The URL can be used to link to this page

032883 CC Reg AgP CITY OF SHORE\oJOOD . REGUlAR COUNCIL MEEI'nm .. t,{)NDAY, MARCH 28, 1983 .. ~ 0" .. .t.,.~"~. -A:~ ,,#.,:~. . C .. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755COlJIll"TRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 7: 30 FM AGEl'IDA CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer B. Roll Call Mayor Rascop Hal.lgen Shaw Leonardo ~ ~tover ~~~ ~ ,y 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.Regular Meeting - March 14, 1983 2. MA'ITERS FRClv1 THE FLOOR [Attachment #la] A. Citizens complaint on Animal Patrol Service B. 3. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN A RESIDENTIAL Ca.MERCIALZONE: LOCATION: Southwest corner of State Hwy. 7 & Chaska Road APPLICANT: Gary Winterfield [Attachment #3a - Feb. 25 Planner's Report] [Attachment #3b -- Mar. 14 Planner's Report] [Attachment #3c - Engineer's Report] [Attachment #3d - Planning Ccmnission's Reccmnendation] 4. REVIEw OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES A. An Ordinance Regulating the moving of Buildings within the City of Shorewood - Second Reading [Attachment #4a] B. An Ordinance rezoning the Property located at 23505 &nithtown Road ( County Road 19) fran R-5, Multiple Family Residential, to R-C, Residential-Commercial: [Attachment #4b] C. An Ordinance rezoning the property located on Bayswater Road (Amesbury) fran R-2, Single Family Residential to P.U.R.D. [At tachment #4c] REDUlAR COUNCIL AGENDA . -2- 4 28, 1983 5. RFSOLUI'ION AOOPl'ING "THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD": [Attachment #Sa] 6. PIANNING CCMvITSSION' S REPORT: A. B. 7. PARK CCMvITSSION REPORT: A. B. 8. ATIDRNEY I S REPORI': A. Report on lMCD Prosecutions B. 9. ENGINEER I S REPORT: A. B. 10. AIMINISTRATIVE REPORT: / Proposed Procedure to Amend tneCcmp;relleI)sive PJJlp: [Attachment #10a] B. Reviews and approval of 1983 weed spraying contract: [Attachment#lOb] C. Request to replace street lights fran N.S.P. [Attachment lOc] D. Special meetings to rewiew proposed Zoning . Ordinance . 11. MAYOR I S REPORT': A. B. 12. COUNCIL'S REPORT: A. Greenwood Lift Station issue - Jan Ha.ugen B. REXrtJLI\R COUNCIL AGENDA e 13. MATI'ER' S FRC1vl THE FLOOR: A. B. 14. APPROVAL OF CIAIMSAND ADJOURNMENT: -3- .MARCH 28, 1983 . CITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, CHAMBERS M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER The regul~r meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 P.M., Monday, March 14, 1983, in the Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Stover, Haugen, Shaw, and Leonardo. Staff: Attorney Larson, Administrator Uhrhammer, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Shaw moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of February 28, 1983 as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Roger Hennessy, the City's insurance agent, was present to issue a check in the amount of $551.00 from the League of Minnesota Cities from Workmen's Compensation. Mr. Hennessy also offered his assistance in any concerns the City may have. "MOVING OF BUILDINGS" ORDINANCE FIRST READING Council reviewed the first draft of the Ordinance on "Moving of Buildings". VariatiorB and omissions were made. Leonardo moved, seconded by Rascop, to omit (J) from #2 Section 11. Motion carried 3 aye - 2 nay (Haugen & Shaw) After further review, Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to accept the 1st reading of this Ordinance subject to changes and recommended alterations and reports from staff. PARK COMMISSION REPORT Conrad Schmid reported on the Equipment Committee Meeting. They have a possibility of obtaining picnic tables from Hennepin County Parks, free of charge. They discussed methods of creating revenue for park equiPmentG . 1 Steve Frazier has volunteered to head a committee to create a tI~ competition IIdeck-a-thonll, and acquire revenue from pledges, l J . ~ _ entry fees, and sponsor fees. (~~ #/ , REGULAR COUNCIL MEeNG - 2 - MARe 14, 1983 ATTORNEY'S REPORT Cross Marina Lease Attorney Larson's opinion of the lease between Mr. Cross and Mr. Arvidson on the property identified by PID# 34-117-23-22-0002 and 34-117-23-22-0003 does not give Mr. Cross exclusive control over the properties because of the two (2) docks that presently exist on the property and the right of Arvidson to build a house on this property if the city zoning ordinance ever allows one to be built. The City should approve the dock application for 125 docks, due to the court discussion allowing 125 docks, and forward the application along with a letter from the City declining the acceptance of the lease. Ordinance #112 Review Attorney Larson felt the term on this Ordinance had expired along with the attached list of policies. Haugen felt a further review of these policies should be made and possibly set new policies. Hunner Letter Comments Council should direct their comments, in reference to the letter received from Hunner's attorney, directly to him as soon as possible. Appointment of Special Prosecuter Attorney Larson felt it necessary to appoint an outside attorney to make a determination as to prosecution of a certain city resident. (Resident's name withheld at this time.) Larson suggested one of the prosecutors from the City of St. Louis Park. Shaw moved, seconded by Rascop, to authorize Larson to contact an attorney out of the area if prosecution is necessary. Motion carried 4 ayes - 1 abstain (Leonardo) ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Union Negotiation An offer of a 4% salary increase with total health insurance benefits paid by the City, retroactive as of January 1, 1983, has been submitted. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to accept this offer. Motion carried unanimously. t1 ~b Office Salary Adjustment Administrator Uhrhammer explained the new PERA deductions to the Council. He requested the Council to approve a 2% increase for staff members affected by this additional 2% deduction of their salary. This increase would come from the allocated salary increases but would not be part of the proposed salary increases. , REGULAR COUNCIL MEeIW - 3 - MARe14, 1983 Staff affected: S. Kennelly, S. Niccum, K. West, B. Dybvik, and D. Zdrazil. Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the 2% increase. Motion carried 3 aye - 2 nay (Rascop & Leonardo) MAYOR'S REPORT Naegele Sign Offer Naegele Sign Company proposed an offer to have the City of Shorewood allow the sign located at Christmas Lake Road and Highway #7 to remain for ten (10) years, at which time they will remove the sign. Rascop moved acceptance of their ten (10) year proposal. Motion died for a lack of a second. Haugen moved, 2nd by Stover, to offer Naegele Sign a three (3) year sign approval and removal of that sign at the end of three (3) years. Motion carried 4 aye - 1 nay (Shaw) Attorney Larson was instructed to submit this offer by letter. Governo:c ' s Task Force on Lake Access A letter from t.ne 'I"asK Force in reference to land access in Gideon Bay was sent to the residents of Timber Lane. Hennepin County Park Reserve is trying to obtain the Veteran Camp on Big Island for park property with possible access to lake through the Rail Authority access and/or Timber Lane access. The Veteran's Administration is trying to have legislation changed to allow them to sell this camp to a private party. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Administrator Uhrhammer will be the contact person at the City level in conjunction with the Storm Water Management Coordinating Committee. COUNCIL REPORTS LMCD - Prosecution of Offenses Shaw moved, seconded by Rascop, to authorize the city attorney to prosecute LMCD offenses. No vote. Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover, to table authorization until an investigation of the effects on the City and fine monies can be done. MTS Administrator Uhrhammer to investigate the process of requesting a reimbursement of taxes supporting the transit system and what responsibility the city will then have in reference to a public transit system. , REGULAR COUNCIL ME~NG - 4 - MA4 14, 1983 ~~ League of Minnesota Cities ~_~Haugen requested the Council to support her in lobbying against 6J ~ the proposed formula for the distrubution of Local Government ~~_. Aid Funds. _ Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover, to support Haugen lobbying at the Legislature. Motion carried unanimously. Liquor Store Discussion The Council discussed the need to set up a Special Meeting to determine what should be done in the future with the Liquor Stores. This meeting will be scheduled by the Administrator. Approval of Claims & Adjournment Moved by Rascop, seconded by Haugen, to approve the claims for payment followed by adjournment at 10:15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund - [Account #00166] Checks 26858 - 26927 = Liquor Fund - [Account #00174] Checks 9857 - 9894 $59,760.94 $25,414.61 Respectfully submitted, Mayor SANDRA L. KENNELLY, Clerk SLK: sn ~. GENERAL FUND 'CLAIMS APPROVED AN~ID SINCE Check # TO WHOM PAID 26858 26859 26860 26861 26862 26863 26864 26865 26866 26867 26868 26869 26870 26871 26872 26873 26874 - 26875 26876 26877 26878 26879 26880 26881 26882 26883 26884 26885 26886 26887 26888 26889 26890 26891 26892 26893 26894 ~6895 26896 26897 26898 26899 26900 26901 26902 26903 26904 26905 26906 26907 26908 26909 26910 26911 Village Sanitation Ziegler, Inc. The Copper Stein Key Leasing Metro Waste Colonial Ins. Postoffice cash Metro Waste VOID E.F. Johnson/Assoc. Chaska Parts Chan. Lawn & Sports Bill Clark Coffee System Channels Duane C. Grace Henn. Co Treas. Hennessy Agcy. Gross Hance Jim Hatch Sales Dir. of Prop.tas Robert Rascop Leef Bros. Long/ Froehling Midwest Asphalt Wm Mueller & Sons ivlidwest Motor f-ltka. Glass Minnegasco Mun.& Priv. Sere NAC NSP Orr-Schelen- Red vJing Mobil Reynolds SLMPSD Sun News Warner Wagers Dept. of Health Dennis Johnson Dan Randall Bob Quaas Evelyn Beck Roberta Dybvik Dennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Robert Quaas Dan Randall ~BRUARY March 14, 1983 AMOUNT 45.00 36.96 lunch 70.73 223.30 15,776.31 152.75 80.00 21.79 420.75 -0- 61.14 32.19 94.34 1,025.44 32.00 15.00 135.75 1,957.50 Equip. 160.00 6.85 30.02 278.36 52.53 139.84 156.80 St./bond study 3,068.00 33.41 561. 55 87.33 22.00 986.35 301. 88 382.97 858.46 673.93 4.50 24.35 265.24 166.53 208.46 36.29 30.00 175.84 -0- 189.16 117.12 441.21 367.34 497.46 490.62 316.28 593.06 551.76 490.02 PURPOSE garbage motor for grader #21 joint Commission-council March leasing fee Feb. sewer sere chgs. March premo presort permits replace cashbox payouts SAC chgs Jan 83' invoice 041083 equip. pts/shop supplies shop supplies/trees diesel Fuel invoice 183457 Subscription Bldg Code Job 83-5 City Prisoners Amesbury Well/Contraot. invoice 1336 Feb. purchases fire hose/equip. copy R.E. tax book 2 calculators Laundry Dec Financial asphalt Feb. purchases Hockey Lts-Badger fuel animal control electricity Amesbury back-up tire switch-truck #3 jail bOO~ng fees legal notlces Feb. purchases type wheel water exams-Quaas/ Zdrazil retroactive pay VOID retroactive pay 11 11 first paycheck salary 11 11 " " " " - e GENERAL FUNDS - page e CLAIMS APPROVED AND PAID SINCE MARCH 14, 1983 Check # TO WHOM PAID PURPOSE AMOUNT 26912 VOID $ -0- 26913 Kathy West Salary 326.53 26914 Don Zdrazil " 564.96 26915 VOID -0- 26916 Doug Uhrhammer Salary 707.72: 26917 State street Bk. IRA 224.05 26918 SLMPSD Share of Budget 18,750.00 26919 Doug Niccum retroactive pay 117.72 26920 Doug Niccum 3/3-3/11-coincide W.C. 303.32 26921 Petty cash misc. purchases 42.08 26922 Mary Kennelly cleaning 28.00 26923 Comm. of Revenue Feb. fuel tax 94.12 26924 Kathy West 9 hours O.T. 47.44 26925 Mtka St. Bk FWH Taxes 1,119.90 26926 PERA 859.43 26927 Gary Larson Legal Fees 3,569.20 $ 59,760.94 e e "':, .!\.r e e MAYOR Robert Resc:op COUNCIL Jen Heugen Ted Sh_ Alexender Leonerdo Robert Gegne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhemmer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612)474-3236 MEMORANDUM 'ID: Planning Cam1i.ssion, Ma30r and City Council F.RCM: Brad Nielsen Dl\TE: February 25, 1983 HE: Winterfield, Gary - Office Building in an R-C District CASE NO. (83.01) BACKGROUND Mr. Gary Winterfield has requested approval of a conditional use penn! t to construct an office building in the southwest quadrant of the ~ 7/ Chaska Road (Highway 41) intersection (see Site IDeation map, attached). '!he proposed structure contains 3800 square feet of floor area in two stories. '!he property in question contains 18,050 square feet in area and is zoned R-C, Residential Carrnercial. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North - State ~ 7 (then carmercial in Excelsior) East - Single family, zoned R-2 South - Single family, zoned R- 3 West - State Highway 7 As you 11188" recall, this same request was submitted in Septanber of 1978. At that time, the City rezoned the property fran R- 3 to R-C and approved a conditional use penn! t based upon the applicant's site plans (see EKhibit B, attached). Since conditional use penn!ts lapse if not used within one year, Mr. Winterfield has resubmitted his original request. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Upon review of the plan sul:mi.tted and the requirements of Ordinance No. 99 the following issues are raised: lBnd Use '!he area. north of the highway in Excelsior is primarily carmercial in nature. '!his and proximity of the property in question to ~ 7 established a basis for rezoning the property fran R-3 to R-C. It was felt that the property could serve as a land use transition fran these high use areas to the residential areas to the south. A ResidentM' Community on Lake Minnetonka', South Shore #~ MEMJRANIU1 - page. e Land Use - continued 'n1e site is not considered will suited for residential developnent. Marketablilty for low density residential is poor and the site is too small to accarmodate higher density. 'n1e small office building is able to take advantage of the ~ location and has little or no impact on residential areas to the south. ~ Requirements proPJsed the request involves three variances to the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. First, the Ordinance requires that parking not be located within 25 feet of the front property line. 'n1e site plan shows parking right up to the front property line. Similarly, parking must be five feet fran the rear line while the site plan shows parking up to the Highway 7 right-of-way line. Finally, the Ordinance requires a 35 foot setback when abutting a residential district, while the plan only shows 20 feet. Presumably these variances are necessitated due to the configuration of the site. Despite these variances, access drives na.rI'CM to only 15 feet in width. 'n1is will undoubtedly result in difficulty when trying to park at a ~ degree angle. REXn+1END!\TIOO While the site configuration may justify the variances to sane extent, ideally the variances could be minimized or even elim:inated through sane design modification. If, however, the City is inclined to approve the request as presented, it is strongly suggested that landscaping be emphasized along the south side of the site. In this regard, a detailed landscape plan showing species, size and spacing of plant materials should be subnitted for City approval. BN:sn CC: Doug Uhrhamner Gary Larson Jim Nortm Gary Winterfield -- -~/ - ../" - --- ~~. !-~ -(f:'!o ). . . , ~,#..,. " (,' ~ .. \ s-" , '. \ ';\ -; ~-i;~ .~~-.. " ~', , .. .." . - .,:~' , \ ,.~..r'~ : .. \ wi. ..~ , " \ "~A'"'' \ ., " ---,..~ , , g~ ~ ~G\- ... ... _---.J ~! 'If; ~..'.'" ..,"..... . l~. , C ~ - t'" '- " . ~ -- . i (I - . - . Exhibit A SITE LOCATION I /"0 ~ ~~..- I ~ ~I: ~ ~ ,,~._~ _J~ ~ ".. --~ ",:i". I -,~ . /'::' -:s. '"' ~I~) I~~- I ~~ ~l~ c I ~, :1 ~j I -- ----if ~ ,. ~ .,.,.... "n '" I ~/j "- -..:::J 0" ~,-- ., CD,.. " ,....J CD '. ,~: ~ " '. . -(~. .~ \J - D 'J , .. ...... e " '-- ....., ., . '" .~ :J 1/../, , "- .,\ -, rv i ~'1.; "\ .J, . . . ~r-J _ . 0 ~.<I ~ I' ': J', '..~ -~'~'" J I //"! ;." , . ]', \. . - ~ . I:.. " ' '. '\ ')0 - l .' / 1..", '\ . Jt .~, ~ . - -~::- v!' ..~ ,\, ,....-.f' ~ ~~;, '\ ~~~, , ':~>l 'A,<Y / ,J: ~" ;~ .. .~, ---:: '\j . . k':".:1 ............ : "~ '" ~ . ~-y ~. .t.- . 'y \ ~'1,.. j Exhibit B PROPOSED SITE PLAN . "It /.~".'. . " ',\J I ,~ / ., ~ i I ~ Jill '" ," It>/ 0, ~: k , ~ . , --I ... . ; .... 1-1 I I I I I I ' I " I ' I ! i \ . f " ;';:1 l' . ~'i I JI , I ~' -.= I ~. I " !.I . , MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: e e MAYOR Robert Rlscap COUNCIL Jln Haugen Ted Shew Allxlnder Leonlrdo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhemmer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nie hen 14 March 1983 Winterfield, Gary Revised Site Plan 405 (83.01) Subsequent to the previous staff report dated 2S February 1983, Mr. Winterfield requested that the public hearing on his request regarding a conditional use permit for an office building in an R-C District be con- tinued in order to allow him time to modify his site plan. His intention was to reduce or eliminate certain variances noted in the original staff report and at the same time improve traffic circulation on the site. This report analyzes the revised site plan (attached as Exhibit A). Upon detailed review of the site and the zoning requirements for the R-C District, it is understandable that the request could not comply with all of the requirements. It appears that any use of the property would require some sort of variance. Lot configuration plus the fact that the property is bordered on three sides by public right-of-way are the primary causes for variance. As a result, required setbacks render the site nearly un- buildable. Given the fact that the property abuts right-of-way on three sides, the first question to resolve is which side is the front. While the applicant previ- ously assumed Highway 7 is the front of the site, the Zoning Ordinance defines the front as the narrowest ~idth1 on a public street. Since the north boundary abuts the same right-of-way as the west boundary, it leaves the east boundary (along Highway 41) as the narrowest width on a public street. With that confusion aside, the remaining setbacks can be determined. Following are the requirements for which the applicant needs variances: A RtnidentiM Community on L6Jce Minnetonb's South Shore #?b e Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 14 March 1983 e Page Two 1. Rear Yard Setback. Section 22A, Subd. 5.C.3. (Ordinance 99) requires a rear yard setback of 40 feet. The corner of the pro- posed building encroaches 20 feet into the required yard. 2. Corner Lot. Section 22A, Subd. 5.C.4. requires 35 feet along all streets. The building encroaches 15 feet into the westerly set- back and 25 feet into the northerly setback. 3. Parking Setback. Section 13. Subd. 4 A and B (Ordinance 77) set forth setbacks for parking lots in residential and commercial areas. Since the R-C District is somewnat of a "hybrid", it is difficult to determine which requirement to impose. Considering it as a residential district preserves open space in front (along Hwy. 41). Using the commercial district standards, parking can encroach into the front yard, but the side yard is protected. I felt it was im- portant to preserve a similar front yard to the houses along Hwy. 41, with the idea that a solid fence along the southern boundary of the site would effectively screen the parking lot. In terms of the first two variances, the applicant was informed that if var- iances could not be eliminated, it would be more acceptable to have them on the Highway 7 side than toward the residential area south. From a purely design sense the revised plan is greatly improved over the previous plan. In spite of a reduction in parking spaces from 21 to 17, it still conforms to the Ordinance and accessibility to parking stalls has been greatly improved. An issue which deserves careful attention relative to the property in question is drainage. The southern portion of the property is quite low and wet (al- though not designated as wetland). Presumably, the site will require fill even though parking is located on that portion of the lot. We have referred the request to the City Engineer for his review and comment. RECOMMENDATION Despite the variances which still remain, the site plan has been greatly im- proved. Green space has been preserved in front and the parking layout func- tions much better than the previous plan. Placement of a solid fence or wall along the southerly boundary would reduce the visual impact of cars parked near the property line. If the request is to be approved, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. A fence shout. be constructed along the southerly boundary. 2. A detailed landscape plan showing species, size and spacing of plant materials should be required. Additional landscapiftgshould be pro- vided in the 35 feet along Highway 41. A performance bond based upon a bid from a certified nurseryman should be provided by the applicant. e Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 14 March 1983 e Page Three 3. Grading and drainage should be subject to favorableteVtewand comment by the City Engineer. 4. Access to Highway 41 and drainage into the Highway 7 ditch should be approved by MnDOT. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Gary Winterfield Kathy West e e . ~ 1 / /). O' ~ ~~. ~~ ~ / -1 .l~ .~ll . ~ - ~ ~ ~ / / / / / ~hib'IT A - l2E.vl~ ~~"Pl..AN " J . .. '1 I / ~'f~-,- / . I ~.~/ '1 I I / f , \ i I / / / '/ / / ~- ~ e e ORR. SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors March 24, 1983 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Mr. Doug Uhrhammer City Administrator Re: "Winterf ield Property" S.T.H. #7 & Chaska Road Project No. 405-83.01 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer: We have reviewed the proposed office building for the Winterfield Property at S.T.H. #7 and Chaska Road. Our comments will pertain to the following basic engineering items: 1. Sanitary Sewer Service 2. Water 3. Drainage 4. Traffic 1. Sanitary Sewer Service According to the sanitary sewer "as-builts", Drawing No. 15, there Is no existing sewer stub to serve this lot (Lot 148). There is sanitary sewer in the street which can be connected to. There are actually two sanitary sewer lines in Chaska Road. The 9" P.V.C. line is Shorewood's sewer line while the 8" sanitary sewer line was installed earlier to serve Minnetonka West Junior High School. 2. Water Municipal water service is not immediately available. existing wells with the capacity to service this area, watermains have not been run. Water service for this probably be supplied by an individual on-site well. . There are however, the building will 3. Drainage Currently, drainage from this property contributes to the flow in the adjacent state trunk highway ditch. At certain times during the year, water could back up in the ditch and adversely affect this lot without the appropriate grading. We recommend this lot be graded such that 4f~ ?n?1 F~<:'t J..It>nnt:>nl,.., LllIanlft> ..r:::llftO ??R . IlIUnno::>nnfi.,. flA;,.,,.,ornf<> I;1;A1? .. R1?/~?1. Rl:l:n .. e e page Two City of Shorewood March 24, 1983 any low or marginal areaS be brought up above flood level. Such grading must follow a pre-designed plan that will incorporate appropriate ingress/egress with the proper drainage. This plan must be submitted to the City for review prior to any construction. As shown in the Comprehensive storm Water Study, this property is on the natural drainage route for water from the southwest proceeding to Galpin Lake. 4. Traffic Additional traffic generated by this office building, when used primarily as a realty office, should not adversely affect the traffic in the area. However, this proposal should be sent to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their review and analysis of the effect on traffic movement. Properties contiguous to state right-of- way, when being considered for replatting or development, must be sent to Mn/DOT for their review. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,Jr.~-J -t~ Jl~~,- ,,/ James P. Norton, P.E. JPN:nlb << " "' e e COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY,MARCH 1, 1983 .MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the March 1st Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Frank Reese., Vern Watten (late), Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson. Council Liaison Tad Shaw, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assis~ tant Kathy West. ABSENT: Commissioners Janet Leslie (ill), Richard Spellman. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Benson moved, Boyd seconded, approval of the February 15, 1983 Planning Commission minutes as written. The rpotion carried unanimously, 4-0. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Staff informed the Commission of the Annual Minnesota Planning conference to be held March 20th, 21st and 22nd. (Agenda rearrangement) REPORTS City Council: Liaison Tad Shaw reported from the February 28th meeting, noting that the Council had discussed the DNR'scontinued search for lake access in the area; noted the joint meeting between the Park and Planning Commissions and the Council to be held March 12th; and, reported a discussion of fire lanes. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Benson opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. by reading the published legal notice. The hearing was called to consider a request by Mr. Gary Winter- field for a conditinal use permit for an office building in an R-C, Residential Commercial Zone. An error in the legal notice was pointed out, the property in question being located at the southwest rather that the southeast corner of Chaska Road and State Highway 7. ---- Planne"r Nielsen noted that the same application had been approved in 1978, but the time limit on the permit lapsed before development of the project started. Nielsen informed the Commission that the applicant would not be present and had requested that the hearing be continued at a later meeting. Winterfield decided to redesign plans in order to eliminate the need for variances, as suggested in Nielsen's report dated 25 February 1983 (see attachment #1). PUBLIC COMMENTS- The following neighboring residents were present to express concerns. Cindy and Mike Marl', 6015 Chaska Road: Possible noise problems if the existing pine tree barrier is removed from the property in question. Drainage should be addressed. #3d e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES e -2- March 1, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED (Cindy & Mike Marr'sconcerns...) Can control over the design of the building be exercised? Parking lot lighting should be minimized or eliminated. Effects on surrounding property values should be considered. Pam and Doug Groskreutz, 5985 Chaska Road: Access to the property'and coordination of driveways along Chaska Road were concerns. The question of who would be responsible for improvements to the road was raised. The source of utilities to the lot was questioned. Dick Jensen, 6020 Galpin Lake Road: Questioned the procedures involved in rezonings, the public hearing notification process, and the City's intentions re- gardingzoning. The Commission and the Planner explained that the R-C district is intended as a buffer zone between residential and commercial land uses. It allows the City some control as far as screening, landscaping, building height and bulk restric- tions, and setback requirements. Theconditional use permit enables the City to impose specific conditions upon the developer. The Commission noted past and continuing efforts with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and specific requirements for public notification of hearings. Wattenmoved, Reese seconded, to continue the public hearing at the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. REPORTS Park Commission: Staff reported that the second Park Commission meeting in Feb- ruary was cancelled because of a legal holiday. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Joint meeting: Bob Shaw noted that he would not be able to attend the March 12th meeting between the Council and Commissions. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, Reese seconded, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. : Respectfully submitted, ~tt) I,~ '- .....- . . : / ; .." ir ---- ,LA...-.1. Kathleen West, Assistant - e CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING CO~mISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5155 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 1:30 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the March 15,1983 Planning Commission meeting to order at 1:41 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese. Also Present: Council Liaison Tad Shaw, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant Kathy West. Absent: Commissioner Dick Spellman. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Benson moved, Watten seconded, approval of the minutes from the Karch 1, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. CONTINUATION OF MARCH 1,1983 PUBLIC HEARING Applicant Gary Winterfield was present to request a Conditional Use Permit for an office building in an R-C, Residential Commercial Zone located at the south- west corner of State Highway 7 and Chaska Road (Old State Highway 41). Plans for the 3,800 square foot office building were approved three years earlier. Winterfield noted that he intends to use part of the building as a real estate sales office, and rent the remainder to two professional-type offices(i.e., doctor, dent- ist, attorney) as opposed to a retail use. It was noted that Winterfield had changed the site plan inorder to minimize the need for variances (see Planner's report, Attaclunent #1). The Hearing was opened to the public and the following questions/concerns were noted: Tom Wartman, 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, questioned the zoning on the property to the southwest. It was noted as residential, with no special permits. Cindy and Mike Marr, 6015 Chaska Road, asked about: - Drainage plans, noting flooding at the site. (Drainage plans had been submitted to the City Engineer but had not been reviewed at this time.) - Parking lot lighting. Winterfield noted plans for limited night-time lighting, probably not 24 hours per day! though. - BuildinG exterior. Brick veneer was planned. - Buffer from High~~y 7. It vias noted that landscaping vlOuld be required, the specific plan to be finalized '-lith the Conditional Use Permit. .1flti . PLANNING COMMISSION L -2- e lV'.ARCH 15, 1983 (Continued from page 1.) Oindy and Mike Marr. .. -Hours .Of operatj.on. Planner Nielsetl.tloted that the Ordinance limits hours of operation to be- tween 8:00a....>li.nd 9:00 p.m. Pam a.nd Doug Groskreutz ,5985 Chaska Road: - Landscaping. Mrs. Groskreutz noted a desire to preserve existing trees, and questioned planE! for additional landscaping. Winterfield noted that the landscape plan would depend upon the building design, i.e., if a walk-out, then timbers and rock might be used. Fencing had not been decided upon. Use of berms and a split-rail fence were dis- cussed. - 'l'rafficc.oncerns including driveways and the amount of traffic on Chaska Road were noted. Waterero.pply. A ooncern that the water used by an office building might affect local residential wells was expressed. Muriel Vogel, 19795 Excelsior Boullevard, questioned future commercial development along Highway ~ and where this proposal is in terms of processing. It was noted that only the property in question was being considered at this time, and that it had previously been rezoned Residential Commercial. The Commission explained that the Planning Commission holds the Public Hearing, makes a recommendation, then the Council reviews the proposa~ approving or denymg t~ request. The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and raised the following points: Variances - Planner Nielsen noted that the setback variances are due (see report - Attachment #1) to lot configuration and public rights-of-way on three sides of the lot. The border along Chaska Road (old Highway 41) was described as the narrowest width on a public street and considered the lot front. Parking Requirements - It was noted that the proposal shovled the required number of parking spaces. Soil Tests and grading - Winterfield said that he had taken soil tests, the results being positive. He noted that the lot would be graded away from the building; and plans were to transfer dirt from a higher portion of the property into the parking area. Landscaping - Winterfield stated that he would try to save as many trees as possible, noting that more trees might have to be removed if benns become part of the landscape plan. Elevation - Winterfield noted that the elevation of the lower level floor as planned was a few feet below Chaska Road. Commissioner Watten noted that this would require more dirt against the building. He emphasized the Iou quality of the site, much of it below grade and under water if not filled. e e PLANNING COI~~ISSION MI}IliTES -3- MARCH 15, 1983 (Continued from page 2.) Drainage - Watten pointed out that approximately 805G of the site will be imperv- ious oovex; and drainage onto Highway 7 and Chaska Road is a oonoern. Watten moved,Boydseoonded, to deny the request. The motion was defeated on a three to three roll oall vote. Ayes: Nays: Watt en , Boyd, Reese Leslie, Shaw, Benson Watten noted that he felt the previous Residential Commercial zoning was unfor- tunate, although not an issue at this hearing. He stated that the proposed land ooverage is inappropriate to the looation. Leslie noted the importanoe of oonsidering what to develop along Highway 7. She felt that, given the oharacteristics of Winterfield's plan, such as design, minimal signage ,eto., the proposal is not offensive from the standpoint of oommercial development on Highway 7. vlatten suggested that the structure might be lovlered from two stories to one, re- duc.ing the profile, the square footage, and the parking requirements. Reese noted that the use of the property is too intensive and the hardship for varianoes is not present. ~-hhA~ ~~IHd) ~ltuL ~ -- -.~ ~'"OYl V\Ok ~+ of ~ ~ wt a.Ml M'V\vt.k~ . e e e e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE MOVING OF BUILDINGS AND PROVIDING FOR LICENSES, PERMITS AND FEES THEREFOR AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA The City Council of the City of Shorewood ordains as follows: Section 1. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the present number, the words in the singular number include the future, words in the plural number include the present number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory. (1) "Building" is a any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering of any use or occupancy. (2) "Building Official" is the Building Official for the City of Shorewood. (3) "City" is the City of Shorewood. (4) "Person" is any individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind. (5) "Removal location" is any location in the City of Shorewood to which a building may properly be ,moved and on which such building may properly be located after such moving under the provision of this ordinance. (6) "Planning Commission" is the Planning Commission of the City of Shorewood. Section 2. HOUSE MOVERS TO BE LICENSED. No person shall move, remove, raise, or hold up any building within the limits of the City of Shorewood unless such person shall be licensed by the City of Shorewood to engage in such occupation., Upon the filing of an application for a license, the same shall be referred to the Building Official and the Planning Commission of said City and they shall make full investigation of the qualifications of the applicant to carryon the work of moving, raising and holding up buildings and report their findings thereon to the City Council. Upon such report filed with the City Council, and the execution of the bond as required herein~its acceptance by the City Council, such license may be granted refused at the discretion of the City Council. No such lic ~e shall be granted to any person less than twenty-one (21) years of age. The fee for each license is one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per annum, which fee shall be paid at the time of the filing of the application for such license. #> yq e e Section 3. INSURANCE AND BOND REQUIRED. No license shall be issued unless and until the applicant shall first file with the City Clerk a policy or policies of insurance insuring such applicant against liability imposed by law in the limits of ~300,000 because of bodily injury or death of one person per accident, $1,000,000 because of bodily injury to or death of two or more persons per accident, and $100,000 property damage liability per accident. Such policy shall provide that it may not be cancelled by the insurer except upon notice to the City. In case of cancellation of such insurance such license shall be suspended automatically until such insurance has been replaced. No license shall be granted until th~~.r~ty applying therefor shall also have given a bond in the sum of~uthousand dollars ($25,000) with good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the City Council; and conditioned that said party will save and indemnify, and keep harmless, the City against all liabilities, judgments, costs and expenses~ which in any ways accrues against said City in consequence of the granting of such license, including the cost of the City for the services of public utility maintenance me~ necessitated by the moving of any building, and will in all things strictly comply with the provisions of this ordinance and with the conditions of any and all permits which may be issued to them thereunder. Section 4. EXPIRATION OF LICENSE. Each such license shall terminate the 31st day of December next succeeding the issuance of the same, unless sooner revoked or forfeited, and shall not be transferable of assignable. Section 5. REVOCATION OF LICENSE. Upon presentation to the City Council of satisfactory proof that any such licensee has proven incompetent to properly carryon such work on moving, raising, or holding up building or has proceeded with any such work in such a manner as to endanger people or property or upon convictions for failure to comply with this or related ordinances or for.other good cause, the City Council may revoke such license. Section 6. PERMITS REQUIRED. No licensed person shall move any building over, along or across any highway, street or alley in the City without first obtaining a permit from the Building Official and all other appropriate governmental agencies and utility companies. Section 7. APPLICATION. A person seeking issuance of a permit here under shall file an application for such permit with the Building Official. ~ ;0 (1) Form. The Application shall be made in writing upon forms provided by the Building Official, and shall be filed in the office of the Building Official. (2) Contents. The application shall set forth: (a) A description of the building, proposed to be moved, giving street number, construction materials, dimensions, number of rooms and condition of exterior and interior and four (4) photographs, showing ground and street elevations for all sides of the building. (b) A legal descriptiqn eN ~he premises.from which the building is to be"fIiiP.-~; ('...Q.... \ O~o..~ ~ ~,-"ry-lL CV (c) A legal description of the premises to which it is proposed such building be ~ j( r~locate), if located in the C it Y ; rei rJ::p.. \LQ. cY (d) The portion of the premises to be occupied by the building when moved if located in the City; (e) The highways, street~ and alleys over, along or across which the building is proposed to be moved; (f) Proposed moving date and hours; (g) Any additional information which the Building Official shall find necessary to make a fair determination of whether a permit should be issued. (h) Such application for a permit shall be made -2- e - at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed moving date in order to allow the Building Official to make the inspection required. (3) Accompanying Papers (a) Tax Certificate. The owner of the building to be moved shall file with the application sufficient evidence that the building and lot from which it is to be removed are free of any entanglements and that all taxes and any other charges against the same are paid in full. (b) Certificate of Ownership or Entitlement. The applicant shall file with the application a written statement or bill of sale or other sufficient evidence that he is entitled to move the building. (4) Fee. The application shall be accompanied by a permit fee in the amount as set by Council resolution from time, plus a sufficient sum, as estimated by the Building Official, to cover all ~.~ other charges required under the terms of this or any other ordinance ~, of the City. mction 8. DEPOSIT FOR EXPENSE TO CITY. Upon receipt of an I . application it shall be the duty of the Building Official to procure an estimate of the expense that will be incurr.ed in removing and ~ replacing any electric wires, street lamps, pole lines belonging to the City or any other property of the City, the removal and replacement of which will be required by reason of the moving of the building through the City, together with the cost of materials to be used in making such removals or replacements. Prior to issuance of the permit the Building Official shall require of the applicant a deposit of a sum of money eqaal to twice the amount of the estimated expense. Section 9. LETTER OF CREDIT. In order to provide the City with the necessary security to insure that the owner corrects the deficiencies noted by the Building Official and meets all requirements relating to the moving permit within the 90 day period the owner requesting the permit shall obtain and file with the City a letter of credit in the amount as determined by the Building Official to be one and half times the estimated cost to correct all deficiencies in the building. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the building until it complies in all respects with the City ordinances and State Building Code. Section 10. DUTIES OF BUILDING OFFICIAL (I) Inspection: Upon receipt of a completed application to move a building to a removal location in the City of Shorewood the Building Official shall inspect the building wherever located and the equipment to be used to move the building to determine whether the building substantially cpmplies with all City Ordinances and equipment meets the standards for removal to the City of Shorewood, or whether any of the reasons for denial listed under Section 11-(2) are present. (2) Report to the Planning Commission. Following the inspection the Building Official shall report his findings to the Shorewood Planning Commission. Section 11. DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (I) Recommendation to City Council. The Planning Commission shall receive the report of the Building Official and shall make their recommendation to the City Council either approve, deny, or conditionally approve said application. (2) Reasons for Denial. Based upon the findings of the Building Official, the Planning Commission shall recommend denial of the permit application for any of the following reasons: (a) That any application requirement or any fee or deposit requirement has not been complied with; (b) That the building is too large to move without endangering persons or property in the City; -3- e - (c) That the building is in such a state of deterioration or disrepair or is otherwise so structurally unsafe that it could not be moved without endangering persons and property in the City; (d) That the building is structurally unsafe or unfit for the purpose for which moved, if the removal location is in the City; (e) That the applicant's equipment is unsafe and that persons and property would be endangered by its use; (f) That zoning or other ordinances of the City would be violated by the building in its removal location. (g) That for any reason persons or property in the City would be endangered by the moving of the building. (h) That the building in its removal location would fail to comply in any respect with any provision of any ordinance of the City or, in the alternative, that proper assurance of such compliance have, or have not been given. (i) That the building is not in substantial compliance with the City Building Ordinances and the State Building Code. Section 12. DECISION OF CITY COUNCIL. Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall approve, deny, or conditionally approve the permit application. Section 13. FEES AND DEPOSITS. (1) Deposit. The Building Official shall deposit all fees and deposits, with the City in the same manner as all other receipts to the City of deposited. ) Return Upon Non-issuance. Upon Council decision to deny refusal to issue a permit application; the Building Official 1 retur to the applicant all deposits, bonds, insurance policies letter of credit. Permit fees filed with the application shall returned. (3) Return Upon Allowance For Expense. After the building has been removed, the Building Official shall furnish the City Clerk with a written statement of all expenses incurred in removing and replacing all property belonging to the City and of all material used in the making of the removal and replacement together with a statement of the damages caused to or inflicted upon property belonging in the City. The City Clerk, or his deputy, shall authorize the Building Official to return to the applicant all deposits after the deduction of a sum sufficient to pay for all of the costs and expenses and for all damage done to property in the City by reason of the removal of the building. Permit fees deposited with the application shall not be returned. Section 14. DESIGNATION OF STREETS FOR REMOVAL. The Building Official shall procure from the City Engineer, a list of designated street, railroad crossings and bridges over which the building may be moved. The Building Official shall have the list approved by the Chief of Police and shall reproduce the list upon the permit in writing. In making their determinations, the City Engineer and the Chief of Police shall act to assure maximum safety to persons and property in the City and to minimize congestion and traffic hazards on public streets. -4- e e Section 15. DUTIES OF PERMITTEE. Every permittee under this Ordinance shall: (1) Use Designated Streets. Move a building,only over streets designated for such use in the written permit. (2) Notify of Revised Moving Time. Notify the Building Official in writing of a desired change in moving date and hours as proposed in the application. (3) Notify of Damage, Notify the Building Official in writing of any and all damage done to property belonging in the City within 24 hours after the damage or injury has occurred. (4) Display Lights. Cause red lights to be displayed on every side of the building during the night time and red flags during the day time while building is being moved or standing on the street, in such manner as to warn the public of the obstruction and shall where necessary erect and maintain barricades across the streets in such matter as to protect the public from damage or injury by reason of the removal of the building. (5) Street Occupancy. The building shall not be left parked or left standing on any street, alley, or highway in the City. (6) Comply with Governing Law, Comply with the State Building Code, the zoning Ordinance and all other applicable ordinances and laws upon relocating the building in the City. (7) Pay Expense of Officer. Pay the expense of a traffic officer, ordered by the Chief of Police, to accompany the movement of the building to protect the public from injury at a loaded labor rate to be determined by City Council Resolution from time to time. (8) Clear Old Premises. Remove all rubbish and materials and fill all excavations to existing grade at the original building site, when located in the City, so that the premises are left in a safe and a sanitary condition. Section 16. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS. (1) Where the removal location of any building is known by the Building Official to be subject to any restrictive convenants of record, he shall not issue a permit under the provisions of this Ordinance unless and until he is satisfied that all of the terms and conditions of said covenants have been complied with. (2) It is not intended by this Ordinance to interfere with or abrogate or annul any easement, convenant or other agreement between parties provided, however, that when this ordinance imposes a greater or heavier restriction than is imposed or required by any other ordinance rule, regulation or by easement, covenants, or agreement, the provisions of this ordinance shall control. (3) Every applicant or permittee shall pay, in addition to all other required fees, an additional fee of 20~ per mile to be traveled by the Building Inspector in making any inspection under the provisions of this or any other ordinance of this City computed from the City Hall to the site, location of premises where an inspection is to be made, together with a fee at an hourly loaded rate to be determined by City Council Resolution from time to time for the Building Official for the time spent in connection with said inspection. -5- e e (5) The building to be placed upon the removal location shall be completed for occupancy within 90 days after the date of the permit. Section 17. ENFORCEMENT. (1) Enforcing Officers. The Building Official, the Police Department and the City Engineer shall enforce and carry out the requirements of this ordinance. (2) Permittee Liable for Expense above Deposit. The permittee shall be liable for any expense, damage or costs in excess of deposited amounts of securities, and the City Attorney shall prosecute an action against the permittee in a court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of such damages, costs or expenses. (3) Original Premises Left Unsafe. The City shall proceed to do the work necessary to leaving the original premises in a safe and sanitary condition, where permittee does not comply with the requirements of this ordinance and the cost thereof shall be charged against the General Deposit. Section 18. PENALTIES. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdeameanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500.00 or imprisonment for a period of not exceeding ninety days. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder. Section 19. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this of , 1983. day Mayor ATTEST: Clerk -6- tit M E M 0 RAN DUM ~ To: Mayor and City Council From: Brad Nielsen r~ Date: March 24, 1983 Re: Zoning District Amendments - Amesbury West and Shorewood Nursery Property File No.: 405 (general) In preparing the new official Zoning Map, it was found that two past rezonings had been approved by resolution rather than by Ordinance. The Amesbury West property was rezoned from R-2 to P.U.R.D., Planned Unit Residential Development, and the Shorewood Nursery was rezoned from R-5 to R-C, Residential Commercial. Although considered a formality, these rezonings are being reprocessed in ordinance form. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 15th, at which time the Commission voted to recommend approval of the rezonings. Once the attached ordinances have been adopted, the Council may adopt a resolution (now being prepared by the City Attorney) adopting the new official Zoning Map. cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton ~<\,G 4It ORDINANCE NO. . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 77 IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, BEING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE BY REGULATING THE USE OF LAND, THE LOCATION, AREA, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA. The City Council of the City of Shorewood does ordain: Section 1. Ordinance No. 77, Section 16, Establishment of Zoning Districts and Provisions for Official Zoning Map, is hereby amended as follows: "Official Zoning Map may be and hereby is amended by including within the R-C, Residential-Commercial District, property described as: Commencing at a point in East line of Lot 213 a distance of 758.25 feet North from South line of Southeast quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 34 thence West at right angles 160 feet thence North parallel with said East line to Southerly right of way of County Road #19 thence Northeasterly on said right of way line to its intersection with the extension North of said East line of Lot 213 thence South to beginning including adjacent vacant road and Lot 289 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 135. Property Identification #34-117-23-34-0008" Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this day of , 1983. Robert Rascop, Mayor ATTEST: Administrator r ! *I~J e e ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AI-1ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 77 IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, BEING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE BY REGULATING THE USE OF LAND, THE LOCATION, AREA, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA. The City Council of the City of Shorewood does ordain: Section 1. Ordinance No. 77, Section 16, Establishment of Zoning Districts and Provisions for Official Zoning Map, is hereby amended as follows: "Official Zoning Map may be and hereby is amended by including within the P.U.R.D., Planned Unit Residential Development District, property described as: Amesbury West." Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this day of , 1983. Robert Rascop, Mayor ATTEST: Administrator .. ,~L\u e e I' e e RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood passed a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on September 24, 1973, and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has been unable to locate the official zoning map, as described in Section 16 of said Ordinance No. 77, and WHEREAS, said zoning map has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 94, 99, 104, 106, 108, 110, Ill, 116, and 126, and WHEREAS, a map has been prepared showing all the zoning amendments and changes from 1977 to present. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, that the map attached hereto, signed by the Mayor and Clerk on the same date hereof, is designated as the official zoning map, in accordance with Section 16 of Ordinance No. 77. Adopted by the City Council this day of , 1983. #5;. e - o~ , e e March 24,1983 To City of Shorewood Request for the awarding of the 1983 Road Side Noxious weed spraying contract. We also would like to handle the weed spraying for Badger,Manor,Cathcart and Freeman fields and the Village Hall yard. The Spraying would be handled the same as last year. A. We have all the spraying equipment needed to do the work properly. B. Licensed by the State of Minnesota. C. Fully insured. The price for the Road Side spraying this year $1675.00 515.00 The price for the Park spraying this year Mahoney Home Services, INC. r/-~ ~ :fI/()b 'V ,.,., e Northern States Power Company e I\SP March 9, 1983 MinnetQnka Division 5505 County Road 19 P.O. Box 10 Shorewood. Minnesota 55331 Telephone (612) 474.8881 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 In the mid to late 1960's, Northern States Power Company installed a new street lighting system in your city using the most modern and efficient mercury vapor equipment available. Since this equipment is now approximately 15 years old, many of the ballasts are beginning to fail and need replacing. Therefore, we have developed a new street light improvement program, again using the most efficient lighting available, which you may want NSP to install in your city. The existing NSP owned overhead street lighting system can be converted to a sodium vapor light source on a planned basis at a reasonable cost to the city. · Presently your NSP owned overhead lighting system consists of: 1 - 400 Watt Mercury Vapor Unit 12 - 250 Watt Mercury Vapor Units 29 - 175 Watt Mercury Vapor Units This can be converted approximately size for size, to a sodium vapor system consisting of: 1 - 200 Watt Sodium Vapor Unit 12 - 150 Watt Sodium Vapor Units 29 - 100 Watt Sodium Vapor Units If you choose to have this conversion done, you will receive 17.4 percent more light for 5.3 percent more monthly operating cost. An initial payment of $5 per unit or $ 210 total would be required for the group replacement of these lights to the modern most efficient sodium vapor light source. An alternative, would be to have NSP replace the existing mercury vapor units with the sodium vapor units only on burn out of the mercury ballasts. #-/Oc e e - 2 - There would be no initial charge for this alternative, however, the street lighting system would be a mixture of mercury and sodium lights until all of the existing mercury ballasts fail. If you would like more detailed information, please contact Sam Higuchi of NSP at 474-8881. {j;<t~ .<J. E. Rudolph' Distribution Engineering Manager '< .. CIfY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING CO~Th~ISSION V~TING 'rUESDAY, WiARCH 15, 1983 COUNCIL CI-W::BBRS 5755 COmrTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.K. rl:INUTES CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the Karch 15,1983 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:41 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Vern Watten, Janet Leslie, Nary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson, Frank Reese. Also Present: Council Liaison Tad Shaw, Planner Brad Nielsen, Assistant Kathy West. Absent: Commissioner Dick Spellman. APPROVAL OF fIfE rUIW'rES Benson moved, viatten seconded, approval of the minutes from the Larch 1, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as written. The motion carried unanimously, 5-0. cmrrnJUATION OF IvlARCH ~_ 1983 PUBLIC HEARIlJG Applicant Gary \hnterfield was present to request a Conditional Use Permit for an office building in an R-C, Residential Corrmercial Zone located at the south- west corner of state Highway 7 and Chaska Road (Old state Highway 41). Plans for the 3,300 square foot office building were approved three years earlier. Hinterfield noted that he intend.s to use part of the building as a real estate sales office, and rent the remainder to two professional-type offices(i.e., doctor, dent- ist, attorney) as opposed to a retail use. It v-Tas noted that Hinterfield had changed the site plan inord.er to minimize the need for variances (see Planner's report, Attachment #1). The Hearing was opened to the public and the following questions/concerns uere noted: Tom \Iartman, 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, questioned the zoning on the property to the southwest. It was noted as residential, with no special permits. Cindy and Mike Marr, 6015 Chaska Road., asked about: Drainage plans, noting flooding at the site. (Drainage plans had been submitted to the City Engineer but had not been reviewed at this time.) Parking lot lighting. '~Vinterfield noted plans for limited night-time lighting, ~'::.'oi.;ably not ..' hours per day, though. Builcli21[: e:derior. Brick veneer was planned. Duffer from Highway 7. It Has noted that landscaping ",auld be require:l, the s::)ecific plan to bo finalized with the Conditional Use Permit. PLANNHJG CmJlGSSION KIlJTUES -2- KARCH 15, 1983 (Continued from page 1.) Cindy and Mike Marr... -Hours of operation. Planner Nielsen noted that the Ordinance limits hours of operation to be- tvleen 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Pam and Doug Groskreut:.:;, 5935 Chaska Road: Landscaping. I.:rs. Groskreutz noted a desire to preserve existing trees, and Questionec. plans for additional landscaping. Hinterfield notecl that the landscape plan Hould depend upon the building design, i.e., if a walk-out, then timbers and rock might be used. Fencing had not been decided upon. Use of berms and a split-rail fence were dis- cussed. Traffic concerns including driveways and the amount of traffic on Chaska Road were noted. Water supply. A concern that the water used by an office building might affect local residential Hells vlaS expressed. Kuriel Vogel, 19795 Excelsior Boullevard, questioned future commercial development along IIighHay 7, and 'l'Jhere this proposal is in terms of processing. It Has noted that only the property in question was being considered at this time, and that it had. previously been rezoned Residential Commercial. The Commission explained that the Planning Commission holds the Public Hearing, makes a recommendation, then the Council reviews the proposa~ approving or denying t~ request. The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and raised the following points: Variances - Planner Nielsen noted that the setback variances are due (see report - Attachment #1) to lot configuration and public rights-of-way on three sides of the lot. The border along Chaska Road (old High\vay 41) was described as the narrowest width on a public street and considered the lot front. Parking Requirements - It \1aS noteD. that the proposal shoued the required. number of parking spaces. Soil Tests and grading - Hinterfield said that he had taken soil tests, the results being positive. He noted that the lot would be graded away from the building; and plans were to transfer dirt from a higher portion of the property into the parking area. Landscaping - l:interfield statecl that he would try to save as many trees as possible, notingb21at more trees might have to be removed. if bems become part of the lanclsca)e plc:m. :aevatic:, - Jinter:f:icld noted thc::.~ the elevc::.tion of the 10Her level floor as planned ,'Ta8 a feu feet belm! Chasl:a ::load. Cor:rrnissioner Hatten noted that this \V0uld require more dirt against the builiin;:;. He emphasized. the 1m! quality of the site, much of it belm; cracle and under '-Tater if not filled. , ~ PLAmUUG CGr.':KISSIOn MINU'Y3S -3- HARCH 15, 1983 (Continued from page 2.) Drainage - Hatten pointed out that approximately 80); of the site ..Till be imperv- ious cover; and drainage onto HighHay 7 and Chaska Road is a concern. Watten moved, Boyd seconded, to deny the request. The motion vlas defeated on a three to three roll call vote. Ayes: Nays: Watten, Boyd, Reese Leslie, Shaw, Benson \~atten noted that he felt the previous Residential Commercial zoning Vlas unfor- tunate, although not an issue at this hearing. He stated that the proposed land coverage is inappropriate to the location. Leslie noted. the importance of considering vThat to develop along EighHay 7. She felt that, given the characteristics of Hinterfield's plan, such as design, minimal signage, etc., the proposal is not offensive from the standpoint of commercial development on HighHay 7. Hatten suggested that the structure might be louered. from hlO stories to one, re- ducing the profile, the s<{uare footage, and the parking requirements. Reese noted that the use of the property is too intensive and. the harclship for variances is not present. ~d~A~ ~~lHd J ~ltuL ~ -- -~ ~'l5Yl Y\O k fut of ~ ~ Q;Y'(.. t\Ml V\l\.tY\ vtJ<.~S .