041183 CC Reg AgP
~ ...
10
CITY OF SHOREWOOD .
REDUlAR COUNCIL MEEI'
M:>NDAY, APRIL 11, 1903
. .... COtA:L CHAMBERS
~.. .... 575~OUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREwOOD, MN 7: 30 PM
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer
B. Roll Call
Haugen /
Shaw ~.
Leonardo .
Stover r
Mayor Rascop L/
,jJ
1.
\1'1
~~~i
~ ~C{;
~~ ~~
" \J rf:; /
\J 3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Council Meeting - March 28, 1983
[Attachment #la]
TIERS FRa.1 THE FlOOR
A. Citizen's corrrnentson the conditional use permit issued at the
March 28th Council Meeting for property located at Sout.rlwest
corner of State Highway #7 and Chaska Road
[Attachment #2a]
B.
"PUBLIC HEARING" - ~UESI' FOR VARIANCE:
8:00 PM
(To temporarily leave an existing house during the construction
of a new residential dwelling on one existing lot.)
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Daniel Randall
24655 Smi thtown Road
[Attachment #3a-Planners Report]
[Attachment #3b-P.C. Recorrrnendation]
4. "PUBLIC HEARING" - ~UEST FOR VARIANCE:
8:15 PM
(To install signs in excess of the size requirement of the
Shorewood z,offing ordinance)
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Minnetonka State Bank
23780 State Highway #7
[Attachment I!4a-:Planner Report]
[Attachment #4b-p.c. Reccmnendation]
~
RffiUIAR COUNCIL AG1
-2-
AP.11. 1983
5. PRELIMINARY PlAT REVIEW - OAK RImE ESTATES, SECOND ADDITION:
Noble Canpany
5550 Grant LDrenz Road
[Attachment #5a-Planners Report]
[Attachment #5b-Engineer' s Report]
[Attachment #5c-P.C. Reconmendation]
[Attachment #5d-Pk. C. Reconrnendation]
6. REQUEST FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMEN.I:MENT AND REZONING:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
(Request to include self-storage facilities as a conditional permitted
use in the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Cormnercial District;
Request to rezone property from R-l Single Family Residential District
to C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Cormnercial District)
APPLICANT: ~V~. Bruce Hubbard
LOCATION: 19585 State Highway #7
[Attachment #6a-Planner' s Report]
[Attachment #6b-P.C. Reconrnendation]
[Attachment #6c-Letter from Mr. Hubbard]
7. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES:
A. An Ordinance regulating the moving of buildings within the City of
Shorewood - third reading:
[Attachment lf7a]
8. PIANNING CrnMISSION REPORl':
A.
B.
9. PARK CrnMISSION REPORl':
A.
B.
10. ATTORNEY'S REPORl':
A.
B.
11. ENGINEER'S REPORl':
A.
B.
12. AIMINISTRATIVE REPORl':
A. Discussion of "Spring Clean-up D;w"
B.
REnUIAR COUNCIL AGEl'ID4
13. MAYOR'S REPORT:
A.
-3-
~ 11, 1983
14. COUNCIL'S REPORT:
A.
15. MATl'ERS FBClv1 THE FlOOR:
A.
16. APPROVAL OF CIAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD . :-. :'. ".,., .::
~ t_1 ,
REGULAR COUNCIL MEE G
MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1983
.' .......tl
-.:.; '~'.:~. ,-:o'.cib.L CHAMBERS
5755 ~OUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 7:30 PM
M I NUT E S
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to
order by Acting Mayor Stover at 7:31 PM, Monday, March 28, 1983,
in the Council Chambers.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER
The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Acting Mayor Stover, Councilmembers Haugen, Shaw and
Leonardo (Rascop on vacation)
Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator
Uhrhammer and Clerk Kennelly
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes as
amended for the Council meeting of March 14, 1983. Motion carried
unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Bonnie Schoutz of 6130 Cathcart Drive was present to voice a
complaint against MAPSI for removing/or calling her dog off her
property. She then had to pick her dog up from MAPSI and received
a ticket for "Dog Running at Large". She asked the Council for
clarification of the Dog Ordinance and what constitutes "Control"
and "Running at Large". Council determined that a dog untied in
it's own yard is within the Ordinance. Mrs. Schoutz requested the
Council to inform the patrol service of the Ordinance. She voiced
complaints on the location of the service and the lack of information
on the ticket issued. and suggested that only problem dogs should
be pursued. Various other residents of the Cathcart area and Wedge-
wood Drive voiced similar complaints with the animal patrol.
Council directed the Administrator and Attorney to clarify the Dog
Ordinance regulation with the animal patrol service.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION ~~2=~3
Gary Winterfield was present to request a Conditional Use Permit
requiring 3 variances for his property located at the Southwest
corner of State Highway 7 and Chaska Road. Variances requested
are:
1.) Less than 25' setback for a front lot
line parking lot.
:tla
REGULAR COUNCIL MEE~G
-2-
MAe 28,1983
2.) Less than 5' setback from rear lot line for a parking
lot.
3.) Less than 35' (15' Variance) setback from Residential
district.
Mr. Winterfield withdrew his request for the front parking lot,
omitting the variance for that.
Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to grant the Conditional Use
Permit approving the rear lot line variance and 20' variance from
a residential district, also to require:
1.) Construct a fence on the south lot line
2.) Submit for approval a detailed landscape plan
3.) Approval of a drainage plan
4.) Mn DOT approval
5.) Post $1,000.00 security for 1 year for road repairs
necessary for sewer installation.
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote. 4 ayes.
MOVING OF BUILDINGS ORDINANCE
2nd READING
Council reviewed the Moving of Buildings Ordinance and made
various changes.
Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to accept the 2nd reading
as amended, and to return to council for the 3rd reading. Motion
carried unanimously.
R-C ZONE - SHOREWOOD NURSERY
ORDINANCE #141
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Shaw, to adopt the amendment to
Ordinance 77 rezoning the property located at 23505 Smithtown
Road form R-5 to R.C. referred to in Resolution #25-78.
Motion carried unanimously in roll call vote.
AMESBURY WEST PURD
ORDINANCE #142
Moved by Haugen, seconded by Leonardo, to adopt the amendment to
Ordinance 77 rezoning the area described as Amesbury West Single
Family Residential to PURD referred to in Resolution #73-80.
Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ADOPTION
RESOLUTION #26-83
City Planner Nielsen submitted the new official zoning map for
review of the Council.
REGULAR COUNCIL ME~G
-3-
MAe 28, 1983
Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to approve and adopt the
cities "Official Zoning Map" as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously by roll call vote.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Councilmember Shaw reported on the discussion of Mr. Huber's
proposal to rezone the R-l property at 19545-85 State Highway 7
for commercj_al use to construct a mini-storage facility.
