROF SER 3,230.00 PROF SER 47.06 3,277.06 TRAF CON 129.29 SEWER DE 2,067.73 2,197.02 l396l FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. CHEMICALS/DEMURRAGE CHG WATER DE 965.03 13962 HAWKINS & JAHNKE ASSOC. DRINKING FOUNTAIN REG PARKS & 60.88 l3963 ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER RESOURCE BOOKS ADMIN l05.74 l3964 J.R'S APPLIANCE DISPOSAL SPRHlG CLEANUP RE~YCLIN 352.00 13965 KAR PRODUCTS SHOP SUPPLIES CITY GAR ll4.36 13966 KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT PICNIC TABLE BOARDS PARKS & 2S2.4l -2- " . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JUNE 27, 1994 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT ________ ___~_____M________._._______ __________________.______ ________ ----------- 13967 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY... MAY LEGAL-GENERAL PROF SER 128.60 13968 LONG LAKE TRACTOR/EQUIP VEHICLE MAINT PARTS PUB WKS 102.19 13969 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES PUB If.JKS 81.85 13970 MAHONEY, JAMES ROADSIDE WEED SPRAYING SANIT/WA 2,449.50 13971 METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM. JULY PAYMENT SEWER DE 34,570.91 13972 METRO WEST INSPECTION SVC BUILDING INSPECTIONS PROT INS 100.00 13973 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. STREET PATCHING SUPPLIES STREETS 4Il3974 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES GEN GOVT OFFICE SUPPLIES FINANCE *** TOTAL FOR MIQWEST BUSINESS PRO 129.44 434.03 65.11 64.33 13975 MUNITECH, INC. JULY PAYMENT JULY PAYMENT *** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC. WATER DE 3,410.00 SEWER DE 2,790.00 6,200.00 13976 RON BENTLEY CONSTRUCTION FREEMAN-TIMBER/LABOR 3,585.00 13977 SAFETY-KLEEN CORP. USED OIL DISPOSAL CITY GAR 109.00 13978 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE BRUSH/TREE HAULING BRUSH/TREE HAULING *** TOTAL FOR SHOREWOOD TREE SERVI ~3979 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP JULY PAYMENT 13980 THOMAS MFG COMPANY, INC. PICNIC TABLE LEGS TREE MAL 716.78 PARKS & 1,015.63 1,732.41 POLICE P 34,040.89 PARKS & 700.42 13981 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC MINUTES MINUTES *** TOTAL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE GEN GOVT 81.00 PLANNING 185.25 266.25 13982 TOLL COMPANY SHOP SUPPLIES CITY GAR 49.50 13983 TONK A PRINTING CO. PAPER SUPPLIES FINANCE 173.60 13984 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC WATER TESTING WATER DE 20.00 13985 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL, SElf.JER LINE INSPECTION SEWER DE 375.00 13986 WATERPRO WATER METERS/SUPPLIES WATER DE 2,071.53 C/H LOT SUPPLIES --------- 80.30 *** TOTAL FOR IAlATERPRO 2,151.83 13987 WEST SIDE REDI MIX, INC. FREEMAN-P/G EQUIP -----_._- 439.50 13988 WITT FINANCIAL INVESTMENT SVCS FINANCE 126.71 TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL 120,633.20 _'l_ TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 201,485.46 '.... C Ii E C 'i ~ E ,; :5 1" E ~ Cl1EC~~ C.'iECK EMPLO~ EE NAME CHECK CHECK iO; ~t DAiE NU:'l8E~ ~UM8ER AMtlUNT COM 6 14 94 230 CHRISTOPHER M. CAREY 208429 348.50 COM 6 14 94 500 CHARLES S. OAVlS 208430 587.28 COM 6 14 94 600 WENDY L. DAVIS 208431 777.65 CuM 6 i 4 94 IB j i ;6i;il ;i. 1~~L7;; ..,rl~1 ~: .ae COM 6 14 94 1400 PATRICIA R. HELGESEN 208433 639.41 COM 6 14 94 1550 JAMES C. HURM 208434 1512.66 COM o 14 94 1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 208435 718.71 COM 6 14 94 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 208436 742.92 COM 6 14 94 1940 LOREN A. JONES 208437 112.63 COM 6 14 94 1950 MARTIN L. JONES 208438 58.31 CuM 6 14 94 2100 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON 208439 505.99 COM 6 14 94 2210 SANDRA L. KLOMPS 208440 42.85 COM 6 14 94 2212 MARY BETH KNOPIK 208441 154.06 COM 6 14 94 2500 SUSAN 1'1. LATiERNER 208442 122.66 COM 6 1-4 94 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI 208443 929.30 COM 6 14 94 2900 RUSSELL R. MARRON 208444 56.03 COM 6 14 94 2910 HEIDI M. HAY 208445 403.37 .M 6 14 94 2980 JILL M. MOORE 208446 42.25 t;OM 6 14 94 3000 THERESA L. NAAS 208447 594.70 COM 6 14 94 3100 LAWRENCE A. NICCUM 208448 869.77 COM 6 14 94 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSEN 208449 1030.87 COM 6 14 94 J500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 208450 1066.30 COM o 14 94 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 0 208451 913.24 COM 6 14 94 3701 BRIAN M. ROERICK 208452 45.80 COM 6 14 94 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 208453 1262.12 COM 6 14 94 3851 BRIAN C. ROSENBERGER 208454 23.84 COM 6 14 94 3900 CHRISiOPHER E. SCHMID 208455 428.96 COM 6 14 94 4600 BEVERLY J. VON FELD T 208456 625.93 COM 6 14 94 4i50 RALPH A. WEHLt: 208457 5iO.91 COM 6 14 94 4900 DEAN H. YOUNG 208458 640.97 COM 6 14 94 5000 DONALD E. ZDRAZIL 208459 !l8i.92 . u:U:TOTALS:U:U 1i015.91 -4- 'I l~ I 2 .: .,-.."..... ~ ,JUri _ /~ :;~..::.':... HERITAGE P .U.D. We oppose the development of the 50' wide lakeshore parcel on the north side of Edgewood Rd. into a "common area" for multifamily use as part of the Heritage P.U.D. ZONING: An issue of Trust This area is zoned for single family residential use. Before we bought our home in this area, approximately six years ago, we were assured by the city of Shorewood that this was zoned for single family homes and despite the fact that there were some cabins to the west of us, this area would remain zoned for single family use. The 50' Heritage lakeshore strip had 2 to 3 owners in the past but has only been used by Ed Wartmann in recent years. Allowing the rezoning of this parcel for multifamily use would be a break of faith and trust with the long time residents who have made this community their home. Zoning serves multiple purposes, among them to secure and stabilize communities. These ordinances define and set standards both for the type of structure as well as the use of the area. A two story home is acceptable for one family but renting a portion of the same home to another family would be prohibited. Why? Because a higher concentration of people is not consistent with single family homes. \ It has been, up to now, the city's intent to strive toward compliance and conformity with zoning restrictions. This proposal is clearly a move in the opposite direction. The zoning restrictions in