072594 CC Reg AgP
...
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUN'l'RY CLUB ROAD
7:00 PM
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B.
Roll Call
Lewis
Benson
Mayor Brancel
stover
Daugherty
C. Review Agenda
D. Presentation to Denni5 Johnson
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - July 11, 1994
(Att.-#2 Minutes)
3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent
Agenda & adopt resolutions therein:
A - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing
Execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin
County for the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program
for the Year 1994 (Year XX) (Att. -#3A Proposed
ReSOlution)
B - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Appointing
Members to the" Shorewood Parks Foundation Board
(Att.-#3B Proposed Resolution)
C - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving Signed
Letter of Understanding Regarding Holidays which
Amends Article XXII,~ection 1 of the 2 Year Union
~~~::::::i::!CA:o~~~e::::::::O:S:::l~~:::
Holidays for the Public Works Director (Att. -#30
Proposed Resolution)
E A Motion to Approve a Change Order for
Silverwood Park project (Att.-#3E Change Order)
4. PLANNING - Report by Representative
A Discussion of Planning Commission
Recommendation to Declare a Development Moratorium
(Att.-#4A1 Planner's Memorandum; 4A2 Excerpt from
19 July Planning Commi$f~onMi.nutes)
1i,....:.... . .-<"
B :.;'~M<:>t~ontQDirect Staff to Prepare Findings of
Fact for a Conditional Use Permit for the Vine Hill
Market
Applicant: James pyle
Location: 19215 State Highway 7
(Att.-#4B Planner's Memorandum)
.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 25, 1994
Page 2 of 2 .
C - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a
Fence Setback Variance
Applicant: Judy Christensen-Walden
Location: 5755 Merry Lane
(Att.-#4Cl Planner's Memorandum; #4C2 Proposed
Resolution)
D A Motion to Direct staff to Prepare a
Resolution Regarding a Simple Subdivision and Lot
Combination
Applicant: Ellis Pike/Steven Pike
Location: 5810 Club Lane/24845 Smithtown Road
(Att.-#4D Planner's Memorandum)
E - A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving
Concept stage Plans for Heritage P.U.D.
Applicant: Abingdon Development corporation
Location: South of Edgewood Rd approx. 700'
East of Howards pt Rd
(Att.-#4E Proposed Resolution)
5. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR SPEED STUDIES ON CBASKA
ROAD AND SMIT.HTOw.N ROAD (Att.-#5 Administrator's
Memorandum)
6 . HNl."l'ERS FROM THE FLOOR
7. DISCUSSION ON POLICY ISSUES
8 . ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS -
A - Report on Status of 1994 Objectives (Att.-#8A
Objectives)
B - Planner's Report on Rental Housing Inspection
Program (Att.-#8B Planner's Memorandum)
9. lIAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS -
J.O. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS - (Attachment)
** INDICATES TAX INCREASE OR FEE IMPLICATIONS
Ie
!
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994
AGENDA ITEM #lD: Dennis Johnson will be present at 7:00 p.m. for
presentation of a plaque to him for 20 years of service to the City
in the Public Works Department.
AGENDA ITEM #3A: .This is the annual agreement with Hennepin County
to manage our Community Development Block Grant fund program.
There are no changes from previous years.
AGENDA ITEM #3B: These are additional names submitted by the Chair
of the Park Commission as a result of the Park Commission's efforts
to fill the Shorewood Parks Foundation Board of Directors according.
to by-law formula.
AGENDA ITEM #3C: Upon the request of the Public Works employees,
this resolution gives them Columbus Day as a paid holiday in return
for the day after Thanksgiving being considered-a regular working
day. This does not affect City Hall staff. ci ty Hall will be open
on Columbus Day and closed the day after Thanksgiving.
AGENDA ITEM #3D: With the passage of Item #3C, this resolution
would need to be passed -in order for the Public Works Director to
have the same holidays as the Public Works employees.
. AGENDA ITEM #3E: This isa second and final change order for our
park construction project this year. There. is a reduction of $695
in Freeman Park for seeding and an increase in Silverwood Park for
minor bituminous changes and additional top soil for the open play
area. The combined change order with Expert Asphalt Company adds
$4,212 to the project. The enclosed budget summary memo explains
that this brings the total project to approximately $500 under
budget.
\
AGENDA ITEM #4A: The Planning Commission has recommended that an
interim ordinance be prepared to restrict all subdivisions of land
which create three or more lots over the next twelve months. The
purpose is to allow the Comprehensive Plan update to be completed
prior to making final decisions on the development of several of
the last largest parcels in Shorewood. If the Council agrees with
the Planning commission recommendation, staff would be directed to
prepare an ordinance for the 8 August Council meeting.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM #4B: James Pyle proposes to remove part of the Vine
Hill market building in order to address the City's concerns
regarding a conditional use permit to install fuel facilities on
the property. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
approval of the C.U.P.
AGENDA ITEM #4C: The Planning Commission has recommended approval
of a setback variance to allow Judy Christensen-Walden to build a
fence approximately 45 feet from the shoreline of Christmas Lake.
The recommendation requires green or black vinyl coated chain link
fencing and additionc;il landscaping. A four-fifths vote is required
for approval.
AGENDA ITEM #40: Ellis Pike and Steven Pike propose to rearrange
the lot line between their lots. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval subject to conditions. ~
AGENDA ITEM #4E: This resolution sets forth the conditions for
Concept Stage approval for the Heritage P.U.D. A four-fifths vote
of the Council is required for approval.
AGENDA ITEM #5: Earlier this year the Police Chief recommended
that a speed study be done for Chaska Road, which is currently
posted 30 MPH as a result of a resident's speed inquiry. At that
same time he recommended a speed study of smithtown Road, which is
posted 30 MPH for its entire length but is legally 40 MPH from
Cathcart west to the City limits. The Council may wish to request
by motion that a speed study be done of these two roads. Staff
could ask for an informal report prior to the official study
completion and report back to the city Council.
AGENDA ITEM #8A: In the packet you will find the mid-year report
oh the status of objectives that were established for 1994 in our .
City operating budget.
AGENDA ITEM #8B: The Planning Director will report on the status
of the City's rental housing license program. The report
referenced on the agenda will be sent under sepa~ate cover.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JULY 11, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The meeting was called to order by Acting Mayor Daugherty at 7:00 p.m.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
Present:
Acting Mayor Daugherty; Councilmembers Benson and Stover; Administrator
Hurm, City Engineer Dresel, City Attorney Keane, and Planning Director
Nielsen.
.
Absent:
Mayor Brancel and Councilmember Lewis.
C.
Review Agenda
Benson moved, Stover seconded to approve the agenda for July 11, 1994. Motion passed
3/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
City Council Regular Meeting and Work Session Minutes - June 17, 1994
.
Stover moved, Benson seconded to approve the Regular City Council Meeting and Work
Session Minutes of June 27, 1994. Motion passed 3/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Acting Mayor Daugherty read the Consent Agenda for July 11, 1994.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the
Resolutions and Motion therein:
A. Motion to Authorize the Appointment of Sue Grahn, 5945 Eureka Road, to the
Position of Part-Time Temporary Election Clerk for the 1994 Election.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 94-55, "A Resolution Relating to Vacation of a Portion of Birch
Bluff Road." (Reaffirming Vacation of a Portion of Birch Bluff Road-Near the
Intersection With Eureka Road-Wallace King Property.)
l4:.~
REGULAR CIlY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 11, 1994 - PAGE 2
C. RESOLUTION NO. 94-56, "A Resolution Approving the Final Plat of Brunner
Addition." Applicant: Bradley Brunner. Location: 25380 Smith town Road.
Motion passed 3/0.
4. PARK - Report by representative
Park Commission Chair McCarty presented information on the matters before the Council
for consideration and action relating to Park Commission business.
A Consideration of a Motion to Accept a Revised Cathcart Park Plan
McCarty reviewed the changes to the Cathcart Park Plan which reconfigures the ball field
to save trees in the south portion of the park, reduces parking stalls from 39 to 33, moves
the handicapped parking to the southwest comer, and adds a short trail from the parking ...
lot to the play area.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to approve the revised Cathcart Park plan. Motion passed
3/0.
B. Consideration of Cathcart Parking - Review Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Advertisement for Bid and Approval of Engineering Agreement.
Dresel directed the Council's attention to the plans and specifications for the revised
Cathcart Park parking area developed in conjunction with Park Consultant Bruce
Chamberlain reflecting the changes described in the revised Plan. Funds for the project are
included in the Capital Improvement Projects budget. Hurm explained relocation of the ball
fields to provide parking within the park will enhance safety. Chamberlain noted that the
existing warming house will be moved.
Benson moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the plans and specifications for the Cathcart
Park parking area as submitted and to authorize advertisement for bids to complete the
project. Motion passed 3/0.
.
Benson moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the Engineering Design Agreement with
OSM for an amount not to exceed $2,000. Motion passed 3/0.
C. Report on Park Element of Heritage P.D.D. Concept Stage Plan
McCarty reported that at its June 28, 1994 meeting, the Park Commission considered and
recommended that the outlot in the Heritage P.D.D. be retained by the homeowners
association and that the full park dedication fees be applied. She explained the parcel does
not fit into the City's current park expansion program and the Commission preferred to
accept the park fees.
REGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES
July 11, 1994 - PAGE 3
Stover inquired whether the City may consider controlling the parcel in order to avoid
misuse of it. Nielsen explained that provisions of the Heritage development agreement will
address the matter and will likely place responsibility upon the homeowners association.
D. Consideration of Asphalting a Portion of Freeman Park Road
- Motion to Adopt a Resolution Amending the Park Capital Improvement Program
and Budget
McCarty stated that asphalting a portion of Freeman Park Road will help eliminate the dust
problem in the area. Benson described the section to be asphalted and indicated it is the
most heavily traveled. Hurm explained that Stage 1 asphalting leaves some graveled roads
to the ball fields until the configuration of the area is determined, however, completion is
anticipated in the future. He stated funds for this current project, which is considered a
priority because of the dust problem, are available in the Park Fund.
.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to adopt "RESOLUTION NO. 94-57, "A Resolution Making
Capital Budget Amendments." (Adding $20,000 to the Park Fund for Freeman Park
Roadway AsphaIting.) Motion passed 3/0.
- Motion Awarding a Contract to the Low Quote to Asphalt a Portion of Freeman
Park Road .
McCarty stated $20,000 is budgeted for the asphalt project and the low quote received is
$17,000. Hurm added that the bid covers 1440 feet and a Change Order covers an
extension of 180 feet of asphalt up to the north parking lot. Benson mentioned that the
estimated cost of a complete asphalting project at Freeman Park including curbs and 'gutters,
etc. is $200,000.
.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to award the contract for paving 1,440 feet of Freeman
Park roadway to the low quote, Midwest Asphalt Corporation for $17,000, and to authorize
a Change Order, in an amount not to exceed $3,000, to add approximately 180 feet of
asphalt up to the north parking lot. Motion passed 3/0.
E. Consideration of Recommendations for Appointments to the Shorewood Parks
Foundation Board
McCarty directed attention to the list of individuals, representing various Park users,
recommended for appointment by the Council to the Shorewood Parks Foundation Board
of Directors. The City Administrator and a Council Member (Benson) will serve as
nonvoting members on a yearly basis.
Stover moved, Benson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 94-58, "A Resolution Making
Appointments to the Shorewood Parks Foundation Board of Directors." (Effective July 11,
1994.) Motion passed 3/0.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 11, 1994 - PAGE 4
5. PLANNING - Report by Representative
Commissioner Malam reported on the actions taken by the Commission at its July 5, 1994
meeting.
6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESQLUTION APPROVING
PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR CHRISTMAS LAKE RQAD INTERSECfION
PRO.JECf
Nielsen reported that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has referred
new plans for the reconstruction of the intersection at Christmas Lake Road and Highway
7 to the City for review and approval. The plans are essentially the same on the Shorewood
side of the Highway as a plan previously approved by the City some time ago, but was not
approved by the City of Greenwood. The intersection is considered one of the most
hazardous in this MNDOT district. The plan includes detaching the service road on the
south side, moving the intersection over a bit, creating left turn lanes and closing off the .
right-on, right-off roads existing before Radisson Road on the Shorewood side. A cul-de-sac
is proposed for construction at the end of the Radisson entrance. Staff suggestions include:
installation of a cross walk at the intersection; connection of the existing catch basin at the
south side of the Radisson cut-off to the highway storm system; and consideration of a
flashing warning light to enhance safety since the plan does not straighten the highway and
the site distances coming from the east are not increased.
Dresel introduced Tom Keefe and Mike Undeborg representing the Waters Edge office of
MNDOT. Mr. Keefe reported that the City of Greenwood has approved the current plan.
During discussion, Benson expressed concern regarding the safety issues with respect to the
site lines. He referred to an existing building located on the right-of-way on the north side
and objected to the fact that most of the reconstruction involves Shorewood property. He
indicated the plan does not significantly improve overall safety at the intersection; therefore .
he is not prepared to act on the current plan. Benson suggested that additional study be
conducted with Greenwood and Excelsior including a traffic count at the intersection to
determine an equitable sharing of reconstruction requirements.
Mr. Keefe stated the current plan does make the intersection safer, but acknowledged it is
not an optimum plan. He pointed out that earlier layouts approved by Shorewood have not
been approved by Greenwood and indicated that while it has been difficult to reach this
point, the plan does take more from Shorewood than from Greenwood. Keefe was not
optimistic with respect to obtaining additional concessions from Greenwood. He requested
the Council's approval of the plan in order that the project may proceed.
At Daugherty's request, Keefe described a design for the intersection without any
restrictions. Such a design would straighten the curves, provide better site lines, stacking
distance, more separation between the frontage road and the main highway, closure of
entrances, and wider roads to include medians. Keefe stated the current plan is acceptable
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
July 11, 1994 - PAGE 5
in terms of other intersection improvements being made on Highway 7 and would serve the
area well for more than the next five years. Stover described concerns regarding the specific
site lines and stated that improvement of that aspect is as important as inclusion of turn
lanes. In response to Stover's question, Keefe described the land owned by MNDOT.
Daugherty agreed that the site line issue from all directions is very important and suggested
that more study be conducted to develop further improvements. He stated the City does
not wish to delay the project nor does it want to jeopardize the funds available for its
completion, but requested the MNDOT representatives to re-address the site line issue.
Keefe indicated he could do so within two weeks, but that subsequent approvals of another
plan would delay the project.
Dresel indicated that the turn lanes in the current plan improve the intersection and that
this plan is quite similar to one approved by Shorewood previously. Nielsen stated that
reduction of the speed limit could improve safety. Keefe stated that posted limits generally
reflect the existing traffic speeds.
.
Following discussion, the Council requested MNDOT to consider further improvement of
the site lines to increase safety relative to the overall project. Keefe agreed to do so and
report back to the Council in two weeks.
7. A MOTION TO ACCEPT A BID FOR THE OLD MARKET ROAD TRAIL
PROJECT AND AWARD THE CONTRACT
Dresel reported that only one bid was received for the trail project, recommended rejection
of that bid, and suggested the project be re-bid. The Councilmembers agreed and urged the
Engineer to pursue reasonable bids to assure that the project is completed before winter.
.
Benson moved, Stover seconded to reject the bid for $55,714.00, received from Advanced
Concrete, Inc., for the Old Market Road Trail project, and directed the City Engineer to
re-bid the project within the next 30 days for completion of the project during Fall 1994.
Motion passed 3/0.
8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE A WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS
PROPOSAL '
Dresel stated connections and extensions to the City's water system have been allowed based
upon engineering judgment. Because the system is reaching its capacity, Dresel proposes
that the water system be computerized so that decisions can be made through computerized
analysis of the feasibility of further connections/extensions. The estimated cost of the
proposal is $10,000.
Acknowledging the absence of Mayor Brancel and Councilmember Lewis, the Council
agreed to schedule a work session at its next meeting to discuss this issue and other water-
related matters.
REGULAR CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES
July 11, 1994 - PAGE 6
9. INADVERTENTLY OMITTED IN DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AGENDA.
10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
11. DISCUSSION ON POLICY ISSUES - None.
12. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS
Engineer's Report on Seasons' Area Drainage
Dresel referred to his letter dated June 23, 1994 regarding the Footprint Lake drainage
system. The report was prepared in response to issues with respect to the Season's
Townhome Development raised by a resident. In addition, Dresel's report addresses other
issues raised in the past. Dresel responded to questions during brief discussion.
13.
MAYOR AND CI1Y COUNCIL REPORTS
.
Stover inquired about mosquito control when new holding ponds are established. Dresel
indicated such a program would be within the Council's authority. Stover referred to a
letter received from the Excelsior Postal Service notifying residents that it is illegal for
anyone other than a postal carrier to take mail from individual post boxes. This letter was
prompted by recent complaints of mail theft and Stover suggested this may explain recent
incidents of the City's nonreceipt of mail from residents. Daugherty requested the staff to
provide information on emergency response time during the past two months in Shorewood.
14. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Benson moved, Stover seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting subject to approval
of claims at 8:20 p.m. Motion passed 3/0. .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
ROB DAUGHER1Y, ACTING MAYOR
JAMES C. HURM, CIlY ADMINISTRATOR
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR , CITY ADMINISTRATOR
TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
FOR 1994 (YEAR XX)
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Ci ty of Shorewood has executed a joint
cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of
participating in the 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual
grant from the U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development for
purposes of the program, and the City is a recipient under the
program and receives a share of the grant; and
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and
County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the
specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken
with program funds.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City
Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City
Administrator to execute the SUbrecipient Agreement on behalf of
the City.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/clerk
#3A
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO
THE SHOREWOOD PARKS FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS
WHEREAS, per the directives of the Articles of Incorporation of the
Shorewood Parks Foundation, the Shorewood City Council adopted Resolution
94-58 making appointments to fill certain positions on the Board of
Directors for the Foundation; and
WHEREAS, four of the initial positions were left vacant at the time
of the appointments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
That the following persons are appointed to the following positions
and terms with March 15 expiration date:
Organization
Appointee
First
At>pointed
3/15/95
3/15/96
3/15/97
Sandra Trettel
7/25/94
7/25/94
7/25/94
At Large
Tonka Football Association
Barbara Wanamaker
American Legion
Kenneth Dallman
That such appointments shall take effect on the date hereof and
shall continue for the term specified or until such time as a
successor is appointed by the City Council.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day
of July, 1994.
.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
~)b
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -
A RESOLUTION SUBSTITUTING
COLUMBUS DAY AS A HOLIDAY
FOR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, Shorewood Public Works employees have asked that
they be allowed to substitute Columbus Day, the second Monday in
October, as a paid holiday for calendar years 1994 and 1995 for the ,
Friday after Thanksgiving, which is listed in the AFSCME bargaining
agreement as a paid holiday; and
WHEREAS, AFSCME Local #224 has officially made this
request to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds said request to be
reasonable and acceptable.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City
Administrator is hereby directed to draft and have executed a side
letter of agreement with AFSCME Local #224 substituting Columbus
Day, the second Monday in october, as a paid holiday for calendar
years 1994 and 1995 for the Friday after Thanksgiving which is
listed in the current bargaining agreement as a paid holiday.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this
25th day of July, 1994.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
-ki3C
~ , . ;
\.... ;... ';-
! -~
MINNESOTA AFSCME COUNCIL NO. 14
TWIN CITIES
METROPOLITAN AREA
267 W. LAFAYETTE FRONTAGE RD. S.
ST. PAUL, MN 55107-1683
TELEPHONE: 291-0333
FACSIMILE: 291-1103
July 11, 1994
Mr. James Hurm
City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Hurm:
This is to advise you that the members of Local 224, City of
Shorewood Public Works Employees, are in favor of an agreement ~
with the City which would allow these employees to substitute
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October, as a paid holiday for
calendar years 1994 and 1995 for the Friday after Thanksgiving
which is listed in the Bargaining Agreement as a paid holiday.
We understand that the City is also in favor of such a proposal.
Unless the Union hears otherwise, we will assume that the members
of the Local 224 bargaining unit will be scheduled to have
Monday, October 10, 1994 and Monday, October 9, 1995 as paid
holidays and that they will be scheduled for a regular work day
on Friday, November 25, 1994 and Friday, November 24, 1995.
If you have any questions, please contact Business Representative
Luanne Koskinen.
Respectfully yours,
~~cLJ
Jill Kielblock
Business Representative
AFSCME Council 14
AFL-CIO
~
xc: Joseph Lugowski, Local 224 Steward
Luanne Koskinen, Council 14 Business Representative
~@
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -
A RESOLUTION SUBSTITUTING
COLUMBUS DAY AS A HOLIDAY
FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
WHEREAS, the City council, upon a request of the
Shorewood Public Works employees and AFSCME Local #224, has
authorized a letter of understanding amending the bargaining
agreement substituting Columbus Day, the second Monday in October,
as a paid holiday for calendar years 1994 and 1995 for the Friday
after Thanksgiving, which is listed in the bargaining agreement as
a paid holiday; and
WHEREAS, it is reasonable and acceptable for the Director
of Public Works to observe the same holidays as all Public Works
personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City
Council that the Director of Public Works shall for the years 1994
and 1995 substitute Columbus Day, the second Monday in October, as
a paid holiday for the Friday after Thanksgiving which is currently
a paid holiday.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said holiday substitution
shall remain in effect until changed for the Shorewood Public Works
AFSCME Local #224 membership by bargaining agreement.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this
25th day of July, 1994.
ATTEST:
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
..'
~3D
Hoisington Koegler Group lne.
mil
fill
~
July 19, 1994
Mr. Jim Hurm, City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
Dear Jim:
Enclosed, please find Change Order #2 for the Silverwood Park Improvements and Freeman
Park Trail Project (Project No. PK-1-94). This Change Order includes enhancements to the
project which will extend the life of the improvements and provide for easier long-term .
maintenance.
The Change Order includes replacing the sodding item in Freeman Park with topsoil and
seeding (a net change of -$695.00). This will allow for better grass establishment along the
disturbed areas of the new trail.
In Silverwood Park, the changes include added retaining wall quantities due to a slightly
higher wall at the basketball court than anticipated and an additional short wall near the play
area needed to save an existing tree, topsoil to allow for better grass establishment and hand-
rolling the edge of the bituminous path next to the play area to keep the aggregate base from
mixing with the surfacing in the play area (a net change of +$4,907.00).
Combined, the Change Order adds $4,212.00 to the project total. If you have any questions,
please feel free to call me. .
Sincerely,
~d.~
Bruce L. Chamberlain, RLA
Project Manager
Enc.
1t3E-
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160
CHANGE ORDER
PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER:
Silverwood/Freeman Park Improvements
City of Shorewood
Improvements Project No. PK-4-94
Date:
Contract Date:
TO (Contractor):
Expert Asphalt Co.
44 West 1 st Street
Waconia, MN 55387
2
July 19, 1994
May 25, 1994
The Contract is changed as follows:
. In Freeman Park: Delete the 780 S.Y. sodding item. In its place add 40 C.Y. of delivered and hand
spread topsoil and 92 S.Y. of seeding.
In Silverwood Park: Add 123 S.F. of modular block retaining wall to accommodate added height in the
basketball court wall and an additional wall at the play area path. Add 150 C.Y. of delivered and
mechanically spread topsoil. Add hand-rolled bituminous edge at the play area path.
This Change Order is not valid until signed by the Landscape Architect, Contractor and Owner.
The original (Contract Sum)(G1:I8faflteed Maximum Priee) was
Net change by previously authorized Change Orders
The (Contract Sum)(GtlafBftteed Maximam Priee) prior to this Change Order was
The (Contract Sum)(Gaanmteed MaIDmam Priee) will be
(increased)(deereased)(unehtmged) by this Change Order in the amount of
. The new (Contract Sum)(Guaranteed Maxi:m-um. Priee) including
this Change Order will be
The Contract Time will be (iflereased)(deereased)(unchanged) by
The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
APPROVED:
Landscape Architect:
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.
7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439
BY:~ ~. /k~jy~J.u~
Date: 7 /\~~*
/
$55,913.30
$+4,838.00
$60,751.30
$+4,212.00
$64,963.30
( ) days
June 27, 1994
Contractor:
Expert Asphalt Co.
44 West 1st St.
Waconia, MN 55387
Owner:
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
By:
By:
Date:
Date:
chgord2.frm
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
mil
.....
MEMORANDUM
July 20, 1994
To: Jim Hum, City Administrator
From: Bruce Chamber~ Park Planner
Re: Budget status of Freeman Park Trail and Silverwood Park Improvements.
FOllowing is a status report of amounts invoiced and budget items yet to be invoiced in 1994.
Freeman Park Trail;
TOlal budger -
.
SiIverwood Park Improvements:
Total budget -
$24, 000
$18,367
55,633
191,400
$32,239
$25,372
$10,400 .
$68,011
Invoiced on Payment Application No. 1 from Expert Asphalt:
(project complete)
Surplus
Invoiced on Payment Application No. 1 from Expert Asphalt:
Invoiced from Gametime for play equipment:
Invoiced from Hoisington Koegler Group for project admin.;
Amount invoiced to date:
Additional amounts expected to be invoiced for Silverwood Park
Final invoice request from Expert Asphalt:
$15,069
Landscaping:
$11,000
Stair co~'trUCtion by the Tree Trust:
Amount expected to be invoiced in the future:
$2,500
$28,569
T ota! expected expenditures:
$96,580
Deficit
If the budgets for the two parks are combined, there is an approximate $500 surplus.
Land Use! Environmencal . Planning! Design
~JOO.MerroBou!cvardjSu.ire525 · Minneapolis,Minnesota. S5~)9 . (612)835-9960 · Fil.:d6i2)8:,)-:,160
$5,180
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
.
RE:
FILE NO.:
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
Planning Commission
Brad Nielsen
15 July 1994
Discussion of Development Moratorium
405 (Comp Plan Update - Admin)
Chair Rosenberger has requested that staff prepare a report setting forth the procedures for
d~1aring a moratorium on development. If the Planning Commission were to make such a
recommendation, following is a timetable for review and adoption of an ordinance to that
effect:
19 July -
25 July -
.
8 August -
30 Aug~st-
12 Sept. -
14 Sept. -
21 Sept. -
Planning Commission recommendation to City Council
City Council directs staff to prepare an interim ordinance declaring a
moratorium
City Council reviews first draft, sets public hearing date
Planning Commission holds public hearing, makes recommendation to the
City Council
Council adopts interim ordinance
Publish ordinance in official newspaper
Ordinance becomes effective
Also enclosed for your review is a review outline for the Comprehensive Plan Update.
If you have any questions relative. to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Mayor and City Council
~Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
i.l4A~
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:
14 July 1994
RE:
Comp Plan Update - Review Timetable
FILE NO.:
405 (Comp Plan Update - Admin)
Last January staff prepared a timetable for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update
(see staff memorandum, dated 3 January 1994). Since a study session crucial to the review
process has been postponed on several occasions (see Administrator's memorandum, dated 14
July 1994), it is necessary to update the review schedule. Following is a revised timetable
for completion of the Comp Plan Update:
. Au2Ust 94 - continue Natural Resources Chapter discussion, finalize Land Use Chapter
. September 94 - finalize Natural Resources Chapter
October 94 - continue Community Facilities Chapter discussion
November 94 - finalize Community Facilities Chapter
December 94 - no study session - staff works on presentation draft of Comp Plan Update
January 95 - joint meeting of Council and Planning Commission to review presentation draft
February 95 - prepare presentation strategy/format for public meetings
March/April 95 - conduct series of neighborhood meetings
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
Comp Plan Update - Review Timetable
14 July 1994
Page two
AprillMay 95 - discuss revisions to Plan Update based upon public input
.Tune 95 - hold a public hearing and adopt Comp Plan Update, subject to review by
Metropolitan Council
If there are any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Planning Commission
~.
MAYOR
Sarb Srancal
COUNCl L
Kristi Seaver
Rob Oaughel'tV
Oaniel Lewis
Brna Benson
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOAEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · {612l474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
. FROM:
DATE:
Brad Nielsen/TIm Hurm
3 January 1994
RE:
Comp Plan - City Water
FlLE NO.:
405 (CompPlan - Comm. Fac.)
-
Based upon the direction given at the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and
City Council, staff proposes to redraft portions of the Community Facilities Chapter of the
Comp Plan Update which deal with municipal water.
First, it has been suggested that the issues section of the Chapter be redrafted to more fully
describe the problems with the City's system as it currently exists. The revised text will
. elaborate a bit on the various issues which were studied two years ago (i.e. extensions to new
and existing development, depreciation of the system, escalating operation costs, etc.).
The concensus of the Planning Commission and Council is to establish a goal for extending
municipal water to the entire city within 10 years. To accomplish this goal, staff has
identified certain basic areas of decision which must ,be addressed to improve the feasibility
of a citywide system:
Water Policies
1. Properties get assessed when the water line goes by (no deferrals).
2. Hook up required within one year. Three years?
3. Budget for capital improvements in general fund.
4. Flat rate assessments on unit basis (i.e. all lots, regardless of size, pay the same
assessment) .
A Residenrial Communir,! on L3ke Minneronka's Sourh Shore
IW.
Re: Comprehensive Plan
City Water
3 January 1994
The Comprehensive Plan is considered the most appropriate forum in which to address City
water. In addition to setting forth the goals, policies and plans for a municipal system, it
puts this issue in context with the other elements of community development (i.e. streets,
land. use and natUral resources). It also involves a public review process which provides for
scrutiny and input from the residents of the community. .
Following is a tentative schedule for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update and a
subsequent public review process:
February
- begin review of Land Use and Natural Resources Chapters /"
. March
- fiO;l117.e Land Use and Natural Resources Chapters
... ~scuss revised Community Facilities Chapter re: city water
- joint meeting of Planning Commission and Council
April - conduct a series of neighborhood meetings (perhaps 4 to 8)
May - disCuss revisions to Plan based upon public input
June - hold a public hearing and adopt Comp Plan Update subject to review by
Metropolitan Council
Even beyond this process the City would need to hold one, or more likely, a series of special.
ALSsessment public hearings following preliminary design and before full design. It is likely
~t the earliest construction could reasonably begin is Spring 1995. .
-
. It is iIriportant to recognize that there really is no .point of no return. until the pipe is in.
* The proposed goal. is to extend water to the entire city within 10 years. Even if the City
decided to move that up to 3 years as had been discussed 2 years ago, very little pipe could
be in the ground before 1995. .
Consulting fees are estimated to be $2000 legal.; $3000 financial, and $10,000 engineering
just to get us to a special assessment hearing. *These funds should be set aside in advance,
especially if they are to be spent all in one Ye3I. /
* Remember, we didn't even get to the special assessment hearing stage two years ago. We
just had public information meetings.
cc:
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Al Rolek
- 2 -
I,.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor & City Council
#-
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
July 14, 1994
Chronology of Discussions of Municipal Water in Relation to the
Comprehensive Plan Review
To bring us all up to speed on what has happened with discussions of our
water system in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan I have done a quick
chronology, as follows:
City council Meeting Dates:
11/30/93
~
1/24/94
2/14/94
2/28/94
3/14/94
3/28/94
4/11/94
.
4/25/94
5/9/94
5/23/94
6/13/94
6/27/94
Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting - Council asked that a
plan be developed for the Comprehensive Plan for a City water
system to be installed within the next 10 years. The plan was to
. be discussed during the first quarter of 1994 (taken from work
session minutes).
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
Memorandum dated 1/3/94 prepared for the work session is
attached.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
A brief work session was held on Council Issue Prioritization.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" - postponed.
The executive summary for that meeting states, "Work sessions
are at the complete discretion of the City Council. If at all
possible, the planned work session should be held."
Administrator's notes to the City Council dated 4/15/94
stated, "it is a tradition to set aside issues of substance
for some months prior to every election. You should let the
Planning Commission know of your wishes regarding timing."
Joint Council/Planning Commission work session on land use.
Work session on "Review of City Water Issue" postponed.
Complete Board of Review and technology review.
No work session scheduled.
Joint Council/Planning Commission session on senior Housing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PUNNING CO~llSSI0N MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
~~~*\
CALL TO ORDER
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; Planning Director Nielsen.
. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ptsula moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes ot the Commission's June 28, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 6/1. Foust abstained.
Malam moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes ot the Commission's July 5, 1994
meeting. Motion passed !12. Foust and Pisula abstaJned.
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING MOR~TORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT
Chair Rosenberger stated the Commission is currently considering a number of development
projects in the City and is also working on updating the Comprehensive Plan. He explained
that the Commission will consider a recommendation to the City Council that it declare a
moratorium on development until the updates to the Comprehensive Plan are completed.
. Nielsen reviewed the statuS of completed Chapters of the Comp Plan to date and submitted
a revised timetable for completion of the Comp Plan Update. The schedule, detailed in
Nielsen's memorandum dated July 14, 1994, projects that the updated Camp Plan would be
adopted in June 1995, subject to review by the Metropolitan Council. Nielsen outlined
procedures and a timetable for review and adoption of an ordinance declaring a moratorium
on development (detailed in Nielsen's memorandum dated July 15, 1994). He indicated that
if the Commission recommends, at this meeting, that a moratorium be declared, the
Ordinance could become effective on September 21, 1994 following its appropriate review,
public hearing, adoption and official publication.
The Commissioners considered the merits of a development moratorium. Bean stated that
as the last significant properties are being considered for development, decisions become
more complicated and difficult. He stated that the Lundgren Bros. Ine. application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment coming for consideration in the midst of work to update
~ ' ~, Z
PLANNING' CO.MMISSION MINUTES
July 19, 1994 . PAGE 2
the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the process be slowed down: A. to adopt the right
Comprehensive Plan, and B. with an updated Plan in place, the Commission and the
Council will have better guidance as to how to assess the final developments and the impact
on the community.
Turgeon and Pisula concurred with Bean's assessment of the need to slow down the process.
Foust inquired whether the proposed Comp Plan review schedule is realistic. Nielsen stated
the schedule is achievable barring any significant re-writes following the public hearings.
Bean noted that discussion will be tabled on significant developments and the Commission
will be able to devote more meeting time to focus on the CompPlan update. Malam
inquired how long the Metropolitan Council's review of the Plan may take. Nielsen replied
that he will obtain that information, noted the Met Council is currently considering the
affordable housing issue, and indicated that future legislative actions may affect its review
. process. , .
Rosenberger reviewed the significance of the Comp Plan as the City's strategy for
completion of its growth. He stated the process provides the opportunity for input from the
public on issues including environment, schools, wetlands, reforestation, streets, parks, senior
housing, etc. Rosenberger stated that the City staff and the Commissioners work diligently
to evaluate development applications and empbasized that it behooves the residents to
participate in formation of the City's Comprehensive Plan through neighborhood meetings
and public hearings.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Cauncil that it adopt an interim
ordinance to protect the planning process by restricting subdivisions orland tn Shorewood
which create three or more lots. The interim ordinance would last (or one year or until the
Comprehensive Plan Update is completed and submitted to the Metropolitan Coundl,
whichever comes lirst. Motion passed 7/0.
. The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
2. PVBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT. SMITHTOWN MEADOWS (tabled
from July 5, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
2S6SS Smithtown Road/25725 Eureka Way
Rosenberuer moved, Borkan seconded to table to August 9, 1.994, consideration or the
appUcstion or Abin&don Development Corp. for Smithtown Meadows preliminary plat, to
obtain direction from the Council. Motion passed 7/0.
~. .'1
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 July 1994
.
RE:
Vine Hill Market - C.U.P. for Fuel Pumps and Driveway Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405 (94.12)
BACKGROUND
Mr. James Pyle has again requested a conditional use permit to install fuel pumps at the
Vine Hill Market, located at 19215 State Highway 7. Since considerable background exists
on this request, it will not be repeated here. Rather, staff reports from three previous
applications are attached for your review.
.
Mr. Pyle has managed to eliminate all variances except one, by proposing to remove 12
. feet from the west side of the existing building (see Proposed Site Plan - Exhibit A,
attached). The variance which remains is for the setback between the proposed northerly
driveway and the intersection of the Highway 7 service road and Vine Hill Road.
In addition to removing part of the building, Mr. Pyle proposes to construct a 30: x 43'
canopy over the proposed gas pumps.
ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION
Reduction of the building size resolves several issues raised in previous reviews of
Mr. Pyle's requests:
1. The smaller building requires two less parking spaces. The City. Code requires seven
spaces. The new site plan contains 10 spaces, including those at the pumps.
2. There is now adequate room for circulation around the pump islands. Cars can now
, get around the cars parked at the pumps. This also allows adequate circulation for
fuel delivery trucks.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
ittlr;
.' ~
<
~ Re: Vine Hill Market
C.U.P. and Variance
1 July 1994
3. The one-way circulation system is eliminated. Adequate aisle widths allow two-way
circulation around the building.
4. Room now exists for a canopy over the fuel pumps.
As mentioned in the 1 April 1993 staff report, the setback variance for the proposed
northerly driveway is easily justified due to the configuration of the site and also due to the
considerable improvements which are being made to reduce the nonconformity of the
parking lot.
.
Mr. Pyle appears to have resolved all issues raised in his previous requests. Not only does
his latest site plan comply with the Zoning Code, but the improvements to the'site are
substantial. It is therefore recommended that the c. u. p. and variance be granted subject to
the following:
a. The applicant should provide a detailed signage plan including all business and fuel
related signs.
b. The landscape plan prepared for previous applications should be revised for the new
site plan. Landscaping is subject to review and approval by the City Council.
c. The applicant must provide cost estimates for all required improvements, including
grading, paving, curbing, striping and landscaping.
.
d. A letter of credit in the amount of 1.5 times the cost estimates should be required to
guarantee that site improvements will be completed.
e. Phone from car facilities should-be eliminated to avoid congestion in the parking lot
and on the street.
f. Grading and drainage must be approved the City Engineer.
G. Drainage must be approved by MNDOT.
h. Fuel pumps and tank installation must be approved by the Fire Marshall.
1. The trash dumpster should be enclosed with a masonry wall.
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Cary Smith
Jim Pyle
- 2 -
:,,/'
....-:.
.,."".
'., ..:/
. '
/y'l '
./ i.1
\. ,('
...
- ......
~D6 4
--- 00'1
t I '3~. 00- -
: N ..OO~ "'':l17''I=
--- . ow "'0 _'- /_.
I
" I -. ~
-,".JC,..i/1e.....!i =-~G~ 0;
8itvmino/!s
Exhibit A
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Vine Hill Market - C.U.P. and Variances
i
~ -
oJ_
ill i~
QJ 0
'--I i i
~I I CU I
....I,~l:::
. i ! lJ..J l't:
I !~i~,
1- !~:
11:.. it.::.
., I~ ~
-' I! <1)
I I ~ Ie.
983 IllJ I
~ r--
! I
I
I
I
I
t
I
II
984 -r;
I
<f)
::)
<::I
::z:
.....
<:
~
;.....
-
I:X:l
......;
'>,
-:
~
.'
fiLE MCDP~i
Barb Brancel
CO UNCI 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:
29 April 1993
RE:
Vine Hill Market - Revised Plans
FILE NO.:
405 (93.06)
Subsequent to his c. u. p.lvariance request being tabled from 6 April to 4 May,' Jim Pyle and
his engineer met with me to discuss certain design modifications which might eliminate the
front yard setback variance and still provide adequate parking on the site. The revised plan
(Exhibit A, attached) now complies with the 15-foot front setback. Two of the four spaces
which had been located on the north side of the site have been relocated to the northeast of
the building (spaces 1 and 2), resulting in 11 parking spaces for the site.
.
Since the circulation pattern around the building will be one-way, the paved area to the east
of the building has been converted to green space.
The applicant's attorney has addressed the street right-of-way issue in a letter, dated 6 April
1993 (Exhibit B, attached). The City Attorney has been asked to review and comment on '
this issue.
If the City agrees with a proposed zoning text amendment which would reduce the number of
. parking spaces for convenience stores with accessory gas pumps, the revised site plan
complies with parking requirements (except for the driveway setback from the comer).
While the layout is still considered very tight, the applicant has made considerable
improvements to the site plan. If the City approves the conditional use permit based on the
revised site plan and the amended Code, the approval should be subject to the following
conditions:
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
-
cc: . Jim Hunn
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
- Cary Smith
Jim Pyle -
.
7.
8~
9.
10.
. 11.
;-
Re: Vine Hill Market
Revised Plans
29 April 1993.
I
1. -The applicant should require employees to park in the four southerly spaces.
2. The applicant should provide a detailed signage plan including all business signs and
- traffic control signs~
3. The southerly driveway should be clearly signed "One-Way Do Not Enter".
4. The applicant must provide cost estimates for all-required improvements; including
grading, paving, curbing, striping and landscaping.
5.
A letter of credit in the amount of 1.5 times the cost estimates should be required to
. guarantee that site improvements will be completed.
6. The site should be monitored for potential on-street parking problems. If at any time
problems arise, "no parking" signs should be installed along the service road and
Vine Hill Road. . .
Phone from car facilities should be eliminated to minimize congestion on the site.
Grading and drainage must be approved by the City Engineer.
Drainage must be approved by MNDOT..
Fuel pumps and tank installation must be approved by the Fire Marshall.
The trash dumpster should be enclosed with 'a ~onry wall.
'r
/.
;,
- 2 -
,or
\ \\y;~///
~~~ ~>/ ~\j\J'-J
~\ G~\l:)~ OJ,,,,> ./., / "\'s~~
~ ~'"'~ L/~/ \ ( <Q \
S ~t\ '. ~('.
0)"\ ~" ',':'
~~~ /\. ".
\ ""....
..,
~"t....
~
"
~
'?
O)"\~...
...:e,l'
~p'
\\a"~ 978
S'at'
\j C. . 3'(\
\\ ? . -as(CI
~ \ II G
\ It.
c.D
cO
IS>
~ h.
~ ~
~
(b
c
~ ."
\I) lU
::l --
C ~
r:: ~
'-
~ (U
..... ~
'- ~
!Xl ~
c... ~
<:) ~
~
~
~
'I:..
~
~
~
:~
t:
'co
E
t..
~
~
I.
r-~
o.
..ri=
c-J~
-;%
. I
. I
,
<.:>
<:
-
C)
-'
::;
tQ
VI
:::>
<:)
~
-
~
:::>
I-
Cii
~
<.:>
<:
l:
m
-
x
I.lI
~
.............
~~- .""'....~~
654
D.Jpj,~U .
9'aS ,
..."1
~
f -- 1"3~.CO.
l.._ N.~04B'~Z' E..
~
LUortherly ~dgeoF
Bituminous
111
00
en
I~
\1151>1' ''23 PYI.E. JIM
I
AD\' /'\NeE S~RVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
S:lOOS.H..,.ND.IOI /~_NN~ _(61%,'7'''' ,..(611)""267
::~~::, ;C:G1:AN FOR' JIM PYLE
DRAFTED: 19.1988. REV! SED. "........., S, 1'93.
JU~ "p...,IS. "U.
REVISEO' ...,.... II. "n.
16. 1992 ~o ahow propoaad 9" blands and
arranqa..nt for prali.inary reviav by City. Cliant and
affected 9overnaent.al &9.,.ci...
That part of tba hat 1:13 faat of tba foll_inq daac:dbad
pr01n:y,
That pan: of loot 15. Vina Hill. deac:ribad aa foll_a,
C_anc:inq at a point on the E.st Una of add loot,
diacant 375 faat Sou"" of tba 1I0rtbaaat c:ornar of aaid
loot: tbenc:. Wast parpandic:ular to ..Id Eaat Una, alonq
line here1naftar referred to .. 11ne -A- . dlatance of 11.
f..~ to . point hereinafter referred ~o a. Paint .X. :
tn.nee continuinq w..t. on .aid Line .A- to ~be West line
ot the Ea.t 330 f..t of .aid Lot., and .aid Line -,A- ther.
andinq: tbane. 1I0rtb alonq aaid Wast 11na of tha hat 330
feet . distance ot '1.,9 r_t. aore or 1... ~o ~.
Soutbaaatarly 11na of ~ r19ht-of-vay of State HI,hway
110. 7: tbanc:a lIortbaaatarly alonq aaid Soutbaaatarly 11na
a dlatan... of 124 faet to ~ ac:tual point of be9innift9 of
the land ~o be daac:ribad: tban... Sou~h..aterly alDn9 a
lina. whic:h ifaxtanded vould paaa throU9h aaid Point .X..
to ita Interaac:tion wi~ a lina drawn parallal vitb and
ldista nt 20 t..t. Horch troa aaJ.d. Line -A-: thence East
along ...id parallel 11na to ...id East lina: tbanc:a
Soutbveaterly to tba ac:~ual point of ba9inn1nq.
and ly1ft9 1I0rth of a line deac:ribed as foll......
Co.aencin9 at the Northe.st corner of said Lot 15: thence
Sou~ along tb. E.at 11n. of aaid loot a distanc:. of 290.59
feat to ~ha point of ba9inninq ~f the line to be desc:riba:
tbenc:. daflac:tift9 ri9ht 90 de9raas to ~. Weat lina of
said Eaa~ 133 faat. and t.bare andinq.
We.... Me.....~....,m,............-- .......,. .,.,,-..---......--......
v.'c _~ .....Ie........ _...........,..........~eI......_.... .-..e..-.....e
IWSICIII....... III............ . __ ...,..... ~ k .,...,__............ ~",,-...c(
=.:4 ~ 10 pen... tIIllr -n ... - . ~......... - -.......... IWW? We......., "'-
.WdIl8ledlftl___ __...... __...... .......~eI.............--. 11le.......w........,..,..
1------~=-.. ... .
Rev1aed April is. 1993 to a_ propoaed ,as islands on nort~
end of alte and a,aln on April 19. 1993 to show g.a lalands
back on We.~ aiele bu~ drive elilllnated on ea8~ lUGe an
.cIdtional green spac:e and pa:-klng. alao acldlt10nal 'r'ee
.p.ce on nor~h aide.
10 0
~...~
....
SCAL.E
10
I
IN
.
.
~
~ ...;.. D~Oru EJUSTlNtI CONTrJU/lt
"
,-~. -~..~
20 ~O
. I
FltET
A REA = 17, 1'2.5 ~Q. FT. (Including Vine Hill Road)
l~) S!li ~. FT. (E.xcludin9Vine Hill Road)
ST ANOARD SYMBOLS '" CONV!:::NTIONS'
..._IITIO..,....plOIIiL"......_- ~N_92>>.....If.o.........I_
----
....-_ia._...Dlc,...,-_____ia._
CERTIFICATION:
. ..,.,. ..try t"'l mil Hf'lIC1 .. ,.,.... .., 1M; Of lIMier ..., .urea '.rm'iNDn ud ..... 1 .. .
_Es&o--.-~-...'-oI...-oIM-
~i~~u:-QJt-
\ ~ H. .....e. r.E. 4< r oS. No. 92.\l
\~: ONE INCH EQUALS 10 F
...
:;:,
_ <<Po
Exhibit A
REVISED SITE PLAN
Vine Hill Market - C.D.P.
.
.
'"
FILE COpy
ROBIN B THOMPSON. P.A.
......5 EAST I..AKE STREET
ATTORNEYS AT L.AW
SUITE 230
WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391
TEI..EP....ONE 16'21 "'75-'025
TEI..ECOP'ER (6121 ...76-.........7
Direct Line 475-0987
April 6, 1993
The Planning Commission,
Mayor and
City Council of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Minn~~.()t~ .,55331-8927
--....- ~-;,........-~..:--
RE~~Hrll Market - C.U.P. for Fuel Pumps and Variance to
Parking Requirements...
Your File No. 405(93-06)
We are the attorneys for Mr. James Pyle, d/b/a Vine Hill Market,
located at 19215 State Highway 7. In a staff report to the
Planning Commission, Mayor, and the Ci ty Council, Brad Nielsen
requested that Mr. Pyle obtain an opinion wi th respect to the
. location of the easterly line of his property and the westerly line
of the Vine Hill Road.
Although the legal description to Mr. Pyle's property describes the
easterly property line to be the approximate centerline of the
traveled portion of Vine Hill Road, Mr. Nielsen has indicated that
County half-section maps show 33 feet of public right-of-way on
each side of the centerline of Vine Hill Road. Mr. pyle has asked
us to opine on the question of the width of the public right-of-way
for Vine Hill Road. We have searched the Hennepin County title
records and the half-section maps with the assistance of the
Hennepin County Surveyor's Office. We can find no records
constituting any dedication of Vine Hill Road for public use in
this particular location nor can we find any evidence of any
conveyance, the granting of any easement, or the application of any
condemnation action that would result in any public body acquiring
any easement or outright title to the area of Vine Hill Road
adjoining Mr. Pyle's property.
Despite the absence of dedication or conveyance of a road right-of-
way, no one can dispute the existence and use of Vine Hill Road for
at least six years as a public road across a portion of Mr. pyle's
property. Accordingly, by Minnesota Stat. S160.05, Vine Hill Road
is "...deemed dedicated to the public to the width of the actual
use...." Any question regarding the width of the right-of-way is
now also answered by statute and case law.
(" t.-&. e f1. ~. v'\~.
I
4-~ '5,q'?l
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY'S LETTER
Dated 6 April 1993
.
.
The Planning Commission,
Mayor and
City Council of Shorewood
April 6, 1993
Page 2
Minnesota Stat. SI60.05, subdivision 1, states in pertinent part as
follows:
"When any road or portion of a road has been used and
kept in repair and worked for at least six years
continuously as a public highway by a road authority, it
shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of
the actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated,
a public highway whether it has ever been established as
a public highway or not." (Emphasis added)
Prior to amendment in 1982, the same statute provided in pertinent
part as follows:
"When 'any road or portion thereof shall have been used
and kept in repair and worked for at least six years
continuously as a public highway, the same shall be
deemed dedicated to the public to the width of two rods
on each side of the centerline thereof and be and remain,
until lawfully vacated, a public highway whether the same
has ever been established as a public highway or noti"
(Emphasis added for clarity.)
Prior to the 1982 amendment of SI60.05, the Minnesota Supreme Court
addressed the constitutionality of statutory language that sought
to establish a road right-of-way width greater than "the width of
actual u'se". In Walter Barfnecht, et al., v Town Board of
Hollywood Township, Carver County, (304 Minn. 505, 232 N.W.2d 420),
the Supreme Court held that a statute deeming a dedication to the
public to the width of two rods on each side of the centerline
thereof, if construed to extend public dedication of a road by
public use to widths greater than that of actual public use,
amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property without due
process of law. In its decision the court held that the acquired
right-of-way was limited to the width actually used.
Based upon the language of ,the 1982 statutory amendment and upon
the Barfnecht case, it is clear that Mr. pyle has not lost to
public use any more of his property than the most easterly 13 feet
thereof which constitutes the traveled portion of Vine Hill Road.
Sincerely,
ROBIN & THOMPSON, P.A.
~-QZ
'--:r%~. Robin
JGR: lmd
James D. Pisula, Jr.
26175sho~-;"ood Oaks -Driv-;:Sh~;e;'-;';;~M~~ob:55331--(612)474=1949
23 Apri11993
Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Drive
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
FAX 474-0128-3 pages, including this one
Dear Brad:
.
TIlis note confirms our telephone discussion this morning regarding the Pyle
variance requests/ ordinance change investigation. Please make copies of this
letter ax:ld distribute them as noted with the agenda for the 4 May meeting.
I've tried to withhold my tendency to want to butt into Jim Pyle's operation
and run his business for him-it's his money at risk, not mine.
1. Parking
.
I'll wait for the Staff research to be complete, but make the observation
that convenience stores with gasoline service are now the norm, and that
they still tend to draw significant non-fuel traffic. The SuperAmerica at 3357
University Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, has 12 fuel pumps and 4-6 parking spaces,
with on-street parking the rule during the store peak times of 6:30-8:30 and
4:30-6:00, when their fuel business is also very heavy. The S.A. at the
intersection of Routes 41 and 7 in Chanha~sen has 9 parking spaces separate
from fuel, and they seem to be 50-75% full whenever I go there.
About half of all visits at fuel-vending convenience stores are for
purchases other than gasoline (personal observation). Fuel sales will build
traffic at his store; he "Will attract new customers and get fuel purchases from
current customers. For more current information on convenience store
visits, I suggest contacting Marketing/Site Selection people at Tom Thumb,
Holiday Corp. or SuperAmerica.
Given the circulation problems on that lot, I '{oould feel 1)ery
uncomfortable with any fewer than 11 parking spaces available, plus counting
two spaces at the pumps for a total of 13. Much of the area on the north of the
lot will be used for staging of cars to the fuel pumps, and the parking spaces
on the south end of the lot will be inaccessible whenever both aisles are filled.
'"
I don't support giving credit for any more than two parking spaces at
th: fuel pumps with this particular lot configuration. Cars parked two abreast
will prevent other vehicles from reaching open dispensing pumps.
2. North Setback Yariance/"Phone from Car" Stands
I do not support a setback variance for the north end of this lot. There
needs to be some place for snow storage, and that area will be a primary
storage location. Also, the area will be needed for traffic circulation and
staging., so no parking can be permitted.
The t\.vo "Phone from Car" stands should be taken out, since they will
not be accessible to drivers and their use would impede traffic circulation. If
:Mr. Pyle wishes to retain public phones, they should be located on or in the
building.
3.
One-Way Traffic Circulation/Narrow Pump Aisles/Aisle Width
Variance
.
One-way traffic is the only way this lot can work for fuel sales. One:-way
rraffic circulation must be a condition of granting the permit. Due to the
narrow aisles on the west side of the lot, traffic is likely to queue in the north
end space, impeding access to those spaces. Additionally, when both fuel
pump aisles are used, the spaces on the south end of the lot are not accessible.
Since the :Minnesota fire code requires that the pumps be located 10 feet
from the building and that dispensing hoses not reach to within five feet, the
hose lengths will be shorter than those typically found at. convenience store
fuel pumps. These short hose lengths are likely to exacerbate congestion, as
cars jockey for position, lengthening their stay at the pumps.
..
I'm not crazy about either the one-way traffic flow or the narrow aisles,
but if the fire marshal signs off, it's OK with me. If the layout doesn't work
from a business standpoint, Mr. Pyle's customers will let him know by taking
their business elsewhere.
4. Setback Variance-Curb Cuts along Vine Hill Road
I support these variances, since their need is directly related to the lot
configuration.
5. General Observations
I believe Mr. Pyle is trying to put eight pounds of apples into a five
pound sack; this property is marginal, at best, for a convenience store/fuel
station operation. If the building were smaller, the site wouldwork much
more effectively for this type of business, in my opinion. If that is not an
,":",-.,-. . -:r"'U -1
,=,-=-"'I-..&... I '- :~ I
Ie::: I'=:...J..J .:;..;'=:'111-1"-: .-'1,"':--; t..ln)J..J
~.:; : ~ -: ':e,,, s:: ~,=~
..
option, then the modifications noted here are a way to address the problems
of incorporating his desired use into this lot.
While I concur with Jack Hansen that this site is not well suited to its
proposed use and that business problems may be the result, I also concur with
Doug Malam that it's not our position to tell Jim Pyle how to nm his
business--just to make it conform to our policies.
I prefer to let market forces determine the success or failure of Jim
Pyle's business. We're here to make land use recommendations that make
the city a more livable place, not to tell folks how to run their businesses.
.
Bob Bean
Louise Bonach
Deborah Borkon
Jack Hansen
Dan Lewis, City Council
Doug Malam
Kirk Rosenberger, Chair
.
..;?
f 1 LEe D P '{rbMB~:n~~
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
Bruce Benson
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAO . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612)474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad-Nielsen
.
DATE:
1 April 1993
RE:
Vine Hill Market - C.U.P. for Fuel Pumps and Variance to Parking
Requirements
FILE NO.:
405 (93.06)
BACKGROUND
.
In October of last year the City Council considered an application by James Pyle requesting
a conditional use permit to install fuel pumps at the Vine Hill Market, located at 19215
State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The request also included
variances to certain parking requirements. It was the second time Mr. Pyle had applied for
a C.U.P. and variances. Staff reports dated 16 April 1992 (Attachment 1, copied in green)
and 31 May 1989 (Attachment 2, copied in yellow) contain complete background on the
site and the previous requests. .
In both instances the Planning Commission had made negative recommendations to the City
Council and both times the applicant withdrew his request before a decision could be made
by the City Council. .
As indicated in Mr. Pyle's current request letter, dated 5 March 1993 (Exhibit B, attached), -
his plans have _again been modified to address concerns previously raised by the City.
Nevertheless the application still includes parking requirement variances as follows:
. Aisle width variance - rear parallel parking - 22' required, 15' proposed
. Setback variance - northerly driveway to intersection - 60' required,
10' proposed
. Sethack variance - front parking - 15' required, 5' proposed
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
r
Re: Vine Hill Market
C.U.P'. and Variances
1 April 1993
Exhibit C illustrates the existing site layout. The applicant's proposed site plan is shown
on Exhibit D.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Exhibit E contains the section of the City Code (1201.21 Subd. 4.c.) which sets forth
conditions for motor ftiel operations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. should also be reviewed
with respect to the criteria for granting variances. 'Following are issues which need to be
addressed as part of this request:
.
A. There is still a discrepancy as to where the .east line of the subject property is located.
Although the legal description of the property extends to the centerline of Vine Hill
Road, a line shows up on the sUrvey 33 feet west of the street centerline. This is
consistent with the Hennepin County half-section maps which show a 66-foot r.o.w.
for Vine Hill Road.
The applicant's surveyor is' r~ching this issue further and hopefully more will be
known by the Planning Commission's hearing on Tuesday. The answer is important
because the property line location is the basis for setback measurements. If the
surveyor can not explain what the line on the survey indicates, the applicant should be
required to obtain a title opinion for the property. .
.
B. -The grade problem cited in previousieviews is proposed to be resolved by
eliminating the front driveway and substantially filling the front of the lot to achieve
maximum allowable grade on the parking lot. 1,t should be noted that the proposed
grading along the north side results in. a 1: 1 slope. This needs to be corrected to a
maximum 3: 1 slope. This can be accomplished in any of three. ways: 1) obtain
approval from MNDOT to extend the grade into the Highway 7 r.o. w;; 2) construct
a retaining wall; or 3) ~crease the setback for the park:iIig lot.
C. As shown on Exhibit Dthe paranel parking at the rear of the building requires an -
aisle width variance. The Code requires nine feet for the parking space and 22 feet
for a two-way aisle. The'site plan provides only a 15-foot aisle. This variance could
be eliminated by posting a one-way, do not enter sign at the southeast corner of the
building. Site circulation -would thc;n be limited to a counterclockwise pattern around.
the building.
D. The Code requires that curb cuts for commercial sites be located 60 feet from the .
intersection of the street rights-of-way, in this case Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road.
The Highway 7 r.o.w. clips off the corner of the subject site, resulting in an unusual
lot configuration. As a consequence the northerly driveway is only 10 feet from the
Highway 7 r.o.w.
- 2 -
Re: Vine Hill Market
C.U.P. and Variances
1 April 1993
.
This variance is easily justified, partly due to the configuration of the r.o.w. but also
because considerable improvement is made in reducing the' existing nonconformity of.
the parking lot. First, the steep driveway on the north side of the lot is eliminated.
Further, access on Vine Hill Road is reduced in width from 120 feet, to two defined
. driveways, 32 feet and 22 feet in width. The space between the Vine Hill Road curb
cuts will be landscaped.' .
E. There does not appear to be justification for the setback variance for the parking in
front of the site. Complying with the setback, however, eliminates the four parking
spaces on the north end of the site: A variance to the number of spaces is not
justified and either variance would establish a poor precedent. '
If the City feels the applicant's request has merit, a Zoning Ordinance text
amendment should be considered which reduces the parking requirement for
convenience grocery stores with. gas pumps. It is considered extremely important that -
adequate parking be provided so as to avoid anyon-street parking or congestion on
the public streets.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant's plans have tome a long way since his first proposal. Elimination of the
steep driveway, reduction of parking lot grade and confining access on Vine Hill Road to
two driveways are considered to be substantial improvements.
..-
As mentioned in the preceding analysis, one of the'variances can be eliminated by
restricting circulation to one-way behind the building. The curb cut v~ance is cons,idered
justified due' to unusual lot configuration. Neither a setback variance for the parking or a
variance for the number of spaces is justified. The site is simply too small to comply with
the current Code. " -
This leaves the option of amending the, CQde to require fewer spaces for convenienCe stor~
with gas pumps. If the City is agreeable and the applicant wishes to pursue a text
amendment, the C.U.P. and variance request should be tabled until an amendment can be
considered. ' ~
- - "
Any approval should be, subject to review and comment by the City Engineer and ,the Fire
Marshal.
cc: Jim Burm
Joel Dresel
Tim Keane
Jim Pyle
- 3 -
a.ua 121
. . . 3:
, 0
f; '" ..
0;: ....
0"
~ "". '"
'~l ""0 ~) ...
Z
I I 2
IZ
\ ,,~'r
. \. '<,"\
.,,'"
~
'^
'"
~::
... .
~
!845& I'll
.", 0' A'. ,_ 1I'l47
. .-. - -.)1". :;:
;;j48 E Z ...~
(..~f
~i\ \"':z:
4
I
I
Ql zl
"I. tJl
~~
iL.3 lof
~
I..
I"
loot E!...ill: 1!....,
I
-. rJ-I' "'.;-,~ j " ~~ 7 '''~'
, :~ \.. - ~\I ..! L;':
FL" ~:~ 6 1 ~I.:-HJL _
'~l}11 - - '~.;"-r':''l .
,,'.:t' ..., (CI <I, ,_.---..
:: .~- ?' ""r\~
IZ .....;~. ~ -0'
8
1
'"
(39)
""
..
- .;
z_
o. ....
>
...
o.
.~
',.
...
'0
rf;
'"
0.0
...
.~
('1
,. 0:::
= j'-
.,
'"
~ r-:
'.
" .~ <:l Co
,QtI \; <:$
~
., g \J r<j
(II) I ~'-.....:. ~
5)~') .....#'
LLJ
. ,...
,.) -'
\(
..
'\
......
Not'th
~)
0) ::- I '.(j
.J--
(2-\
....
..
..
...
'.
-;--i:5-- --:.'
~) ...;.:0
)...,,~
~>-;;:;;--- ....
. ~ P:"
j .... I /t1f10
(5'1)
..
1~1D
(5$)
-A 0..
j..J-
"
~. .....0.;
. "'JI.. 1/
"do..
I ~
"~
-=
. ..... Z~40.0ZR'c!5. --"-
Exhibit A .
SITE LOCATION d Variances
. Hill Market - C.U.P. an
Vme
(
.
.
VINE HILL MARKET
19215 H~.JY 7
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
C/O BRAD NIELSEN, CITY PLANNER
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
RE: C.U.P. VINE HILL MARKET
MARCH 5, 1993
Gentlemen:
This is my third application to the City for adding self-
serve fuel pumps to my location. Unlike the two previous
plans that did not address the slope of my property, this
plan presents a major new look to the site.
The plan does contain a request for a variance in that it
shows 4 parking spaces in a 5' set-back on the front prop-
erty line and the code calls for a 15' set-back. I under-
stand variances must be looked at closely. I hope that you
do look closely since this variance does not impact any res-
idential or commercial property. First of all, the property
line is about 30' from the two lane frontage road. After
the frontage road, there is a four lane divided highway. If
a variance had an impact on adjoining property, I could un-
derstand a hesitation to grant that variance, but a variance
that impacts only roads should be looked at with a little
more leniency.
I have also been asked again to state a hardship that would
justify a variance. I feel the real hardship is that city
codes do not allow the areas around gas pumps to be included
as actual parking spaces. It is true that your city codes
reflect most other municipalities in not allowing spaces
around gas pumps as parking spaces (Except Excelsior which
does allow some credit around pumps: Zone B-5 S.1087). The
fact'of the matter is the real life situation that exists at
self-serve gas stations. I have fueled at many places where
signs are posted that request that gas is paid for before a
car is moved away from the pumps. Logic dictates that the
pavement around a gas pump can be construed as parking space.
Rather than spending additional monies for an amendment
change, the granting of the variance as previously mentioned
would give me the necessary parking spaces. It would then
allow me to improve my site and offer another service for my
neighborhood customers, many of whom have requested fuel ser-
vice and many of whom fully support my efforts to add fuel
service.
Si cerely Yours~
' ~
ames Pyle, own , Vine Hill Market
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Dated 5 March 93
<,
...
t:
'co
E
t..;
:~ ~.
r-~ ~;
o~ I..
lfi=
c:J~
7.z.
. I
. .
,
tn
:::!
l::l
::
-
~
:::>
....
-
Q:l
i
". I
984 -r
I
...
.....
I "5
... -.....
!:
Exhibit C
EXISTING SITE PLAN
i....'~
"li
~PJ6'4
1"3':l.CO- -
t__ N. ~o 42,'"5'2:' E..
FE
~,...................,...,
~~
~~
<::::1=
::I
-.~
~~
~~
4:\
Cb
C)
....)
, ..
'.
\
. .
la-, I
11
~
v
t.J
;g~
o .-. I
'i:1 g: i
0........
C/) tJ '
~
@
~
)>-
Z
I~I
.~
"
L_
lS) Q)
J
j-J__
'0
' ......J
<0 (1)
vV /
/
.,M9
...
~
fII--f
BITUMINOUS
/
" ,
, '
: c., Gas station, auto repair - minor and tire and battery stores and
service, provided that:
(1) Regardless of whether the dispensing, sale or offering for
sale of motor fuels and/or oil is incidental to the conduct of the use or
business, the standards and requirements imposed by this Ordinance for
motor fuel stations shall apply. These standards an~ requirements are,
however, in addition to other requirements which are imposed for other
uses of the property.
(2) The architectural appearance and functional plan of the
building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or
area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting
influence within a reasonable distance of the lot.
'I-
(3) The entire site other than that taken up by a building,
structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material to control dust
and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
(4) A drainage system subject to the approval of the City
Engineer shall be installed.
) (5) Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous
curbs not less than six inches (6") high above the parking lot or
driveway grade.
.
(6) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have
no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or
from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section
1201.03, subdivision 2i of this Ordinance.
.
(7) Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, pump islands shall
be installed.
'1
(8) At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less
than five feet (5') shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with
Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this, Ordinance.
(9) Parking or car stacking space shall be screened from view of
abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 1201.03,
subdivision 2g of this Ordinance.
( 10) Vehicular access points shall create a minimum conflict
with through traffic, movement, shall comply with Section 1201.03,
subdivision 5g of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
I." :." .
(11) All signing and informational or visual communication
devices shall be minimized and shall be in compliance with Section
1201.03, subdivision 11 of this Ordinance.
,.J.~
i~
I
\
(12) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
, (13) Any outside storage shall be in compliance with subdivision
4d of this Section. .
(14) All conditions pertummg to a specific site are subject to
change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal
request, finds that the general welfare and public b~tterment can be
served as well or better by modifying the conditions.
(15) The provisions of Section 1201.04, subdivision Id(l) of this
Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 180, 5-19-86)
e~,'~'.'"
r~:':
f
Exhibit E
C.D.P. REOUIREMENTS
City Code Sect. 1201.21 Subd. 4.c.
\11
--'-10 'Z
:"/
.._ .... - ..,. .-.. ..:. ........_.1l~,)'\.l"1 M.i_
...-;.... ........ --?;-A;(} sn....M
_; _. . .....~ I' I"
.. .~ ~tll)I.tItr<;"~:{ -: .e. ~
--~"-""-"'-- '. .
>~ :~,.
{
- .
"
l
/
~:~;;;~~:.~ I
'.... 1\\1-,,<'i .:::::::>...... .I .'
,/ /., ~" ,/ I~_. .... / "
,./ ..".-'" '- .,..." /,'
:/ / " /
'f~ ..' . .
.........
. .
.....
_.../'
.....
.'
~
. .
'"
f
.~'
.i ~'.
.. .".~
\'
~.
~
. ..1},
\.
/ a;~ N.;r."Hi:-;t.,- V'i'Ll.. .:O";:~"
~ . (t.r;, j<.~ :"':'1if"M'!l.th) . . .
1J;m. ":11 ."" .'
/ r
\~ A& I-'l:iD/(l(,
.-;\
. ..-....
-"'--j
...-'
-,..-........
, '
~
.,
I
.,.
~... ...... . .... ~
t., . .---..--.-.... -------..--- _.
. i
I
j
! ___41- rr~L sr-r1;A ('f\~)
I ----
:..............." :
. ...-'toO . . .
..-.......... I ..-
/'" I
. I
!
r,
. "-"'. ~<..........~J
~
\
. ,
'~"
. ,..:.\f.J- --
I ..
. I /
,. . ,./
. ,
1/
~'
~
! J:!
I rt I'
nlM'L~J
Il-ct t n:::..'
1"!.'[,U14~.
k--;;;."
~'I'C'\'I" .. '" '. I,
.:;,~t;-'~~:~lOl ~~
~~.~
If:.!
.~
I
I .'
'(
p..'At.1:!"',::', (~O).t<l: fI,;~~- TfI':)
" \
\~
I \.
I
I, j
"1'-7'\
I
t. i
I
I
. .
I'
I;
~
J
/
I
! .
..
,.
"'"
. ": ',;,; .
. .'
~->~!~~~/;-
{: ,-"
j"
""/
'.......
.~1~ (...tJ,
~
I; "6IJOl
11
"'1 tc
j
..
::c !
".
-'...... I ,': ....
"'t---:- 4 .I"-lt.....~~ .Jt.'l
_ ?'~lIAV'M{-t'\ ..)),
...........
--1J'1...
--........ 'Z.A':N. Sl1reA
'~-fdl\I"1' /#o.<::t7-l~;1
.I
." , . . "---r--- t, rM'<.r.'K '&'''"-~t
$
..
...._-z.A.~ ..:Sfl!"-e.'\
"-
'0 _..~
'-"'--'~R~:R....t;tw
--,\.r.:'I'tJ!{(JIf."'K.J'A-IWI::
,.
I
"
,
\,
""
i
1:/ []]
I'
\ ' _. ......---........ ..----...---....
. -. .... .~.~_..- .
~ .':'.' '..'1""
.' o. t2'-'-'_em'I~";'(~.:.lI'f1
, ':, ~~ ----::.,~: -'.. -..... <t- ~V-PJ/'r."" ,,J,fJ1l"l.r
... ," /. ". I-trNt1'.'1' ".'1 <<N,t:-1
........_~v~ N~:-"
. - "R.~ ~ !:'.f!f~.-t1:.V II
.-tE1
OW! ..,
"'-'::;:'..;" "'-' .--...-. -. _."-.;:-":':'~
'"
'4'1AH~ ~S t~ l..UFf.111\\)
7L~tm~~ I'f'O(.l(E.;-'
(H-'1UVln~ ..soIL)
1f''};E;EP ~
MJ.u.H
f'::C( ~ER (~"lI.lYP)
"L~~
" 'Wi.t..'V
. "'T"'11?1/ AI ~ )l~ M..A..N11N" ~l \ _
,1
Exhibit F
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN
III"""
\
; . J" ..
. . . ..... t:..
..., ..
. .
'(
((
i MAYOR
Sarb 8rlttlCel
. COUNCIL
KtiS'l;l$tover '
800 Gatne
Rob ~8l1V
Oarliet Lewis
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
'MEMORANDUM
, (
TO:
PlaIiiiing Commission, Mayor and City Council,
- .. ;... '- .."
Brad Nielsen.- - .'
--FROM:
.
RE:
16 Apri11992
,hNe... "",\\...1,.. VV'P r-e-r
~ki:p,eNtte - C.U.P. for Gas ~umps and Variance to Parking :Requirements
DATE:
FILE NO.: _, 405 (92.07)
BACKGROUND
Mr. James Pyle, owner of the Skipperette store located at 19215 State High'W'ay7(see Site
Location map - Exhibit A, attached), is requesting a conditio_nal use permit .to iri,stall.gas
pumps on his ,site. He also requeSts variances for the number of parking spaces required
and to the setback requirements for par~g spaces.
.
'"
A staff report, dated 31 May 1989, prepared fora simil~ request by Mr. Pyle provides ,.
complete background on the'Site (see attachment;:copied in yellow). ..Having received 'a: ,
negative recommendation fromihe plaJining: Commission -at that time, he withdrew his
. application before it ever went to the Citj Council.
'. The current pn;posal differs fro~ the pr~Vious One in that th~ gas
west side. of the bui.14ing and.no overhead canopy is proposed. Other
discussed .iurther.on in this 'report.
_..-:,'
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
, "
.... .
A number of the issu~ raiSed' in'the 1989 report remain unresolved with
proposal. At the same 'time, the applicant proposes certain improvements
the conformitY of the site. _' '
. .
. '
A Resicklntial Community on Lake Minnetonka's Sc
Attacllment'<'t
. .
. .
. .
.
((
Re: Skipperette - C. U.P.
16 April 1992
.
.
A.
R.O.W. Discrepancy, These is a question as to where the easterly boundary of the
property is located (he shows the centerline of Vine Hill Road, whereas the County
half-section maps show 33 feet of r.o.w.). This impacts the measurement of
setbacks. For purposes of this report, setbacks will be measured from the traVeI$i
surface of the street. If the applicant objects to this. determinaiton, he should provide.
a title opinion from hisattomey which proves where the property line exists.
B.
Conditional Use Permit. The applicant's plan reduces the number of variances
'proposed in his 1989 request. However, the following variances still reI11ain:
. '
'1. Setbacks.' Spaces 1 - 3 are located five feet from the front.property line. '.Fifteen
feet is the minimum setback. It should be noted that the new plan eliminates
paving which currently encroaches into the right-of-way .
-
2. Number of Spaces. The Code requires 13 spaces for the proposed use. . Including
the spaces which encroach into the setba~k area, he shows nine. spaces. The
applicant asks that the spaces at the pump be allowed to be counted as parking
spaces. Shorewood's Ordinance does not allow this, but there are some
indications that our requirements may be outdated with respect to convenience
store parking. Staff will research' this item further and report. on. it. at the hearing.
3. Use of Required Parking Area. The Code states that required parking spaces
must be used exclusively for parking. This issue is raised because little room is
provided on site for storage. of snow. As such, snow tends to get piled .in spaces
provided for parking. If approved, the C.U.P. should specifically state that .
required parking spaces will remain open for customer parlfing......Sllnilarly,
parking space is notto be used for. sale of used cars.
, .
4. ParkingIDriveway. Grade. One of the most significant problems with the previous
proposal and this one, is the grade' of the parking lot, especially' the northerlY
driveway. The Code limits the grade to a maximum of five' percent. < The. grade ......
on the subject property is closer. to 10 percent. Bgth the CityEngineer.~Fire .
Marshal have cited this as a serious problem. -
- .' . '. ...... ..../':..:.;...
If the Planning Commission feels the applicant's plan has merit, the application
should be tabled until he provides a detailed grading plan showing existing and
proposed contours. This plan must be prepared by a registered civil engineer.
The. plan should also address how drainage will be handled. .
5. Circuiation. The Fire Marshal should be asked to comment on the 10 Jootaisle
width proposed for the gas pump lanes.
-2-
.
.
r-..
".'Or -;,_ .
((
Re: Skipperette - C. U.P.
16 April 1992 .
,.
6. Landscaping. The east 15 feet of the site will be landscaped with unspecified
"deciduous shrubbery"~. Any approval of the C. U~P. should be subject to. a
. detailed landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect. ProposedPlantings
should be resistant to snow ~d road salt. '
;;)
7. Signage Plan. None hal). beell submitted. '
,
.'.
...
--......
REGO~ATION
..;....."'"
Although the revised plan is substantially improved over the 1989 proposal, variances have
not been eliminated entirely. The parking. setback. and driveway grade variances raise
serious concerns. Similar,to the 1989 application, the applicant has not demonstrated what
hardship exists - that he is unable to make reasonable use of his property without them. If,
however, the City feels the plan has merlt,the application should be tabled pending'review
of detailed grading and landscaping plans_ .
BJN:ph,
i'
,..
cc:
Jim Hurm
Tim Keane..
Joel Dresel ._-
Craig Jordan
James Pyle
"
,.
.-
"
'.
,. "."
~- .
-3-
-,
.. .
,
~
~
(!"'\
I I
484.~,
III J
I
I
.. QI ;f
o ~ fll
~) .., ..I..~)
2 ... 11.3 !!.j'
- 1J
~
&.at tt. .!:!!:,.
-,
I
i{
4.
.::U.
; !3044'"E
\
J
~~
!f.
~
1 12
~ ~:
".~-"" - -;:;::.; . .
,\1'-\ ~'\ -- ....
~I!.~ ~i7.'r- a ~
.: .;,y ::'U_" ~
r ~ \ ~ ~
<:~ ~\ ~ \ 4")
\ \
r:m.
,
.....
" 'J
C\.l
0::
tt)
r.......
\(
~
,.
a
<:s
\tI.
\0
~
r-:
0"
rl')
o
w
If)
-
-
\
.......
No...th
(:'
/tlr.,.l1
co (Rt)
(
Exhibit A
S~ LOC;\TION
Skipperette
- C. U.P. and. var.iances
.. o"-2~4o.0Z~
E~V.,,'t Il-\C:.. Etx..t
or ~~'_)L.
,,0"'0.
~1h~t.
'f~0l
....Ir-
, .
. . "flf.". \
Gflf.f."
I
. ...-- - .. .
,
.
OJ.: .
c.a-~t.,
"
"
".. .
i" :
, .
.'
. :.
, :
....
....
,'.
f 4,,:
., "..
: ~ .. . :~:.": ;
LCSI'" '. I.. . . . ,
:r "'~'~~~~.~i~2t:.
"
.
t . . .', '.. .:: .
I. -{( :;: [:~}~
. t :1", : .: ~.,
;". . . .~. .
',,, "
. .1
<i.
:~
. .1
....;. "
'i ':
"
.
. ..!
."
o . ~,
.:.
, .
\ ':, ':
... '.
~.~!
" .
: :. .~: {..
:: ::.~~'
;"'I~
'.
':. ,;,
": l:llS'i'j~Ql ,."
...... '. . .'
. TiKIPPERETTEJ . .
..... .' '. - '. .' .'
....
; ~
,~:-
..
r
.,
~..~
I
I
I
i~'[)
!
'.: :.
of,.:
. ......'
"
. ~;~ :";
. i
" '.
....,.....
"
;4....
.~.
-:.
.,
I"~.
=. ::t.::
. :.f'::
. '1 '.:
~ .. ~ :: -:,'.: .. : ~ .
t..: .' ...
".
... .
A'. :'. ~J'>
.pi ~ Of:: '.
.,- . :d:I :,.,
.. ',-",'
:~ .", .
.... "
;;~r.J ::'
"1:: '1 '.
::::~::. J:> _
\~"II'i.' .
~'" .
.t..:,.
:~~,.
.\r'.I; .
~B:' .':;.
n:
. .;...
;'!:. ':: ';.~;}~'i1
':!' "
".
.!
.,',
'.J. "
....
....: ::..: :..' .:'~" ',: ..,.".. ::', ....... . ::.. ,.r:.. ',:", .
i
I
.'."-:; ..' <" li
....,' .,~J
,".t -
); 0'
. . .~. .
. ~i
-..,-. ~.'.
.....:
. .'
".1. .
~. i !.
; ..
."0:.";... .
\
" .
~... ,
. ~~~~:.: ~
..';{:::'
'. . .~. I ...-::.t:'''~'_-t
. ,1,....
. .:n':~~>.~.
.e..... '. ..
.' ..; ..~V~if:~' ,:'\'
.' )!.
. ':. :-{ T(lilEiH .AR.~l ~~~l1. . .
~'l.)r~ . \~~:~:;t:.t.. :,.t:)i~:i': .
.
tJotth
I" :' 1-1)'
'X.
- .......
"'"
'""t':
, .
--') .11 If.)t'!"'d,)
...;.L:.~} '.,. 'rV(,:\tJ
\ '.:;tf J j
? .h ....
_.~\ \' "''''~t . :"i':::!";::" .~~~.;~
U~Kf?:
,..(\! .
. / \ I
't'
,. {<~ .
1 (:!';
'1 () '.;
;f (- "
I. .v.
(:;; i ~~:-~~
.~ lr~
. .\.. . .~.
'- -,v
.f....':"""
r::
'"
c
e
)~i-u-'
p-t,
( .~.t..
~
.
-
..
. .
i
. .
o
,,'
. '"
.
'~~~~ ..
,.,"',,1Nt ...' }
..0..
. ~".' .
. : .~. .
Exhibit B
PROPOSED .SlT~ PLAN
,..
/
:'.:;~h~':;~~. '~~'.~~1.;.'j!fV~>n;::: :..
!.~
~ ~....
,.
~
.
.
,/
.-
((
\ i
tiLl:. l;U.}'1
APR \ 3 \992
March~O, 1992
Attn: Brad Nielsen
City of Shorewood
5755 Country ,Club Road
Shorewood, MN 5533~
Reference: Legal Notice, Skipperette Grocery to addftiel pumps.
Gentlemen:
This letter is to express my opposition to the referenced
proposal. There are gas stations on either side of the
Skipperette Grocery (approx. 2 miles) and the addition of
another gas station would not, in my opinion, benefit the
community.
The cost, in terms of environmental hazards (fuel spills,
leaking tanks, battery acid; antifreeze, and other noxious
chemicals associated with gas stations) far outweigh the
benefits of another gas station, if any.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
Sincerely,
~~~
Martin R. Wellens
4755 Lakeway Terrace
Shorewood, MN 5533~
'.
..
..
470-9395
-,
Exhibit C .
RESIDENT CO'FTU=A.CWONDENCP
;.-
:(
FILE COpy
*-11' ..
5117 Vine Hill Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
APR I 4 1992
Brad Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Oub Road
Shorew~ MN 55331
Re: P.lN.25-117-23-41-OO28
Request for Conditional Use Permit by Mr. James Pyle, 19215 State Highway 7,
Shorewood
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
. I am providing the following comments in response to the notice of a public hearing f<<the
Planning Commission to consider a request for a conditional use permit by Mr. James Pyle,
owner of the Skipperette grocery store. I am the owner and I reside in a home located at 5117
Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, which is located diagonally across the street from the Skipperette
store. Following are my points against the granting ofa. conditional use permit for the.
installation of fuel dispensers at the site.
.
Traffic and ingress-egress to the store now causes problems for adjacent property owners.
Increasing traffic volumes by having fuel dispens~rs would compound the existing
situation.
.
Some of the users of the grocery cause litter problems on my property, and adjacent
properties. The litter problem occurs on a daily basis. I am concerned that the
installation of fuel dispensers with the associa~4 waste productS generated byself-semce
-or full-service fuel stations, will increase the amount of litterthatitnpacts . adjacent
properties including my pwperty. :
· The site appears to be poorly designed for placement of fuel dispensers~ . It appears that
placement of dispensers will encroach on property lines regardless of.location.
.
· The site has a steep slope in the front parking area, thereby increasing vehic10 safety
concerns and environmental concerns for run-off of any spilled fuel.. Airemissionsfmm
fuel dispensing may be an environmental and health concern. Benzene, a component of
gasoline, is a suspected carcinogen.
. Placement of fuel dispensers on the property will change itS use and probably.have a
negative impact on adjacent property values, especially residential properttalongVt.ne
Hill Road.
Exhibit D
RESIDENT CORRFspONJ)~CE
- .;. '~'.~': .
.' .
rf'
#
. Increased lighting for the fuel dispensers will detract from the residential properties along
Vine Hill Road.
. Granting the requested permits will change the use, and may cause additional changes for
use of the property. The propeny is currently used by private individuals to parkvebicles
which are marked "for sale". If vehicle storage, additional parking were pem1itted, it may
have an adverse value impact on adjacent residential properties. .
. Several fuel service stations already exist along Highway 7, providing service to users of
the area.
I appreciate the opportunity to present my position on this issue.
S~_~0?~ ~ __
. Craig L. Johanesen
cc: Bill Rise, Minnetonka City Coun~
'.
\
.
,
.:
"
'.
-,
MAYOR
Jan Haugen
COUNCIl.
Kriai Stowr
Robert G..
Barb 8rancet
Vern Watten
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (512) 474-3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
BRAD NIELSEN
DATE:
31 MAY 1989
RE:
SKIPPERETTE - C.U.P. AND VARIANCE FOR MOTOR FUEL SALES
.
FILE NO.: 405 (89.18)
BACKGROUND
The attorney for James Pyle has requested a conditional use pe~it and
variances to add motor fuel sales to the Skipperette convenience grocery
store. located at 19215 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A.
attached) .
.
The property is zoned C-3. General Commercial and contains approximately
17.725 square feet of area. (Note: The area of the site may only be 13.598.
depending on the extent of r.o.w. for Vine Hill Road). Land use and zQning
surrounding the property are as follows:
north: S.T.H. 7 than commerci~ in Deephaven .
east: Vine Hill Road then single-family.residential in Minnetonka.
zoned residential
south: parking for adjo~ning offi~e. zoned C-3
west: office building. . zoned C-3..
The existing store measures 42' X 50' and contains 2100 square feet of floor
area. The applicant proposes 'to add two gas pump islands covered by a 24' x
44' canopy.
The site has access to both Vine Hill Road on the east and the Highway 7
service road on the north. Access on Vine Hill Road is poorly defined with
approximately 110 feet of the site opening onto the street. The applicant
proposes to replace five parking spaces on the north side of the building and
six spaces on the east side with three angled stalls on tha west side of the
property. four parallel stalls on the south side and three parallel stalls on
the east side of the building (see Exhibit B). Circulation is proposed to be
one-way. counterclockwise around the building. In attempt to comply with
current zoning requirements the applicant has reduced the access to Vine Hill
Road to a 25 foot driveway opening on the east side of the building.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka'$ .
Attachment 2
"
Re: -Skipperette
C.U.P. and Variances
31 May 1989
As stated in the request letter (Exhibit C). dated 19 May 1989. the
applicant's attotney feels that only one variance is needed. for the number
of parking spaces required. The Zoning Ordinance requires 13 spaces. while
the applicant proposes 10. As will be pointed out further on in this report.
other variances are also necessary.
ISStJES AND ANALYSIS
Based upon a review of the proposed site plan and pertinent sections of
Shorewood's City Code. several issues have been raised. many of which are
illustrated on_Exhibit D.
.
A. Vine Hill Road R. O.W. Discreoancy. The proposed site plan has been based
upon a metes and bounds legal description of the property which describes
the site as extending to the centerline of Vine Rill Road. The Hennepin
County half-section map. show a full 66-foot right-of-way for Vine Rill
Road (see Exhibit A). and a 1988 survey provided by the applicant shows a
33-foot road easement for Vine _ Hill Road. Nevertheless the applicant's
attorney advises that no record exists of any r.o.w. or easement having
ever been dedicated.
This report has been based upon the applicant's attorney's opinion.
giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt. However. the locaticm of
the road r.o.w. (or easement). or the lack thereof. has serious
ramifications relative to the proposed use. For example the proposed
canopy. let alone the existing building. would not comply with setback
requirements.
If the City is inclined to approve this request. it is recommended that
the matter first be referred to the City Attorney for his legal opinion
as to how the r.o.w. discrepancy should be resolved.
.
B. Conditional Use Permit. Section 1201.21 Subd. 4.c. c6ntains specific
requir~ents for gas stations. At least five of the 15 conditions listed
therein (mostly related to parking and circulation) raise serious
questions relative to t:be ,1.pprov~J,: of the C. U. P. (Note: It~s marked
with an asterisk (*) require variances to Shorewood's zoning
requirements) .
1. The existing site is grossly substandard in terms of parking lot
setbacks. The Code requires a minimum 15 foot setback from. the
property line. The present parking lot extends to the paved surface
of Vine Rill R.oad and encroaches into the frontage road r.o.w.* (shown
shaded on Exhibit D). These nonconformities should be corrected at
the time concrete curbing is installed at the perimeter of the parking
lot (Sect. 1201.21 Subd. 4.c. (5)). The applicant shows only a five
foot setback* between the paved surface of Vine Hill Road and his
proposed parking lot.
As shown on Exhibit D the fifteen foot setback restricts wha.tis
already a poorly configured parking and circulation system.
- 2 -
(~-
\
.
~
Re: Skipperette
C.U.P. and variances
31 May 1989
2. The Code requires 13 parking spaces based upon the following:
... motor fuel station 4 spaces
_ convenience grocery: 1 space per
200'square feet of net floor area
(2100 - 10% = 1890 -i- 200 = 9.45) 9 "
total = 13 "
The applicant proposes 10 spaces*. one of which (13) can not be
counted because it is within the setback area*. and two of which (11 &
2). if allowed. conflict with ingress and egress at the easterly
driveway. It should be realized that whether or not these spaces are
allowed. people will have a tendency to park there simply out of
convenience.
.
The remaining seven spaces are served by a narrow. one-way circulation
system. The three spaces on the west edge of the site are at severe
angles and parking is required to overhang into the five-foot setback
area*. The remaining parallel spaces are considered poor design for a
convenience store. It is likely that rather than observing the
one-way pattern or having to parallel park. people will park north of
the canopy. or possibly in front of the building. interfering with
motor fuel operations and circulation.
The one-way system. as proposed. will resul t in vehicular conflict at
the Vine Hill Road driveway. Traffic entering the site from Vine Hill
Road can not be allowed to turn left to the rear of the site because
there is inadequate room to turn around or for two cars to pass one
another. It will be difficult to discour'age such movements even with
"do not enter" signage. Even channelizing the driveway may create
confusion or conflict.
.
3. While the five-foot strips'along the west and south sides of the site
meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. they are
inadequate for snow storage. While some. space exists along the
northeasterly edge of the site., piling snow there may adversely affect
circulation. (Sect.: 1291. 03 ~j.lbd. 5. g. )
4. The Zoning Ordinance limits parking lot grades to 5%. The grade shown
on' the applicant's grading plan is twice that steep in two loeat.ions.
The en try from the service road and the pump isl and area are shown as
10%*. If the Cit.y considers approving the request it should be
subject to the City Engineer's approval of grading and drainage. The
Fire Marshall also has serious concerns about. the potential for fuel
spills ending up in the storm sewer. (Sect. 1201.03 Subd. 5.d. (8) (i))
5. Sections 1201.21 Subd. 4.c. (8) and (9) require screening and
landscaping from abutting residential zoning districts. The
landscaping shown on the applicant's site plan is poorly loeated.
ineffective for screening* and does not comply with Section 1201.03
Subd. 2. g. The proposed berm is three feet high in only a five-foot
space. The strip would have to be 18 feet wide to accommodate the
- 3 -
.
.
.
.
Re:. Skipperet te
C.U.P. and Variance
31 May 1989
required 1:3 slope. Furthermore. if snowplows don't destroy the
shruBs. which are less than three feet from the curb. the snow stored
on them will. The proposed berm and shrubbery also create a
visibility hazard at the easterly driveway. Given the lack of green
space and the insufficient (possibly nonexis tent) boulevard. it is
questionable whether effective screening can be accomplished on this
site.
6. No handicapped parking or access ramp has been provided.
7. No plans for signage have been provided. Since gas stations have a
tendency to display many signs. this issue should be addressed as part
of the C.U.P. rather than as a separate sign permit.
C. Variances. In addition to the variance referenced in the applicant's
request letter. six other variances have been identified in the preceding
section. The request letter seems to justify the variances on the basis
of some "community service" ....the applicant's elimination of the video
game arcade. It fails. however. to demonstrate what hardship exists
which keeps the applicant from making reasonable use of the property. Is
not the existing convenience store. which was nearly doubled in size by
the previous owner. a reasonable use of a commercial site? Furthermore.
it could be speculated that the previous owner's expansion of the
building adversely affected the future installation of gas facilities.
The statutory criteria for variances specifically state that the plight
or the landowner can not have been created by the landowner. Conveyance
of property does not waive or diminish thi~ requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding analysis. little more needs to be said. Simply put.
the applicant is trying to fit too much on a site that won't accommodate it.
Remember that the issues raised herein are .based on the ~ine Hill Road curb
being the applicant's property line. If. as suggested by the applicant's
survey. r.o.w. or easement does exist. these issues are greatly compounded.
It is therefore suggested: that the Flanning Commission's recommendation to
the City Council should be to deny the request for a C.U.P. and variances.
BJN :ph
cc: Larry Whittaker
Glenn Froberg
Jim Norton
James Pyle
James Robin
Mike Eicher
- 4 -
....
o
.:
.:;:
~ ilf; .~
..:~ ~ 4'\ ~
3 :i 5 ~. ...
.. & ':1'
~;; ~
~ ... ~.\o.,i."';
..,)6'
~
III I
I
I
Q'l :l
.,. ; "I ~)
~"\::: 4..94-
- l~
r
I~
t.otE!:. .!2L ,.
.. -,
.. ~H!~,'Cl
U4. II
..
t ·
~
~"'\
I I
I '
~~,h.J
:~
I
I
I I.Ot 2S
t........,..,.. S!'J-. ...--
>-
..
I ~.ti,
'"
~
,
(\.1
r'J
~
!:
u
0::::
j....-
~'l
~
'.
o
CS
~
\D
(\j
c~
I'G
( .:
__I
Lt.J
(/)
r-:
\
.....
No",th
(:"\
I~""
($'1)
Exhibi t A
SI~ LOCATION
Sk~pperette - eu
.. . P.
and Variances
~
~'.
"'-
....
"'"
"
...""
+-
QI(,
,~
~....... ,." . ...1(,
.........---... ,-
"'...............
--
,Ill: .z:
~i:.
fJI-9
~;'i
~jj:E
.
il: ~ IV- ~i
""till ~
t;~~~
..In", 6'1
t:\~t~!:J
%1
\
-_._._-.. -'_..~.
\
aVOH 11111 3NIA \ '..
J 'B'~ --'L"~..~.- al~' \j_":'
I ft // OS,; . .
. l:;J / 5. :l
:>J , .- /' /It: ,) ..' --, ....-_.'
;'00()()OG n c. C'OC1C {Jl" (J~....( ~L Jr'.I'~l --:, '-, t'-' ....'~ ... (' f
-?_--...~.. ..,_ ~-=~~..-~~~~,:,:,~:~':'_.~'...~:~_::~~.I_.:.~ ..:.1,1, 'n, l:':"-~'_-;~:'"
. ._.____....____..4...~........ ._...... *._.. ....._....._...____
~" ;~, ~ ~-r-~~ -~...ia~~.~-i- Tn.--
'. \ : / : " 1/-<' -...--,.... ,.. -:' J~ :
, "I " 'I 1
\ ' , \ I ,/,' '0' I
, " \.'" I I I I
\. , . ," 1 "I J-.-,... ...,.---..I_-.l~1
I \ \ ,-~,-:-.....,-t--(r--.' ....:.J~.. ......... .......:....:.:....:.:.......:
I.j'" '- .,~, ' " r. , . ..
l': 7' " \t-!ll~'" rr ::
~\ ,:" '- f : r1",; : Q .. :
\ " I I I q
inl ' \ , , T" -,-~ - \1 ~ 0'
f ' ,-'., ~4 ..I
'\ \ \, I , , 'I" :
\ " " , '_L~ -..L ..
,\' , I""
IJ , ' , , r \ --~. '.'
. '" h
1!.!," ~l...\ ,"., ' "~ 1
t. ,. r,', \', ',', ~ .-[J~\. \,- - '..:
,..--..-.-.. " \,' ,)
,\ " I' ,. \
.' \ ,I e, ::'
. ... ". \ \, _~I-1 - '. ", '\
. , \ \ I ,'-' ,
. \ \, \ ,tA~ \" ')-
.~~;. \, \ r:1 f\D 1-;'1." U ONEL
"'. \\\~'" \ \ 1" \J I \ I '....I~:I
. '. . \ . '\ '0 I' 0' '1 " ....
. . '. ',\ , ',I', ....
, ......,~)
". " '. ~ '.~, ,><': ',' ~..J L '", 1 " ';...... ...'.....
. ...~ "-~-~'-'-', -11:1:".r-~-:~~' ~~,.......
........~ \ \ '.---
....... '\ - - ~---_..__.... ..--- ,.-- ..
...
<.\
~:::J- Z .....,~.:.:~.:~\ N
"
t
.........
,/"'"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
(),d.
o
~
~
..O,d.
......
-c
..
..
..
Z
III
..
..
o
)
'tJ
1&1
CJ t:
Z 1&1
j: II:
fI) 1&1
>< II.
bI II.
~'
.... ~,
II: :r"
o ,
t; h
v,
~> WAY ~~
. -' - ~~ ~
......---..
l.li1j
V~~&?
o
ii>
cjl
.,. II
r---'"
-c
~J =
e.:. tC
z
..
..
II:
o
"0#
.~
~
H
tI)
r
f;q
J,.If;!
.rt CI)
..00
.... Q.e
!re
t;l
~
JI.:
l~ j
:L
,
: '
. ,.
",.
~1
",.;::
01>-
~~
~
I
-~
,
,
a
.~
.~
,..
I
I
.,
!
~
II:
..c
11..
-
1
/
I
f,
1
I
L.
. "
..
ROBIN B THOMPSON. P.A.
.......15 EAST I.AKE STIllEET
SUITE: &3C
WAYZATA. MINNesoTA 55391
TEI.E:r:o"'CHC lelltl "'7S.tC&S
TCI.C<:C"'IEIll lel&1 ...715...........7
ATTORNEYS AT L.AW
"'~'{ \ 9 \989
May 19, 1989
Brad Nielsen
city of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
~ Re: James PylejSkipperette
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
.
Enclosed is a photocopy of the documentation by which Mr. Pyle
acquired his interest in the real property containing the
lISkipperettell. By separate delivery, you will receive a site
plan and variance application fee which describes the
improvements which Mr. Pyle desires to make to the Skipperette
facility. It is my understanding that the revised plan and
application requests a variance only' in the "number" parking
spaces.
As you may recall, when Mr. pyle purchased the Skipperette, the
building housed a small convenience grocery store and a video
arcade. Neighbors, city officials, and the po~ice departments of
both Shorewood and Minnetonka made-numerous complaints about the
arcade. Parking and traffic problems were almost continuous as
area youth used the a+cade fo~-a meeting and gathering place. In
response to the problems as'sociated with the arcade and in
response to the neighborhood's request for an expanded
neighborhood service facility, Mr. pyle closed the arcade,
completely remodeled and renovated his building, expanded the
grocery portion of his business, and made plans to add gasoline
sales to his neighborhood services.
As I understand the project, a variance, only for the "numberll of
parking spots is needed by Mr. pyle. We believe that the
variance should be granted by the City of Shorewood based upon
the substantial benefit which has been experienced by the city,
its police department and the neighborhood from. the change in
focus of Mr. pYle's business. The bottom line is that the
business which Mr. pYle wants to conduct is a "neighborhood
service businessll that will:
1. Be consistent with the desires of the neighborhood:
Exhibit C
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LET'l'ER
DB. ted 1.9 May 1989
.
.
Mr. Brad Nielsen
Page Two
May 19, 1989
2. Result in a substantial reduction in traffic and parking
congestion at his facility when compared with the operation of
the video arcade; and
3. Assist the
intersection between
of Highway Seven.
I hope that you will give Mr. pyle's request your serious
consideration. I'd appreciate it if you would contact me so that
we can discuss the matter in person.
city in better defining and controlling the
Vine Hill Road and the south frontage road
~ Very truly yours,
ROBIN & THOMPSON, P.A.
/"-\ ~
(_/~~
~m~s G. Robin
JGR:wbs
Enclosure
.
"
Exhibit: C-2
~
. t
,
GOOD MUSIC AGENCY INC.$
JUN -I ;. .
May 30, 1989
.
Shorewood City Hall
Council Ch~bers
5155 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Brad Nielsen
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
Our office is adjacent to the Skipperette. They have
made alot of noticeable improvements. We teel there is a
~ need for gas on the southside of Highway 1.
Please know the Pyle's closest neighbors are
supportive.
.
B,~~~.
Doue;las Brown
President
Good Music Group
DB/tjf
: . FbstDfficeBa1c4:37.;:F:JU:elsior.'IfllN5S33:Z~' '-?6rZJ474-25BZ--'" -t:".ax:r&r2J470-U709 ' 'TeleC490-0~~~~!:""""" :
- -.
~~ - -'--~. ''''."'' ~..........,. ~f.r' "'.."" ~',.-~.' ...-~,~....~;.'\' ~,~~ ", M~~_'" - , "".
, ,
~
!\
~ 1
~)
, I
N
i I
\" !
i I
I i
I
I
~'"
..
. ,1 '
I 1:;.2.f) I
eh(.("c:dLh ~t\-tr
Q
<
0 Q
c::
G ...I
...I
,r" r...ii,)-U) -
~..1
,-, l~\f'..tl\.:" w
,- I %
,.. >
W
. ['
c>
()
~'-'l
..,
Ir
l~
I!~
". ~::.
, .
.
~,Y.,)"~:D I~ I
y," 1.f'N.- "'" I
'_'JI' ,'ON... I 'I 0 1 L ...,~.le,.....
I; ^e.W~ 7,fl
, I
~ . .+0 et' or"'~
I .~-:) :",,0 HI!..H "
,_-1- eli<.N\/rCLINE.il(\'Dt.: 'IJI ~\I...,l,",,,,,
_ ~ ":,\oI:'VIIN. _
........-
I !
I
I
.
~
".I
-)
--l
.."
.... 1\10';:... ~.~\TIl
...._ L1.i'
.'--
1"
.
t
/
I
/
I
I
!
,
...
-9"
~
.r"c
~",
>-"
..,(.
~"'-9~'"
f\~1'\-t~ 7 /6e~fV\
- ""\"00 :~ ~
"__ 14' 0 c..>t~~ +0 '7fr-~~"*
_ ~Oy v\?',b: (~t-I
Kiit:' ..UUl"\L
11(\(;,1" i:..~
LPN:.n \'~
I"I"V
4~,.f+"
N:Jl'E:.
- (lC.\,::,i1N.';.. ;>r.,....,N. "" "no... \..'_
Pi'i:. UN N~,r .,,'l"i.u ~ 10
?C N:N\O E"O "
i"'O~:4'Q i'....;.>.."-INC"." ~T"U:,
"',..~ Nut-t\~;:'::":l
Exhibit D
ZONING AND DESIGN ISSUES
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
- l
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:
1 July 1994
RE:
Waldin, Judy - Fence Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405 (94.14)
BACKGROUND
.
Judy and Rocky Waldin have requested approval of a setback variance to erect a fence
- closer to Christmas Lake than the City Code allows. Their property is located - at 5755
Merry lane (see Site Location map ~. Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned R-IA/S,
Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland, which requires a 75-foot setback from the6idinary
high water level of the lake. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the proposed fence encroaches
into the lake setback ranging from 12 to 25 feet.
The existing home is located entirely within the 75-foot setback area. This ispart'of the
~ applicant's justification for the. variance, as 'explained in her letter, dated 6 June 1994
(Exhibit C,_ attached). -
ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION
/-
Criteria for granting variances are contained in Section 1201.03 Subd.. 5 of the City Code
and are summarized in Exhibit D. These should be reviewed in evaluating the applicant's
request. It should be noted that variances must meet all of the criteria in order to be
granted.
If it is found that the variance is justified In otder for the applicant to m'ake reasonable use
of her property, then ways to minimize the variance and preserve the natural appearance of_
the shoreline should be considered:
4:!~c'J
A Residentjal Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
Re: Waldin, Judy
Fence Setback Variance
1 July 1994
1. Initial discussions with the applicant included a four-foot, chain link fence. She now
requests a five-foot fence. A four-foot, chain link fence is easier to screen from view
with landscaping than a five-foot fence.
2. Require green or black vinyl-coated chain link fencing which is far less visible than
galvanized.
3. Require additional landscaping to screen the fence from view of the lake. A
landscape plan showing hedge type plants along the east side of the fence should be
required. Proposed plantings should be sized according to the required screening
requirements of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.g. of the Zoning Code. A letter of credit or
cash escrow should be required to ensure that landscaping will be completed this
year.
cc: Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Judy Christensen-Waldin
- 2 -
148
(.:
5 '"
6S(7)le
( 8 t'
(lOT I"", AlJO sum 120
Ral1VED"Ffl'lU TAX RECORDS)
tt AM~ SM~! ~O 12@
( 10)
~ .Jt,vf h
':. ,~.l'l~ 2.JX> /
~r~AVE AVL,
.~
t
... ,"..
;"(7
( 5)
1"9 ~
(II)R:
15)
(12)
151
( 13)
"Svbj~t
oS ~+e.,
153
( 15)
a I'
I 5
100
't't.~:" :
I~
:~
(e - 1'( 18)
... I
-----------~ -~--------------------~
....... - ;-1
156 . . !:; ," "':157
( 21) ~."" ~
.. 1~
------ - -- : . .... .~ -'
(20) -.:~ :--;..---- --
66"3.9 .:.:..:. - /'.-
6 ..::...:
-..:-::
!
( 19)
...
0=
a::
(1)
~~~
t~~~~
161.5
J.
(23)
C-1-1 "J t ~l\ "J
I
I
1-"te.-
.',
(26)
;;-
: 376.8
I
I
: ( i)
I ...6
:~~~:~~::r--_.~;;-------;~~:--------~1
/"'
33
J( 1Zl
(1"3)
Ir.~
---r- ( Ie)
-!---------
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Waldin - fence setback variance
Ck, r I'll <<'6.~
~o..~
t' b I iL
AGU~
,
/'"
y '1,"11 'V,N
~Nort~
.. ~ 10'
.
E.q,. //At'
11; v.,,,,"I'o u~ y
JI:C. Jf-,t/7-V
,
I/~'v
..
" ., ,
t :: 'TO
"
C LA~~St-\of;:.~ "
(A1>r\<o'l<- )
'- ,
.........
~
.
~
~
~
.
"
.~
~
~
~
~
I ;;
O\J,~
~
'l
,.. ~ .)"__.9-... OJ.
\ ~
f I ).
''-At' 'j
(~.l~ t)~ h"...,.
/./iJ". , "".-,..
S" 1'';'' riA 4;' f" .,,r
~~'J' /,,,.. /'J/
Ar J~...4f""'" .J'i' ~".I..,J:.
" /~" ~;,. r., "~t'.J" .4 (':/;..
"~/4":(' Ar4J";'7 ".,;,.
/.IAt' .l'A-'''~r,,,.i;;'',,,1~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
t.~
-t..
\ ~
~t;
::~
\
Y
I'
re ((\,.0<'"
,
tvOY h;;(" "I'
(;(;1v"I. ~"r $"
fC'c. J.r-//7-ZJ
/1.g,
Exhibit B
SITE PLAN
June 6, 1994
Bradley Nielsen, City Planner
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
RE: 5755 Merry Lane
Shorewood,~ 55331
PIN: 35-117-23-14-0002
Dear Mr. Nielsen,
.
Attached, please find, is an application for a building permit, as required by the City of
Shorewood, to build a safety fence on the above referenced property. Due to the proximity of
the house and garage to the shoreline of Christmas Lake, a setback variance will be needed.
This request is prompted by the following hardships:
* Our two children, ages 2 and 3 1/2, presently have direct access to the lake via our
lawn, which leads directly to the water. The shoreline is within 50-60 feet from their
play area and is a constant attraction to the kids, especially, when there are ducks,
geese, and/or boaters along the shoreline.
* Due to the layout of the property, there is no way to create a fenced-in area
that would be behind the 75 foot setback and still be directly accessible from the
house.
.
The fence we are proposing would be 5 feet tall, in the area of the yard visible from the lake.
(See attached Certificate of Survey) It would be connected at the porch entrance, continue
straight out to and wrap around the west side of the tree, and connect to the south property
line. This is the most direct route across the property, and it offers the tree, hammock, and
other foliage along the south property line as "landscaping". The portion of fence connecting
the house to the garage, by the driveway, would be 6 feet tall. This combination will offer the
least amount of visible obstruction from the lake.
Based on the above factors, we respectfully request a building permit to construct the
proposed fence.
~(]rIt4~~f;t;L ~ ~
Judy Christensen-Waldin & Rocky Waldin
Exhibit C-1
APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER
Dated 6 June 1994
.
.
May 22, 1994
Planning Commission Members
City Council Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Variance Request
5755 Merry Lane
Dear Commission and Council Members:
Please be aware that the below signed individuals have reviewed the
proposed safety fence plans to be submitted by Rocky Waldin and Judy
Christensen-Waldin for their property as referenced above. We found them
to be acceptable, and to have minimal impact on lakeshore residents.
We hereby recommend approval of the requested variance.
~ 1-4~~
Horton & Bernice Brooks
21195 Radisson Road
PID #35-117-23 130029
Exhibit C-2
May 22, 1994
Planning Commission Members
City Council Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
. Re: Variance Request
5755 Merry Lane
Dear Commission and Council Members:
Please be aware that the below signed individuals have reviewed the
proposed safety fence plans to be submitted by Rocky Waldin and Judy
Christensen- W aldin for their property as referenced above. We found them
to be acceptable, and to have minimal impact on lake shore residents.
We hereby recommend approval of the requested variance.
Daniel Noonan ucinda
21115 Radisson Road
PID #35-117-23 11 0077
Exhibit C-3
May 22, 1994
Planning Commission Members
City Council Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
. Re: Variance Request
5755 Merry Lane
Dear Commission and Council Members:
Please be aware that the below signed individuals have reviewed the
proposed safety fence plans to be submitted by Rocky Waldin and Judy
Christensen- Waldin for their property as referenced above. We found them
to be acceptable, and to have minimal impact on lakeshore residents.
.
We hereby recommend approval of the requested variance.
~
eter & Marie Lehman
21265 Radisson Road
Pill #35-117-23 13 0037
Exhibit C-4
'to .
.
.
CRITERIA FOR GRANTING VARIANCES
· Circumstances must be unique to the property
Owner faces problems that other owners in zoning district
do not
Would the variance set a precedent for other properties
· Applicant must demonstrate "undue hardship"
Property can not be put to a reasonable use
Plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the owner
Variance should not alter the essential character of the
locality
Variance must meet all three of the above
· Economic considerations alone shall not constitute hardship
· Burden of proof is on the applicant
· City may attach reasonable conditions
Exhibit D
VARIANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE
TO JUDY CHRISTENSEN-WALDEN
\)~~~'
WHEREAS, JUDY CHRISTENSEN-WALDEN (Applicant) is the owner of real property
located at 5755 Merry Lane, in the City of Shorewood. County of Hennepin, legally described as:
"Lot s 190 and 191, Auditor's Subdivision No. 120, Hennepin County,
Minnesota"; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant has applied for a setback variance to allow a fence to be
constructed 45 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Chrismas Lake, which
variance amounts to thirty feet; and
. WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner. and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated
1 July 1994, which memorandum is on fIle at City Hall; and
WHEREAS. after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 5 July 1994. the minutes of
which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at their regular
meeting on 25 July 1994, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood
as follows:
,..
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the existing home on the property was built prior to the City's adoption of the
current setback requirement and is located only 43 feet from the OHWL of Christmas Lake.
2. That the existing home is located entirely within the required lakeshore setback area
for Christmas Lake, and there is no way to create a fenced-in area that would be directly accessible
from the house. without a variance.
3 . That considerable vegetation exists on the property which would partially screen the
fence from view from Christmas Lake.
4. That the property is occupied by a driveway serving property to the south of the
Applicant's lot.
4. c,. 2...
....- -.
.
.
CONCLUSION
A. That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section
1201.05 of the City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes
Section 462.375, Subd. 6(2).
B . That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant a
thirty-foot setback variance from the OHWL of Christmas Lake.
C. That this approval is conditioned upon the following:
1. The fence shall be green or black vinyl coated chain link no higher than five feet.
except for the segment of fence to be constructed between the home and the garage,
which may be a six-foot privacy fence.
2. The Applicant must submit a landscape plan providing additional vegetation to
screen the fence from view from Christmas Lake. The landscape plan must be
approved by the Zoning Administrator.
The Applicant must provide bids based upon the approved landscape plan. from
which a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the bid amount must be
provided to the City by the Applicant. The letter of credit or escrow will be released
by the City upon completion of the landscaping.
4. Required landscaping must be completed by 15 October 1994.
3.
D. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a
certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of July, 1994.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator/Clerk
- 2 -
"
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCIL
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, Mayorand City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:
1 July 1994
RE:
Pike, Ellis and Steve - Simple Subdivision/Combina,tion
FILE NO.:
405 (94.13)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Steven Pike, 24845 Smithtown Road, proposes to convey approximately 37,450 square
feet of his lot to Ellis Pike at 5810 Club Lane. Exhibit A shows the location of the two
adjoining lots. The property is zonedR-IA, Single-Family Residential.
.
The propoSed division and combination is shown. on Exhibit B. Steven Pike's property
currently has 92,255 square feet of area. Ellis Pike has 35,238 square feet. After the
conveyance Steven will have 54,803 square feet and Ellis will have 72,689 square feet.
ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION
For the most part this request is a simple lot line rearrangement. There are two issues
which must be addressed, however.
1. Club Lane exists as a grossly substandard public right-of-way (8.5 feet wide). At the
directiori of staff, the applicant has shown 21 additional feet of r.o.w. width. The
remaining 21 feet necessary to bring the street up to the 50-foot standard would come
from the other side of the street. This is consistent with Shorewood's past practice
for substandard streets and subdivisions.
2. There is enough land between the two parcels to create three lots. The way it is
being subdivided and recombined, however, neither resulting parcel can be divided
into two 40,000 square foot lots.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
-:iYl>
Re: Pike, Ellis and Steven
Subdivision/Combination
1 July 1994
If the new lot line were moved approximately 35 feet to the north, the new southerly
parcel would have 80,000 square feet of area - enough to be split in the future.
Based upon the preceding it is recommended that the subdivision/combination be approved
subject to the following:
1. The applicants should direct their surveyor to adjust the lot line and legal description
so that the new southerly parcel has 80,000 square feet of area; 2r
.
2. Ellis Pike should sign an affidavit, suitable for recording, stating that he is aware that
the new parcel can not be subdivided under Shorewood' s current zoning
requirements.
3. The applicants' surveyor should prepare legal descriptions for the proposed road
easement and for drainage and utility easements 10 feet on each side of all other lot
lines.
4. The applicants' attorney must prepare deeds for the above-referenced easements.
5. The applicants' attorney must prepare a title opinion for the subject property for
review by the City Attorney.
6. Since no new lots are being created, no park dedication fees or local sewer access
charges are required at this time.
. 7. Items 1 - 5 above must be completed by 18 July in order for the application to be
considered at the 25 July City Council meeting.
8. Once. approved by the City Council, the applicants must file the. division/combination
with Hennepin County within 30 days.
cc: Jim Hurm
Tim Keane
Joel Dresel
Ellis Pike
Steven Pike
- 2 -
~.. ..",
:"..
( 19)
I, '41 24
~:'L
-; ~ 46
- :' , 8
,.:,/ .....
/ ( 15)
,
I
I
I
I' ,
I
I
1
I
1
,
I
1
,
I
I
.
.
t_____1Iq_____
/
i~~4?
1/.-
00 (Q) 41
I'"
.- -
:..)
,
.
I
~OT 44
~
oe
.....
( '))
(8)
I
I 97
,-------
~ ( 1'3)
_..&~
--~._-------- ---------
I -- -/ -. '.
-rtc.' .
....0..
at
..,
( 12)
....
131.5
...
<0
.0
;:0;
~~ _ ~~,o
~..,) !-.~J.('3)
I
( 14)
----
41
( I)
".
--
: ,:}
~
I
.
I
I
I
I
1
I '93
----------------
43/
647
,
100 !OO
..
~~"+h
I
J I":: 'UJt!J
"4S. 5
I
1
22 :
I
1
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
,
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
.
I
I
I
I
6 R
6,
( 18)
c::
..
23
('3) 2'
(4
.-'
.~ ,
"~ ,-
,
-
75
( 17)
48
49
'"
N ____________ _____~
'" I.
il I~
.......... ........i...
/.... ..-...... I
'SI.8 :-. 14.31
~ I '
I
!
(4)
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
.. '~ I .-g
- ~-"-.-
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Pike - Subdivision/Combination
..... '..
.
''''"
1R.~
~~
.. .
c,p
. ~fl
JIJ
J1
---
-;--.... -- ---
_--~r
(~)
\ \~
'-- ~T""""'"
_ ",. ";1\1
. -or-,"; r I, "....1
J- s ~:1 \ i r I . " ,""\"'\.\'b---
..~
/ "'-_ _ ,.l""'10' ,.." __,~I!>:)"'--
I} I~__
, /
I I vi
v~f
/'/~'f/
__/~"'-'v/
~ e:,..~//
-- ','
J
J
---
-
I.
;S\. .
j8
.. 0
cZ
l'i ~
.::I",
H
. J.J <(
I
I
I
II
Ii
I
~~.,
n'=
'-,......1:).
M. ~O....b
-
CI
]
I
, /
"'--("(/;;
( ".~'-;;] - \
~+ ~I J
('~ \.~/
.-() "--"'"
.>- ,"-y",,"-
/0
1-
--
S+-t.~^ PI ~c."
Obt.t
. b.~!
I
I
/' 1.1
~ ~
~ t
!~I
:.,
'"
~I
I
~~, I
..",
:l~
~~
~~
o
I
,
I
'5l!>9"OZ;4'7'E. I
-'\7?'~ MtA~. ('111.1.'''....).
'5 W"'t. O. Lb't }~
~
-,
~i
8
.
, , ~
v
...:
'"
~
I-
t
,
'.
<0
II :5 .
"I ~t;-
,I :J oJ
I -z J
~ .. a;.
J..~i~
~ ~J
of'
i
c, '~
~
~I
" :;
:: "j
':I:::
'"
00 I ~~
N .-
0> ~
:- ~ .:
G
~o..~..~
8 ...~.:..:;..
. I ~.
,
o
I
: I
,
!:!
'"
~
<'l
\>'
I~<< \..J.L
~,i ... f'rof"'~~,. . . ~I , I ~ 1..
235.21
l
. /1' ~-;
'" '.
<
I ~,
~. "..
"-
',I
,)
- 11
~ .
.
I r-
...
~
ii\
.
0
z
.........
",r;,
I i %0
: ! t
...---.- --------------1-
)
I 'J
i , "'
I
'" ;;..
oJ 0
'"
't "%
, ,
I ,
, ,
I
I
---'--21'0.---
. I j
I
v
~
'1 ~
""
N'
~
~
\'~
.,
~I
: i
G
~
'"
SI!>'l.bl:<%
la''I''
'"
'"
I ~
-:j ----
:' J'I / '" 1'\
I _-( >, _" )
4,#
\~A /
" ,I
-----
bC.TA,\\.".
.;;
j
~~
~:;
a.J
'1"
<(c ~
...uI~
~;.;
....-'z
... .
r;:~~
",:;I",
dJ'" _
~~~
"':1<
'Z ~
.:D
-r !
:I-I~-
:~
I
I
!, ~! (I .C. ~"I' EJ lri PiK~
: ~ I
I ~i i '~ .
L~ _ _ c.1oo\...,..._1.......... _~
. .~=--=.J
"'-Nt.1t. .
T
1:
j
.J
.
,.;
.....
...
,,,
,..
t
I
i
Z
il
L
"'
--- ~.
..'
ft
i~~~
I ';,iJ
...' 'Z jl
f3j
"
r
I I
I I
I ,
---';)e~' oZ: 4';0' C
':l. \..'N..I...co')9.
,.,
Exhibit B
PROPOSED DIVISION/COMBINA TION
~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN
FOR HERITAGE P.U.D.
Y'HEREAS, Abingdon Development Corporation (Applicant) is the owner of real property
located In the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan for the
construction of a residential planned unit development known as Heritage P.U.D., containing
twenty-one (21) single-family lots on approximately 32.65 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning. Commission dated
1 June 1994, which memorandum is on file at City Hall, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of 7 June 1994
recommended approval of a Concept Plan for the Heritage P.U.D., subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular
meeting of 27 June 1994 at which time the City Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the
Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the
Applicant and City staff; and
WHEREAS, the Park Commission at its regular meeting of28 June 1994, recommended
that the City require cash in lieu of land as a park dedication requirement.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
.
The Applicant's request for approval of a Concept Plan for Heritage P.U.D: is
subject to the following conditions of approval as set out in the Planning Staff
Report, dated 1 June 1994:
1.
.
,..;.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Deed restrictions shall be recorded against Lots 1 and 13 stating that they
will not be further divided.
This approval allows a density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of net
buildable area (as opposed to a specific lot count), which will be based upon
more detailed survey information to be provided in t}:Ie Development Stage
of the P.U.D. process.
The proposed pedestrian access to the commonly owned island shall be
developed with the site improvements, and clearly identified as being owned
and maintained by the homeowner's association.
Protective covenants for the P.U.D. shall clearly set forth provisions for
protecting the wetlands (Le. no dumping of yard waste, no fencing, no site
alteration, etc.).
The 50-foot lakeshore parcel shall be eliminated from the P.U.D.
Lots on the east end of the proposed road shall comply with R-IA district
standards (width, area and setbacks).
'-\ . e:, .
~
(g) R-IA setback requirements shall be maintained throughout the P.D.D.
..
(h) The Applicant should continue to negotiate with land owner(s) adjoining the
"panhandle" of Lot 18 to swap an equal amount of land for the 50-foot
strip.
(i) Lots shall not be platted into the City's designated wetland.
(j) The City may require that the project be connected to the municipal water
system.
(k) The Applicant shall submit a tree inventory and reforestation plan as part of
the Development Stage plans.
(1) The Applicant shall provide additional street right -of-way as needed to
bring Edgewood Road into compliance with Shorewood r.o.w. standards
(50' width) within its plat.
2.
(m) The Applicant must provide conservation easements for any Wetland
Conservation Act wetlands outside of the City's designated wetland.
City Council approval of the Concept Plan is subject to all applicable standards,
regulations, and requirements of the Shorewood City Code, including, but not
limited to the following:
(a) Section 1201.04 Subd. 1. regarding the procedures for review and approval
of conditional use permits;
(b) Section 1201.06, Subd. 3. regarding special procedures fonhe
establishment of a P.D.D. by conditional use permit;
(c) SecIion 1201.25 Subd. 6.(b)(1) regarding the purpose of concept plan
approval.
Approval of the Concept Plan is not intended, nor does it act to grant approval of a
Development Stage Plan or Final Stage Plan which are required pursuant to Section
1201.25, Subd. 6.(c) and (d).
CONCLUSION
.
.
3.
1 . The application of Abingdon Development Corporation for approval of the Concept
Plan for the Heritage P.D.D. as set forth above is hereby approved.
2. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of July 1994.
ATTEST:
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
-2-
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA TEL No.612-474-4477
.
.
Apr 29,94 11:17 NO.001 P.02
SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBUC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
810 Excelsior Boulevard
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
RICHARD A. YOUNG
Chief of Police
(612) 474-3261
B~BQB~NJ2UH
To:
James
C. Hurm, City Administrator
Richard A. YOu~~
29, 1994 (j
Prom:
Chief
Date:
April
Subject: Chaska Road Speed Study
Attached is the SMART trailer printout which covers three workday
travel periods. The speeds average lower than the weekend and are
more grouped around the work rush hours. Interestingly, there are
a lot more vehicles using Chaska Road during the evening rush hours
than the morning rush hours. One could assume that in the morning
hours Highway 41 traffic does not really gain anything by cutting
through on Chaska Road to Highway 7. They have a free right turn
onto Highway 7 from Highway 41. However, in the evening, the same
traffic going home has to stop for the stop light before turning
left onto Highway 41. They can avoid the stop light by cutting
through on Chaska Road and take their chances at the stop sign on
Highway 41. As I mentioned in my previous memorandum about this
road, the only way to avoid this would be to make a change at
Highway 7, such as eliminating the crossover.
Due to the many cloudy days not allowing the solar unit to charge
the battery system and the forecast for snow (which did come), I
removed the unit from Chaska Road on ThurSday, April 28th. Once
the unit is recharged I can place it back there if you think we
need more data. Please let me know.
The speeds recorded do show th:~re is somewhat of a problem on this
street. All I can do is what has already been done and that is to
ask the officers to patrol the area as their time allows. It is
certainly one of the areas the part time traffic enforcement
specialist will work once that position is filled.
Only 4% of the weekend studied vehicles and 3% of the weekday
studied vehicles were exceeding the speed limit sufficiently to be
issued citations. That is correct only when the speed limit is
enforced at the posted 30 MFH. Unfortunately, the legal speed
limit is 35 MPH and has never been reduced to the posted limit by
official action. After our staff meeting where it was determined
that a city council can, by resolution, reduce speed limits to
statutory limits, I looked further at that provision and at the
actual location. In order to reduce the limit without a state
study and authorization, the area must meet the definition of urban
district. This requires "business, industry, or dwelling houses
situated at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of a \I
quarter mile or more". In viewing the area, I do not know if it ~.~
Serving SoUlh Lake Minnewnkll Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonkll Bay
SOUTH LRKE ~1I NNETONKR TEL No. 612-474-4477
Rpr 29,94 11:17 No.001 P.03
meets this definition. 100 feet is a very small distance between
homes, particularly in a suburb. This area also has a lot of
unbuildable land which increases distances between homes. Before
the council passes a resolution, someone should verify that the
area can legally meet the definition or the resolution is really
null and void. If that is the case, I would recommend a request
for a speed study. Factors in favor of a speed study confir.minq
the need to reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH include the curves in
the road, narrowness of the road, streets intersecting at other
than right angles, reduced visibility, and the fact that
Chanhassens portion of the road is 30 MPH. This assumes their road
is legally posted. However, they do have higher land with houses
much closer together and would probably meet the definition of
urban district.
If the council is going to ask for that speed study, I would also
recommend they do the same thing with Smithtown Road. It is posted .
30 MPH for its entire length. However, it is actually 40 MPH from
Cathcart west to the city limits. The same provision of Minnesota
Statute 169.14 Subd. Sb., could be applied except for the same
reasons mentioned for Chaska Road. There is a lot of unbuildable
land and what houses are along the road are spaced quite a distance
apart due to large lot sizes. However, the portions east of
Cathcart and that in Chanhassen are 30 MPH. A strong argument not
to have varying speed limits along a short distance of the same
street should be enough to have them agree to legally reducing the
speed limit to 30 MPH.
.
....
-1
ill
..:.:
...,
-1
o
.4.J
"0'
ill
0'1
e:
IlJ
.:;:
~
-1
~
-1
.
ill <qo cJI <qo .: CJ
..:.: 01 01-1 ill
-101 s.,0I-1 .Q
-1-1 ill...,
"0' .4.J .4.J "0'
ill cJIe: tfle: 0 -1
.:;: e:.'" -1 -I e: <qo :::1
CJ
tfI :::1"0' e:"O' .01 0
ill OiCD -I ill -101 .:;:
s., CD.:;: Oi.:;: ..., at
Kev: ill .QCJ.go CDe: ill
. tfI tfI >-1 >
1 = 1st Review (done in July) > tfI CD 0 CD -I -I
-I
.4.J .:;: s., .4.J s., .4.J.4.J .4.J
2 = 2nd Review (done in October) CJ OCD 0
ill ..:.: CD ..:.: ill CD Ei ill
3 = Final Review (January of following year) .,.., s.,.Q s.,.Q .,.., .,..,
8 ~o ~o 8 ill 8
.4.J .4.J .Q
Cl:n OBJB~l:VBS POR THE YEAR
DATE: JULY 1994
1. Mayor << Council:
A Televise all City Council meetings 1
B Inform citizens through quarterly City 1
newsletters
C Identify and address zoning issues for 1
specific sites for senior housing
projects
0 Meet with Cooperative Services Study 1
Task Force semi-annually
E Undertake a meaningful goal setting 1
session during the first 60 days of
1994
2. Adminis1:rator:
A Complete annual citizens satisfaction 1
survey
B Update comparable worth pay plan 1
C Take a leadership role in 1
intergovernmental cooperative efforts
in the Lake Minnetonka area
0 Review City objectives in July, October 1
and at the end of the year
E Introduce a merit element to the City's 1
pay plan system
3. General Government:
A Index City records, including retention 1
schedule
B Microfilm City records from 1990 1
through 1993
C Update personnel records for all City 1
employees
,
,
t;
,
.
:l:i~A
w
..1<
-t
...,
Kev:
1 = 1st Review (done in July)
2 = 2nd Review (done in October)
3 = Final Review (January of following
year)
"
CIJ
.::
CI
1(/
CIJ
J.,
CIJ
:-
-t
~
(J
CIJ
.,..,
-8
General Government - Cant.
D Take over maintenance and updating of 1
City Code book in-house
Maintain or improve on high. survey 1
"helpfulness" rating of City office
staff (89% helpful to very helpful)
Maintain or improve on high citizen 1
"excellent/good" rating on "overall
service" (87%)
"courteousness/professionalism" of
staff (86%)
4. Finance:
A Prepare annual budget document and 1
submit to GFOA Distinguished Budget
Award Program year
B Prepare CAFR for submittal to GFOA 1
Certificate of Excellence Program
C Provide monthly reports to staff, 1
quarterly reports to Council
D Implement Capital Improvement Annual 1
Budget format
E Create computerized data base for 1
General Fixed Asset records
F Review debt issues and make 1
recommendations on debt structure
G Become active in one or more of Joint 1
cities Coordination Program committees
H Investigate alternative financing 1
sources to reduce property tax burden
5. Professional Services:
A Contain costs on contracted 1
professional services
B Attempt to utilize mediation services 1
to avoid litigation
.ij
..
01
t::
1(/
.r::
CI
CIJ
.Q
"
...,
:;
o
.::
III
.
.
.
6.
A
.
H
Kev:
1 - 1st Review (done in July)
2 = 2nd Review (done in October)
3 = Final Review (January of following year)
C
Professional Services - Cont.
Develop a statement on documents
committing applicants to submit to
mediation services
Increase helpfulness rating of City
Assessor (70% helpful to very helpful)
Increase citizen excellent/good rating
on overall service (74%) and
courteousness/professionalism of staff
(83%)
~ 0
.: .j.J
:., ~ :.,
~ ~
.:"" ca"",:
"'"/: 1.4:"'"/
'1:J ~P"'/ j..., ~
11/ ~r: "'r: tt
11 r:-I ~-I r:""
'" ::J'1:J r: '1:J 0\
GI OlGl"'"/ 0 ~O\
1.4 1.&: if.&: ...,
(J (J 0
: 1II",.Q",~r:
"'"/ ",G1oGl","/"'"/
4J .&:1.4.j.J1.4.j.J.j.J
(J.J<G1 GI 311I
~ 1.4.Q~.Q.,..,e
'8 ;io;io '81
.j.J _. 4J
"C'
III
01
r:
IIJ
.&:
D
E
B
Planning & Zoning:
Hold public meetings on draft
comprehensive Plan and adopt
Provide adequate staff support to
Senior Housing Task Force
Update City Subdivision Code
Establish an action plan to implement
Comprehensive Plan
Begin work on a short-term
implementation plan
Complete the automation of property
records
Complete implementation of Rental
Housing Code
Increase citizen excellent/good rating
on overall service (68%) and
courteousness/prof~ssionalism of staff
(73%)
(J
11/
.Q
'1:J
~
::J
o
.&:
III
GI
~
"'"/
4J
(J
GI
.,..,
'8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7. Municipal "Building - City Hall:
A Paint remaining City Hall offices 1
B Paint/stain deck 1
C Improve City Hall landscaping 1
0 Install smoke detectors in City Hall 1
C
D
E
F
G
.),
~
~
~
.),
~
41"" ~"" 41 CJ
oJ(Ol 01 oJ( ell
~Ol "'01 ~
~ '"1 J '"1 .Q
'tr
41 ~c: ttlc: tf 't7
.c c:~ ~~ c:"" ~
CJ ::1
ttI ::1 'tr c: 'tr . 01 0
e OlGl~G1~Ol .c
G1.c Ol.c ..., .
Kev: : .Q CJ 41 CJ 41 :
.ttI.QlIJ:a.C:
1 = 1st Review (done in July) ~ lIJClO.~~ ~
2 = 2nd Review (done in october) ~ .c If ~ If ~~ ~
CJ ~1~1!.8 CJ
3 = Final Review (January of following year) 41 41
T'\ T'\
8 jo jo 841 8
~ ~ ..Q
8. Police:
A Complete review of police funding 1
formula
B Maintain high helpfulness rating of 1
police personnel (90% helpful to very
helpful)
C Maintain or improve on high excellent 1
rating on overall service (88%) ,
response time (93%) ,
courteousness/professionalism (88%),
and crime prevention programs (90%) . . . . . .1
D Maintain or improve on "feeling of 1
safety on my neighborhood" (satisfied
to very satisfied - 88%)
9. Fire pro1:ection:
A Maintain helpfulness rating of fire 1
personnel (99% helpful to very helpful)
B Maintain or improve on high 1
excellent/good rating on overall
service (97%), response time (94%),
courteousness/professionalism (97%) and
inspection and fire prevention programs
(94%)
10. Pro1:ecti ve Inspection:
A Increase and enhance public information 1
through the development of at least two
additional handouts relative to
building codes (Total of 4)
B Draft an article for each City 1
newsletter
C Explore joint inspection possibilities 1
with adjoining communities
D Implement automated permit tracking 1
system
E Increase helpfulness ratings of 1
building inspector (68% helpful to very
helpful)
F Increase helpfulness ratings of animal 1
control personnel (49% helpful to very
helpful)
1:
III
.c
.
.
.
11.
A
.
~
Kev:
1 = 1st Review (done in July)
~ = 2nd Review (done in October)
3 = Final Review (January of following
>. ..., >. ~
-I
-I -I .c::
G1~"'~': ()
::; 01 l.j 01 ~ GI
-I 01 01 01 -I ..Q
'0 ..., ~...,
GI "'&: "'&: ~ '0
.c:: &:~ -I~ &:~ -I
() ::J
'" ::1'0 &:'0 11101 0
GI 0101 ~ 01 ~ 01 .c::
l.j GI.c:: Ol.c:: ""1 III
GI .00 .0 GI' .
",.Q"'::,,&: ::..
::.. III. . ~~
~ .21.4 1J1.4 ~~ ~
~ ~
0 o. ()
GI ..!tGl..!tGl Gle GI
year) ...... 1.4.0 l.j..Q ...... ......
8 ~o ~'o 8111 8
~ ~ ..Q
G
Protecti ve services - Cont..
Increase 9itizen excellent/good rating
on overall service (74%) and
courteousness/professionalism (73%) of
inspection staff
Increase City excellent/good rating on
overall service of animal control
personnel (41%)
1
1
H
B
City Engineer:
Produce a readable map of the city for
public distribution
Complete an inventory of right-of-way
needs on collector street system
Keep construction project files up-to-
date and accurate
Communicate in written form to affected
residents at least two (2) times during
a construction project
Keep change orders at less than 5% of
original contract amount
1
1
1
c
1
D
1
E
12.
A
Public Works Service:
Perform preventative maintenance on all
equipment within 100 miles or 10 hours
of scheduled service
Perform 90% of City building repairs
and preventative maintenance using city
personnel
Maintain or improve on helpfulness
rating of Public Works personnel (81%
helpful to very helpful)
1
1
B
1
C
13. streets<< RoadWays:
A
Develop a pavement management system to
aid in scheduling of street projects
Paint lane markings on all designated
streets
Sweep each City street at least once
annually
1
B
1
C
1
Kev:
1 = 1st Review (done in July)
2 = 2nd Review (done in October)
3 = Final Review (January of following year)
D
E
S1:reet:s << Roadways - Cont:.:
Mow roadsides at least twice annually
Mow boulevards at least 6 times
annually
Visually inspect storm drainage grates
annually and repair as needed
Increase satisfaction rating on
condition of streets (my street 55%;
streets in general 60%)
Maintain or improve satisfaction level
on cleanliness of streets (75%)
Increase citizen excellent/good service
rating on street maintenance (59%)
F
G
H
I
14 . SnoW'<< Ice Remova~:
Remove snow and ice and complete
salt/sand operations within 12 hours
after the end of a snow event
Complete widening and clean up
functions within 48 hours of a snow
event
Maintain or improve on high citizen
excellent/good service rating on snow
removal (88%)
15 . 'l'raf~ic Con1:ro~/S1:reet: Light:s:
16.
A
B
C
A
Perform a cost efficiency study of
street lighting system
Sanit:at:ionjWast:e RmvjWeeds:
A
B
Resolve all property cleanup complaints
Resolve 100% of weed complaints
17 . 'l'ree Maint:enance:
A
Remove 100% of diseased trees on public
property
Respond to all property owner requests
to identify diseased trees
Maintain and trim trees on City
property which present a hazard to
public
B
C
;>.,
~
.....
~
~
41"P~"P: 0
-II< 0\ L 0\ -4 41
-40\ "'0\ ~ ~
'0 ~ '"1 ~ '"1
III ~e: 1fIe:'8 '0
-g e:""~"" e:..,. ';1
IfI ::1'0 e:1;1.0\ 0
III OIQI""lII...,O\ J::
'" III J:: 01 J:: '"1 ·
~ 0 III CI
III IfI ~ 1fI': e: III
~ : 41 0 III ...,"" .~
-I.J J:: '" -I.J '" -I.J -I.J -I.J
CI Olll CI
-ll<Q1-11<lIIlIIe III
~ "'~ J.,.Q "'" "'"
O~ 00 ~o 841 .Qo
~-I.J."'-I.J _~
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
...
J::
.
.
//..........
.
.
~
'-I
'-I
.:::
QI~ <./I..,..: 0
..liIOI 01 QI
..., 01 1.4 01 ...,
'-I ""f 11 ""f '-I ..Q
't1
QI <./I C '" C ~ 't1
.c:: c..., '-I..., C..,. '-I
0 ::1
'" ::1 't1 c 't1 lD 01 0
aI Ol cD ..., cD ..., 01 .c::
1.4 aI.c:: Ol.c:: ""f lD
Kev: QI ..Qo.8o alc QI
> lD '" "':>..., >
1 = 1st Review (done in July) '" QI 0 cD ..., ...,
..., .c::1.4 -u1.4-u-u
-u -u
2 = 2nd Review (done in October) 0 o QI 0
QI ..liIaI..liIaI alEi cD
3 = Final Review (January of following year) ~ 1.4..Q 1.4..Q ~ ~
8 00008a1 8
:1: -u :1: -u ..Q
18. Parks & Recreat:ion:
A Install/replace playground equipment in 1
two (2) additional parks each year in
1994 and 1995
B Make new playground equipment handicap 1
accessible
C Implement mechanism to assist in 1
funding park maintenance and
improvements
0 Provide off-street parking for Cathcart 1
Park
E Coordinate scheduling of fields with 1
Minnetonka Community Services
F Add and/or replace 5 picnic tables per 1
year
G Plant at least 10 trees per year 1
18. Wat:er:
A Supply a safe, clean uninterrupted 1
source of water to all connections
B study the feasibility of 1
decommissioning Badger and Woodhaven
wells
C Explore possibility of interconnecting 1
with other communities
20. Sanit:ary Sewer:
A Work with MWCC to correct inflow and 1
infiltration into the sanitary sewer
system
B Work with MWCC to reduce sewage 1
treatment costs to the City
21. Recycling:
A Continue weekly pickup of recyclable 1
materials
B Increase program participation through 1
use of incentives
C Hold Curbside pickup of household and 1
yard wastes in the spring of the year
0 Provide a leaf and yard waste disposal 1
site in Fall of the year
... "'''3
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 6, 1994
14053
14054
14055
14056
14057
14058
14059
14060
14061.
14062
14063
14064
14065
.14066
4067
14068
14069
14070
14071
14072
14073
14074
14075
14076
14077
14078
14079
14080
14081
14082
.4083
4084
14085
14086
14087
14088
14089
14090
14091
14092
14093
14094
14095
14096
14097
14098
14099
14100
14101
Pera
AFSCME Local #224
Pera
Pera
Medcenters Health Plan
Medica Choice
Group Health Inc
League of Mn cities
Mn Mutual Life
Commercial Life Ins Co
AFSCME Council 14
Airsignal, Inc.
James Hurm
Knox Lumber Co.
Metro Waste Control
City of Minneapolis
Northern States Power
Kenneth Potts
Shorewood Parks Fndtn
US West
WMI Services of Mn
Arden V. Krueger
Bellboy Corp
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mn Bar Supply
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Ryan Properties
The Victoria Gazette
Donald Zdrazil
Bradley Nielsen
Wendy Davis
Joseph Pazandak
City cty Credit Union
Anderson Master Builders
Daniel Randall
First State Bank
Commiss of Revenue
Per a
ICMA Retirement Trust
AFSCME Local #224
Child Support Enforcmt
Anoka cty Spt/Collectn
Pera
Commiss of Revenue
Fina Fleet Fueling
Hamline University
Hokanson Plumbing
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
Payroll deductions
To replace check 12258
Payroll deductions
July employeeaddtl life ins
July health ins
July health ins
July health ins
July dental ins
July disability ins
July life ins
July delta dental ins
Beeper service
Mileage reimb
D Johnson gift cart
June sac charges
Election training material
Utilities
June prosecutions
Playground equip donation
Telephone service
Waste removal
Parks project materials
Liquor purch
Liquor/wine/mise purch
Wine purch
Mise/supplies purch
Liquor/wine purch
Liquor/wine purch
July rent-store II
Advertising
See 125 reimb
See 125 reimb
See 125 reimb
Mileage
Payroll deductions
Release of escrow
See 125 reimb
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
June sales tax
Gasoline purch
Course reg-J Hurm
Bldg permit refund
-1-
1954.81
134.40
25.00
54.00
1117.41
3779.56
1452.45
472.77
67.50
45.05
128.00
9.58
66.99
200.00
6336.00
39.95
3069.84
1458.33-
4104.38
236.33
321.00
277.77
2942.94
1688.15
204.05
119.57
1361. 82
1290.26
2410.63
75.00
898.24
100 :00
140.00
100.60
468.00
600.00
300.04
6028.99
987.79
25.00
621.57
119.10
92.50
139.44
1953.51
6201. 00
367.01
840.00
140.50
CK NO
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE JULY 6. 1994 (CONTINUED)
14102
14103
14104
14105
14106
14107
14108
14109
14110
14111
14112
14113
14114
.4115
4116
14117
14118
14119
14120
14121
14122
14123
.
Mn city/cty Mgmt Assn
Cellular Telephone Co
Minneonun Paging
Mn GFOA
Mn State Treasurer
Northern States Power
Pepsi Cola Co
Superameriea
US West
Total Register Systems
Bellboy Corp
Midwest Coca Cola
Day Distributing
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Hoops Trucking
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mark VII
North Star Ice
Ed Phillips and Sons
Quality Wine/Spirits
Thorpe Distributing
Weekly News Inc.
1994 dues
Cellular phone air time
Beeper sves
Conf regist-A Rolek
Bldg permit surcharge
utilities
Pop machine rent
Gasoline pureh
Telephone sves
Computer supplies
~iquor pureh
Mise pureh
Beer/mise pureh
Liquor/wine/mise pureh
Liquor/wine pureh
Wine/mise pureh
Beer/mise pureh
Mise pureh
Liquor/wine/mise pureh
Liquor/wine pureh
Beer/mise pureh
Advertising
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
-2-
60.00
11. 06
14.38
150.00
3808.21
234.84
11.53
467.82
48.93
63.89
1932.45
372.65
2282.50
1203.66
218.40
431. 85
6595.65
314.04
1136.90
1420.29
9864.55
314.16
86.524.59
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
CK APPROVAL LISTING FOR
JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT.
AMOUNT
-------- ------------------------- ------------------------ --------
14124 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BONO PAYMENT
BONO PAYMENT
BONO PAYMENT
*** TOTAL FOR AMERICAN NATIONAL BA
14125 AMERIDATA COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
14126 JEFF REINHART DBA CITY HALL JANITORIAL
14127 B & J AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR/MOUNT TIRES
14128 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. 1" ROCK-FREEMAN PK
14129 CHAMPION AUTO STORE ~344 TRANSMISSION FLUID
4It4130 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT CREDIT
HOUSING/RECOIL SPOOL
*** TOTAL FOR CHANHASSEN LAWN AND
14131 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYST COPIER SUPPLIES
14132 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC. COFFEE SUPPLIES
,
14133 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. ASSESSING FEE
ASSESSING SUPPLIES
*** TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A.
14134 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF FIRE CONTRACT PAYMENT
14135 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC.
4It4136 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES
DEMURRAGE CHARGE
-------- 8,746.57
-------- 22~390"OO
-------- 20~940"OO
52,076.57
MUN BLDG 13,486.10
MUN BLDG 236.00
PUB WKS 63.00
PARKS & 1,506.76
CITY GAR 16.49
PUB WKS 14.51-
PUB WKS 55.17
40.66
GEN GOVT
112.35
MUN BLDG
53.00
PROF SER 3,230.00
PROF SER 24.78
3.254.78
FIRE PRO 26.156.25
WATER DE 15.00
14137 FRONTIER ELECTRIC
TENNIS CT SURFACE REPAIR PARKS &
540.00
BALLPARK LIGHT INSTALL
14138 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, IN ONE-CALL SVCS
ONE-CALL SVCS
*** TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL
1.600.00
WATER DE 43.12
SEWER DE 43.13
86.25
14139 GOVERNING SUBSCRIPTION ADMIN 9.00
14140 HANCE HARDWARE, INC. TAPE MEASURE PARKS & .13.83
14141 ICMA DISTRIBUTION CENTER OFFICIALS HANDBOOKS COUNCIL 116.60
1.4142 J-CRAFT, INC. HITCH/WIRE ASSY INSTALL PROJECTS 433.34
14143 KNOX COMMERCIAL CREDIT SINK/FAUCET-PW BLDG CITY GAR 41.40
14144 KNUTSON SERVICES, INC. JUNE RECYCLING RECYCLIN 4,109.70
14145 LANO EQUIPMENT. INC. AUGER-BOBCAT RENTAL ----..----- 79.88
14146 LA"'JSON PRODUCTS, INC. DRILL INDEX CITY GAR 77.56
_':t_
-~
CITY OF SHORE WOOD
CK APPROVAL LISTING FOR
JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
14147 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS LD PHONE SVC r1UN BLDG 12.51
14148 MAC WAREHOUSE OVER PAYMENT CREDIT MUN BLDG 55.60-
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT MUN BLDG 499.00
*** TOTAL FOR MAC WAREHOUSE 443.40
14149 METRO IHASTE CONTROL COMM. AUGUST PAYMENT SEWER DE 34,570.91
14150 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. STREET SUPPlES STREETS 3,994.08
14151 MID"'JEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES GEN GOVT 104.48
.14152 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING FINANCE 329.35
PUBLISHING -------- 45.03
*** TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS 374.38
14153 MTKA COMUNITY SERVICES CHALK FOR BALLFIELDS
14154 MTKA TRANSMISSION CENTER REPLACE KICKDOWN CABLE
14155 MUNITECH, INC. AUGUST PAYMENT
AUGUST PAYMENT
*** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC.
14156 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
MAINT SUPPLIES
FOR NAVARRE TRUE
VALUE
.
*** TOTf~L
14157 POMMER COMPANY, INC.
14158 RUPPELIUS, JERRY
o JOHNSON PLAQUE
PARKS &
PUB WKS
70.80
95.76
WATER DE 4,030.00
SEWER DE 2,170.00
6,200.00
MUN BLDG
CITY GAR
PUB WKS
CITY GAR
PARKS &
PARKS &
161.41
COUNCIL
S/W PK-STAKE/AUGER HOLES PROJECTS
14159 RESEARCH QUIK
SATISFACTION SURVEY
14160 SHORE WOOD TREE SERVICE
TREE REMOVAL
14161 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP AUG CONTRACT PAYMENT
COURT OT
TRAFFICE ENFORMT SPECLST
*** TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA PUB SAFET
14162 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMM.
PUBLISHING
14163 TIME SAVER OFF.SITE SEC MINUTES
MINUTES
*** TOTAL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE
14164 TONKA AUTO AND BODY SUPP VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
-4-
COUNCIL
TREE MAl
28.51
8.67
9.57
22.08
12.81
21.56
58.21
55.09
400.00
528.86
902.63
POLICE P 34,040.88
POLICE P 420.17
POLICE P 884.48
35,345.53
165.50
GEN GOVT 226.38
PLANNING 281.25
507.63
CITY GAR
27.02
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CK APPROVAL LISTING FOR
JULY 25, 1994 COUNCIL MTG
CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES
*** TOTAL FOR TaNKA AUTO AND BODY
14165 TaNKA BAY-CITY OF 2ND QTR WATER/SEWER
2ND QTR WATER/SEWER
*** TOTAL FOR TONKA BAY-CITY OF
~4~66 TaNKA PRINTING co.
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
14167 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC
WATER TESTING
14168 ZIEGLER, INC.
CUTTING EDGES
.
***
TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
***
TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
.
-5-
PUB WKS 7~.46
CITY GAR 31.42
129.90
WATER DE 244.10
SEWER DE 165.00
409.10
PROT INS
366.36
WATER DE
20.00
CITY GAR
~97.91
189,~80.76
275,705.35
C H E C K R E G I S T E R
CHECK CHECK El1PLOYEE l',!Ai1E CHECK CHECK
) TYPE DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT
COM 7 12 94 230 CHRISTOPHER M. CAREY 208497 348.50
COM 7 12 94 500 CHARLES s. DAVIS 208498 591.68
COM 7 12 94 600 IHENDY L. DAVIS 208499 885.91
COM 7 12 94 1001 JOHN M. FRUTH 208500 84.63
COM 7 12 94 1050 PRESCOTT M. GERLING 208501 334.58
COM 7 12 94 1400 PATRIC.IA R. HELGESEN 208502 633.39
COM 7 12 94 1415 SHAWN D. HE11PEL 208503 59.l5
COM 7 l2 94 1550 JAMES C. HURM 208504 15l2.66
COM 7 12 94 1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 208505 722.08
COM 7 12 94 l800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 208506 747.19
COM 7 12 94 \ 1940 LOREN A. . JONES 208507 35.22
COM 7 l2 94 1950 MART I i'~ L. JONES 208508 37.63
COM 7 12 94 2100 WILLIA11 F. JOSEPHSON 208509 505.99
COM 7 12 94 2210 SANDRA L. KLOMPS 208510 85.70
COM 7 12 94 2500 SUSP1N M. LATTERNER 20851l 28.21
. COM 7 12 94 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOIHSK I 208512 768.80
COM 7 1'"' 94 2900 RUSSELL R. MARRON 208513 95.05
....
COM 7 12 94 2910 HEIDI M. MAY 208514 391.94
COM 7 12 94 2980 JILL M. MOORE 208515 21.42
COM 7 12 94 3000 THERESA L. Nr:-)AB 208516 594.l3
COM 7 12 94 3100 LAv.}I~ENCE Pl. NICCUM 208517 848.33
COM 7 l2 94 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSEN 208518 l030.31
COM 7 l2 94 '3500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 208519 l065.72
) COM 7 12 94 3573 JEFFr-<EY IlL PIKE 208520 35l.89
COM 7 12 94 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 20852l 809.79
COM 7 12 94 3701 BRIAN M. ROERICK 208522 47.29
COM 7 l2 94 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 208523 1261.55
COM 7 12 94 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 208524 428.39
COM 7 l2 94 4600 BEVERLY J. VON FELDT 208525 625.93
COM 7 1"-' 94 4750 RALPH A. WEHLE 208526 604.09
....
COM 7 12 94 4900 DEAN H. YOUNG 208527 640.97
COM 7 12 94 5000 DONALD E. ZDRPIZIL 2()8528 1l87.92
.
****TOTALS**** 17386.04
J
-6-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES
DRAFT
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m~
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Malam, Pisula and Turgeon; Council
Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon and Foust.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's June 7, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
Comprehensive Plan Update
1. Land Use Chapter - Senior Housing - None. (Discussed with Council at Joint Session on
June 27, 1994.)
2. Community Facilities - City Water
Nielsen explained it is imperative to identify issues related to the provision of water for
. developments progressing in Shorewood. He pointed out that without a plan for a City-wide
water system, a significant number of new individual wells will be drilled. Nielsen distributed
and reviewed a document outlining the components of Shorewood's current water system
including: supply, storage, distribution, and treatment. While the City's 7 wells currently
provide an adequate supply of water, critical issues surround the storage, distribution, and
treatment aspects of the system. Nielsen reviewed alternative courses of action and related costs
developed by City Engineer Dresel (detailed in Dresel's letter dated March 31, 1994) to provide
expansion of the water system.
The Commissioners recognized the urgency of the situation and reiterated their commitment to
the goal to provide City-wide water within the next 10 years. During discussion, related issues
PLANNING COlVlMISSION MINUTES
June 28, 1994 - PAGE 2
were identified: the need for timely public awareness of the City's plans, fmancing of an
expanded water system; the need for review and revision of relevant City policies; and the need
for a united position by City officials on the issue.
The Commissioners developed a course of action: 1) Request the staff to provide additional
information as to alternative financing options; 2) Request the staff to provide a cost analysis for
installation of city water by the affected developers and the cost to residents; 3) Meet with the
affected developers; 4) Consider recommending that a moratorium be placed on development in
the City until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed.
It was agreed to further consider and discuss this topic and the additional information requested
at the July 19 study session and meet with the affected developers at the August 2 meeting.
3. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its June 27 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rosenberger adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
G{/~~/l~~q ll:~(
...
7:351167
rH/1E'3A'v'ER
PAGE 01
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 5, 1994
COUNCIL CIIAI\fBERS
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, Malam, and Turgeon;
Council Liaison Lewis; and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Pisula.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None.
1. 7:00 P~LIC ~G . FORJvlAL APPLICATION FOR COMPRElIENSIVE
PlAN AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta
School '
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the background to the formal application to amend the Comprehensive
Plan. He noted that Lundgren Bros. representatives appeared before the Commission and
the Council in April for a pre-application review of the amendment to accommodate a
proposed development located to the north of Smith town Road and west of the
Minnewashta Elementary School. The application requests the City to change the land use
designation in the current Comprehensive Plan from Semi-rural Residential (0-1 units per
40,000 square feet) to Low Density Residential (1-2 units per 40,000 square feet). The
formal application submitted has been revised slightly to include additional parcels of land
along Smithtown Road and now totals 76.5 acres, of which 42.7 acres is City-designated
wetland. The lot count has increased from 36 (plus or minus) to 40 (plus or minus).
Lundgren's development plan shows 41 lots, three of which have existing homes on them.
The resulting proposed density is 1.3 units per 40,000 square feet.
Nielsen reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. It includes the pre-
application review conducted in April, the public hearing conducted on this date,
consideration and action by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and if approved
I .1.1:...'-'.....V~r:.
r-~\.:4t;. ~.;;;.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES
July!, 1994 . PAGE 2
by the Council, review and comment prior to formal adoption by the Metropolitan Council.
An informal neighborhood meeting to review the proposal was conducted by the developer
on June 29.
Nielsen reviewed the merits of the Pt2P2~,al~d the advantages of development. by P.U.D.
(detailed on pages 2-3 of Nielsen's mfI1~dum dp.ted June 30, 1994.) These mclude: A
beneficial assemblage of parcels forlde.lopmel1r,ro avoid construction disruption and
maximization of continuity of lots within the development; B. looped street pattern for
circulation consistent with Comp Plan Update concept; C. unification of neighborhood; and
D. protection of City and WCA91 wetlands. Nielsen reviewed density considerations under
the current Comp Plan and zoning regulations and required zoning necessary to implement
the proposed land use change (detailed on pages 3-4 in Nielsen's memorandum). Current
regulations would allow as many as 34 lots on the subject property; the applicant's
development plan shows 41 lots (7 more than allowed under current rules).
Nielsen reviewed development issues to be addressed regardless of whether density is
allowed to be increased or not (detailed on pages 4~5 in Nielsen's memorandum). These
include: A limiting private access on the peninsula to a common driveway serving no more
than 2 lots; B. platting for an access drive for the proposed water tower site on the school
property; C. aligning Cathcart Drive when improved with the westerly street entrance to
create a 90 degree intersection; D. requiring public dedication of the strip between the
wetland and Smithtown Road; and E. increasing the Boulder Bridge water system
capacity/City water service to the development.
Mr. Mark Anderson, Lundgren's director of planned development, introduced the other
members of the development team present. Mr. Anderson stated that favorable action by
the Commission on the application for the proposed land use guide plan amendment from
semi-rural to low density residential will allow development of a high quality neighborhood
that will fit harmoniously into the community and respond positively. to the significant
opportunities and strengths proposed by the site. Using visuals, he descnbed the parcels
assembled to create the 76.S acre development in a coordinated fashion, noting that the
Camp Plan amendment would increasc the allowable lots from 31 to 38 lots. Anderson
outlined the preliminary work performed on various components of the proposal. He
indicated that concerns raised at the June 29 neighborhood meeting will be addressed during
the presentation. Anderson acknowledged that density may be the key issue before the
Commission, hut stated that an increase to low density residential density, which will be
imperceptible. is justified by the unique conditions of the propcrty and need for flcXIbility
to successfully develop the property in a manner consistent with the high quality of
surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. John Shardlow, planning consultant, Dahlgren. Shardlow and Uban. Inc., using visuals,
descnbed the existing land use designations of surrounding properties and presented the site
development concept including the characteristics and features of the subject properties.
I .J,. I .1'-.-'..... \i '-J ....
rf-t\.;J~ ~:"I~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July!. 1994 . PAGE 3
Noting that detailed plans are not yet firm, he explained the preservation of existing
vegetation, buffer yards adjacent to the wetland, and looped road system. He no.ted the
proposed water tower area is considered a marketing constraint. Shardlow proVIded an
illustrative lotting plan which shows the largest lot with 37,000 sq.ft. of area and the smallest
with 22,000 sq.ft. of area for an average lot size of 31,000 sq.ft In addition to future
realignment of Cathcart Road, traffic control will be enhanced with acceleration and
deceleration lanes at the Smithtown intersection. Lundgren Bros. is willing to consider a
park dedication for a traIl connection in the private open space along Smithtown Road.
Shardlow stated prospects are good for saving the valuable trees on the properties and a
great number of trees will be added through the developer's reforestationJ1andscape plan.
Mr. Ken Adolf, civil engineer and surveyor, Schoell and Madson, stated the development
of the site wm result in 5-1/2 acres of impervious surface on the property consisting of the
streets, driveways and residences. It will increase the run-off from the site; however the rate
of run-off will be directed from the streets and gutters and controlled by storm water ponds
for temporary storage prior to discharge into the wetlands. The long-term impact based on
a 100 year storm would raise the water level in the wetlands by 1/2".
Mr. Frank Svoboda, wetland biologist, Franklin J. Svoboda & Associates, using the aerial
photo, pinpointed the location of the proposed driveway to serve the lots in the peninsula
and indicated no impact to the flood plain is expected. With respect to the impact of 31 lots
vs. 38 lots, Svoboda stated no impact on the wetlands is expected from sediments generated
or fertilizer because the road network and lawn surfaces will not be measurably.. different
between 31 or 38 lots.
Mr. Anderson stated that .in his view no problems exist that cannot be resolved with respect
to the site and development plans. He explained it is the developer's desire to build a
development to meet the market's needs as indicated by research for a specific product. He
explained that to build homes under the existing density would substantially increase the
starting price for a lot and home to $300,000 plus whereas a starting cost in the mid.
$200,000'8 is in the overall best interests of the community and, the existing home purchasing
segment of the population. Increased density would provide for overall success of the
development and market success for a larger segment of the population. Anderson
acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood and indicated the developer respects and
understands the residents' stake in the future of Shorewood. Nonethelesst the developer
believes development of the property under the proposed land use amendment will be a fine
and harmonious addition to the City. According to Anderson, the small increase in density
requested wiU not set a precedent and is required to achieve a successful project for a
quality neighborhood resulting in significant benefits including a loop road, a master plan
for six parcels, extensive wetland protection, and housing diversity. (Refer to "Proposed Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment for Ledin/Wartman/Minniwasta (sic) School Property" of
Shorewood, Minnesota" Prepared for, the Planning Commission of Shorewood, Minnesota,
.:'. .if
PLANNING COMMISSION MINtrrES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 4
Submitted by: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391, dated June 7, 1994.)
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m., reviewed the Commission's
procedures for the hearing and thanked the audience for its tolerance.
Bob Whelan, 5910 Cathcart Drive, outlined three major concerns: 1) opposed to higher
density, prefer one acre lots, presentation and infonnation indicates developer's desire for
increased profit; 2) zoning change gives developer opportunity to reduce lot sizes to 20,000;
3) Cathcart and Smith town intersection is currently difficult and traffic speed problem on
Cathcart will get worse, suggest moving proposed new street more to the west. He stated an
adjacent neighbor will have the street in their living room and indicated traffic and street
maintenance require further study.
Dean (and Kay) Johnson, 5875 Cathcart Drive, supported the concerns expressed by
Whelan, and expressed concern regarding the precedent set for other future subdivision;
other re-zoning in the area has been denied; increased density is not in the best interest of
the surrounding residents; and requested denial of reduced lot size.
Pete Holmberg, 5955 Cajed Lane, expressed concern regarding home sites on the small strip
along Smithtown, requested more information on possible 30,000 sq.ft.lots, inquired whether
private wells would be approved for the development since the Boulder Bridge water system
is at capacity, supported retaining 40,000 sq.ft. zoning, and indicated that the Brentridge
development with 20,000 sq.ft. lots has already set a precedent and further development in
that size range should not be allowed.
Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road, supported the concerns expressed by previous
. speakers with respect to retaining the current zoning to preserve the natural character of
Shorewood. She expressed particular concern regarding the wetlands buffer zone and stated
that Shorewood needs to develop a wetland ordinance to protect the wetlands. She
distnbuted copies of Chanhassen and Minnetonka ordinances.
Bev Decker, 5815 .Brentridge Drive, supported the concerns expressed by previous speakers
and indicated that it appears many residents were not aware of the proposal and would like
to consider and comment on the issues. Environmental agencies contacted intend to view
the marshland. Further study on the proposal is necessary because of concerns and
questions.
Nancy Taylor, 5915 Smithtown Road, commented on the small-sized lots in Shorewood
Oaks, stated more people in the affected area should have been informed of the proposal,
and supported the one acre per home density level. She inquired what the advantage of
changing the density would be to Shorewood, expressed concern regarding the effect on
school capacity and on required services, and increased traffic.
f '_'..J~ ..1.'_"
l ,;"J'"fc:.-='f-'t.....t:.r::.
1l-t...;;iI;~, ~-...;
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July S, 1994 . PAGE S
Richard Gay, 5695 Howards Point Road, supported maintaining 40,000 sq.ft. lots and stated
lots in both the Brynmawer and Abingdon developments in the vicinity contain lots of that
size. He expressed concern regarding development of the peninsula; it is a wet soggy area
requiring fill for a roadway which is not proper, emergency vehicles would have difficulty
accessing the area.
Becky Hendricks (and Bill Nichols), 5735 Brentridge Drive, presented a document
containing 100 signatures supporting the 1/40,000 density. She stated that 3/4 of people
contacted were not aware of the proposal and suggested that additional time be provided
for additional comment and study. (Nielsen accepted the signature document.)
Oay Atkinson, 5735 Brentridge Drive, stated it is not appropriate for the developer to
benchmark against Brentridge Drive. He pointed out that the most important long-term
environmental issue is land development. He stated this is the last large parcel in
Shorewood and 7 extra homes on the property is significant and supported the 1/40,000 sq.ft.
density.
Jim Lindsay, 5745 Brentridge Drive, stated that even though he is a Lundgren Bros. bond
holder and higher density would be more profitable for the developer, he supports
maintaining the 1/40,000 density.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, inquired whether a fC3S1bility study has been
conducted relative to the effect on the school system and expressed concern regarding the
quality of schools and increased taxes for expansion of those facilities to accommodate the
development.
Martin Schuster, 26450 Noble Road, stated that good cause must be shown for increasing
density and it is important to preserve the nature of the City residents have chosen to live
in. He expressed concern regarding setbacks for the wetlands which could create narrow lots
with "row" type homes, uncharacteristic of Shorewood.
Philip BortschelJer, 27410 Pine Bend, expressed concern regarding the run-off that may
affect his property and suggested the issue be studied carefully. He supported the existing
density for the property.
Fremont Gruss, 27280 Smithtown Road, inquired about the width of the pathway going to
the point. He stated the vast majority of residents support the existing density which reflects
the lot sizes in the surrounding area. He expressed concern regarding the wetlands.
Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, commented on the cost of the proposed homes and
stated the primary issue should be proper use of tbe land and economic factors should not
enter into the decision.
07/13/1994 11:27
7851167
rH'lESA\lER
PAGE 06
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUl'ES
July!, 1994 . PAGE 6
Bill Burnsby 1, 5920 Aiton Road, inquired whether the developer's purchase of the parcels
is contingeI:it upon approval of reclassification to a higher density.
Bill Keeler, 2742SPine Bend, stated that development of marginal land should not be tied
to reducing the lot sizes and the property should remain as is if it is not feasible to develop
as zoned.
Rosenberger acknowledged, for the record, letters from Albert E. and Elvera A. Hoops,
Fremont and Karen Gruss, and James K. Lindsay, opposing the application. Chair
Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the issues raised during the public hearing. Staff and
members of the development team provided answers to questions and concerns. The layout
of the street on the properties was designed to maximize the lot depth to provide an
adequate buffer zone for the wetlands. With respect to traffic in the Cathcart/Smithtown
area, additional analysis including a traffic study will be conducted. Zoning in the area is
primarily R-IA and the subject property could be either re-zoned or developed as a P.U.D.
wherein zoning becomes a part of the development agreement with specified lot sizes and
setbacks. Shorewood's single family zoning districts are: RIA allows single family homes on
lots 40,000 sq.ft. of land (an acre is 43,000 sq.ft.); R-IB allows 30,000 sq.ft.lots; R-IC allows
20,000 sq.ft.; R-ID allows 10,000 sq.ft. The advantage of a P.U.D. is that the density is for
a specific project so if it is not approved, the existing zoning remains, whereas re-zoning
changes the density for any future development.
The developer does not propose to build homes on the strip along Smithtown Road.
Shorewood's Wetland Ordinance is significantly restrictive as compared to other
communities' ordinances; it removes the wetlands from a development area and does not
allow its area to be used in calculating density. With respect to setbacks from the wetlands,
the ordinance allows 35' - 50;' however in recent developments, easements for outlots have
been recommended to establi~h a buffer. In addition, water quality as well as quantity wm
be addressed in the Comp Plan update and has been considered as part of recent P.U.D.
analyses. Statutes require that residents within 350' be notified and that a public hearing
legal notice be published in the City's official newspaper. Since 1985, Shorewood has
required notification to residents within 500' of the property be notified and signs are posted
regarding proposed subdivision of property. The developer is also required to notify the
surrounding residents and it appears that notification bas been extended to a larger area.
The developer pointed out primary advantages to the City: assemblage of the properties to
be developed in coordinated fashion and additional wetlands beyond the Cit1s ordinance
are preserved. According to the developer, re-zoning does not legally bind tbe aty or set
a ~ precedent. With respect to the addition of fill to the peninsula, the details of street
construction have not yet been addressed by the developer. It was pointed out that
regulations of the Unifonn Fire Code must be followed for emergency access and
,
07/13/1994 11:27
7851167
TlfvlESA\lER
PAGE 137
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 7
turnaround. The City's regulations allow a 16' minimum street serving two properties with
a maximum width of 24'.
During the pre-application stage, the school district indicated the project would not adversely
affect the district. The City reviews with the school district, at least annually, the effects of
various developments on school operations. The Commissioners agreed additional
information should be obtained regarding the demographics of the area including Shorewood
Oaks and Near Mountain with respect to the impact on schools.
The developer reiterated that the water tower proposed for construction by the City will
have a detrimental effect on marketing of the homesl1ots in its vicinity. The City's plan for
construction of a water tower to serve the western section of the City continues under
discussion.
The developer stated agreements with the property owners for purchase of the parcels are
contingent upon appropriate governmental approvals.
The Commissioners considered aspects of the proposed development including: length and
construction of the cuI-de-sac to the peninsula; environmental issues; benefits to the City
through assemblage of the parcels; P.U.D. designation of the project vs. re-zoning; additional
resident input; financial information regarding the viability of the project from the
dev~loper's standpoint; specific infonnation from the school district regarding the impact of
the project if developed to it's maximum combined with other developments in the area; run-
off analysis of overall impact of all developments; comparative analysis of the market impact
of the Waterford water tower; reforestation plan; and affordability issues. In addition~ the
Commissioners acknowledged the absence of two Commissioners and their views. Following
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that significant issues have been identified that require
further infonnation and agreed to table discussion of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to table tor two weeks to July 1', 1994, consideration of
the application from Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. to amend the Comprehensive Plan, .
to study the Issues in order to make InConned decisions. Motion passed $/0.
Rosenberger stated the public hearing is closed and further oral testimony will not be taken,
however, additional written comments will be received and considered by the Commission.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened and 9:35 p.m.
2. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT - SMITIITOWN MEADOWS
Applicant: Abindgon. Development Corp.
Location: 25655 Smithtown Roadt25725 Eureka Way
{I-J..J.J. .J.'~l {
I .l.r"It:.~i-'oVt:.i"':
r;.;,"=lt:. 1::10
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 8
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a Public Hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a preliminary plat for subdivision of
approximately 4.7 acres located south of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
property and east of Eureka Way. The developer proposes to subdivide two parcels of land
(zoned R-1C) into seven lots. Dwellings currently exist on proposed Lots 6 and 7. The
access for lot 6 will change from Eureka Road to the new road. The home on lot 7 will be
replaced with a new home. The development plan is based upon a resubdivision prepared
when the property to the north was subdivided from the subject site several years ago.
Nielsen reviewed how the plat complies with Shorewood's zoning and subdivision
requirements (detailed on pages 2-3 in his June 30, 1994 memorandum). In general the plan
is consistent with the previous subdivision sketch and meets or exceeds zoning requirements
of the R-1C district. With respect to the subdivision ordinances,. Nielsen pointed out a
significant issue associated with this plat is the intersection of the new street with Smithtown
Road. Approval for grade crossing of the H.C.R.R.A. right-of-way by Hennepin County is
required and details for such approval have yet to be completed. The final plat should show
a different name for the street because Eureka Way already exists. Property owners to the
soutb inquired about extending the street to serve their property; however, it is
recommended that a street connecting to Eureka Road to the west should serve the those
properties. Nielsen descnbed a drainage problem reported by the north and south neighbors
of the plat which has been addressed by the City Engineer. The Engineer's
recommendations are detailed in Dresel's June 27) 1994 letter to Nielsen. The natural
drainage flow pattern must be maintained, a system to eliminate erosion in the Smithtown
Road/Eureka Way intersection is recommended, construction of two additional catch basins
and an outlet are recommended to control the amount of runoff in the street gutters, and
drainage calculations will be required for final plat approval. The telephone company must
vacate an existing telephone easement which cuts through Lots 2,3) and 4. Park dedication
fees for five lots must be paid by the developer. Nielsen recommended approval of the
preliminary plat subject to conditions a. through i. detailed in Nielsen's June 30
memorandum.
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud, director of land development, Tony Eiden Company/Abingdon
Development Corporation, stated the preliminary plat is a conventional plat that meets all
the requirements of the Citys zoning ordinances. He indicated the plat is part of a design
presented in the mid-80s and attached as a condition of that subdivision. Easement for the
roadway was previously acquired. It is intended to remove the home on Lot 7 and change
the street access. Trees on that lot will be preserved Dillemd interposed no objections to
the recommendations contained in Nielsen's staff report However, he indicated he has not
seen the City Engineer's report) but that objections to those recommendations are unlikely.
Dillerud committed to resolving the drainage problems in the northwest portion of the site.
Storm sewer drains as required will be instaJIed. Acquisition of the railroad right-of-way is
in negotiation with Hennepin County and will be dedicated to the City. The new street will
be re-named, utility easements wIll be provided, and negotiations with Northwestern Bell are
(IJ...J~J,.r~ I
1.1.1"'1r:.:::)~'.,',=-J"'(
I'"'Pt\:ll:. tJ'::t
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 9
in process for the necessary easements. A final plat wI1l be submitted within six months and
it is planned that construction wm begin Fall 1994. A new product/home will be built: 2
story, 2200~2600 square feet, and sen in the $200,000 range.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. .Rosenberger accepted for the
record a letter dated July 5, 1994 from Alan Krutsch and Susan Prince, 25725 Smithtown
Road, regarding the subdivision.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, expressed concern regarding the drainage problem
affecting her property. She expressed concern regarding tree removal and the wetlands and
inquired whether a reforestation plan is .included. She inquired about the design and type
of materials used in home construction, and the utility service. Schaff stated concern that
the existing landscape will be changed and inquired about general plans for restoring it
Pat Olson, 25775 Smithtown Road, inquired about the schedule for road construction,
expressed concern about the tree removal and drainage problems in the area, construction
noise, the bike trail which is heavily used and related safety issues. She inquired whether
City water will serve the project and strongly opposed requiring current residents to attach
to City water primarily because of the expense.
Mike Braun ?, 2580S Eureka Way, expressed concern regarding the water drainage. He
stated a drain tile running through his property also runs through the project site and
requested that it not be disrupted. He reported that tiles are already broken; the situation
has been reviewed by City engineers. The system works somewhat and he requested
aSsurance that it be maintained to avoid drainage to his property. He indicated that he and
others would be interested in gas hookups and they will work with the developer to make
those arrangements.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 10:06 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the questions raised during the public hearing and considered
the application. Dillerud stated that some or most of the trees will have to be removed, but
that several hundred evergreens could be relocated to the site from other project and other
reforestation will be considered. Nielsen indicated that a proposed fence located on a public
right-of-way suggested by the developer for trail protection and safety will need further
consideration. While construction materials have not yet been detennined, Dillerud
indicated the homes currently being bwlt by the builder are of brickstone and cedar.
According to Nielsen and Dillerud, no wetlands exist on the site. Nielsen reiterated the Ory
Engineer's recommendations with respect to drainage. He pointed out that drain tiles are
not relied upon for drainage and do not have easements, however development agreements
provide that if such systems are disrupted in the construction process, they must be restored.
Maintenance of a drain tile system is not assigned and originate from agricultural use. The
developer has agreed to locate the drain tile system and protect it.
U;i~~iL~~~ ~~.~i
,,- ij:Jl. 1. 0 ...
Ilf,'lE5A\/ER
PAGE 18
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5,1994. PAGE 10
The telephone company easement will be re-Iocated. All utilities will be placed
underground. Hennepin County is expected to grant an easement for the road crossing over
its property for dedication to the City and the issue will be resolved prior to the final plat.
Private wells will be drilled and gas hookups for interested surrounding residents can be
arranged. Construction of the new street in a base form will be completed prior to
development. Dillerud stated ordinances covering hours of construction will be followed.
Following discussion, the Commissioners generally concluded that the issues concerning
drainage and the railway crossing need further study and resolution and agreed to table
further consideration of the application.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to table tor two weeks to July 19, 1994 consJderatlon of
the preliminary plat tor Smtthtown Meadows submitted by Abingdon Development Corp.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. 7~45 PUBLIC HEARING. CQNDmONAL USE PERMIT ANI). V A1UANCE
Apulfcant Vine Hili Market (James Pyle)
Location: 1921! State Highway 7
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
I
Nielsen stated that considerable background documentation (attached to 'Nielsen's July 1,
1994 memorandum) exists on Mr. Pyle's request for a conditional use permit to install fuel
pumps at the Vine Hill Market since three previous applications have been denied. In Mr.
Pyle's current request, all variances except onc, have been eliminated by proposing to
remove 12 feet from the west side of the existing building. The remaining variance is for
the setback between the proposed northerly driveway and the intersection of the Highway
7 service road and Vine Hill Road. In addition to removing part of the building, the
applicant proposes to construct a 30'x 43' canopy over the proposed fuel pumping area.
Nielsen reviewed the issues raised in previous request reviews which are resolved by
reduction of the building size. He stated the setback variance for the proposed northerly
driveway is justified because of the configuration of the site and the considerable
improvements being made to reduce the nonconformity of the parking lot.
Nielsen recommended approval of the C. U.P. for fuel pumps and driveway setback variance
subject to: a. provision of a detailed signage plan; b) revision of the landscape plan to reflect
tbe new site plan; c) provision of cost estimates for all required improvements; d. letter of
credit 1..5 times the cost estimates to guar~tee their completion; e) elimination of the
phone from car facilities to avoid congestion; f. City Engineer approval of grading and
drainage; g. MNDOT approval of drainage; h. Fire Marshall approval of fuel pump and
tank installation; i. enclosure of the trash dumpster with a masonry wall. Nielsen reviewed
the applicant's plans for the removal of an entry to the property and lift the grade on the
, 07/ t3/ 19'34 11: 27
7851157
TlfvlESA\JER
PAGE 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUfES
July 5, 1994 .; PAGE 11
entire site. While the site lines for Vine Hill Road are not the best, the plans are better
than the existing 2 entries to the plat.
Mr. James Pyle stated he has worked with the City and the Planner and would like to
improve the safety of his property and enhance the lot. Additional landscaping and a benn,
although not required, are included in the plans.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. there. being no
comments from the public.
Turgeon inquired about the signage and lighting on the property. Nielsen indicated
ordinances provide restrictions for all signage and candlepower. Bean indicated that safety
issues and the installation of fuel pumps are separate issues and expressed concern regarding
the viability of the project and safe circulation of traffic. Mr. Pyle stated customers have
requested fuel service. Malam and Borkon interposed no objections to the provisions of the
conditional use permit for installation of the fuel pumps and granting of the driveway
setback variance. Rosenberger, while complimenting the applicant for his persistence and
work to improve the property, eXpressed some concern regarding the site lines, but
acknowledged the restrictions of the property. Bean stated the driveway setback variance
is not justified and the site has serious problems.
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to :recommend to the Council that it approve a (Ondltlonal
use permit for fuel pumps and a driveway setback variance tor James Pyle, Vine mil
Market, 19215 State Highway 7, subject to the staff recommendations. Motion passed 4/1.
Bean voted nay.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
4. 8:00 PUBLIC ~G - SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FENCE
AP$'licant:
Location:
Judy Christensen- Waldin
5755 Merry Lane
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for approval of a setback variance to erect a fence
closer to Christmas Lake than the City Code allows. The property is zoned R-INS which
requires a 75' setback from the ordinary high water level of the lake. The proposed fence
encroaches into the lake setback ranging from 12 to 25 feet. The existing home is located
entirely within the 75' setback area. Nielsen explained that if it is found that the variance
is justified in order for the applicant to make reasonable use of the property, ways to
minimize the variance and preserve the natural appearance of the shore line should be
considered. This would include requiring: a 4' chain link fence which is easier to screen
~i;l~fl~~q 11:LI
i;:i~llb ...
T U'lESA\/ER
PAGE 12
," it
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July S, 1994 .. PAGE 12
from view; use of green or black vinyl-coated fencing which is less visible than galvanized;
additional landscaping sized according to the requirements of the applicable Zoning code
to screen the fence from view of the lake; and a letter of credit or cash escrow to ensure the
landscaping will be completed this year.
Judy Christensen-Waldin stated there is a large amount of vegetation on the property and
did not understand that additional landscaping would be required. She indicated a decision
on the type of fence has not been made. She stated they have two small children and the
lake shoreline is within 50-60 feet from their play area. A 5' fence is customary for pool
areas. She explained the preferred location of the fence for esthetics purposes and felt there
is sufficient existing landscaping. Plans for installation of the fence are indefinite. Waldin
descnbed the need for a privacy fence to block visibility into their home from the road.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10:58 p.m. there being no
comments from the public. Letters dated May 22, 1994 from Horton & Bernice Brooks,
Daniel Noonan & Lucinda Aamot-Noonan, and Peter & Marie Lehman stating their
acceptance of the proposed safety fence plans and recommending approval of the requested
variance were noted for the record.
The Commissioners discussed the request and generally agreed that the situation is unique
in that the entire home is in a setback area having been allowed under grandfather
provisions as an exception to the ordinance covering lakeshore. The staff recommendations
assure that the lakeshore is preserved in its natural state.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend that the CoundJ approve a fence setback
variance, subject to the staff recommendations outllned in Nielsen's memorandum dated
July 1, 1994, tor Judy Christensen-Waldin and Rocky Waldin at 57!5 Merry Lane, and
approve Installation or a 5' chaJn Unk rence and a 6' privaq tence ot the applicant's choice
in selected locations of the setback area. Motion passed 5/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
5. SIMPLE SUB"PIVJSJQNlCOMBINATION
Applicant:
Location:
Ellis PikelSteven Pike
5810 Oub Lane124845 Smithtown Road
Nielsen reviewed the proposal of Steven Pike, 24845 Smithtown Road, to convey
approximately 37,450 square feet of bis lot to Ellis Pike at 5810 Oub Lane. The request is
a simple lot line rearrangement. While there is enough land between the two parcels to
create three lots, the applicants' subdivision and recombination results in parcels neither of
which can be divided into two 40,000 square foot lots. It is suggested, therefore, that the
applicants consider moving the new lot line about 35' to the north in order that the new
I .1'lI._-'l""""<1L.-j-.~
rf-il~c;.. J.~
..
PlANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July S, 1994 . PAGE 13
southerly parcel has 80,000 square feet of area; or Ellis Pike should sign an affidavit suitable
for recording stating he is aware that the new parcel cannot be subdivided under current
zoning requirements. Consistent with the City's past practice for substandard streets and
subdivisions and at staffs direction, the applicant has shown 21 additional feet of rlght-of-
way width for Oub Lane, which exists as a grossly substandard public right-of-way.
Malam moved, Borkon semnded torerommend that the Council approve the simple
subdlvlsJon/combinatio.ft request of Messn. Ellis and Steven Pike, subject to the conditions
outlJned in the stall' report dated July 1, 1994. Motion passed 5/0.
Staff will infonn the Commission whether the applicants elect to move the new lot line to
provide for future subdivision or a recordable affidavit is signed.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
6. MATI'ERS FROM THE FLOOR
Borkon suggested that the City should be more aggressive in monitoring its established
ordinances. She stated it is unfair to expect citizens to patrol and report violations
particularly in the instance of neighbors. Nielsen provided illustrations of staff regulation
of ordinances and penalties that may be imposed for various infractions. The Commission
requested that a brief policy overview be prepared for discussion at a future meeting.
. Bean inquired whether it would be beneficial to extend the 500' property owner notification
area for public hearings, particularly on the west side where the lot sizes are large. Nielsen
stated that 500' appears to be sufficient and does more than an adequate job in notification.
7. REPORTS - None.
8.- ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED
Arlene H. BergfaIk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.. )U~:-;;:o-84 MON 15: 27
p, 02
!-f1 v - C/ ';} 51
Mayor Brance! and Shorewood City Council
City Hall
Shorewood, MN
Dear Mayor Brance! and City Council Members:
On your agenda for the City Council meeting July 25 is a recommendation of the
Planning Commission to initiate the legal process to consider the adoption of a
development moratorium in Shorewood. I did attend the July 19 Planning Commission
meeting since our Smithtown Meadows plat was on the agenda as an item of business
tabled from the July 5 Planning Commission meeting. I therefore heard the discussion of
the Planning Commission prior to adoption of their recommendation regarding the
mOratorium issue.
Abingdon Development CorporationIT ony Eiden Company has three projects in
Shorewood for which applications have been accepted by the City and/or partial
approvals have been granted, as follow:
Heritage - A PUD on Edgewood Road for which Concept Plan approval has been granted
by the City Council to yield 1 dwelling unit for each 40,000 square feet of net site area.
subject to several conditions. Plans for PUD Development Stage review are complete,
with formal submission scheduled prior to August 1. .-'\1so. preparation of an EA W has
been commenced, as recommended (but not formally required) by the Planning
COmmission. It continues to be our intent to comply mth the conditions of Concept Stage
approval by the City Council.
Smith town Meadows - A conventional subdivision to create 5 new SFD building lots and
replace one dilapidated existing dwelling south of Smithtown Road, adjacent to the
Hennepin County Trail. A Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 5.
Although staff'recommended approval of the plat subject to several conditions, the
Planning Commission tabled the matter to their July 19 meeting for further discussion.
Matters of a technical/engineering nature were mentioned as the basis for tabling. I was
prepared to discuss this matters with the Planning Commission July 19, but the
Commission again tabled the application without comment, except for reference to the
moratorium recommendation they had adopted earlier in the meeting.
Manitou Woods - A 410t confessional subdivision for twin homes on an appropriately
zoned parcel on Manitou Road, across from the Copper Stein. Our application ",..as filed in
July, with a Public Hearing scheduled before the Planning Commission on August 2.
I recognize that State Statute empowers the City to adopt a moratorium under
certain circumstances. I also recognize that those circumstances may technically exist for
Shorewood - principally an ongoing update of Comprehensive Plan Elements. I am also
JUL. -,"~-\j<+ nUl'! 1 ~. '" I
r. Uj
'IP<# ~..-.w
aware of other suburban communities having adopted moratoriums over the past few
years. I was personally involved in one in Plymouth a number of years ago.
Because of those factors I am neither questioning the authority of Shorewood to
impose a moratorium, nor do I question the intent of our Legislature in empowering cities
such as Shorewood to do so in the appropriate circumstances. I do, however, submit that
the reasons for a moratorium and the broad scope of the moratorium suggested by the
Shorewood Planning Commission raise serious concerns over equity and fairness of
application.
In their discussion of the motion to recommend consideration of a moratorium
interim ordinance the Planning Commission mentioned that 5 applications were before
them for consideration at the present time. In addition to the our 3 mentioned abo~e. I
understand there is another small plat and the application by Lundgren to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. The combined impact of our 3 applications will not exceed 29 new
dwelling units, and I understand that the other subdivision application would represent a
very few more. Also, with at least our 3 applications no Com.prehensive Plan amendments
are proposed. nor are there any Rezonings or Zoning Variances applied for.
The 3 development moratoriums in the Metro Area with which I am .tamiliar were
imposed by the respective communities in response to major policy or infrastructure
considerations facing those communities. In the case of Plymouth it was applications for
several hundred units of housing in an area not yet served by sanitary sewer (but
scheduled to be). The issue was as much when to do the sewer as whether the projects
were in the city's best interests. In LakeviIIe they were again dealing with hundreds of
potential units and a concern with very small lot sizes (in the 10,000 square foot range)
generating housing oCtoo low a value to support urban services. In Woodbury it was
issues of commercial development and the location of a major freeway interchange
It is my further understanding that the moratoriums imposed in these cases were
directed at a specific geographic area - not city wide.
Also mentioned by the Planning COmmission during their discussion of this matter
was interl'erence with their continued work on the Comprehensive Plan caused by having
to deal with the applications for development before them. Metro Council policy calls for
review oflocaI comprehensive plans every 5 years and updating every 10. It could be
expected, therefore that the time demands on a Planning Commission ~ill be periodically
more intense than normal - related to Plan reviews and updates. With due respect for the
uncompensated nature of service on a local plaoning commission, I think it is fair to say
that the imposition of a development moratorium to clear agendas to pursue other
business ( such as comprehensive plan work) was not the intent of the Legislature in
authorizing development moratorium.
While not discussed by the Planning COmmission prior to their vote on the
moratorium issue. the impact of a. moratorium of the broad sc:;ale recommended to
JUL-2~-94 MON 15:28
1, V~
developers, property owners of Shorewood and the City in general '\N"ill be substantial. At
least in the case of our firm several tens of thousands of dollars have already be expended
to complete the required environmental analysis and project design work that is required
by the City with for applications. In addition to that many hundreds of hours of staff time
have been expended to assemble the properties and secure the measure of control required
by the City prior to application. Also there have been outright land purchases in some
cases, together with sizable option feesleam~'t money expended in other cases in reliance
on the City development review process. A 1 year delay in that review process was
certainly not anticipated. so as developers we are faced with either expired purchase
agreements and/or a year's worth of carrying costs (interest + taxes, at least). Ifwe are
asking the City for variances or plan amendments we can calculate the risk of those special
requests against the investments we make. The risk of moratorium for projects that meet
existing City plans and codes is certainly not anticipated.
Current land owners may very well speak for themselves as to the impact of a
moratorium to them. Certainly it can be expected that many long held personal plans
(financial and otherwise) have been based on completion of the development process and
the sale of the land. Many of these land owners have been Shorewood residents for
decades and have a right to fair treatment 'Within the plans and codes of Shorewood.
In tenns ofilie overall City impact, a moratorium would result in at least a deferral
of net ta."{ revenue from probable development for the year or more the moratorium is in
place. The loss of momentum on these projects, or the loss of the projects altogether
could add to that. There would also be the loss of credibility issue - both with the
development community and Shorewood land owners.
On July 2S thc City Council will be deciding whether to initiate the moratorium
ordinance process. If the process is been initiated it v"ill gain considerable momentum from
the group of residents currently in opposition to one or more specific projects now under
consideration by the City. I fear that the City may end up with a moratorium for the wrong
reasons. Would it not be more appropriate to address the current projects on their
individual merits under the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance? If there truly is a
need for a development moratorium would it not be more equitable to close the door on
new applications than to "pocket veto" projects - particularly where insignificant units
counts are proposed and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is maintained - that are
already "in the pipeline"? That has not, after all, been a mad rush to apply to beat a
moratorium deadline.
A procedural matter that relates to this issue is the manner in which the Planning
Commission is handling the Smithtown Meadows application. As I have noted the
Commission simply tabled the Smithtown Meadows Prelimina..ry' Plat without comment
other than reference to their moratorium recommendation. The Statute enabling the
moratorium process specifically states" No interim (moratorium) ordinance may halt,
delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the
effective date of the ordinance". By tabling action on the Smithtown application [
l' VV
......,.. ..,...
premise that a moratorium is imminent the Commission would seem to be acting contrary
to the spirit if not the letter of the statute. I respectfully request the Council to;direct the
Commission to make a recommendation regarding Smithrown ~1:eadows without regard to
the moratorium issue. I
1
i
It is my sincere hope that the Council will carefully consider the wide range of
negative impacts a moratorium would bring as well as the reasons for such an action~ I
respectfully request the Council to not adopt the Planning Commission recommendation.
It would appear that very little purpose would be served and a great deal of in~quity II
would result. '. .
I
Sincerely yours,
Abingdon Development CorporationITony Eiden Company
Charles E. Dillerud
Director of Land Development
\
I
I
r
:J
"
j
FROM BML BUILDERS, INC
PHONE t.~O.
+'559 2141
I
Jul. (25 1994 04:19PM P01
t
J
!
i1.1lly 25, 1994
Mayor Barb Brancal
Counci1member Rob Daugherty
COuncilmember Bruce Benson
Councilmernber Kristi Stover
Councilmember Dan Lewis
City of Shorewood
5755 COuntry Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
i j
Re: Development Moratorium to be Reviewed by City COuncil on MOnday) July
25, 1994. I !
Dear Mayor and Members of the City COuncil: !:
I am writing this letter requesting that Council not enact a de1l'elopment
moratorium in the City of Shorewood as requested by the Planning commission.
We consider this action by the Planning commission, while in the middle of
a gove.rnnent approval process to be extremely unfair. ;'
we have been working wi th T"undqren Bros. for over a year on the sale of
our property north of Smithtowne Rd, just west of the Minnewashta Elem.
school. In the event the city council agrees to go ahead with this
moratorium we would incur a severe financial setback: and we will be
forced to discuss with our a.ttorney any rights that \4e may have.
.
ve~~ (
c:Y;.~L.-~
Robert and Linda Ledin
..
.~
1
f
f
I
f.
i
f
,
.
i
I
t