Commission passed down a split vote (3-3)
PARK COMMISSION
Roger Stein reported on the progress made on the development of
a Community Picnic and the appointment of Steve Frazier as Ad Hoc
Chairman to help generate park fund or equipment donations.
The Commission will make up a booklet showing their suggestions
for the kinds of equipment they would prefer in the parks to
show people who would like to contribute to this fund.
Commission would like a report from the Administrator on the
progress of the entrance drive to Freeman Park and the completion
of the softball field at Manor Park.
ATTORNEY'S REPORT
LMCD prosecutions:
Attorney Larson indicated that the city attorneys can do the
prosecution for lake violations in the name of the LMCD. Some
of the disadvantages of having the LMCD prosecute would be the
loss of revenue from the ~ rec.eived and the city would also
EN::::E:~: :::::1 of diSCreti~;
No report was make. Council congratulated Engineer Norton on
his promotion to associate with O.S.M.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Weed Control Contract
Leonardo moved, seconded by Shaw, to
from Mahoney Home Service and award
Motion carried unanimously.
accept a weed spraying bid
the 1983 contract to them.
NSP Vapor Light Request
NSP has requested the City to allow them to change all the
mercury vapor lights to sodium vapor lights at the City expense
of $5.00 per unit.
Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to replace only the lights that
burn out. Motion carried.
REGULAR COUNCIL ~TING
-4-
MA& 28, 1983
ADMINISTRATOR"S REPORT continued
Special Meetings
Administrator Uhrhammer suggested a special meeting between the
Planning Commission and Council should be set for the purpose of
review of the new ~oning ordinance. He would like the Council
to submit to him and the Planner a list of questions or concerns
prior to the meetings to be addressed at those meetings.
Meetings will be held at 6:00 PM on April 6, 13, and 19th at
City Hall Council Chambers.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Greenwood Lift Station Litigation
Councilmember Haugen reported on a conversation with Mayor
Albrecht of Greenwood proposing a settlement for the lift
station suit. Greenwood will extend their bike trail from
St. Albans Bay Road to Sleepy Hollow Road and will improve the
intersection at Minnetonka Boulevard and St. Albans Bay Road
at ~hei~ expense~Ec,c~horewood drops the suit against them.
~~~t~~o_~~~~~~k Greenwood for their offer and that we
are taking it under advisement and will respond at the time a
decision has been made.
Timber Lane Meeting
Mayor Rascop and Coucilmember Haugen attended a meeting with the
residents of Timber Lane discussing the DNR possible lake access
in that area. Mr. Kramer of 5425 Timber Lane will submit a
draft copy of the conclusions of that meeting. Nielsen,
Uhrhammer, and Haugen will review and submit their conclusions
to the DNR.
Liquor Store Meeting
The Liquor Commission has been and is currently reviewing the
financial position of the city stores.
APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT
Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the claims for
payment followed by adjournment at 10:45 PM. Motion:carried
unanimously.
General Fund - [Account #00166] Checks 26928 -
Liquor Fund - [Account #00174] Checks 9895-
Respectfully submitted,
MAYOR
SANDRA L.KENNELI:;
SLK: sn
e
e
e
e
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: April 7, 1983
RE: Winterfield, Gary - C.U.P.
FILE NO. 405 (83.01)
As you are aware, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the above-referenced request on March 15, 1983. Their discussion
ended up in a 3 to 3 tie vote which was referred to the City Council.
Subsequent to the public hearing, residents who were present to
express their concerns regarding the request were mistakenly informed
that the City Council would hold a second public hearing on April 11,
1983.
The residents were surprised to read in a recent newspaper article
that the City Council had approved the request on March 28th.
The Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission holds the
public hearing for conditional use permits. Although technically
public input is not received at the Council level, to our knowledge
the Council has typically allowed the public to express their concerns
at Council meetings. In this regard, it is understandable that
concerned residents may have felt slighted.
Since the Council's decision was based upon comments contained in the
Planning Commission minutes which included a summary of resident
concerns, it would not be fair to the developer for the City to
reverse its decision at this time. If the residents have pertinent
new information which would significantly influence the project, it
should be taken into consideration.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
~~
~ .~
e
page 2
MEMO
Winterfield, Gary
April 7, 1983
e
Affected residents are on the agenda for your April 11th meeting, at
which time they will undoubtedly wish to express their disappointment
and possibly anger over the misinformation they received. It is
recommended that the Council also allow them to offer any new evidence
they may have relative to the request. Presumably, unless significant
new evidence is presented, the City's previous decision will stand.
We apologize for the inevitable embarrassment this situation creates.
Ironically, staff went beyond normal procedures in keeping the
residents informed of the project status. The mistake is unfortunate
and we assure you it is not being taken lightly. All staff members
have been reminded that if there is any question relative to infor-
mation being given out, to check and double check.
If you would care to discuss this prior to Monday night's meeting,
feel free to contact Doug or myself.
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
e
e
~
e e
MAYOR
Robert Raseap
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
March 31, 1983
RE:
Randall, Daniel - Variance Request
FILE NO.: 405 (83.05)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Daniel Randall proposes to construct a new single family
dwelling on his father's property located at 24655 Smithtown
Road. [see Exhibit A attached] He has requested permission to
leave the existing dwelling up until the new one has been
completed, at which time the existing structure would be torn
down. Since Sect. 11, Subd. 8 specifically prohibits more
than one principal structure being located on a lot, a variance
is necessary.
The property is currently zoned R-l, and contains 65,320 square
feet (1.5 acres) in area. Both the proposed and existing houses
conform easily to setback requirements. Exhibits B and C
illustrate the location of structures.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The request is not considered unreasonable, either from a
planning or building inspection perspective. The major concern
is to ensure that the existing structure is removed within a
reasonable time. In discussing this with the applicant, he
felt that three months should be adequate time to build the
new house. Demolishing the existing structure would take an
additional two months (the home will be more or less dismantled).
If the City is inclined to approve the variance, it is suggested
that a 180 day limit be imposed, beginning at the time the
building permit is issued. This gives the applicant 30 days
leeway, yet assures the City that the situation will be resolved
prior to next winter.
A Residentilll Community on Lllke Minnetonkll's South Shote
it3A
Memorandum from~ad Nielsen-page 2
e
March 31, 1983
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION continued
Given the relatively long period of time to remove the existing
structure, precautions would be taken at the time the demolition
permit is issued to ensure the safety of the premises.