this neighborhood defining it as SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL have forced" non-conforming" properties which existed prior to the zoning to meet current restrictions. For example, the lot immediately west of the Heritage strip is "non-conforming" because it has had 2 small homes on it for many years. When that family (Masons) put a gazebo on their lot the city launched a lawsuit and forced them to choose between removing the gazebo or removing one of the homes. We live one lot east of the Heritage lakeshore strip. We have been told that if we wish to put a new. roof on or build an addition to our home we will need to remove our guest 'house because it is "non-conforming". Shorewood has vigorously tried to bring non-conforming properties into compliance. We do not object to that as long as it is enforced uniformly. The city has taken legal action in the past. to prevent development of the Heritage lakeshore strip. So - it is difficult to understand why a a strip of lakeshore deemed by the city as too small to build a single family home on should now be considered suitable for use by multiple families. Justice is not served when the rules depend on who's asking. Spot zoning creates islands of privilege where rules are distorted or ignored to the detriment of other people. If the residents cannot depend upon the city to maintain and abide by the intent of its current zoning restrictions, there is no reason for standards to exist at all. A developer's profit motive should not be allowed to rewrite zoning ordinances. MUL TIFAMIL Y USE: An Unreasonable burden. Common areas in a development sounds nice. Usually such common areas are within the development and add to the character of the neighborhood. This is clearly not what is being proposed in this case. The proposed 21 single family household development would allow the potential access of this lakeshore parcel by realistically 80 residents, in addition to their guests, friends and relatives. They would be using a 50' wide parcel of which they have only a 6/7 ownership. It is an unreasonable burden for a small area which is remote from the actual development. In addition to a dock with 2 large boats the use of this remote common area by a large number of people has numerous and obvious implications: unsupervised adolescents, portable bathrooms, litter, trash, barbecues. noise and multiple water craft not currently regulated (jet skis.water bikes, sailboats/boards etc.) and snowmobiles in the winter. Additionally, there is a conspicuous access problem with the development being distant from the lake. Traffic congestion as 21 families back cars and trailers into this strip to launch their motorboats would cause a safety hazard. If they park on Edgewood Ad. they would block a traffic lane because Edgewood is a narrow 2 lane road with no shoulders. There is no need for a private multifamily beach in this area. On the west end of Edgewood Ad. is Howard's Point Marina with daily launching facilities as well as seasonal boat slips. A public beach with parking is already available and underused on nearby Birch Bluff Ad. PROPERTY VALUES: Not a Win-Win situation for the city One can fully understand the developer's point of view in this matter. The addition of a lakeshore entertainment area and lake access to his development would render his properties more desirable; lots would sell faster for higher prices. The developer's monetary gain, however, is at the direct expense of the current surrounding property owners whose property values will fall as the desirability of their property declines. There will be little incentive to upgrade, remodel or build new housing in an area having an uncertain future. Uniform enforcement of zoning protects everyone whether they are simple homeowners or major developers. LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT: A questionable future for single family homes. If the council allows this multifamily lakeshore recreation area to be created, a precedent will be ~et. Any property owner should have the right to do exactly the same thing. 1/7 at this undivided parcel is owned by Ed Wartmann. What is to prevent a developer from purchasing that and adding 50 more deeded owners or a new homeowners association to the property? There is another similar 40' wide vacant lakeshore parcel located 5 homes to the west. What is to prevent other developers from purchasing that parcel or other lakeshore property to promote their housing developments? Where is the protection for the current residents and community? We do not wish to see Edgewood Ad. become a series of locked-gate private beach clubs. A developer's desire for profit should not be allowed to take precedence over the existing residents' rights and should not be allowed to reshape a residential area to its detriment. The residents have been here for years and call this area their home. We have a say in the way our community is developedl Developers are here today and gone tomorrow. They come in, make their profit and leave the city to deal with the problems created when they dramatically change the character of entire neighborhoods. HERITAGE P.U.D. in aeneral: David Copperfield, where are you? This entire development project hinges upon the city accepting the concept of lot averaging. This project requests the community to lower the one acre minimum lot size so that more homes can be crammed into a smaller space. It attempts to meet the minimum requirements by averaging lot sizes on paper: adding acreage from much larger existing homes sites and acreage from a "common area". This common area, however, is a wetland unsuitable for development. Thus, an area of land which by current city standards would have allowed to to 11 homes has, through a promotional 'slight of hand', been transformed into a 21 home site development. Suppose a town consist of a 429 acre farm next to a 1 acre highrise apartment building housing 430 people. Is it true to say that the residents of that town enjoy 1 acre each on "average"?1 We could laugh at this if it did not have to capacity to diminish our home's value, our privacy and the entire character of this neighborhoodl Please-- no math games on lot sizesl We oppose the concept of lot averaging. It is simply a clever scheme to circumvent minimum zoning requirements. We urge the Shorewood City Council to reject the Heritage P.U.D. that Shorewood's zoning ordinances can be relied on. show residents Kurt & Julie Scheurer 26930 Edgewood Rd. Shorewood ,r j Mayor Barb Brancel City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Brancel and Council members: We wish to thank Mayor Brancel for attending the Mayors meeting June 16 regarding the Senior /Community Center. We agree, a survey of the citizens of our communities is a good next step. We have contacted two firms who develop and conduct statistically sound surveys and will meet with them shortly. The survey will explore 3 options: 1. A Senior /Community Center - size and cost as proposed to city councils, available for senior citizens from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. and available for the rest of the community after 3 p.m., evenings and weekends. Community events can be scheduled during work day hours in specific rooms if the rooms are not scheduled for senior use. 2. A community center similar to Minnetonka's, a portion set aside on a daily basis for senior activities, but a center large enough for community groups to also use during work day hours - plus evenings and weekends. 3. The Community /Recreational Center, including meeting rooms /recreational areas such as pool, weight room, running track, etc. - similar to Chaska's. We appreciate your willingness to fund this survey. Senior Center Advisory Committee members were at Arts on The Lake in Excelsior on June 11. They distributed information about the Southshore Center and were encouraged by the 129 people who signed a statement indicating their support of a Senior /Community Center in the area. Sincerely, Bob Gagne, Chair Senior /Community Center Task Force Chairperson, Planning City of Shorewood Country Club Road Excelsior, Mn. 55331 I ! I I 26665 Edgewood Rd. Shorewood,1 Mn 55331 I Junr 8, 1994 I ! I I I Dear Sir: I My wife and I were able to attend only a portion ofl last evening's hearing regarding the development propose~ for an extension of Noble Road. We agree that this is ~n ill planned project and should be rejected. I JUN - 8 1991I Commission I raise several issues. I I I I The site preparation. Looking at the Eiden companyl's work in Boulder Ridge development one can make several comm~nts. 1) There has been erosion since the original ?rading. 2) Debris is scattered throughout the projectl (tires, nails, boards, pop cans, cigarette packs e~c) 3) Planning for access one lot was very poorlV done, resulting undoubtedly in a driveway going through sbme wetland area essentially on the property lines of o~r home and three other existing properties (rather than di~rupt the "esthetics") of the new expensive homes). I i i Construction. We looked at one of the new houses bpilt by Eiden we saw examples of shoddy work. ; 1) Staples were not pounded in on roof shakesi. 2) Heating. How economical can it be (to sayl-nothing of environmentally wise) to have such huge open spaFes requiring heating? I Affordability. Who can afford these houses? , 1) Many companies are down sizing. I know peoplle losing their jobs. I'm afraid this number of upper bracke~ homes will result in people stretching to buy them and thlen being being forced to bailout in bankruptcy court. Not ~ood for them. Not good for Shorewood I 2) With greater numbers of more expensive homes dominating the market, land values rise. Taxes rise. People of modest means cannot afford to live in the area. It is already happening with property on the lake. I 3) Where is the community.s concern with and for "affordable" housing? We need to provide reasonable places for those of modest means to live. I My final concern is one I have mentioned before. I WHAT.S WRONG WITH OPEN LAND? i 1) More homes do not lower taxes. They cost ~oney increased demands of services from schools to roadsl. for 2) ,We need plain open land for everyone to enjoy. Land which will generate wild life and oxygen. 3) We need to do something to preserve the semi rural nature of this community which is the reason so many want to move here. If they all move here, it won't be the way it1was before they all moved here. Stop the development. Thank you for your consideration. I await word from you. Sitfcerely, /--- V ' 4- ~o/< / Ross W. Putn m / "" .~- ;!:/ BOTE: Please add this item to the consent aqenda at the June 27th meetinq. TO: Mayor & City Council nOK: James C. Hurm, City Administrator DATE: June 23, 1994 Joint Sealcoatinq Project - Bid Award RE: Proposed Motion: To award the contract to the low bid, Aztech corporation of st. Cloud, in the amount of $38,060.57 for Shorewood's share of the joint sealcoatinq project. The total bid for the cities of Excelsior, Shorewood and Tonka Bay is $84,198.82. The next lowest bid was Allied Blacktop of Maple Grove for $87,373.02. The list of streets in Shorewood to be seal coated is attached. JB/tln 62394.1 .... CZTY OF SHOREWOOD STREETS TO BE SEAL COATED ZN 1994 C1lS 2 :FA 3 STREET nOlI TO (GAL) 'l'OJfS Yellowstone Trail Academy Avenue Seamans Drive 4213 235 Murray Street Galpin Lake Road Dead End 905 51 Cardinal Drive Murray Street City Limits 533 30 Apple Road Co. Road 82 City Limits 1173 66 Rowards Point Road Smithtown Road Dead End 3660 ' 205 MUirfield Circle Old Market Old Market 1442 81 Waterford Circle Waterford Place CUl de Sac 359 20 Waterford Place Vine Hill Road Old Market Road 1643 92 Vine Ridge Road Sweetwater Curvet covington Road 1703 95 Covington Road Chestnut Court Near Mt. Blvd. CUl de Sac 303 17 Chestnut Terrace Near Mt. Blvd. Cul de Sac 219 12 Whitney circle Near Mt. Blvd. cul de Sac 300 17 McKinley Circle McKinley Court CUl de Sac 243 14 McKinley Court Vine Hill Road CUl de Sac 665 37 McKinley Place CUl de Sac CUl de Sac 1021 57. Elbert Point MCKinley Place CUl de Sac 329 . 18 Covington Court Vine Hill Road CUl de Sac 227 13 Near Mountain Blvd Off Near Mt Blvd Between Silver 153 9 CUl de Sac Lake Trail & Chestnut Terrace Sweetwater curve Off Sweetwater 155 9 CUl de Sac curve Sweetwater Circle Sweetwater curve Cul de Sac 410 23 Bayswater Road Minnetonka Blvd. End 625 35 20,281 1,136 .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 7,1994 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER DRAFT Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes or the Commission's May 17, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 6/1. Foust abstained. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT STAGE PLAN - HERITAGE P.D.D. ApJllicant: Location: Abingdon Development Corporation South of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing. Nielsen reviewed the plan submitted by Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon Development Corporation, for development of 32.65 acres of property located south of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road. The developer proposes to assemble 5 parcels, including 2 which have existing homes on them, for resubdivision into 21 single-family residential lots. The site, zoned R-IA, is also subject to requirements of the S, Shoreland District. Approximately 11-113 acres of the property exists as designated wetland leaving about 20 acres of buildable area, excluding proposed road right-of-way. Land use and zoning surrounding the site include: north and east: R-IA/S; south and west: R-IA. The property slopes from the northeast to the southwest with an island of dry ground rising out of the wetland in the southwest corner of the site. Rather than develop this island, the developer proposes to preserve it as common open space and use the buildable area to plat lots somewhat smaller than 40,000 square feet on the upland portion of the site. To accomplish this, the developer requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. or PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 2 Nielsen reviewed the Zoning Code's requirements, standards and procedures for planned unit development and noted that use of a P.U.D. for development of the subject property is considered appropriate. Nielsen reviewed the application's compliance with the relevant provisions of the ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan (outlined on page 2, A. 1. through 6. of his June 1 memorandum) including: clustering the units on the upland portion preserves and protects the wetland island forcornmon open space; assembling the parcels for orderly development allows completion ~f Noble Road and eliminates a substandard cul-de-sac; maintaining setbacks and lot sizes of the R-IA district at the periphery of the project; preserving the island and wetland and the density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of land area is consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives. Nielsen reviewed and commented on significant elements under the Concept Stage and made recommendations detailed on pages 2, 3 and 4 of his memorandum: B. Concept Stage Puz:pose. 1-5; C. Utilities and D. Park Dedication. Recommendations include: placement of deed restrictions on Lots 1 and 13 to prevent further subdivision; strict maintenance of the 1/40,000 density along with R-IA setbacks; development of a pedestrian access to the island as part of required site improvements; and dedicated easement of the designated wetland area on Outlot B as well as Outlot A. In addition, Nielsen reviewed concerns related to the lakeshore parcel (proposed island common space area) which exists as a nonconforming use. Because the legal status of the property is in question, the City attorney recommends that a title opinion be required to sort out this issue. Furthermore, the potential adverse impact of increased use of this parcel on nearby residential property because of its size ~d location is a significant concern. Based upon the staff analysis, Nielsen stated the proposed P.U.D. is generally consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and the stated purpose of the P. U.D. provisions of the Zoning Code and recommended that the Concept Plan be approved subject to Conditions a. through m. as outlined on pages 4 and 5 in his June I memorandum. Mr. Charles E. Dillerud, representing the Abingdon Development Corporation (the developer) and Tony Eiden Company (the builder), referred to the proposed Heritage planned unit development concept plan detailed in his letter dated May 2, 1994 and described by Mr. Nielsen. Dillerud described a mailing made to the surrounding residents to apprise them of the proposed development, to provide information for the public hearing and to encourage residents to contact him regarding any concerns they may have. He stated the concept design addresses protected wetlands and the land configuration which has odd property lines and limits development under the City's ordinances. Discussions have been conducted with the staff regarding the wetlands, the island, connection of Noble Road, grading, ground cover and trees. Dillerud responded to each of the staff recommendations (a. through m. outlined in Nielsen's June 1 memorandum) and generally accepted the recommendations for incorporation into the development stage plans. With respect to the recommendation to eliminate the 50' lakeshore parcel from the P. U.D., (recommendation e.), Mr. Dillerud explained that the common area PLANNING CO:MMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 3 is designed and included in the proposed plans for the enjoyment of many persons. He reviewed historical aspects of the parcel including previous ownership, results of litigation, and agency regulations (such as the Minnetonka Watershed District) that apply to its use and indicated that this issue will continue to be explored. In addition, Dillerud reviewed the status of the Corporation's efforts to obtain a title to this parcel and the possible swap of land with the owner of land adjoining the panhandle of Lot 18 (referred to in recommendation h.). With respect to recommendation j. regarding the provision of future City water extension to the. site, Mr. Dillerud agreed to participate in exploring that possibility, but explained that it would be unfair for the Corporation to address both installation of dry pipe and drilling of wells on the development, but that easements for water extensions will be granted. Chair Rosenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. and restated the procedures. Mr. Howard Kushmar, 26720 Edgewood Road, spoke in opposition to the project and delineated the following concerns: additional street traffic and congestion on Edgewood Road; an extension of Noble Road makes no sense; increased cost of maintaining Edgewood Road; tremendous increase of pollutants into Lake Minnetonka from runoff from the homes to be built; pollution of the wetlands; decrease and disturbance of the wetlands and habitat for animals; increased air pollution in the immediate area; deterioration of the roads by heavy equipment during the construction period which should be covered by a $500 assessment for truck usage of the roads; the semi-residential zoning will be overlayed by P.U.D. densities; increased pollution of the water table; deterioration of the drinking water quality; common area at the lake makes no sense, it cannot and will not be policed; building on the isiand will fill in the wetland which has already been deteriorated by the Brentridge project. In summary, he reiterated opposition to the project emphasizing that if any development is allowed in the area, it should be limited to 7-8 homes on the north side of the road and the remainder of the property be protected as wetland, Noble Road should not be extended, and the island not be designated a common-use area. Kushmar observed that over the past few years, Shorewood has experienced a dramatic increase in housing stock unfavorably affecting its semi-rural character. Mr. Jeff (and Nancy) Stebbins, 26980 Edgewood Road, expressed opposition to the development especially the use of the lake outlot. Stebbins stated that when they purchased their property, which is adjacent to the outlot, the limited private use of the outlot supported their purchasing decision. With P.U.D. density, Stebbins stated usage of the lot could exceed 100 persons which he termed ridiculous and pointed out that the lot has been deemed unbuildable, thus no other structures such as bathroom, changing room, cooking facilities would be allowed, parking in the area is not available, and egress is not shown on the plat. Stebbins stated that no financial hardship should result to the developer if the outlot is not used. Stebbins noted the LMCD regulations regarding boats. Using his experience as a developer, Stebbins questioned the buildable area and the lot sizes of the development, stated that a P.U.D. is not appropriate for the area, characterized a P.U.D: as a method of spot zoning, and generally opposed the development which would financially benefit a non-local developer and change the lifestyles of the area residents. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 4 Ms. Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, stated opposition to the entire proposed concept plan. Her concerns include the density and methodology used to violate the intent of zoning restrictions and the proposed use of the lakeshore parcel for common use. Ms. Scheurer expressed concern that the plans will decrease property value of existing homes which were purchased with the assurance the area would remain single family residential as zoned. She stated the zoning requirements should continue to be enforced and the expansion of up to 22 families does not make sense. Common use of the lakeshore parcel is unreasonable. Scheurer pointed out that various types of watercraft such as jet skis are not regulated and their use creates a nuisance that decreases the quality of family life and property value. Mr. Tim Olson, 27260 Edgewood Road, (Gabbert property), stated opposition to the development for the reasons presented by previous speakers. He inquired how this development compares with the Pemtom development on Howards Point Road with respect to lot sizes. He expressed concern regarding the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel and noted that it would affect residents in the surrounding area and further pollute the Lake. Ms. Pat Huber, 5315 Howard's Point Road, stated although she does not live within 500 feet of the development, she is totally against the proposal for the same reasons outlined by previous speakers. In addition, Ms. Huber expressed concern that the entire concept of the area will be changed negatively. She stated that overbuilding in marshland areas erodes the natural cleansing characteristics of the marsh through unacceptable runoff of fertilizer, etc. The beauty of the area and wildlife will be lost, the marsh becomes a smelly swamp, and home values decrease. Mr. Dana Marcelius, 27015 Edgewood Road, supported the concerns expressed by previous speakers. He inquired about the proposed extension of Noble Road as it may affect his property, inquired about the impact of drilling of 22 additional wells on existing wells and the water supply, and expressed concern about the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel. Mr. Tom Wartman, representing Ed Wartman of 26985 Edgewood Road, reiterated concern regarding the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel from 3 families up to 21 additional families and the proposed increased density of the development. He noted that the beneficial land swap recommended in Nielsen's report is being considered by the Wartman family. Mr. Bill Bruggeman (1), representing the future owner at 26710 Edgewood Road, inquired why the common area near the lake is proposed. The following residents concurred with the concerns stated by others: Bevand Norm Dann, 5285 Howard's Point Road Mr. Richard Gay, 5695 Howard's Point Road Patti and Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road Mr. Tom Skramstad, 28020 Woodside Road Chair Rosenberger closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. " PLANNING COMl\1ISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 5 During discussion, the Commissioners addressed questions and concerns raised by the residents during the public hearing. With respect to increased traffic and damage to Edgewood Road, Nielsen stated that under provisions of a P.U.D., additional information may be requested including a traffic study which could be requested to be completed by the developer or the staff could be directed to conduct. Nielsen explained that while the City requires a developer to repair any road damage, it may occur later and responsibility may be difficult to prove. The development agreement includes provisions to cover damage to public roads and utilities. The letter of credit assures that funds exist and stays in effect for one year after acceptance of the improvements and it is possible to further extend the time period. Repairs may also be assessed to the developer if the letter of credit and bond funds fall short. With respect to concerns regarding pollution, water table, etc., Mr. Dillerud acknowledged that completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) relative to the development would be prudent. He noted that regulations of the Watershed District will also be adhered to with respect to issues including storm water runoff. It was noted that use of fertilizer is an issue to be addressed by the City. With respect to the lake front common use, Nielsen explained the provisions of the Shoreland ordinance and reviewed the relevant court litigation and the resulting current use of the parcel. The current ordinance requires that where a dock exists a house must also exist, however, allowing a dock without a house on this parcel was grand fathered in as nonconforming. The ordinance is not specific with respect to passive use of the parcel. Nielsen acknowledged that common use of the parcel would be difficult to control, create potential problems, and is a difficult element of the proposal. Bean inquired whether the subdivision could terminate the validity of the grandfathering. Nielsen replied that is a legal issue and the grandfather rights could be subject to change. Nielsen described a precedent set at Gideon Cove that allowed two existing docks to remain assigned to two lots and allowed common use of a peninsula. Nielsen noted the City adopts by reference provisions of the LMCD Code and Dillerud stated those regulations will be complied with. Nielsen compared this application with the pre-application review of the Lundgren Brothers' project. The Heritage proposal accepts the 1/40000 zoning density whereas the Lundgren proposal requests a zoning change to a higher density. Otherwise, the applications are similar. Nielsen stated that a detailed lot size analysis of the Heritage proposal has not yet been completed and will be addressed in the development stage plan. It appears the smallest lot may be 22,000 square feet. Bean estimated that lot sizes would range from 25-30,000 sq.ft., 30- 35,000 sq.ft., and 75,000 sq.ft. and more. Malam stated it is important to apply the same consistent criteria to this development as to those considered heretofore. Nielsen described the proposed extension of Noble Road and the points of egress and ingress for the development. He stated the City has required the developer to be responsible for construction of streets associated with a development including extension of streets. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 6 Nielsen stated there is no evidence that any development in the City adversely affects the wells surrounding them including some of the deep wells drilled and developments with numerous wells. He pointed out that whether the drilling of an additional 20 wells for this development is a good idea hinges on the City's decision regarding the extension of City water. The City Engineer will provide further information on this issue. Dillerud stated the Corporation will address the issue of pedestrian traffic to the outlot and provide information in the development stage plans. It was noted that the recommended land swap is a matter between the developer and the land owner involved. Rosenberger described the purpose of the EA W. Turgeon requested clarification of the wetland areas. Nielsen described the wetlands under the City ordinance and the Wetland Conservation District. Rosenberger inquired whether access to the island can be limited. Nielsen replied that limited alteration for access is allowed. Turgeon expressed concern regarding the use of the outlots and maintenance of the parcels and requested input from the DNR, LMCD and Watershed District. The developer will also be expected to respond to those concerns. 'Pisula expressed concern regarding the amount of runoff from the development. Nielsen responded that control of the runoff and short-term and permanent erosion will be addressed by the developer. Malam requested the developer's response to recommendation k. regarding the reforestation program. Dillerud described the Corporation's standard procedures relative to trees and indicated the City's ordinances will be complied with and detailed in the development stage plans. The Commissioners agreed that acceptable replacement trees must be a minimum of 3 II in diameter on this project. Borkon requested clarification of the concept plan issues to be considered by the Commission. Nielsen enumerated the issues and indicated that consideration of the concept plan is intended to give the developer direction for preparation of the development stage with respect to specific issues including a density range, streets and utilities, public and common open space and staging and timing of development. Borkon stated her concerns include whether use of the lakeshore parcel as a common area is viable, impact of additional wells on the water supply and how it may impact the City's plans to provide water, density and the method used to determine the number of residences, and the impact on the wetlands. Borkon recommended a lower density than that proposed and requested that a EA W be completed and input from the appropriate agencies. Based on personal experience, Foust expressed concern regarding the proposed common area, control of its use and the impact on adjacent property owners. He also expressed concern regarding the proposed density of the development since it appears to be out of character with the neighborhood which has larger sized lots. Bean requested a legal opinion with respect to the grand fathered use of the lakeshore common space and stated concept stage approval should be qualified as to how it gets used. He inquired what the general construction traffic pattern would be and suggested that such traffic be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 7 restricted from Edgewood Road to the extent possible. Dillerud indicated a logical route may be 19 to Grant Lorenz to Noble, but acknowledged that as a P.U.D. restrictions can be placed by the City. Bean inquired whether any of the 4 properties on Edgewood which are not part of the development could possibly be subdivided and whether there would be any impact on this development from any subdivision(s). Nielsen stated that if the developer is not successful in the land swap, it is conceivable that the panhandle could be used to serve two additional lots with a cul-de-sac. Nielsen indicated that two of the parcels could be subdivided. While the City cannot legally require the recommended land swap, it is strongly suggested that this be accomplished to enhance several of the lots. Bean expressed concern regarding the proposed density of development. He stated that the significant number of new homes already approved for development in the area combined with this development puts pressure on services including water and suggested that the opportunity for intensive coordination exists to solve the water problem. Rosenberger expressed concern regarding environmental issues and supported completion of an EA W by the developer. Rosenberger inquired whether restriction of access to the island would be appropriate. Bean suggested that outright dedication of that parcel to the City for the general observation of residents would eliminate the issue and remove it from the P.U.D. The Commissioners agreed to give credit to the developer for 2 Park fees in exchange for dedication of that parcel to the City. Use of the lakeshore parcel should depend upon resolution of its legal status. In response to the Commissioners' concern regarding the water matter, Nielsen reviewed , options considered by the staff: 1) moving the road in new developments to leave a right-of-way to accommodate extension of water at some future date; 2) incorporating protective covenant provisions putting home purchasers on notice that city water may be extended; 3) installing dry lines (not recommended by City Engineer unless extension is imminent); and 4) requiring impact fees for water system improvements. Nielsen stated, however, that this project is probably too far removed from any feasible extension of water from an environmental or cost standpoint. The City needs to make a general overall decision on its plans for providing water throughout the City. Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed to request a recommendation from the City Engineer regarding the water issue. Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed to set a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq.ft. for this development. The Commissioners reviewed and discussed each of the conditions (a. through m.) recommended by the staff and agreed on modifications to selected points. Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the Heritage Planned Unit Development concept stage plans, proposed by Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon Development Corporation and Tony Eiden Builders, to be located south of Edgewood Road, approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road, subject to the staff recommendations a. through m. detailed on pages 4 and 5 of Nielsen's memorandum dated June 2, 1994, modified as follows: b. Concept approval should allow PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 8 one unit per 40,000 square feet of net buildable area. with a minimum lot size of 35.000 square feet of area. (as opposed to a specific lot count). c. The proposed commonly owned island should be dedicated to the City in exchange for 2 Park fees. j. The development stage review of the P.U.D. process should include a hydrology study and report from the City Engineer. k. The City will require a tree inventory and negotiate a reforestation program with a minimum of 3" diameter replacement trees as part of the P.U.D. Motion passed 7/0. The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting. Written comments regarding the recommendation may be mailed to the Council members and staff at City Hall for receipt prior to the meeting. The Chair recessed the meeting at 10 p.m. and reconvened at 10: 10 p.m. 2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - JOHNSON HOLWW Apj>licant: Location: Daniel Johnson 27920 and 27944 Smithtown Road Chair Rosenberger announced the case, outlined the procedures for a public hearing, and acknowledged receipt of a June 1, 1994 letter from Mr. William W. Pye, 27968 Smithtown Road, Excelsior, commenting on this application. Nielsen reported that Ms. Elizabeth Lindow proposes to sell part of her property at 27920 Smithtown Road to Mr. Daniel Johnson, 27944 Smithtown Road. The division and combination allows Mr. Johnson to acquire an existing tennis court located to the east of his property. Together the lots (zoned R-IA/S) tota1169,735 sq.ft. in area. After the division/combination, the Lindow lot will contain 58,535 sq.ft. and the Johnson lot will contain 111,200 sq.ft. of area. The 2 existing lots (and 3 others) are served by a private road most of which is on Ms. Lindow's property. As a result of the division/combination, about 600 feet of the road will be located on the Johnson property. Nielsen stated that while the applicants' intent is rather simple, it is complicated by strange lot configurations, cumbersome legal descriptions, and the existence of the private road. To simplify matters to the extent possible, the applicants have been asked to formally plat the division/combination. There is no intent to tamper with existing use or maintenance agreements for the private road at this time. Review of the final plat by the City Attorney will ensure that the rights and responsibilities of all parties using the road will be maintained. Nielsen recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions detailed in his June 2, 1994 memorandum. Mr. Daniel Johnson stated the amicable transaction to acquire the tennis court will clean up the lot lines and does not affect any neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 9 Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. there being no comments from the public. In response to Turgeon's inquiry about the "deep water" sign by t~e nearby pond, Johnson explained it is actually a spring-fed pond which prevents skating during the winter etc. Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the Johnson Hollow preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. applicants must provide up- to-date title opinions or title insurance binders for both existing properties; 2. fmal plat must be submitted within 6 months; 3. final plat must provide drainage and utility easements 10' on each side of all property lines; 4. (mal plat should include a wetland conservation/drainage easement for the designated wetland on Lot 1; 5. park dedication fees and sewer connection charges are not required since no new lots are created. Motion passed 7/0. The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting. 3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - R. BOWMAN SECOND ADDITION Apl'licant: Location: James McNulty, representing. R. Bowman 20025 Manor Road Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing. Nielsen reviewed the background to the preliminary plat request. A subdivision of Mr. Richard Bowman's property at 20025 Manor Road was approved in 1990 that created 2 lots and 2 outlots located in Shorewood and Deephaven. The outlots were legally tied to their respective adjoining lots so that they could not be developed or subdivided without City approval and without constructing a city street. Right-of-way for future construction of the street was dedicated at that time and the 2 lots shared Bowman's existing driveway. Mr. Bowman now requests that the southerly portion of the property (Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot B) be resubdivided into 3 building sites and asks that the development agreement required as part of the original plat be amended to allow the replatting without construction of the street. A concern of the original plat was that subdivision not be allowed to circumvent the City's requirements for streets. Nielsen stated that with proper control, the current request does not violate the Code or the intent of the original approval. Lot 1 will access directly from Manor Road, Shorewood, and Lot 3 will access directly from Vine Street, Deephaven, therefore the common driveway will still be shared only by the Bowman residence and the new Lot 2, and will not require upgrading to private street standards. The future public street need not be constructed until such time as Outlot A is replatted, however, Outlot A must remain legally tied to Mr. Bowman's existing homestead parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 10 Nielsen reviewed the conditions upon which approval of the preliminary plat should be subject to (conditions 1. through 7. detailed in his June 3, 1994 memorandum), and recommended approval of the application. Mr. James McNulty, representing Mr. Bowman, stated he and the homeowner have met with Nielsen to discuss the proposal and indicated the owner wishes to defer construction of the street. Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. Ms. Debbie Hegstrom, 5060 Hooper Lake Road, inquired where the access on Manor Road will be located since the surrounding area is swampy low land. She expressed concern about the access on Vine Street due to the amount of traffic on Hooper Lake Road which is used as a short-cut. Hegstrom expressed concern that wildlife habitat will be destroyed and urged that the area remain as natural as possible. Mr. Jim Miller, 20060 Vine Street, whose property abuts the subject property, reiterated concern regarding preservation of the natural area. He inquired whether ordinances could protect" the wooded area, provide for replacement of trees and. regulate grading on the property. He inquired how building on Lot 1 will affect the wetlands. Miller reiterated concern about disturbing the habitat for wildlife especially for deer. Mr. Scott Ziemer, 20175 Manor Road, inquired where the access will be for Lot 1. Ms. Susan Hooper, 5005 Hooper Lake Road, inquired about the effect on property taxes if expensive homes are built on Lot 3 adjacent to Deephaven. Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. The Commissioners addressed the questions and concerns raised by residents during the Public Hearing. Nielsen described the location of the access points and pointed out that preservation of the wetlands is a major factor in the placement of the proposed homes and driveways. He noted that action by Deephaven on the proposal will also be required. With respect to traffic, Nielsen noted that while the majority of this project is in Deephaven, two of the lots will access to Shorewood streets. Using residential development data of 8-10 trips per day per lot, approximately 30 additional trips per day will be added to area streets. It is anticipated that 3/4 of the traffic will use Manor Road. The current signage and speed bumps are considered adequate to control cut-through traffic. Nielsen explained that current ordinances do not require tree replacement and speculated that Mr. Bowman may not wish to construct the street in the interest of preserving the wooded area. In terms of grading, Nielsen stated Shorewood requires a maximum slope of 3: 1 and it is assumed the homes will be custom built to fit the lots, grading will be limited and slopes relatively undisturbed. He pointed out that developers generally try to preserve trees to mitigate the effect on natural surroundings to the extent possible and .,. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 7, 1994 - PAGE 11 wetlands cannot be disturbed or altered. It is expected that City water will be extended from the Amesbury development. It was acknowledged that the effect on property taxes is difficult to determine. It was noted that restrictions may be attached to the approval to provide for specific replacement of trees. Overall control of the subdivision will be mutually shared by Shorewood and Deephaven. The Commissioners sympathized with concerns regarding wildlife, particularly deer, but agreed that in general deer survive and tend to increase their numbers. Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the R. Bowman Second Addition Preliminary Plat subject to the staff recommendations 1.-7. . detailed in Nielsen's memorandum dated June 3, 1994. Motion passed 7/0. The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting. 4. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 5. REPORTS Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its May 23 meeting and answered Commissioners' questions. The Planning Commission and Council will meet in ajoint session on Monday, June 27, 1994. 4. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial .