05-102
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 05-102
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
APPLE RIDGE THIRD ADDITION
WHEREAS, a preliminary plat of Apple Ridge Third Addition has been submitted in the
manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462
of Mil me sot a Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Mimlesota and the City Code of the City
of Shorewood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1. The preliminary plat of Apple Ridge Third Addition, as shown on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby approved, subject to the
recommendations of the Shorewood Planning Commission as stated in the
minutes of their regular meeting held on 1 November 2005, an excerpt of which
minutes is contained in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. A final plat for the subdivision must be submitted within six months of the date of
the City Council's approval of the preliminary plat.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of
November 2005.
Woody Love, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rovisod: g-02-c5 LD)<><Jl
Revised: 7-06-D5 4 O'Aors
DEJIARS-GABRIEL
LAND SURVEYORS, me.
JOJO I1anxv ~ Ho.
n,,1"'IO<d1l. uti ~5+f7
PllQf'>(:;(76Ji 5.5i'--C906
F::l" :(763) 551-0..09
<.
,
<>
C'
-)
;..::
C]
Cj
"(
{j
<>
cj'
,e .J
l..IJ
G)
,
<>
I '
l..1 I
, -I
-.:.
-:..c
-"
Cj
o
,0
""'"
-'"
'/'
0r\
f {\
/ /~\
--:/~ %1--LJ SITE
N
t
LOCATIO."! MAP
No Scale
I .11!f1!Oy ce:iity that this survey. plan or r(!porl. 1"'03 prepared by me
or under my dir9Cf supervisi!J./1 and that I am 0 duly Rl!g1:rlered LoNi
SUlVqor unckf fhe Laws of the Stote cf Minnesota.
omQEJc:J.--
f=D
&oJ<-Poge
Scale
1--40'
Date:
5-16-05
Minn. Re9. No. 224-14
<~
, \./
(I V
(IV'
V' \
"r \
t7-'
~
!!
~
/ BASII.1 0 SABRI ."co,
\ 207 E LAKE: STRE:ET #300 L!js ,\
\ f MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 0 \ \
V PIO# 35-117-23-34-00'9 .\ I \
A .....' I 1 I
\ _, I 1\\ \
-rL) /,>'r'-' ~ \ 1\\ 1
Qf "" I I Yrlv I ID \ \' I I
I ...... ......, ;/ \ \ \ I
N~'4II' i\~:', /' \)\\ I
-/521.66- i' , __~ J I)
./ - .-"'///
I
I
I
1
,I
1'---
\
- I
/
P.:. -SJ:
I f\. '1 6-
L.V I I
'"
-<,
(""___"Iv' I f\'
.....,,' -J L.V I
v__'
JASON & MARY BALLSRUD
6175 APPLE: ROAD
SHOREWOOO, UN 55331
PIO# 35-117-23-34-0038
I (\T 1\
LV/ '-t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---670.48---
~ I \ 8 N BV'IIP'M' If
\ \ t
\ 1<'--,',
I f\. -;"',1--- ,,'--__ (
L~V I "':",................,..... __ _ -.....__ ......
i ' ...... ......... ---- -- '\ \
,'-'.....~.....-~-:~-:::--- ~\ \1
......f..........' _ _..... ' \ \ \
'-./..::<:>---,',,\, \ \ ~ \
/ '--' ,,\'.
-....., ", ' \ Y \
/
/
/
I
I
L
I 1'\,
L.V I
A
~t
/\/ /(\
1'1 / V
/
/
I
I'"
r\
1--
d
I I
rl
'"
~
4D " 0 4D 80 12D
r-...~ - ..J
PRE?ARW FOR:
!)
0-
C'
;...?
i-
-j
-J
"(
I
l.
\..)
('V
1'_
!'J'
<:
,
<>
C'
,J
j./j
,-
-.:.
;-
[r1
,-.;
-J
r..)
'" BRADLEY A HE:PPN[R
21 780 LILAC LANE
SHORE:WOOO, IAN 55331
PIO# 35-117-23-34-0033
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
ROY LECY
LECY CONSTRUCTION INC.
15012 HIGHWAY 7
MINNETONKA. MN 55345
(952-944-9499)
EXISTING AREA OUTLOT A
APPLE RJ])GE SECOND ADDfflON
56,916 SQ.FT.
EXISTING .AREA OUTLOT B
APPLE RJ])GE SECOND ADDITION
14.005 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED AREAS
APPLE RJ])GE THIRD AlJDITION
OUTLOT A
28,686 SQ. FT.
OUTLOT B
15,000 SQ.FT.
OUTLOT C
13.230 SQ. FT.
OUTLOT D
1 A. nnt::.. C!n Ji'T
PRELLAIINARY PLAT
APPLE RIDGE THIRD ADDITION
LECY CONSTRUCTIOJ
15012 HIGHWAY
MINNETONKA., MN
Exhibit A
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 1, 2005
Page 4 of 8
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated, with regard to the pool drainage, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
recommended the pool discharge not be directed to wetland areas, preferring instead that the discharge be
directed to sanitary sewer systems if chemically treated. He stated most homeowners, in his experience, ran
a drainage line to the storm sewer or to a yard area. These practices would work acceptably as long as
homeowners did not treat the pool with chemicals for seven days prior to drainage into the storm sewer or
yard.
Commissioner Gagne questioned whether Mr. Guidinger had met the necessary approvals as outlined in
City ordinances associated with a request such as this one. Director Nielsen stated the Engineering and
Planning Departments had recommended approval of this project.
In response to a question by Council Liaison Wellens, Mr. Johnson demonstrated the location of his land on
a site location map associated with the pool project being requested. Mr. Johnson went on to state drain
tiles had been placed in that area that would outlet onto his property.
Conley moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Mark
Guidinger, 19735 Muirfield Circle, subject to City Engineering recommendations.
Chair Bailey stated he believed the issue at hand was not to solve Mr. Johnson's drainage issue, but to
allow Mr. Guidinger to develop his property.
Commissioner Conley stated he agreed, and with all due respect to Mr. Johnson, the issues presented by Mr.
Johnson were large scale issues. He further stated he was not convinced that the quantity of water drained
from a pool once a year would contribute in a meaningful way to the larger engineering issues. He also
stated he thought a property owner had a right to develop his own property.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M.
4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - APPLE RIDGE 3RD ADDN.
Applicant: Lecy Construction, Inc.
Location: Outlots A and B of Apple Ridge 2nd Addn (Apple Road)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained in 2002, Lecy Construction, Inc. was granted approval for Apple Ridge 2nd
Addition, a four-lot, residential subdivision located on the east side of Apple Road, just north of the
Shorewood/Chanhassen border. The project was processed as a planned unit development that allowed the
developer to cluster the four new lots and included a conservation easement over the easterly 56,916 square
feet (1.31 acres) ofthe site. The easement, originally platted as Outlot A, was in favor of the City of
Shorewood. A second outlot, Outlot B, was to be conveyed to the property owner to the north. This
conveyance never occurred due to that property owner's legal difficulties.
Lecy Construction now proposed replatting the two outlots into four outlots in order to convey them to
adjoining property owners. In their letter, dated 4 October 2005, the applicants explained the properties
would be resubdivided into four outlots, and how the outlots would be conveyed. This public hearing was
held for the purpose of considering a preliminary plat for the property.
Exhibit B
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 1, 2005
Page 5 of 8
Director Nielsen went on to explain this request was somewhat unusual, primarily for the resulting lot
configurations proposed by the applicant. He stated it must be noted that Outlots A-C would still be subject
to the original conservation easement. Only the ownership would be changed. As explained in the
applicant's letter, Outlot D would be the same size as the original Outlot B, with proposed ownership
undetermined at this time.
Since the proposed plat did not result in additional building lots, the principal concern with this "replat" was
making sure that all of the prospective land owners were fully aware that Outlots A-C was subject to the
conservation easement. In this regard, the resolution approving a final plat should clearly inform future
owners of the existence of the easement. Approval of the preliminary plat should also be subject to the
following:
1. The developer should submit a protective covenant stating that Outlot A would not be sold
separately from its adjoining property. This property was located in Chanhassen and can not be
legally combined in another way. The applicant's attorney should submit the covenant before the
final plat was scheduled for Council review and approval.
2. Outlot B should be legally combined with Lot 3, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition and recorded with the
final plat for the Third Addition.
3. Outlot C should be legally combined with Lot 2, Apple Ridge 2nd Addition and recorded with the
final plat for the Third Addition. Outlot C and Lot 2 were both owned by Lecy Construction, so
there should be no delay.
4. The legal status of the property owner to the north of Outlot D was unknown as of this writing. If
Outlot D can not be conveyed within one year, the outlot should be legally combined with Lot 2.
This outlot would be of no benefit to the property owner to the east of Apple Ridge.
5. The applicant must provide evidence of recording for items 1-3 within 30 days of Council approval,
or the approval would be void.
Director Nielsen noted a representative of Lecy Construction was present this evening.
Andy Johnsrud, of Lecy Construction Inc., stated the recommendations were acceptable as presented by
Director Nielsen. He stated the only possible problem that could be foreseen related to Item 4 of the
recommendations.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Hearing
at 8:21 P.M.
Discussion ensued by the Commission regarding the best possible method and timeline necessary for
working with the conveyance of Outlot D.
White moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat for Apple Ridge, 3rd
Addition, subject to Staff Recommendations 1-3 and 5, and that Outlot D would be legally combined
with Lot 2 by March 1, 2005, as detailed in the Staff Memorandum from Director Nielsen regarding
this case, dated October 30, 2005. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 P.M.