BN : sn
cc: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Dan Randall
-I -Iz"
0' :..
~
~
_L
~
~
'""
~
,
,
.
N
i
-
~
9
't "'
;:a. ~....
~ .; i'
";;-
~
~
..:::.J
~
-'
-\.
~.
- -.
~ --
-- .....
Jt.
~
;e
.
~\I
-~
("""
'"
ir;,
l'l()
"
,S.
I
.
I
.
.
C\-!
fo>
t>~lb I
~~Il
"
,-
~
~
...(~I
--<tVl)o.~
'.....
$ tZ J.Cni.
~
.'
~
.'
"l"
~.I,
-II. _
4.... ~ 2
, -
,~
~
-04
s
-
~
~'1
. I
II~
e
e
IIJ '
EN'STIIlf!r 01' I
!$.O
I
.J
0-
~
I
I
I
H1NIIET~N1f"
~1JIJ""~1 a~
.
_ _/IJD'_ _ _
I
I
I
.5' I
...
N
1
-
~
C1
....
t'
~
~
- -98'--
, I
J
EXHIBIT B
_ - ~ ~altJ)
'J/fIT,,-r/)tJ
t
-
~
~
I
-I--
.151.1.1'
-
EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION
~t/~""N6- J.kME" '7D 1<< ~MD"'E2) iJ~" ~tJHPu-rliJtJ
tJF NEW HIJI"I.. G/~TI"6- ~lIeD 7b ~E HlJfleD ~
8<<1TH W~45r &~NGL~~ ~Pllt..,y ~At)L Tt:)
~/JN.$7XU4T.J.
~ .,
----
.".L. 1. I ~ ~
.
e
MN'KE?lIMt'.f
~1JIJN'f1tV ~UJ8
- - I/)J ' - -
(,D'
..
..
~
I
I
I
I
I
- I, 1'- -
..
,
N
1
NnI J.lMl.
.
t-a
~
'"
~
~
..
~
~
r---- -'..
I I
: OIb~.l
-, I
I I
'.. - - -'
2..L.'1'1
I
-
~
~
......
-" L'.. - .:' 'KD/lD
.or" ,.,II1"{)YtI
I
I
1- --
~...........- ,
J! ,.'1~
-
-.........
NElIa #tJII6 'Ii AE 'E,1Il.T .!JoFin;T &"/NI) GL,:!>rtI/& -HDI4E
&~TE~T DJ~TRAltE ~rrtJE.N 'SD-rH Ho~GO I~ /At> ,:Err.
tJJ.NL HDN6 1D BE ~"m 1.11'01II &"LE77DJ t#" NhI-I/DM.
EXHIBIT C
PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION
/
/
~u: YZ/A/=I()~
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
MOTION:
MOVED:
SECONDED:
VOTE:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
tlMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ~
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Tuesday, April 5, 1983
Daniel Randall - 24655 Smithtown Road
Request for Variance to temporarily leave
an existing house during the construction
of a new residential dwelling on one existing
lot.
To recommend that the Council grant the
requested variance conditioned upon a 180 day
time limit.
Richard Spellman
Vern Watten
Unanimous, 5 - 0
Spellman, Boyd, Shaw, Benson, Watt en
none
none
-ft?h
e
e
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
BACKGROUND
-, u.-
e
e
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad IUelsen
31 March 1983
Minnetonka State Bank - Sign Variance
405 (83.04)
Mr. Robert McDougal has requested a sign variance for the new
bank building located at 23780 State Highway 7. The bank has
proposed three signs for the site. One freestanding pylon
sign, identifying the business and showing time and temperature,
contains approximately 98.5 square feet in area (see Exhibit A,
attached). Two wall signs, one each on the south and east sides
of the building, each contain 18 square feet in area.
Section 12 Subdivision 3.E. contains the sign requirements for
the C-3 District. As noted in item 2. of that section, busi-
nesses are allowed a total of three signs, one of which can be
as large as 150 square feet in area. Two other signs are limit-
ed to 10 square feet each. As proposed, the Bank needs a vari-
ance of eight square feet for each of its two wall signs.
According to the applicant the proposed wall signs would con-
sist of individual, nonilluminated letters, attached directly
to the exterior wall. The applicant has cited the following
two reasons as justification for the variance;
1. The signs are needed to fill a void space in the front
and side facades.
2. Their freestanding sign is not as large as it could be
based upon the Zoning Ordinance. The total area of all
their proposed signage is only 134.5 square feet, while
the Ordinance would allow 170 square feet in total.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
#tia
Shorewood Pla~ing Commission,
Mayor and City Council
31 March 1983
e
Page Two
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
While the proposed trade-off has certain merit, it may not
meet all the conditions and criteria for considering vari-
ances as provided in Section 6. Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance. In reviewing that section specifically, and vari-
ances in general, it is advised that the City always keep
variances as minimal as possible. In this regard, it is sug-
gested that the City and t~e applicant consider replacing one
of the wall signs with an address identification. Address
signage need not be counted against allowable sign area and
may satisfy the applicant's concern relative to the architec-
tural void in his building's facade.
BJN:kw
c c: QJoui Uh"rhamme't>
GarY"Lar sOn-"
Bob McDougal
Kathy West
-
/1'-1/
I
I
t -- - ---
I
I
I'? '- ()"
I
I
f/I'. rPf; I
_J_-~
_fIII---- ---------- .... --.
il-~I
II '
__--IL
-------'
IL-II--- -'
Il
~ 1- 7~1-t II
---;/5 1) I. 'J "/ t'
-1~ ~
~
uh~bit A
~ rFff.,~1ANDl~ O(~
.....in"c.1o,,~ t>t...t.. ~~
-'
,-,,,- .
-_/""
, ~
"
.~
~
.j
~ u
\e \
, I
I
U "
w 0
n: Cl
,
.
I.l 0
a: cr.
\
t'
, I i
+ n __ _ _
+ -I
I
I
I
I
-,...-
- ~
~.._- + ~-. --=-',
/'. I: I ; p
/'11' "i'I'"
I ',I, 0'1 ',': \
I II iI'- :' 'I i ':;
)' I !'ii:iI:'I)II'I:II~
I I I, , \oj
/ ' ";1111,
, '1'1
~ ~ I " "i
~. f :: ~.
. ~, . Jj
~ ~ i ~.'
~~
\A1~.
,
j
.. ..-C"~~ '{i
. '-'. rd . .. 1
- <d I
",
~
'4
,,,;
..
"
~.
"
~, ~
Ii.: t,
I
,
'.1.
<!.
J' ...
~
~
~f; I 't
,
,
~
1
j --+ ----
~
E.)l.h; bit t?
~ \~ ~~N
~th 1::-\.."Q,t'ion
.J
'If
<-
oil
...
lJ
'"
,?
l-
II
IJ-
,
e
.~,
..
~
.:., ~
" \
~ ~
~ ..
\
t
1
~
'"
......
,J
~
-~
'-->
I r/- .- - -1"1
ill I\! . \ I
:1 \ \1\ \ \ II \ ,.111 \! ii, \ \ \ \ I
1 I \ II, \ \ II I 11'\\ 1'1 \' \ I: .' 'Iii, I
II 11\\ ill\\\1 i\I\\ \\1\\ \\\t\L::1\!\ 3 I \ I
!~, II I 11\ 11\1'" 'Iii' I I
\'1 .. \ \ "11\ 1I11\'i\I\\\\\\\ II : :
\" I
I ~ ! I I I
It! i I I 2 I
w ,I ~ Q
u ;, I >-:z I I
~ !! ~ 10.
\ i: I ~ ~ I I
\,~ I 1_1_ J I
"-r-' - --.--11 i I ~ 1
-"" II ~~ i, !I I I I
\ ,! ./ I
1-. a.. II . -Co - -.-, -'=~I I I I
,~ li'-'~ ~ ~\ ' : I
:l '14' Il_~
.J -.' , I
'll
. r -. - 11 I
I, . ill
'l-h~.) .... :i I :
..J -!i ." -- .. J'__uJ II
4. ,.)
.. ,~... .., -In i
I II ~ '.1 I I'
~i ~ I',
'I -'I I,
~ :'\-' .,.. I
I '; ~ ~. '
I :! ~'/ ~
I'
. J t. . j
Jr'r:
11~~ -' il;
J:r !l
j .. i .
\
\
I
I
I
j
11/
.....-----.....-- ~) t
I
I
~ ."
~ '4'
~~", r
.~
"
~
~ I
\). .~
~~
~~'~~
~~)~
~t1~ .-
iS~' .
t ~ ~ih\t G
'.)\ ,"~ "'Al..L ~~N
~ ~ "j-..... ~ ~t f,ltW~1ion \;.>
/
/
.
,
j
"
..
~
..J
<(
C(
:>
...
oJ
::>
ex:
l-
'"
...
....
,Jf
,
..,
2
>-
o
o
II.
)
I
/. :
~
o
I-
<i
>
W
...J
W
I-
tIl
<(
L.J
u ::.
Q
... ..t.
'" "
oi' ':'1
... -
'" .:
l.1 .'1.
~.'"
,,..
l~
..
(
TO:
FROM:
_MMISSION RECOMMENDATION e
Mayor and Council
Planning Commission
MEETING DATE:
Tuesday, April 4, 1983
RE:
MOTION:
MOVED:
SECONDED:
VOTE:
Minnetonka State Bank - 23780 State Highway #7
Request for Variance: To install signs in
excess of the size requirements of the
Shorewood Zoning Ordinance.
To recommend that the Council grant the
variance request.
Bob Shaw
Mary Boyd
Motion carried, 3 - 2
AYES:
Boyd, Shaw, Watten
NAYS:
Spellman, Benson
ABSTAIN:
none
~Watten advised Caution in granting sign variances)
qfLjb
e
e
e e
v
~
~~/~s
J
..
1IEIl0lWreUM
TO:
FltOM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
BACKGltOUND
e e
AJ~ U.
{/ MA VOR
Robert Rncop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Tad Shaw
Alexander Leonardo
Robert Gagne
ADMINISTRATOR
Doug Uhrhammer
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
gad Nielsen
11 March 1983
Tex-Sota Construction - Zoning District and text Amendm.nt
405 (83.02)
1Ir. Bruoe Hubbard, President of T.x-Sota Construction has subaitted a
r.que.t to build a self-storage facility (Minn..ota MiDi-storage) on the
property locat.d at 19545 and 19585 stat. Highway 1 (..e Sit. Location Map
x attached as Exhibit A). The propert7 oontains appronll&t.ly 2.6 acr.. in
area, is Boned R-1, and is currently oooupied by two ai.ncle faaily "'llinee.
SUrrounding land use and zoning are .. follow.:
Borth:
But:
South:
W..t :
Stat. Highway 1
vacant building (Vin. Hill Floral ShOP), aODlMi C-3
and the r.ar of a singl. fuUy re.iclutial l.t, PMd. R-1
two single family dw.llinee, aoned R-1
UDd.v.lop.d, aoned R-1
Generally, the propos.d facility consists of fiv., singl. stor7 buildince,
divid.d into storage bays ranging in siz. from large clos.t. to large prage..
Th. units are r.nted out to individuals and, in .om. oues to busin....s,
.trictly for storage. A .ixth ouilding in the front of the .ite (.ee Exhibit
C, attached) would b. occupi.d by the r.ntal office and caretaker's re.idenc..
A. can b. s..n on the propos.d Site Plan the larp.t building fona. a "UtI shape
around the north, ..st and south sides of the .it.. A chain link fence creat..
a complete enclosure for .ecurity purpo....
A ResidMtM/ Community on LlIIce lIinnetonb'. South Shore
fI&q
plannning Commission, M~ and City Council
11 Karch 1983
e
Pace Two
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Although several facilities similar to the one proposed currently exist within
the metropolitan area, the use is considered to be relatively unique in terms
of a commercial activity. For example, traffic andparking requirements are
relatively low compared to the large area of the proposed buildiDB8.
Due to the current residential zoning of the property, the request involves
a zoning district change. Since the proposed use is not listed in the
Zoning Ordinance, the Ordinance must be amended to include the use in some
district prior to an actual rezoning.
In evaluating the request it is recommended that the following issues be
considered.
A. Land Use. Although the Proposed r.and Use map contained in the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan has shown the subject site as low to medium density
residential, the area plan for Planning District 13 states:
"...While the overall residential density of the District baa been
proposed as one to two units per acre, the City recognizes that property
adjacent to Highway 7 may not be appropriate for such use. In this
regard, a somewhat higher density residential use (three to six units
per acre) or low intensity nonresidential use (e.g. offices or other
low traffic-generating commercial uses) may be considered acceptable
for development of the Highway 7 "corridor". Some sort of planned
unit development may be the best means of creating a desirable transition
from Highway 7 southward into lower density residential development in
the interior of the District..."
The current owner of the property has in the past maintained that proximity
to Highway 7 makes the site unsuitable for residential development, citing
traffic noise as a serious detriment. A letter, dated 7 Nay 1975, from
the Minnesota Pollution Control AgenQy to Wally Mortenson (current owner)
supports this conclusion.
In his request, Mr. Hubbard cites the exposure, not necessarily access,
to Highway 7 as being an advantage to his proposed use. Simultaneously
the building massing creates an effective sound barrier between Highway 7
and the Shady Hills residential area to the south. Proposed landscaping
counterbalances the visual impact of the building massing.
Mr. Hubbard is far more aware of the market for a self storage facility
than the City staff. However, judging from the number of requests for
large garages and storage buildings on residential property, there is
obviously some demand for the proposed use.
Planning Commission. MB30~ City Council
11 March 1983
e
Page '!lhree
B. Traffic. Any development request for the area in question immediately
brings to mind ,the Vine Hill hoad/HighwB3 1 intersection. The inter-
section has long been a concern relative to future as well as existing
development. According to the applicant. the nature of the proposed
use is such that traffic impact on the intersection would be relatively
minimal. storage ba,ys are rented on a monthly basis and are often
retained for longer periods of time. Consequently. regular traffic
is fairly minimal as opposed to an office or retail commercial activity.
Mr. Hubbard will undoubtedly be able to answer qu~stions regarding traffic
patterns for the proposed use at the public hearing scheduled for 15 March.
c. Utilities/Drainage. In spite of the large building area. the proposed use
places no more demand on utility service than a single family residence.
Sewer and water serve only the caretaker residence/office. The major
concern is considered to be drainage. Given the amount of impervious
surface proposed. stormwater runoff will be considerable. As a remedy.
the applicant has proposed to install storm s.wer to collect the runoff
and direct it to the drainage ditch on Highwa,y 1. This will be subject
to review and oomment by the City ~neer.
D. Zoning. If it is agreed that the proposal is generally acceptable from
a land use. traffic. and utilities perspective. the question then is
how should the zoning be modified to accommodate the request. As
previously mentioned the use is not currently listed in any district.
From the staff level it was determined that the C-1 District m&3 be the
the most appropriate for the use and for the area in question. The C-1
District. particularly as proposed in the new Zoning Ordinance. is
intended for low key commercial activity and often suitable as a trans-
itional zoning district. While the mini-storage operation will serve
a aarket larger than just immediately adjacent neighborhOods. the range
of such a market is primarily considered local. The proposed faoility
was not oonsidered in character with the R-C District and uses in other
oommercial districts are ,.nerally higher in intensity than ths mtDi-
storage facility.
In oonsidering the C-1 District. the question arises as to where else
in the oo.unity the proposed use could occur. Currently. only one
site is zoned C-1. The property in the southwest oorner of the
Christ..s Lake toad/Highway 1 intersecti~n is currently occupied by a
DOnoonforming use (the existing billboard).
The next question which oomes to mind is what uses are permitted in the
event the applicant's proposal falls through. This is always a oonoern
when rezoning property to a higher use district. and the City !lUst be
willing to accept the uses listed for that district once the site is
rezoned. As mentioned. the C-1 District as proposed in the new ZOning
Ordinanoe is quite low key and would present no probl. for the area in
question. The uses allowed in the current C-1 Distriot 40 present some
Planning Commission, Mayor4ltd City Council
11 March 1983
e
Page Jo'our
concerns, however. hetail sales and restaurants are permitted uses,
while banks, entertainment and multiple family are allowed by
conditional use permit. These activities are not as acceptable in
terms of a land use transition and development of such uses may be
premature given the Vine Hill Road intersection problems.
Aside from simply trusting that the applicant will follow through
with his proposal, the only solution to this proolem may be to amend
the C-1 District to conform to the new Zoning Ordinance at this time.
From the Planning Commission's perspective, this should not be a
problem since they have already recommended the new Ordinance to the
Council. The City Council, on the other hand, would have to make
their decision on the new C-1 District prior to review of the rest
of the new Ordinance.
Regardless of what district is most appropriate, it is recommended
that, if allowed, the proposed use should be listed as a conditional
use. Due to the relatively unique nature of the proposed use, the
following conditions should be considered:*
1. Except for the caretaker residence/office the use should be
limited strictly to storage. ~o retail sales, service etc.
should be allowed to occur on the property.
2. The caretaker residence ahould be for the use of the caretaker
only and should not be allowed as a rental unit.
3. Stringent landscaping requirements should be imposed. To assure
installation of the landscaping as required by the City, a
performance bond should be required oased upon a bid from a
certified nurseryman.
4. Security lighting should not extend above the roof line of
structures and should not spill onto neighboring residential
property.
5. Signage must be consistent with the requirements of Section 12
of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance.
*It should be noted that the applicL~t has either addressed these
items or agreed to comply with them.
Planning Commission, M~~and City Council
11 March 1983
e
Page Five
RECQ)~ATIONS
If the request is considered generally acceptable, the first step is to
amend the Zoning Ordinance text to include the proposed use. It m~ also
be advisable to define a self storage facility. The next step is to approve
the rezoning from h-1 to C-1. The City m~ wish to process the rezoning
simultaneously with the conditional use permit. Detailed evaluation of the
site plan would take place upon consideration of the C.U.P. (the C.U.P.
will require an additional publio hearing).
00: Doug Uhrhammer
Gary Larson
Jim Norton
Bruoe Hubbard
(';,
'b
,..,
-"
; ~~:I
...
1..11 :)
"
:~ I I'jl~ ~e
;---~I.I- ~
\-
to _~ ------
_, ."..,.___ - t--
\ G.~ \ ()........
\ .a '"
.~~
=--.~~gurA
9.~ ~
~e I
r-~,-1-!!!
-~ 1" ~ fQ.~....
C) .' ...
~
NI$
N:cI
3-:&
-0
~
r;..
~
N
()\
"\
--~ --\
\
't.\
\
':i
::::J
":'
-',. ~
---\
-- \
~\
;' ~ 1e ~\
\
\
--ou--
..
3
Sit
,"
--
cw:-
...
...
.;.
"':''!
..
'"
zt H'
~
~
~
I
I
I
-.....
If) :'" .
''-i ~
.:t;J ....
H~
[j.?'
';!!I..:?
f'C .-t5t
,,1"
.;.' ~
~~. -___tII ~ ;
...?%Ui,-N -
... "f'" ,
=-~ . ~
IW :' ~
" ,
r:.:'
o
~
;.,
~
~
Exhibit A
'"
'"
..,
'f
~
'.
~
'-J
5t r ~o
s",
t';
.......
~
~
"
~
SITE LOCATION
..
5
\
~ "I.
0' I
. \ I
I .' 011"-- ,I
, I
0, I <~~;
. _ .L .........-J --;
_.- /'
./
-..,.....,...
"'f;I"'-~
__ \;;;I
~'(
~
It
I
It
{'
i
\:;
,
/
/
,"
//
.",'
,/
f":'
'"
\
"
II
!
~
,"
/
-. "-
v
~ \ (., ...
\ "
i . ,
1 ',.I , I
\
r:: : I
I
J ,~
'I I
~]
I.,j
,;tJ "- .
~-
~.. ...
:~ '"
~.:. ...
i~~
~12
'-.
---
~""
\
\
\
\
~ ,
Ui
, r
"
~
,
"
\
\
\
wn
"
.....
;'.1.
.) ....,.
."",
"
\
._~ of T_
....
~S'
"-";0"," -"- - .-
-,'
_/
:.. -101';" ,"on.. -'
,-'
.
...'
, \
....
/
-.
/~ t
,,':'_ _ . \ Nofth
~,.....
Exhibit B
EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS
,.t "'*
-...
, ::,~r~ '~~, :f~~~~: :,
.. ~' '.
"
,:." ~: ,.... ,~'f:;;:~:"r::~t
::.. I
. ,-"
.... "0
; .
.,;~..
. ,.
,..I.:.......:C". 'I
.... ,. .', ....:." ~_:'~~,,;.;, :" ~,..__t:.""_,,.
.' " r .cO" .
. .... ...., ~ .... ... N.' .... .
.: ".-~
. ~ . ' II. .
....~
'vl ,"
;., .
.... (...
~'",,' .
,,-' .
/" . (,€
ct;':"
.., ~
i
,
./
I
"
.,' .~
.. '"
", .....
\1 ~~~ -
. .
'.' " ~
t. ,
! \. }
" ,r
~~
.... ~~;.v
:.l
..q
Of,
,
-C1-,' ...,.0
~
,~
/
,.
/'
/
..... .
J..
.1
~
~
_'t". 0" """"
III :- n" -.' !
I .
1 .
r
t~
~'I
. (~I
Exhibit C
i ~ I
I 11
i I'
I ; ,:
, .
: \ !
! " !,
" t
: } I
. ' '
; r
~ :1
I " 'j
.._ :~ . " ! I \1
'~;c't
~ t
1,
.
jl
iii ~
'I,
~~
"'
;..
: ...:
) 1
___.:..:'---4
\
, ~
'" \
i .
I \.~-,--.."W'-,._~,---,..' ....~~....-; .~ :~ ~ 't, ,., ~.. :?' ....
t '~" · ~ · ~~ ~ · ~ ~. :it;~, :\.
~_.l_ " .,' ......... .. . -' ,_..-" .. ~--
~ __. _. - - ____ ~_ .. -0 ~- .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . ,
~ ...
'.c'~.#-......./-........~-,. ..........--~.... - ..----.-.. ". ~._-.. '---- --"-'" ---
\
1
ttl.~
....
~"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
1
1
" ,.
e :,J, , .
J '.,.. [. }
.. .,. ~ ii-
MINNESO./;., potLuttoN~ts't)TROL AGENCY
lCjJS w. County ~oClfl t62, I ;:.;.~.!yillo, Mirlnescta 55113
. "" if ."
ll.'/ ".
\0".
"
'..,
612-296-7280
May 7, 1975
Mr. Wally M:>rtenson
19545 Highway 17
Sherwood Village, MN
Dear Mr. Mortenson:
.4~~'r'
'!he results of the noise survey taken o~MaY 5, 1975, from 11:56 a.m. un-
til 12:56 p.m. are as follows: from your property line, the level of
noise displayed an L10 of 75 dBA and an !.so of 67 dBA. '!his means that
for 10\ of the moni taring hour, the level of the noise exceeded 75 deci-
bels measured on the A-weighted characteristic. Sl.milarly, for 50\ of
the test hour, the noise level exceeded 67 decibels on the A-weighted
characteristic.
These results are in violation of the health and welfare regulations and
standards NPC-l and 2, adopted by the State of r--.i.nnesota in November,
1974. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
~ rmH.~r
oise Pollution control Section
Division of Air Quality
JHW:es
Exhibit D
HPCA LETTER RE: NOISE
( .'
Ifl) ~"
/' ,A 1
,
(
1".... (',
t"
., f". 4 .
AN EQUAL oPPORTUNITV EMPLOYER
...-....a
PLANNING CONIGSSION MIeES -4- .RCH 15, 1983
(Continued from page 3.)
Muriel Vogel, 19795 State Highway 7, raised a question regarding traffic flow. It
. was noted that traffic to and from Bayswater Road goes onto Minnetonka Blvd.
The public hearing was closed at 8:44 p.m.
Shaw moved, Watten seconded, to recommend adoption of the proposed rezoning.
The motion carried unanimously, 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE Ar.OO<WI&N1'
Chairman Benson called the hearing to order at 8:45 p.m. by reading the legal
notice as published March 2, 1983.
Mr. Bruce Hubbard of Tex-sota Construction/Kinnesota Nini~storage was present to
request that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to include self-storage facilities
as a conditional permitted use in the C-1, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
District.
Mr. Hubbard explained the proposed use by presenting a project designed for
19545/19585 State Highway 7. Graphics showed a series of buildings 20 to 40
feet in vlidth. Hubbard discribed a "hacienda" or enclosure effect in the building
layout with four interior buildings surrounded on three sides by an outer building.
Tl1~ f;inished exterior 'Hill be concrete block Hi th a painte'1. rock face.
A sixth smaller building near the entrance Hill serv3 ~s the resident nF',nager's
quarters. It will be finished with a residential character - brick and natural
'''lood.
Hubbard noted that a parking area vlOuld be provided at the entrance. 'Phere ''lill
be a gated security system and fencing along the open east side of the project.
Security lights will be mounted below the roof line.
(See Planner's report, Attachment #2, Exhibit C, for layout design)
Two the four interior buildings are two stories, all containing individual small
storage units behind locked garage doors. The structures are of masonry walls
with concrete roofs.
Hubbard noted that clients are usually residents of condominium or multi-housing
projects, and there is some commercial storage, generally record storage for pro-
fessional firms. He indicated that studies show a market in this area.
Hubbard noted a January 20th meeting with three adjoining residential property
owners, the results being positive.
A 1980 l<!nD0'11 traffic count and a 1975 State PCA noise study, both along Highway 7,
were referenced. Hubbard noted that results (from 25,500 cars per day) of the
noise study were in violation of State codes. He added that the project would
serve as a noise barrier, protecting residents to the south. He noted that tree
cover will be added along the south half of the property. and a berm between Highway
7 and the manager's quarters. Hubbard presented elevations showing sight lines
from neighboring residences, noting that client traffic \1ould not be seen from the
houses.
It was noted that drainage is to the northvJest. Hubbard intends -< to tie J.nto the
State's storm se''ler system if possible. He noted that all utilities ''lill be under-
ground and existing overhead lines Hill be removed. Lavms ''lill be sprinkled with
well water and only the manager's residence will require sewer and water; the pro-
ject "Iould hook up to City seVIer and ''later if available.
~b
PLAlnJING CO~TIIISSION MI1~S
e
MARCH 15, 1983
-5-
The public hearing was opened to the public and the following concenf/questions
,..ere raised.
i!>uriel Vogel, 19795 Excelsior Boulevard:
tarred surfaces v,ill add to drainage v,hich enters storm se\..ers leading to
her property across highway 7. She also questioned the effects of the
City's wetland ordinance upon her property.
Carroll Thurston, 19580 Shady Hills Road:
noted that she Vias interested in this type of development. She cited limited
traffic as a positive point of the proposal, along with the developer's at-
tention to the project.
It Vlas noted that traffic problems at the Vine Hill Road. intersection would probably
not be Greatly impacted. Hubbarc:. notel that the units I'JOuld generate an average of
10-12 cars per day and that the busiest time of the year Vias during warm ,.,eather.
Commissioner Boyd questioned control over items stored in the units, such as chemi-
cals. Hubbard explained that jf.ini-storage requires the clients to sign leases and
do@s~ allow storage of flamables or chemicals. He added that the units are unheated.
It was noted that there is adequate space for fire trucks and moving vans between the
buildings.
1he Commission questioned the number of illlits and the floorplan of the two story
buildings. Hubbard estimated there to be 380+ units, some with moveable walls to
acco~~odate spacial demands. The second floor units will be accessed by a freight
elevator and will have a hallway running the length of the buildi~g. It was noted
that these buildings would be 20 feet in height, vlllile the one story structures would
be 11 feet high.
Harry Feichtinger, 19480 Shady Hills Road:
_ noted approval of the proposal but expressed concern over the 20 foot height.
He also questioned the level of the lighting on the two story buildings.
Hubbard stated that the outdoor lighting would be at the 11 foot level.
A question was raised as to preventing children from entering the grounds.
Hubbard said that the east side of the property would be fenced and, if
necessary, a low area of the roof at the southwest corner of the project
could be fenced also.
There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed at
9:46 p.m.
The Commission discussed the type of zone which self-storage facilities fit into in
other communities. Industrial was noted a number of times.
l.lr Hubbard responded to the follmving issues raised by the Commission:
Hours of operation:
Daily - gates open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.
office open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Vandalism:
It has not been much of a problem at other units, occasional break-ins.
Resident managers alleviate many problems.
Lights:
An electric eye is used - on at dusk, off at da'~n. 100 watt mercuries
arc the type of lights used.
#
PLANNING CQI;TIHSSION 1.:Ia1i:S
-6-
e
NlARCH 15, 1983
Signage :
yfuite background with Minnesota Mini-storage in red and black letters, and
the logo, internally lit.
Commissioner Watten raised the concern that the use is of an industrial nature and
that the massive scale of the buildings would be an intrusion into a residential
neighborhood.
It was noted that there was no district in the Zoning Ordinance where the use fit.
The C-1, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District seemed most appropriate to
amend. The R-C, Residential Commercial District had been considered but it was
agreed that it should remain quite limited.
It was also noted that the proposal is within the site coverage limitations of
the zone.
The Commission discussed uhether or not the self-storage facilities are a neighborhood
convenience. Hubbard noted that the usual market area has a four mile limitation.
Reese agreed that the scale of the structure is industrial but noted that proper
landscaping could bre~( up the visual mass.
The Commission also discussed the exterior surface mf the proposed structures. It
was noted that the commercial zones have no exterior building requirements, but as
a conditional use, it can be required that the building surface match that in the
neighborhood.
The zoning around the project was noted as R-1, Single Family Residential to the
south, west and north, and C-3, General Commercial to the east. Zoning along
Highway 7 was discussed in general, as ivaS property in the City which is currently
zoned C-1.
Watten moved, Reese Seconded, "GO recommend that the COilllCil deny the request to amend
the C-1 Dintrict of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance to include self-storage facilities
as a conditional permitted use in the C-1, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial Dis-
trict.
The motion i~S defeated on a roll call vote, 3 to 3.
ayes:
nays:
Watten, Boyd, Reese
Leslie, Shall, Benson
(See continuation of discussio~ following the next public hearing, page 7)
PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQlJ~S'r (19585 State Rig-h.-,ay 7)
Chairman Benson called the public hearing to order at 10:25 p.m. by reading the
legal notice as published on March 2, 1983. The request was to consider rezoning
property located at the above address from R-1, Single Family Residential to C-1,
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District. It was noted that this public hearing
was related to the previous request to amend the C-1 District.
Neighbors noted that they liked 1.1r. Hubbard's project. They expressed concern that
the property might be rezoned commercial and developed as something less desirable
than the proposed self-storage facilities.
The public hearing was closed at 10:33 p.m.
Leslie moved, Benson seconded, to table the rezoning request until the City Council
reaches a decision on the request to amend the C-1 District to include self-storaGe
facilities.
The motion carried, 5~1; on a roll call vote.
ayes: LeSlie, Boyd, Shaw, Benson, Reese. nays: Watten.
e
PLAJmUra COn~ISSION r.:nmT'~S
e
-7-
1.IA."'1CH 15, 1983
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION - ZONING ORDHJAlJCE AJ.1ENTFI8NT (Pages 4 through 6)
Councilwoman Haugen requested reasons for the Planning Commission's vote on the
motion to recommend that the Council deny the request to amend the Shorewood Zoning
Ordinance to include self-storage facilities as a conditional permitted use in the
C-1 District. The Commission responded as follows:
Leslie: Against denial:
- Type of development on Highway 7 needs to be carefully considered.
Developer is attempting to minimize the negative impact of the "viall" (building)
l~ighborhood is satisfied with proposal.
Given limitations of the Vine Hill intersection, the proposal seems to be
about the best possible for this property.
Reese: For denial:
- Based upon the new zoning ordinance, and not upon the proposal itself, the
conditional use was incompatible with the ordinance.
Boyd: For denial:
The concept of the proposal was okay, however the massive aI~a of the
buildings and their impact vias negative.
Benson: Against denial:
- Found it a livable proposal, low impact.
There was minimum amount of traffic impact on the Vine Hill intersection.
- Land uses other than residential need to be considered along Highway 7.
Proposal creates a noise ba~rier.
Watten: For denial:
Intrm.sion of structure into the neighborhood. Nassive and inappropriate.
- Traffic generated can't be compared with a residential development of 12-14 people
Philosophically, in terms of vitality, the proposal is not representative of
this community.
- Development along Highway 7 needs to be compared with Highway 12 {relaxing
compared to industry, fences, commercial development).
Shaw: Against denial:
This portion of Highway 7 is commercial rather than residential.
- The use is a better transition from residential neighborhoods than some
other possibilities.
- Unrealistic to expect low density residential.
Not a bad use.
- LOv1 traffic impact.
- The project can be dressed up to lessen the impact.
The difficulty of writing an ordinance to include all possible uses.
REPORTS:
City Council: Councilwoman Haugan reported from the Karch 14th Council meeting,
noting the following actions:
revie'\led a proposed ordinance regulating moving buildings
reviewed the Cross Marina lease agreement
reviewed a letter by Mr. Hunner's attOTIley regard1ng his variance request
discussed union negotiations and salary adjustments
_ noted a newspaper error regarding the Naegele sign; voted against Naegele's
proposed 10 year agreement, noted a counter offer of 3 years be1'ore
removal.
. . . ...,
e
PLANNING COIJUSSrOlJ MIllU'Y3S
e
KARCH 15, 1983
-8-
Park Commission: Staff reported from the Karch 7th meeting, noting that the Park
Commission Vias sta.rting a donations campaign for play equipnent, and had
asked former Mayor Steve Frazier to organize a community picnic this sum-
mer.
ADJOURNI\'lENT
Shaw moved, Benson secondeQ, to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at approximately
10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
';1~/~-0V'~;
Kathleen Hest, Planning Commission Secretary
e
e
TEX-SOTA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
po. BOX 186 . WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 . 612/473-9591
March 21, 1983
Mr. Bradley Nielsen, City Planner
Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN. 55331
Dear Mr. Nielsen;
I would like to thank you and the Planning Commission
for the time spent on hearing our proposel for a self
storage facility.
Two members of the commission seam to have a problem
with "massiveness" of the facility. My effort was to
hide most of our facility on the site behind an eleven
foot wall with landscaping on the sixty three foot
green area between the wall and the frontage road. I
feel with the mature trees and an additional amount
of landscaping the wall can become prety well lost
and not have the massive look they worry about. I
feel this project would be much lower in profile and
have heaver landscaping in front than any apartment,
office building or commercial business. I feel this
facility could be a good break between the future
development along Highway 7 to the west of this site
and the more intense commercial development to the
east of this site.
My neighbors support this project which the City
Council should find comforting. I am willing to
work out any berming and planting schedule with
you that may help our project.
I am scheduled to be out of town on a vacation trip
the week of March 28th, so I would be unable to attend
the council meeting. Could ~ou please E-1.?-<?_~..~_()"n the
city council adgenda of Aprll 11, 1983. Thank you.
~ _-....._. --......"'"'_._~__,__<..-.,_ ,_-..,.....".,_."''"'~_r<'''\ ,;,..-v'.....~~_........~....'~:- ~*'- .-.:iIIII
~incerely 11rs
"h-f- .~
W /BrUC€"-H bbard "
-ff~0
e
.
~
e
e
I
-
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) "-~~~tl\l~~:iien!' 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 and its acceptance by
the City Council, such license may be granted or refused at the
discretion of the City Council. No such license 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.
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
-1f7q
o
e
e
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.
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.
a. 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.
b. No permit shall be granted until the party applying
therefor shall also have given a bond in the sum of Twenty-Five
Thousand ($25,000) dollars 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 as a consequence of the granting of such license or
permit, including the cost of the City for the services of public
utility maintenance men 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 7. APPLICATION. A person seeking issuance of a permit here
under shall file an application for such permit with the Building
Official.
(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 description of the premises from which
the building is to be removed~
(c) A legal description of the premises to which it
is proposed such a building is to be moved~
(d) The portion of the premises to be occupied by the
building when moved if located in the City~
(e) The highways, streets 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 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
-2-
o
e
e
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 to 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.
SECTION 8. DEPOSIT FOR EXPENSE TO CITY. Upon receipt of an
application it shall be the duty of the Building Official to procure
an estimate of the expense that will be incurred in removing and
replacing any electric wires, street lamps, pole lines belonging to
the City or any other property in 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 equal 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
(1) Inspection: Upon receipt of a completed application
to mdve 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 complies 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
(1) 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 ~ity~
-3-
G
e
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:
k'
persons ~
(e) That the applicant's equipment is unsafe and that
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.
(2) Return Upon Non-issuance. In the event that the City
Council does not issue a permit to applicant, the Building Official
shall return to the applicant all deposits, bonds, insurance policies
and letter of credit. Permit fees filed with the application shall
not be 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 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.
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.
-4-
e
e
(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 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.
cll>>.1CAG!J,i90"N
(1) Where the4'€Rl8.!l1~l"Qe.aL1on, 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 sha~l 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 pf 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.
ctLS~'"v'-~L V~
(5) The building to be placed upon the re~ ,~
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.
-5-
e
.
(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-
,\ p~ 1'1 1983
~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
To Whom It May Concern:
Numerous inquiries regarding the delegation of authority to issue
open burning permits have been received by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. This letter is intended to provide
information concerning delegation of that authority.
Open burning in the State of Minnesota is regulated under the
provisions of Minn. Rule APC 8 "Open Burning". In accordance
with section (f)(3) of the rule, a person or persons designated
by a county board of commissioners, or either a fire chief or a
person designated by a township or city, may accept applications
and issue open burning permits upon authorization by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
In order to receive this authorization, the governmental unit
must submit a written request to the Director, Division of Air
Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, requesting the
authorization. As part of the formal request, a copy of the
meeting minutes indicating the motion passed to designate a
person (name and position) to be approved by the Director and a
copy of an ordinance adopting Minn. Rule APC 8 by the
governmental unit are also requested. In situations where the
governmental unit contracts for fire protection, a requirement of
the authorization will be that co-approval be received from the
fire authority prior to issuing any burning permit.
Governmental units desiring authorizaton to accept applications
and issue open burning permits or further information, are
requested to contact Mr. Raymond Bissonnette of the Division of
Air Quality in writing or call (612) 296-7300.
sr';yf}dy, ~
~~
Peter J. Gil en, Supervisor
Enforc ent Unit
Regul tory Compliance Section
Division of Air Quality
PJG: jfd
Phone:
1935 West County Road 82, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
Regional Offices . Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer