The URL can be used to link to this page

062783 CC Reg AgP .... . .-...... -.. ... ." .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 7:30 PM AGE N D A ,~ f\1 ija~~::--i Leonardo==!i1 S to v e r _=t;!2 Mayor Rascop_J:Z= CALL TO ORDER: A. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer: B. Roll Call 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ------------------- A. Regular Council Meeting - June 13, 1983 a. Special Council Meeting - June 8, 1983 [attachment #la] [attachment #lb] 2. SENATOR GEN OLSON: ADDRESSES COUNCIL 3. CITIZENS FORUM: :: ~~~~1;~t~1~~:OP~:. aee.ae.~~1 4. ~~Q!!~~!_IQ~_Y~~I~!!f~_=_!Q_~!!:~!!Q_~_!!Q!!=fQ!!IQ~~I-Q-~!~!!f!!!~!:3~ ~~~~!i~~: 20460 Radisson Inn Road ~RRli~~!i~~: Ojars and Mara Arsts [attachment #4a & 4b-Planner's Report] [attachment #4c~Planning Commission Recommendation] 5. ~~Q!!~~!_IQ~_I~!!f!_Y~~I~!!f!: Location: -------- ~RRli~~~!: 24020 Yellowstone Trail Mr. and Mrs James Priest, M.D. [attachments#5a] 6. REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY -CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION: -- --------------------------------------------------------- Location: -_._----- ~RRli~~~.!:.: 21195 Radisson Inn Road Bernice Brooks [attachment #6a-~lanner's Report] [attachment #6b-Planning ComlTdssion RecommendationT [attachment #6c-Park Commi~sion Recommendation] . . COUNCIL AGENDA -2- JUNE 27, 1983 7. ~~Q!!~~!_!Q.....~~~Q.!!~_I~Q~_~='!'_!Q._f=.!.: Location: -------- ~E.E.!..!.~~~!: 19585 State Highway 7 Mr. Bruce Hubbard-for Sota (Minn-Ministorage) [attachment [attachment [attachment #7a-Planner's Report] #7b-Staff Report] #7c-Plann~n~ Commission Recommendation] 8. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING AND GRADING PLAN: ~~~I!i=~E~E~fE~~~~=~~~~=~=~!~!~=RIiE~~Y_I ~CL 9. DISCUSSION OF FESTIVAL OF PARKS: ------------------------------- [attachment #9a] 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: -------------------------- A. 11. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: ---------------------- A. 12. ~~YI~~_QI_K~QKQ~~Q_Q.~QI!!~!!2~~: A. An Ordinance establishing and regulating alarm systems...2nd reading [attachment #lla] B. An Ordinance granting a non-exclasive franchise to Minnegasco, Inc. [attachment #llb] 13. ATTORNEY'S REPORT: A. Easement Issue: Location: 26980 Edgewood Road B. 14. ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. B. 15. ~Q~I!!I~!~~!IY~_~~KQ.~!: A. Discussion of Tingewood PUD Development at 20880 Radisson Inn Rd. B. Discussion of City Insurance Policy . . , COUNCIL AGENDA -3- JUNE 27, 1983 ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CONTINUED -------------------------------- C. Other Items 16. MAYOR'S REPORT: A. 17. COUNCIL'S REPORTS: A. B. 18. ~KK~Q~~~_QI_g~~I~~_~~Q_~Q~Q~~~~~~!: .... ........ J'" ....; 4...., ~ ..........j:o )i."" ".....O' ,., t . ... ..... .' J J' .Cr ,'. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 13, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:30 PM, Monday, June 13, 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 Haugen, Shaw, Leonardo, and Stover. Staff: Attorney Larson, Engineer Norton, Administrator Uhrhammer and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes as corrected for the Council meeting of May 23, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. BOULDER BRIDGE PURD: RESOLUTION NO. 39-83 Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the rezoning of Boulder Bridge to PURD as previously done by Resolution. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. 5 ayes. PRELIMINARY PLAT - BOULDER BRIDGE 2ND ADDITION RESOLUTION NO. 40-83 Council reviewed a request from Tom Wartman for a preliminary plat revision for Boulder Bridge 2nd Addition with needed variance approval. He requested a 18 lot subdivision with 5 changes: 1.) Request for 100' cul-de-sac's. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to approve the 20' cul-de-sac variance. Motion carried - 5 ayes. 2.) Increase size of catch basin. 3.) Obtain an easement over Outlot C for future drainage of east ponding area. 4.) Request of 22' wide road in the 2nd Addition. Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover, to approve a 2' variance in road width to 22'. Motion carried - 5 ayes. 5.) Approve a 7% street grade including a "landing area". J~ . . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -2- JUNE 13, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 41-83 Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the preliminary plat by a Resolution drawn by the Attorney and to include the five (5) amendments requested. Motion carried unanimously. 8:00 - PUBLIC HEARING: Lucille Rand-5950 Grant Street RESOLUTION NO. 42-83 Request was make by Lucille Rand to expand a non-conforming structure by adding a 16 x 32 addition to her home. Public portion of the hearing was closed to the public at 8:12 with no comments received. Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the variance request to include no further expansion allowed on the opposite side, or Grant Street side, as recommended by Planner Nielsen. Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. 8:15 - PUBLIC HEARING - SIGN VARIANCE: Driskills Super Valu RESOLUTION NO. 43-83 Mr. Lindberg, representing Driskill's Super Valu, requested a variance to replace an old non-conforming sign with a new sign, continuing the non-conformance. No public comment was received. Public portion of the hearing was closed at d:22. Leonardo moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. REZONING AND SIMPLE SUBDIVISION: Harold Johnson-b055 Lake Linden Drive Mr. Johnson was present requesting the Council's decision on his request for rezoning from R-2 to R-4 and a simple lot division of his property located at 6055 Lake Linden Drive. Engineer Norton recommended that the City acquire approximately 8,000 square feet of Johnson property along Lake Linden Drive for future improvement of that road to allow a safer and more visual approach at that corner. Opposition to the improvement or removal of this curve and hill were expressed by area residents, Nancy Turner, Paul Swanson, and Ilka Priest. Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover, to deny the R-4 rezoning re- quest. Leonardo then withdrew his motion,~secQnded by Stover. Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the simple lot division into 2 lots of 30,000 square feet. Stover withdrew her second. Motion died for lack of second. Haugen moved to approve the original application requesting the R-4 zoning, and a~cept the 8,000 square feet for road right of way. Motion failed - 3 ayes, 2 nayes (Stover and Leonardo). . . ~REG COUNCIL ~:~,.-3- JUNE 13, 19~ ~ Ras<:QP moved, seconded by Rascop,.- to approve the simple subdivision -and accept tne 8,000 square-feet for road right-of-way, to be followed by rezoniDg of Lot 2, when proper information has been submitted to City. Motion carried unanimously. SWIMMING POOL APPROVAL: Cathy Hendrickson-6065 Eureka Road Plans were presented to the Council for approval to install a swimming pool at 6065 Eureka Road. Shaw moved, seconded by Leonardo, to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. VARIENCE REQUEST: Mike Jorgensen-5435 Timber Lane RESOLUTION NO. 44-83 Mr. Jorgensen was present to request a variance to construct a deck to an existing non-conforming building. Planner Nielsen recommended approval to include the removal of a shed to reduce the non-conform- ity. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to approve the variance as recom- mended. Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. Council Break....9:25 PM..................Reconvene....9:35 PM REZONING REQUEST: Wayne Pokorny-24275 Yellowstone Trail Mr. Pokorny presented a proposal to rezone his property from R-l to R-2, stating that 31 lots in the surrounding area are smaller than 40,000 square feet. Haugen questioned whether a PUD zoning was considered. Haugen moved to table the zoning request until PUD zoning can be reviewed. Fees will be credited if zoning request is changed with a waiver received on the 100 day time line for action, seconded by Shaw. Motion carried unanimously. SETBACK VARIANCE Mike Halley-Woodhaven 2nd Addition RESOLUTION NO. 45-83 Mr. Halley of Halley Land Corp. request setback variances for five of the lots in Woodhaven 2nd Addition that may be necessary for building. Haugen moved, seconded by Stover, to approve the requested variances to be drawn by the attorney into the Resolution. Motion carried unani- mously by Roll Call Vote. 5 ayes. . . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -4- JUNE 13, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: Robin Woehnker-4540 Enchanted Point Public hearing Robin Woehnker Public portion comment. was reconvened at 10:00 PM to consider the request of to install a swimming pool 241 from the lakeshore. of the hearing was closed at 10:04 Without public Leonardo moved, seconded by Stover to deny the variance request sup- ported by Ordinance not allowing varinaces greater than a 35' setback. Motion carried, 4 ayes - 1 abstain (Rascop) REZONING REQUEST: Shorewood Condominiums-5620 County Road #19 RESOLUTION NO. 46-83 Scott Harri reviewed changes in location of building and parking lot, and building configuration. Jim Borchart and Dave Littlefield expressed their concerns and oppo- sitions on the building height, drainage problems, density figures, possible costs the City may incur for possible storm sewer and a water system needed. Mr. Borchart would like a larger ponding area supplied and fencing for his swimming pool. Leonardo moved, seconded by Haugen to accept the General Concept stage approval for the PUD. Motion carried unanimously by Roll Call Vote - 5 ayes. AMENDMENT TO C-1 ZONE: Wallace Mortenson-19545 & 85 State Highway 7 ORDINANCE NO. 144 An amendment to Ordinance 77, C-1 district was presented to eliminate "eating and drinking establishments" from the C-1 zone and to include "self storage facilities". Stover moved, seconded by Haugen, to approve the amendment as stated to be drawn by the attorney. Motion carried - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Leonardo) PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: Shaw reported on the Commission's review of the Pokorny rezoning proposal. Planner Nielsen reviewed the procedures to amend the Comprehensive Plan when necessary. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: Carol Chapman reported on the completion of the park equipment portfolio to show people who may be interested in making a contribution to the park fund for equipment purchases. Mrs. Chapman also reveiwed the plans for the committee Park Fund raiser. . . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -5- JUNE 13, 1983 ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Boulder Bridge Equalization A discussion on the Development Contract on the interpretation of equalization figures to be charged against the developer and at what time should they be charged. Further information will be obtained to clarify the charges in question. City Hall Litagation Pre-trial hearing has been set in front of Judge Durda. Kennel License Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve a Kennel License for Jean and Don Goettleman of 6170 Cardinal Drive. Motion approved unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: Special Meeting set Ordinance Review Meeting set for Wednesday, June 22nd, 1983 at 6:00 PM. Policy statement review - set for Thursday, June 30, 1983 at 6:00 PM. Water Request A request was received from Paul Stiller, 23675 Smithtown Road and John Shaddrick of 23625 Smithtown Road, for the City to provide City water to their residence. Council will instruct staff to obtain cost estimates for this project. MAYOR'S REPORT: A letter was received from Hennepin County assessing department increasing the fees schedule for assessment Services for 1984. Shaw felt that we should investigate an independent assessor before contracting with the County. COUNCIL REPORTS: Dram Shop Coverage: Limits in sales have been increased by the state to $20,000 before requiring Dram Shop coverage. Will this alter the cities Ordinance requiring all License holders to have insurance coverage? Council will uphold current Ordinance requirements. . . REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING -6- JUNE 13, 1983 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT: Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to approve claims for payment followed by adjournment at 11:55 PM. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund [acct # 00166] Checks 27216 - 27303 = Liquor Fund [acct # 00174] Checks 1106 - 1159 = Respectfully Submitted, ~ Sandra L. Kennel City Clerk SK: sn ... ,d GENER~UND - BILLS PAID SINCE JUNE 1~983 CHECK # TO WHOM PAID 27216 27217 27218 27219 27220 272 21 27222 27223 27224 27225 27226 27227 27228 27229 27230 27231 27232 27233 27234 27235 27236 27237 27238 27239 27240 27241 27242 27243 27244 27245 27246 27247 27248 27249 27250 27251 27252 27253 27254 27255 27256 27257 27258 27259 27260 27261 27262 27263 27264 27265 27266 27267 27268 27269 Evelyn Beck Roberta Dybvik Sandra kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Robert Quaas Doug Uhrhammer Kathy West Don Zdrazil Minnetonka State Bank Doug Uhrhammer Evelyn Beck Roger Day Dennis Johnson Dan Randa 11 Mary Kennelly A & G Electric Don Zdrazil Ass'n of Metro Municipalities " " " Astleford Equip. Co. Copy Duplicating Chaska Parts Coffee Systems of MN City of mtka City of Minnetrista The Dale Green Co. Exide Battery Sales W.W.Grainger Inc. Hance Hdwre. Henn. Co. Treasurer H.A.Holden, Inc. Itasca Equip. Co. Key Leasing Leef Bros. Midwest Asphalt Corp MAPSI Erv Novack-5805 Echo Road Minnegasco Northwestern Bell NSP Oales & Kanatz Red Wing Mobil Satellite Industries Inc. Sun News SLMPSD Shorewood Tree Service PURPOSE Salary VOID Salary VOID Salary " " " VOID Salary VOID Salary Salary FWH - June 8 Expenses 5/19 - 6/3/83 Travel and expenses Salary " " " - Cleaning City Hall Gas Pump rewiring MN.St. Supt. Mtg.-Truck #10(tire VOID Membership dues Dinner Reservations Truck 1 - repairs Drum usage Equip. Maint.-Shop inventory Coffee Water-4th Qtr 1982 & IstQtr 1983 Dump fees Blk. dirt for waterline-Clover Ln. Truck #2-Batteries Water supplies-Truck #2-switch PW supplies-City hall-cleaning sup. B & R City Prisoners VOID Fan-lift station motor Sweeper #8 Contract-copier Laundry and uniforms Parks and streets Animal services Fertilizer for parks utilities-Amesbury telephone service electricity union arbitrator chgs. Truck #1-repairs Satellite ser.-parks Public Notices VOID June budget brush hauling & dump chgs. AMOUNT 538.01 -0- 391. 99 -0- 490.62 303.14 589.34 559.34 -0- 694.21 -0- 328.51 601.46 1,036.50 31. 90 61.06 349.96 506.71 497.41 14.00 89.03 repair17.00 -0- 823.00 15.00 14.00 54.00 153.35 36.50 1,078.02 50.00 42.00 77.05 95.38 23.60 1,140.00 -0- 16.59 155.89 223.30 210.30 345.93 255.12 154.00 25.24 457.34 712.43 300.00 41. 89 780.68 55.24 -0- 18,750.00 11 0 . 00 CHECK # 27270 27271 27272 27273 27274 27275 27276 27277 27278 27279 27280 27281 27282 27283 27284 27285 27286 27287 27288 27289 27290 27291 27292 27293 27294 27295 27296 27297 27298 27299 27300 27301 27302 27303 GENERAL TO WHOM PAID JIlts - BILLS PAID SONCE JUNE 13,~ PURPOSE - PAGE TWO Tonka Printing Tonka Auto Body Village Sanitation Inc. " " " Warner Hardware Water Products Co. West Henn. Human Servo Long Froehling Gary Larson Norwest Bk. of Mpls N.A. American Nat'l. Bk. & Trust Norwest Bk. Mpls. N.A. Metro Waste C. C. City of Shorewood Jan H&.ugen Pera Postmaster Roberta Dybvik Evelyn Beck Roger Day Roberta Dybvil Dennis Johnson Sandra Kennelly Sue Niccum Brad Nielsen Robert Quaas Danie 1 Randa 11 Doug Uhrhammer Kathy West Don Zdrazil Minnetonka State Bank office supplies Sweeper-switch Sanitation chgs. Spring Clean-up Day Supplies-Amesbury well/Parks Supplies - water dept. Annual contrib.-1983 servo Audit-City of Shorewood attorney fees interest-G.O. Imp Bonds Prine int.-water imp. bonds Prin int.-water imp./BB/Ames. sewer service chgs. Petty cash Pict-newsltrs/conf-mileage/supp. VOID VOID VOID PERA newsletter mileage/city errands Salary " " " " 11 " 11 " " " " FWH AMOUNT 11.40 3.02 45.00 1,805.00 54.51 157.60 194.00 6,100.00 2,338.00 18,303.20 6,257.75 320,935.95 15,776.31 30.60 97.54 -0- -0- -0 831.65 153.08 19.80 538.01 554.12 398.98 518.66 490.62 316.28 593.53 617.23 509.36 694.21 329.52 601. 46 1,125.10 $ 413,697.53 CHECK # 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 . . LIQUOR FUND - BILLS PAID SINCE MAY 23, 1983 TO WHOM PAID Griggs-Cooper Johnson Bros. Twin City Wine Intercontinental Pkg. Ed Phillips & Sons Old Peoria Co. Inc. Day Distributing Co. East Side Beverage Co. P Q & C Automation Long Froehling City of Shorewood Wine Distributors, Inc. Minnegasco NSP Griggs Cooper Johnson Bros Twin City Wine Johnson Liquor Co. Ed Phillips & Sons Quality Wine A. J. Ogle Co. Thorpe Distributing Minter-Weisman Co. Pepsi Cola Frito-Lay Royal Crown Bev. Co. G & K Services Commissioner of Taxation " " " PERA NSP Johnson Bros. Liquor Co. Griggs Cooper Eagle Wine Co. Ed Phi 11 ips Quality Wine Ole Peoria Mark VII Sales Inc. Pogreba Distributing Van Paper Company Cash Register Sales Inc. Harry Feightinger Russell Marron Don Tharlson Stephen Theis Sue Culver Pat Pfeffer Mary Skraba Mark Wilson Dean Young Minnetonka State Bank PURPOSE AMOUNT 2,687.55 346.16 455.34 631.34 269.32 -0- 1,520.84 2,690.46 3,927.05 60.00 -0- 2,300.00 366.58 23.60 50.35 190.06 2,834.82 699.39 322.96 544.83 758.44 579.21 1,550.20 4,739.85 727.87 305.00 55.16 97.45 36.20 3,351.30 1,700.00 366.24 268.42 -0- 545.91 2,327.85 767.81 923.22 709.68 1,313.96 1,668.00 3,260.38 248.03 36.73 616.27 407.70 171. 75 249.72 98.00 113.00 77.00 258.06 311.92 302.70 Liquor Liquor Wine Wine Wine VOID Liquor Beer - May Beer - May Misc. purchases VOID 1982 Audit May accounting chgs Wine Fuel Electricity Liquor Wine & Liquor Wine Wine Wine Wine Beer - May Beer - May Cigarettes & candy Pop - May Misc. purchases Misc. purchases & pop Laundry Sales tax - May Estimated Tax June PERA - June 9 Electricity VOID Liquor & Wine Liquor Wine Liquor Wine Liquor Beer - May Beer and misc. - May Supplies - Paper General Supplies Salary II II II " II II -II II FWH $ 48,636.68 . . r CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:00 PM M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Rascop called the meeting to order at 6:12 PM. .~ ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilmembers Stover, Haugen and Shaw, Leonardo arrived at 6:35 Staff: Administrator Uhrhammer and Clerk Kennelly REVIEW OF 1982 CITY AUDIT REPORT: Administrator Uhrhammer introduced Don Egnell, Auditor representing h~" Long, Froehling & A.ssociates, to the Council. Mr. Egnell reviewed. J .,#iP the contents of the. audit statement and answered the Council's 1~vrb questions. He recommended a goal for the general fund for the ~ future would be to eliminate current deficits and create a ~ fund of approximately 30% to 40% of the curren~~et. Leonardo suggested the Council review each oW~he 6'1 ty funds prior to budgeting time. Council thanked Mr. Egnell for his review. He indicated that a Management Letter will follow. Haugen moved, seconded by Leonardo, to approve and accept the 1982 Audit Report. Motion carried unanimously. NAEGELE SIGN LITIGATION UP-DATE: Attorney Larson discussed various options available to the Council in pursuing the removal of the billboard at Christmas Lake Road & State Highway 7. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to defer action until further information about the control of the land can be obtained by Attorney Larson. Motion carried 5 - O. POLICY SETTING: Council reviewed past written policy statements. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to accept Policys #1 - 5: 1.) Land Locked Lots 2.) Private Roads 3.) Public Roads 4.) Storm Water Drainage 5.) Existing Drainage Problem and have the Resolution drawn by Attorney Larson and returned to J t) the Council for acceptance. . SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING -2- . JUNE 8, 1983 , WATER POLICY: Administrator Uhrhammer reviewed a Policy Matrix listing various proposals to consider in developing a Water Policy. He urged the Council to establish a policy prior to the finalization of the budget process. Leonardo left at 9:45 PM. COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Haugen would like each Council member to appoint a citizen to a budget committee. ADJOURNMENT: Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to adjourn at 10:45 PM. 4 ayes- Leonardo absent. Respectfully Submitted ~~ Mayor Sandra L. Kennelly, Clerk SLK: sn . . . . MA YOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 17 JUNE 1983 RE: ARSTS, OJAR - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FILE NO.: 405 (83.24) BACKGROUND Ojars and Mara Arsts, 20960 Radisson Inn Road have requested a variance to add on to their existing home (see Site Location map, attached). They propose to remove an existing 20' x 20' (400 square feet) one story section on the south end of the house and replace it with a two story addition measuring 15\' x 32' (992 square feet). An entry measuring 10~' x 21' (220.5 square feet) will be added on the east side. The addition is shown on Exhibit B. The southeast corner of the house is currently 21.3 feet from the paved surface and 6.5 feet from the road easement for Radisson Inn Road. The new addition will be 15 feet from the paved surface and only three feet from the road easement. It should be noted that the easement for Radisson Inn Road is only 30 feet in total width. Due to the proximity of the house and proposed addition to the street, the applicant requests a setback variance of 47 feet. A second variance is needed to allow him to expand an existing nonconforming structure. The applicants have submitted a list of reasons as to why they think the variances should be granted (see Exhibit C). ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION While the existing Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits the expansion of nonconforming structures the new Zoning Ordinance will be somewhat less restrictive. The new Ordinance allows such expansion as long as the noncon- formity is not increased. In this case, not only will the structures be increased to two stories, but it will end up closer to the road. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore cj~ MEMORANDUM TO PLANNI~COMMISSION, MAYOR A~D CITY CO~L ARSTS, OJAR - VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE PAGE TWO ANALYSIS/REco~mENDATION continued Given that Radisson Inn Road is recognized as being quite substandard in width it is felt that the City should be looking for ways to bring it Up to current standards. Additions such as that proposed will only serve to preclude that from ever happening. Considering the extensiveness of the proposed addition, it is felt that additional space could be added within the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. BN:sn cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Ojars and Mara Arsts Kathy West ,/ , \ ~ .:::./ ~~ 0\1. 3xhibit A SHI: LOCArrON Arsts variance request ~/. ~ \ l"' ':.L ", ~/ "4'" 'Wlf -- '~'PH - ," ~ ~. 1 ~ E. .;f\ d: .~ "- '" '. 0....;: . .".... .... ,.... l " }. Jt 0','" 1". f':.' {I,.' t 1 =f ~~ ~ -:z t. F' l.;.~~ ;. / , ~-' \;"4 .. --- '. ~ ...:; ~ ;,II. ~ '-; !,.;... ...., '! ..;~ !o --(\I ---'0 ~ ...::;:I (: 0 ~z'" c __ ~c:i ~~ I...) ( ~ . . Wi.... '\i ,,' :,0; .''! . '. . .'i t., '"", '. ;;- ~ ,~ ... I;~ . I \ II. 011I N .... 1/1- 1,.:- == ~.. on " I~ ~ % ...... ~ iO ... oJZ ...- :1-' C' ~ ..) fa ..... ...... !x oJ'" \....-... ,.... '4J , ,", I I ...~ 0 0 Itori '..) III (). , I ~ FRAME GARAGE "'''''' ~1"~ ...... ...... "'-. -..... 0;;'" " 1- STOIIY ,..... "GUll l): '''-C../~_ l" ..... !. "'> ..- BJ. 0" 00. ~ ~ . , ;, , (...... ...". N I 'J'- c~... ''''I \...1 (~" ' (,9 ...... (,../ " , " ~ , .r:- ,,-' I : :t o .. N o It · C) ~ i ~ t~o(t" F Bxhibit B PROPOSED SITD PLAN GARAGE \. . . t . ... ~ " L ~ " ~~e Ar~t~1s resl..1RTIce: 1. ::11e OIC'{ j8rll area is S";(Mn 0.:3 r1 8','.'8 p',r'~,'1. ~~~'!,"l '. i.ll con::os have their "100 y,~ar [hind" (l::'c1i.(!;,,:<-,' ~;i._~e f(;.c: '1 ,into our lkCk yord, 1.'r~lich c()l'lcl cR1)se,'i:";'ic~l;ltJ our 'lor,e if j t \'leee p1r.:,c,,~d .rurt~18r ') c k. 2. ]ui1ding inthe b,'ck y' eel '..f';uld C3l):':P' fJ 10:-:;:1 of l~J','e view \'Thich vlOu1d (leCr("8Se tt'G value of ':'~e,:}'ope(.tJ. ,.. 01'" 3. Southern exposure is rH~ce,~ ar:; for Holal' 1':.:::'C~ti':I~:. 4. Part of ~;he new ;,.rinth is 3. porch, !:ece~':arJ to }'l'C!lrent 'leet 10ss(e (loll~::le en t':~.;T 8}'Gte" is np,:),-:c~,: for t"e se'lor h2ating syste: to ~Ol~ prope~ly). 5. The living rOOll 'Jas a fo)":' eX' cC'l;)i.n Hl1rl'.1'8 ;'~'-1jct')r'~ cl08s not r;e0t ";)Qi10 in;::: cocles. 6. The neVi 1ivil'lg rOOI is si10rter ti-t,i"l t~H~ 01,'1 0':0.. 7. The pOl~ch viOl11.1 i l'-r'o7t~ tl~;:Jffic fI 0;:1 ':Tit';~_n -:>c >iO'~S~. Ie) \ l ..- j '. ) "I ,l 3xhibit C APPLICANrS' JUSrIFICArION FOR VARIANCE .../ ~~ ~ I ~ ....~~ ;:~~. ~ \'~\1>.", .,.A - " . ~~,,>--.f1')/ y~,,"/ -"-- ~~'o),!o\";I\~("'\"~//' - - ---.; ..", '1...~?v(G // ~ ~ ~ ~~~\ ~~~~~~' ?' ~ if;lir~~ ill ---<:~ ~ /1',1 ,.....w ~~~ .... .... I~~~ ""'7)I9.r .. -. ,,..((~:tf(1i~r.1 ~ ~~~~"""" r---- -./'" ~~ ~ '1\'\'\ ,~ ~~,~ \\ ~ '~ I ~ Y'///' <:LJ" C//. . II 7-?i~~ II ' · ~.::/ ~~" i '" ~~(W <~~~.~ _'.~ ~--::-~~/ ,~~ ~,,~((-r.>' j~ I), ~! ,::- "'" . ~ ~ ~" '/ "~~" ~ ,~~\~ \LI i __-'- Il~\""--::::: oJ J ~ "If;; "" - - I ^I.'---.. fI'.--' ~ ~\~\'~ ~ 'l d~(f<-~V, '(('Ji'~\I\\" / "'~~ '. ~~ ,,'- ~ _ _' r r:- ~.J ;oV ~ 'I) IrAJ),,~I) ;1' ;;:::- I ""'P' \~:~~" ~ .//~ ::: n rt .a.!J;,"" ~ . ~ ,,\, ~y ~~ ~ r __ t+~' . ~ ~ ~ /j;?Jfd';'" ~ ~\\\ ,\ . ~m(::::: :\., 'r_ ' ,\'I'~ I : t 0 ,,~~ / ~------= ~~; ~ ~~ ~~\[tfO )'; '~.'.:":III " J "-">." ."~' '/ _/ \ '~~, t \,/ //, ~ :JI (( ~,2t\\i~ I ( \ ---"~~" // ,," ~"\ ~J}k~'/ ! ~-' \ ,,,' I / \~/ ~ \i11 ~A\ \?2' //(,'1' ...' - IV "--- If 'i' I ~1 : r~\ .ff ,d~' 77. ,s'<:;o;'~ "7 -1f1 ~- - , , ~~~i~ ~i\~~H ~\ ! _ ~ 'Ii! ~~. '"cJ~ ) II J~ ~'" \ ~ ~ ~~~~ ,~~'lfi.~~ ~ \ \.... " ..Ji~ I )\ V f<T'\ 0 - ~ ,; 1\' \N~' ~. ..-...: /f\lf~ ~)', 'l, Q' , (~L~. 'IT''::' I , , l " ........) \ /I, I!~~'" ~H'.'(I ! ~ 7, '\.~ if, !~', 'II ..\' : ,!..~ ~~ oJ!' -L' " . ..j/" ~ \' I \ Il:l >".."? l:.r-\ ' ',!q, 0' " : '\ .. 1-., ,~ \:~ ~~~tJ_ if :1, ,~~lP'fS; 0\\ " I '-. ~ ~'" ~41 \ Po ' I ", ! ~ ~~= r_ "Ii:~ \ \ 'j '\ .' \ i ,.~~~ ~ ;'i'J'_ rr-lr"'-- . \ : ~' , ~', ~ "-'i. \ :--... Q ..' . \ \..., c ...... - ,~'""'-'- . ,0\ --;"'~,' \ ,~ , . "" ~ "''' ~', < o. \ : , ., -' ... .::') .'\ . l\.. . \ \ \ ~~ ) ~(S'5f\'O\1 ~'~\ ~~'~~j .~~)'~,~~o t: /'~ ~~\'7-' " i5i' ,\)( !i ! ~\~, ," \ "",Y "^"); < '-, ", / C:;;; , ,'\\..: " '_ ' t "":72 ;~~, " \ ". )ij, c>t .'" , ~ r AiZ 1\ .. .'~'\ ~: I' '."'1 , \ '/'~~ 'I ........:t-.. ./1 'f' .,"; ~~C'-vr/ ' ~ '7" ~ "<1,,,\ ! r,/~,i'; '-' " c.:w "".0 y~,\. ' ,Iii \ ~\\' \ >1~C~e- :C'~~4'"~' .~~~ , \ ,& ~5::l):'.~ > ~~~ Exh';b' t . Ita "ii ...~. ... ~ D '. .., I' LOCATIon OF SITE . t:" '. ." AND :-rBPLANDS PuLATIV.::. 'ro rOPOGRAPHY (Approximate) - tii 4.- , I I I ! CI 'fI! ~ Q t -. ~! '" -z ~ I \ ~~~.~~~. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD MA YOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 23 JUNE 83 RE: ARSTS VARIANCE REQUEST FILE NO: 405 (83.24) At the request of Councilman Shaw the following additional information is provided to you relative to the Arsts variance request: 1. Total lot area - approximately 17,313 square feet 2. Current house "footprint" - 1149.6 Square feet 3. House "footprint" with proposed addition - 1536.1 square feet 4. Existing garage "footprint" - 384 square feet Please note that the above-mentioned figures have been calculated directly from the Certificate of Survey submitted by the applicant. If there are additional questions, please contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. BN:sn cc: Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Ojars Arsts Planning Commission Kathy West Vb A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO: SHOREWOOD MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983 RE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. (OJARS AND MARA ARSTS - 20960 RADISSON INN ROAD) MOTION: The Planning Commission recommends that the Council deny the application for variance. MOVED: Richard Spellman SECONDED: Bruce Benson VOTE: 4 - 1 AYES: Frank Reese, Richard Spellman, Mary Boyd, Bruce Benson NAYS: Bob Shaw ABSTAIN: none Commissioners suggested that the need for variance might be reduced by altering the proposed design and might be accomplished without going closer to the street. '-Ie- . - . . ORTHOPAEDIC CONSULTANTS. P.A. DISEASES AND INJURIES OF THE MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM AND SURGERV OF THE HAND ~ LESTER W. CAR LANDER. M.D. E. HARVEY O'PHELAN. M.D. JOHN A. HARTWIG. M.D. JOHN A. WILSON. M.D. JOHN E. McMAHON. M.D. RICHARD J. AADALEN. M.D. GORDON M. AAMOTH. M.D. JAMES D. PRIEST. M.D. ROBERT E. HEETER. M.D. GARY E. WYARD. M.D. J. PATRICK SMITH. M.D. WILLIAM H. CALL. M.D. GEORGE E. NELSON. M.D. ARNOLD L. HAMEL. M.D. RICHARD F. BOARD BUSINESS MANAGER June 21, 1983 TO: Hembers of the Shorewood City Council This letter is regarding an item to be discussed at the next Shorewood City Council meeting. We live at 24020 Yellowstone Trail in Shorewood. We have recently constructed a tennis court. This court is in an area which used to be surrounded by elms, including an elm which hung over the entrance to the property, and, basically, blocked the view of the area on which the tennis court is built. All of the elms succumbed to Dutch elm disease, and they have been removed. Therefore, the entrance to the property. which overlooks the tennis court site, is much more open than it used to be, and the court is in direct view of pedestrians and drivers as they pass. We seem to have noted an increase now in curiosity regarding our property lately/including cars driving around the driveway, and one car actually drove in and around the tennis court itself during its construction. Therefore, we recently began construction of an attractive landscaping fence near the entrance of the property. This was designed to retard the view of the tennis court from. the street, and, therefore, to maintain privacy. The fence was purposely built just high enough to block the views of cars and vans, no higher. The fence affects the views of only two neighbors, and both were consulted before construc- tion and during construction, and both are in favor of it and like it. At the time of the construction of this fence, we did not know that fences could only be six feet high in Shorewood, and this fence is 7~ feet from the ground. However, the slats of the fence are raised l~ feet off the ground, so that the fence itself is only six feet tall, and this was purposely done to give the fence an airy and less solid look. In addition, the fence is not solid, but it has slats which are spaced away from one another. This also gives it a less solid appearance. At the entrance to our property, there is a grade which falls downward away from the street. Therefore, the footings of the fence are considerably lower than the street, and, in fact, when you stand in the street and look you are basically looking over the top of the fence~ but the court is blocked from view. This fence could have been built closer to the road at a lower height with the same results of blocking vision of the court, but it would certainly be less aesthetic for everyone. The total length of the fence a small grove of pine trees. is less than 36 feet. is 36 feet, but it is not in a straight line. It wraps around Therefore, the total length from end to end in a direct line f....RVIEW .ST.MARY'S MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. SUITE 701. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNnOTA 55454 . 612.' JJ9. 8976 SOl'TIlDALE lIEDICAL BUILDIN(;. sUln no. EDINA.llINNESOTA 554J5 . 920.7676 501 SOUnt lIAnE. WACONIA.lIINNESOTA 5H87 .442 .216J/lIETRO, 445 .8580 PRAIRIE VILLAGE PROFESSIONAL Bl'ILDIN<;. 16570 WUT 78TIt STREET. EDEN PRAIRIE. lllNNnOT A 55,.4 . 9J7. 2044 RIDGn lIEDIC AL OE'FICE BUILDING. 200 EAST NICOLLH BOULEV ARD. BURNSVILLE. lllNNUOT A 55JJ7 . 4n. 2 IS I IJJ5 EASTnNnt AVENUE.SHAKOPEF.IlCINNF.50TA 79.4 . ~ . . TO: Members of the Shorewood City Council ,2- June 21, 1983 We feel that this fence at its present height<is necessary for privacy. It is attractive, does not bother the neightbors, and we would like to ask the council for a variance to allow completion of this fence. It was approximately two-thirds finished when construction was halted. We certainly appreciate your consideration in this matter~ Sincerely. 0......,,_1>. (j)~M 1> l:.mes D. Priest, M. D. I I. JDP: ehf ~ . --- 1'.nn1". rora New Cono~ruo\ion 0 . Rellodel or Add 0 Well Penal t /I 0 . Pire Repair 0 (For Orrice Use. on17) WARNING Before digging call local utilities lElEPHONE. ELECTRIC. GAS Ele. ~r:~UtR~~ BY LA Vo" 'Pr pen,. wne..!:: plAn Chftok Jl'ftft ULnLn 3urohrlrIf,U Metro ~...C. <<_._-- S..... -- -'".- $ $ ........ .'.. ....--- UUD'rarAL :Jewer t'e1"llU II Water Pe1"llit II TOTAL S $ S S $ s Date Paid Q!!! Q! SHOREWOOD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION I I Date SUo. ~'-. 'Z..l--t "a' Name~ D. ~ Address ~ l.( 02-0 \f e. (( w) 5 l---MP /1Z.. f . Telephone.~'f~~~() Contractor: Name Address _Telephone'r3~"-'~'~ 1. Legal Description ot Propert7 including Street Address it known: TE:N M \~ w~r - ~A'1 , R \'llf '1 Plot Plan: Attach plot plan ot lot showing location of 8Z1y proposed or existing buildinl on same with respect to boundary lines. Show on plan present or proposed' location of water supply facilities and water and sewer supply piping. piot 'pl8Z1s are to be certified by a surveyor. Disposal of surface water must be shown. Soil Bearing Test may be required at foundation level by a minimum 01 two borings by a Professional Civil Engineer. Names and Addresses ot Sub-Contre.ctors or Installers of: 1. Construction 2. . Sanitary Sewer Connection. 3. \'lell and Water Supply Systems Construction Information: 1. EsU""ted valua of worlc for which pa11llU is 1'8qusstsd, not including valus of 101 I 2. T1Pe or work to be done. (~e dwelling, remode},other.) If 11 _ a.. 4!!- 5~ ~ C4bta.c,,~ dI 0( Oc.. - . 3. Ittach copy ot working ~wings tor which construction permit is requested. 4. Attach _SS~iO .tar ";l'P17 spacificaUons if ~"];;~a.;:.1 Signature of APplicant . . June 21, 1983 Turner 23980 Yellowstone Trail Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Shorewood City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Reference: Dr. and Mrs. James D. Priest 24020 Yellowstone Trail Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Council Members: Dr. and Mrs. Priest recently added a tennis court on their property. During the construction it became obvious to them that they would also need to add a privacy fence. Passers-by continually drive around their driveway. One person actually drove into their new court. Mrs. Priest explained the problem to me, described the type of fencing she would have installed and asked if my husband or I would have any objection to the fence since our property is adjacent to theirs. Neither of us have any objection to the fence. Construction has started on the fence and we find it very attractive. Although the fence is seven and one-half feet high, it appears much lower because the property slopes down from the street. The fence will give the Priests the pri- vacy barrier they need in an attractive manner for the surrounding neighbors. We trust that you will approve their request for the fence. Sincerely, ~r~~) . . I " ,flV~uJ ~ /, / q1' ;j: 'Va d/ ~~(-<)"'''' ct' 7 ~ \. - '. /; . 1)/r~)~7Z-~i~,z4cAt~-e~ . . ~~~ U/r7Z/~C-~~ ~7' J~/:;;J~ ~u ~,LZ'p~' ~--u'~.~ ~~.' ~. . .,~.~ ~-<<-r~ r~ cr- .,.l.,zL ~~, ~~/~?7V d. ,~.'cz-.n4' ~-;Z- p-~/ .' ..~~'_ M~~~~~~ ~/cv0~c/~ ..' ....... ........... .... .;.z:a 4~_4-~~.. ~ J ~7 ~~.~.-4<- a--t.~A./-cc( ~ .~~ ~'. ~~ f?~~-~ ;). ~97~- . . . . MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 16 JUNE 1983 RE: CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION FILE NO.: 405 (83.23) BACKGROUND Bernice Brooks, 21195 Radisson Inn Road has requested approval of a prelimi- nary plat for the old Christmas Lake~ property (see Exhibit A, attached). As shown on Exhibit B, she proposes to divide the property into five lots. You may recall that a preliminary plat was approved for the property in 1979. (see Exhibit C, attached) Since the plat waS never recorded it must be processed as a new request. In resubmitting the plat, the applicant has not included Tract E, which is also under her ownership. Thus the new plat technically contains one less lot than the previous plat. Based upon the calculations of the applicant's surveyor, the property contains approximately 202,730 square feet (4.65 acres) of area. According to City records Tract E contains 28,750 square feet. The property is entirely zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Upon review of the proposed plat and the requirements of Shorewood's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the following issues are raised: A. Zoning Requirements 1. Lot Area and Width. As proposed the plat requires the following variances: Lot 5 lot area variance of 5380 square feet .- Lot 1 lot width variance of 20 feet A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~a..- . . MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION PAGE TWO ISSUES AND ANALYSIS continued Lot 3 - lot width variance of five (5) feet .~ ~ ~/~ ( A. ZoninR Requirements) 2. Tract E. The previously approved plat required nine variances to lot area and width requirements while the new plat requires only three. This is due to the applicant not includint Tract E as part of the plat. This is specifically precluded~ by Section 10, Subdivision 3 of the Zoning Ordinance whicu scates: "....If two or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time of passage or amendment of this Ordinance, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements for lot width and area as established by this Ordinance, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this Ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or sold which does not meet lot and width and area requirements established by this Ordinance, nor shall any division of the parcel be made which leaves remaining any lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this Ordinance." Based upon that provision, my initial reaction was that the lot should be included as part of the new plat and that the entire property should be divided accordingly. However, after further consideration and a discussion with the applicant, I agree that the lot serves as a transitional area between the relatively large lots in the proposed plat and the relatively small lots to the east. In view of the City's previous position that in spite of the neces- sary variances, the lots will be among the largest in the area, the new plat is considered an improvement over the old. The size of Tract E should allow ample room for a single family home. So that there is no question in the future, however, the City should specify that in granting this variance any future structure must be designed for the site and that no variances will be granted. 3. Existing Buildings. As can be seen on Exhibit B, Lot 1 contains five (5) existing buildings, four of which do not comply with the standards of the current (or proposed) Zoning Ordinance. In the original request in 1979, the applicant agreed to remove the existing buildings. At the time it was never specified which buildings were to be removed. The applicant proposed to tear down the two northernmost structures, leaving the house and two accessory structures. The westernmost building is 35 feet from the lake shore while the easterly building is 30 feet from the lake. . . MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION PAGE THREE The City has the authority, both in the platting process and in the granting of variances, to require nonconformities to be brought into compliance with City standards. The City should be obligated to do so in order to ensure consistent and fair application of zoning requirements. In this light it is suggested that the City take the opportunity to eliminate all of the existing non- conformities as part of subdivision and variance approval. B. Subdivision Requirements. 1. Grading, Drainage, Utilities. The plat has been discussed with the City Engineer. Since the plat requires no additional streets and the site was previously developed, no site alteration is viewed as necessary. Sewer is available along the lakeshore side of the lots. The Subdivision Ordinance requires 20 feet drainage and utility easements along rear and side property lines. These should be included on the plat. 2. Site Access. The property is served by the Highway 7 service road and Radisson Inn Road. Consequently, no further streets are necessary. Due to the inadequate right-of-way width of Radisson Inn Road {30feet) the City should acquire at least 10 feet additional r.o.w. as part of the plat approval. While this will only bring the r.o.w. width to 40 feet, it would not be fair to acquire the entire 20 feet from this property. The right-of-way should be acquired in front of TractC as well as the portion of the property included in the plat. Since the service road will serve two of the lots, the applicant must acquire MNDOT approval. This should be submitted prior to approval of a final plat. 3. M.C.W.D. Approval. While not viewed as a problem the applicant should acquire written Watershed District approval prior to final plat approval. RECOMMENDATION: In spite of the variances involved, the proposed lots will be among the largest in the area. The City should, however, take advantage of its platting and variance authority by correcting nonconformities wherever possible. Therefore, approval of the preliminary plat should include the following conditions: . . MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION PAGE FOUR RECOMMENDATION continued 1. The nonconforming accessory buildings on Lot 1 should be moved or removed. 2. Although variances are approved for the plat, it should be clearly specified and recorded that structures proposed for individual lots should be designed for the sites so as not to require additional variances. 3. Drainage and utility easements should be included on the plat. 4. The City should acquire 10 feet of right-of-way for Radisson Inn Road. 5. The applicant should acquire the written approvals of MNDOT and the MCWD. 6. The applicant should be reminded that once final plat approval is granted, she has 30 days to record the plat. BN:sn CCj Doug Uhrhammer Jim Norton Gary Larson Bernice Brooks Kathy West I -'0,,' I I " ~ : 1,."/,,,. I . '<I ~':.. II. -- . -~..1 I /: o~ i)i)S.J ul aQ :. ~. (I'll- ~'.01I;- " L..~ r. ~ ....................-=....- ..' " ~c~ ~~.... .. -.. '-'!. :;..\ ..~o..... :.'~~ 't; ~, -*,', .. ,,,........ !'\' .... . 1',-.: '~ t. . . J- ":. ~, .,. . ~ .~ . ~'. - .. ~~ ~ '- '.. ... 6... S . .; >> .\'" u j \ ,C:a \ I ~.n \1 ~. \ \ 0 ~ i: ;Ii 00( I ' . . " c: l~ ... - Exhibit A SITE LOCAl'ION Christmas Lake Addition - proposed pre~iminary l.llat " .' . r~ ~" ~ .~ ~ ~( 5, I ~ y' ~ ";1'. o 'I~~~ ;-. -I .Jj l~ .::; .~ .,:s~ .. !o )r --N ~-~ ... ..;;;I r 0 ~ Z 11'I :=f . ~ -0 'ID ::g:) .,.. ,~ I..) I ..r- ~ PROPO~D: CHRISi1JAS--CAKE ADDITION . . . , , , , , . . :'.... " \;.:~..., r. .... r~:,;, ~.~(': ......... OWNlR AND DEVElOPER: Christmas lake Motel 21125 Radisson Inn Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Mrs. Bernice Brooks 474-8293 SURVEYOR AND D[S~G Egan, Field & Nowak, In 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone: 546-6837 ."~ \. . :~ i-.: n ;......~: 'C :... , , @ , , .... ~ f:4J. . \~; . .. \;:." '( . :"~ . ", ", ',. .~.... .. - " ..:: :.... J' ., ~:;. --- 5 C ALE: 1": 50' AREA OF LOTS -------- ----.. lot 1 . 4J, "L_ square feet 't Lot 2 · 41,400_ square feet Lot 3 . 42,000= square feet lot 4 . 41, IbO! square feet Lot 5 . 34,620: square feet / ....:. (:!J v"-'.. :;::: ... DESCRIPTION: . t Tracts"f and G, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 5, I Of.:.'.'. fILES OF REGI OF TITlES COUNTY OF HENNEPIN. l ~" f. to t hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my dire vision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveypr under the lav S tate of Mi n nesota. ~ Dated this 25th day of May, 1983. 'so " ~ \. EGAN, FiElD & NOWAK, IN ...Surv.yors by /' I 1',.: I I Minne~ota Regi~tration No. 1 " t.- " I" ", \) * I ..' 1 ;~ :SO' o>.tl(~~~ ..~ I ~ A 5 f NeTE: Bearings shown are assumed. NOTE: Topography shown hereon taken from aerial topography map Hurd Aerial Surveys Inc. 4> lilt. I G Exhibit B PRELIKINARY PLA'r I "ON UO!)lJIS!NlI elOsauu !w U~: Dr.....:)'t. ~q uohunS 'n_ON' OUU 'NY:)) 6!tl 'I!~ "Mp IULl'Slln PlIIO' J .", ~"",s."or At.""',....... lIII"'~ u.~s "" IIY =1&. " "'" sMuns IIIJIW pJnH lIJIW ~ dIw ~"'eJ&odO, ....." 111Ilol' u., u__~ U.~S A\IlIIJliIIdol :l1i .' .' r .? .J'. {is 'tIOSiUU!W ID alllS lID SMII alii ~aoun JOAauns PUf'1 paJiJIS!NII A1np I WI I "'"I oul UO!SIA, Ins l>>J1P . JlllUn JO alii 14 IIIJIlIuI _ .... SIIII 1I~' ~"'f) ....JiJ~ I 'NldHlH JO A1NllO' snll1 JO 'MISl'lII JO 1.1 '01. AWnS ONYl OlllllS19. '.'9 PU~.f 'J S)JIJl 'NOl1dlllJ~lO . , V 1 ~/1 ,. ...,.. 4~". .,....,. ...,tIft .... .,...,. ~..:.(,.,... '14"- .... ''''''/ ",:., , '0l0!I 'Of ~_~ ,... ",... '" ,..~ s '" ~-;----t-. - --~.- . I I . '" . .. ..... , . :f~ JII~ u"",,,r. ~ j P. ?-t o:~ ~ ,.... H .,.:. H ....:l ~ P. q ~ o g:: P. <Xl ?-t c..>....:l +>~ 'M 0 PH :2~ ~p. N. " . . L[i9 - 9K WKS elOSillulW 's!lCJleauuIW pJ'M1nog ,,,,z.(,. ~1tL '~I 'lIYMON' Q11U 'MY9) =,_91SlO aNY IIOAwnS ( A1nJ J Inl1Jl ~ ~ tLt SlIOOJg I3IUJag 'UW U[S~ 'IOSIIIUIW 'pooMiJJO~S peall UU I UOSSIPlll 5Z11Z U1OWlI.)W1 SYW.lSUIIQ 'lJldOll1\lO aNV 11_.0 "3 'sI tt 7 ). 5 VJ:I.1 $./ fJ H ') 0:1 50d.o1:lq .' . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the June 21st Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Frank Reese, Richard Spellman, Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw; Council Liaison Tad Shaw; Planner Brad Nielsen; Secretary Kathy West ABSENT: Commissioners Vern Watten (business commitment), Janet Leslie APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES May 17, 1983: The Minutes were approved as written on motion of Benson, seconded by Reese. Ayes - S. June 7, 1983: the Minutes were approved as written on motion of Boyd, seconded by Benson. Ayes - 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT Chairman Benson called the hearing to order by reading the legal notice as pub- lished June 8, 1983. Bernice Brooks was present to explain her request to sub- divide property located at 21135 Radisson Inn Road. She noted that the prelimi- mary plat shows 5 lots, some requiring variances. It was noted that approval for subdivision had been granted in 1979 but time had lapsed before the plat was re- corded, therefore the request was being reprocessed. Steve Larson, 20435 Radisson Inn Road, (President of the Christmas Lake Association and past Shorewood Planning Commissioner) requested background on the previous ap- proval. Chairman Benson read Planning Commission minutes dated June 21, 1979 (see Attachment #1) and City Council Minutes dated June 25, 1979 (Attachment #2). Mr. Larson asked what variances are required on the 1983 plat. The Planner listed the following (see Planner's report, Attachment #3, for plat): 1) Lot #5 - lot area variance of 5380 square feet 2) Lot #1 - lot width variance of 20 feet 3) Lot #3 - lot width variance of 5 feet 4) A variance to exclude Tract E (an adjacent parcel of land which is under common ownership) from the plat It was noted that the previous proposal (including Tract E) required nine variances, six to lot area and three to lot width standards. John Cousins, 5955 Christmas Lake Road, questioned the procedure involved for plat approval. It was noted that recommendations from the Planning Commission, the Park Commission, and approval from the Watershed District and the State Department of Transportation are required before final plat approval. ~b .-ttI . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 21, 1983 PAGE TWO Carol Chapman, Park Commission Chairman, reported that the Commission had reviewed the preliminary plat and had recommended that the City Council investigate the pos- sibility of land dedication from this subdivision for a potential canoe access. There was some discussion as to the amount of land which might be donated (approxi- mately 10,000 square feet was mentioned). Possible conflicts with the D.N.R. were noted. It was pointed out that if land is dedicated to the City park system, changes in the plat might be required, possibly lowering the number of lots to four. Mr. Cousins commented that the City would be buying itself trouble with a 10,000 square foot park. Mr. Larson also questioned the City's plans for acqu~r~ng road right-of-way, noting that it seemed unfair to take land from the property owner for both road and park improvements. There being no additional comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. The Commission reviewed the Planner's report. It was noted that an additional 20 feet of right-of-way is needed along this portion of Radisson Inn Road to meet City standards (50 foot r.o.w.). Nielsen recommended that 10 feet be acquired along Mrs. Brooks' side of the road. Nielsen pointed out technical details still to be completed - drainage and utility easements need to be placed on all the proposed lot lines, and MnDOT and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval is necessary. Nonconforming structures on lot #1 need to be moved or removed. Nielsen suggested that granting the variances may be appropriate, noting that the City wants to acquire land for r.o.w. and that the proposed lots are larger than the surrounding properties. The Commission questioned the variance to leave Tract E unplatted. Nielsen noted that technically the substandard lot should be platted. Granting the variance was discussed as a trade off for the acquisition of r.o.w., the correction of noncon- formities, and in consideration of the small lots in the area. It was noted that lots 3,4 and 5 would be affected by the r.o.w. dedication but that all proposed lots are greater than 40,000 square feet with the exception of lot #5. It was also pointed out that excluding Tract E reduces the total land area from which a park dedication might be calculated. The Park Commission recommendation was seen as a separate issue to be addressed by the Counci 1. The Planning Commission questioned the possibility of preventing future variances as suggested in the Planner's recommendations. It was pointed out that the actions of future Councils and Commissions could not be controlled, but the intention to prevent additional variances should be noted. Spellman moved, Boyd seconded, to recommend to the Council that the plat be approved subject to the recommendations in the Planners's report, and that ten (10) feet be dedicated for right-of-way from Tract E also. The motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote - 5 ayes, 0 nays. 1 . . CCMMISSION REC~1ENDATION TO: SHOREWOOD MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FRCM: MEETING DATE: THE PARK CCMMISSION JUNE 24, 1983 RE: PARK DEDICATION FOR CHRISTMAS LAKE ADDITION MOTION The Park Commission requests additional time for study of the proposed Subdivision and discussion with the property owner regarding possible dedication to the park system. MOVED: SECONDED: VOTE: Conrad Schmid Marty Jakel Unanimous, 5 - 0 AYFS: Conrad Schmid, Carol Chapman, Marty Jakel, Launisse Cousins, Gordon Lindstrom NAYS: none ABSTAIN: none t.o<!.- ~ . . . . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO: SHOREWOOD MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983 RE: REQUEST TO REZONE - TEX - SOTA (BRUCE HUBBARD) MOTION: The Planning Commission recommends that the property located at 19585 State Highway #7 be rezoned from R-1 to C-1. MOVED: Frank Reese SECONDED: Bruce Benson VOTE: Unanimous AYES: Frank Reese, Richard Spellman, Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson NAYS: none ABSTAIN: none Reese noted that he felt the use of the land is appropriate to this area along Highway 7 and that vehicular traffic problems may have to be addressed as a separate item. 1c r-- -- --- . . . . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO: THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1983 MEETING DATE: RE: Winterfield Office Building - landscaping, Grading and drainage plans. MOTION: To recommend that the Council approve the submitted plans, and if possible, that small trees be moved from the site for additional buffering. MOVED: Mary Boyd SECONDED: Dick Spellman VOTE: Unanimous ' AYES: Frank Reese, Dick Spellman, Mary Boyd, Bob Shaw, Bruce Benson NAYS: none ABSTAIN: none 3'0-- . . . . SHOREWOOD FESTIVAL OF PARKS THE 1 ST ANNUAL COI'1t1UN I TY P I CHI C TO HIGHTEN COI"IMUN I TY AWARENESS OF OUR PARKS AND RAISE NEEDED FUNDS FOR THE FIRST PHASE IMPROVEMENT OF FREEMAN PARK WILL BE HELD SUNDAY, AUGUST 14TH AT BADGER PARK. THE PARK COMMISSIONPS GOAL IS TO RAISE $18 800 TO REACH THE ABOVE MENTIONED GOALS THE FOLLOWING AcTIVITIES AND EVENTS ARE PROPOSED BY THE PARK CO~MISSION: 1. A CENTURY CLUB FUND RAISER WHICH WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS COMMUNITY BUSINESSES, AND ORGANIZATIONS TO DONATE $lee FOR THE ' DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE ONE OF FREEMAN PARK. DONORS WOULD RECEIVE A CENTURY CLUB PLAQUE WITH THEIR NAME ENGRAVED ON IT. A. APPROXIMATE COST OF PLAQUES - $18 TO $15 B. WHAT SHAPE? CITY OF SHOREWOOD? C. DONORS GET FREE PERMITS IF EVER REQUIRED? D. ORGANIZERS: STEVE FRAZIER AND KRISTI STOVER 2. SELL RAFFLE TICKETS T~ROUGHOUT THE AREA TO RAISE HONEY. THE FIRST GOAL WOULD BE TO-BET PRIZES DONATED AND TO FIND A SOURCE TO PURCHASE OR HAVE DONATED A GRAND PRIZE FOR THE RAFFLE. PRELIMI NARY THINK I NG ON THE RAFFLE WOULD HAVE A CANOE OR SOME TYPE OF WATER CRAFT AS FIRST PRIZE. OTHER PRIZES COULD INCLUDE MERCHANDISE, GIFT CERTIFICATES AND SERVICES. THE LONGER THE LIST OF PRIZES THE BETTER OUR CHANCES OF FINANCIAL SUCCESS. RAFFLE TICKETS WILL BE SOLD INDIVIDUALLY OR IN MULTIPLES AT IMPROVED RATES. SALE OF RAFFLE TICKETS COULD BE THROUGH LOCAL BUSINESSES, CLUBS, ATHLETIC TEAMS USING SHOREWOOD FACILITIES, ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS,AND VOLUNTEERS. PRIZES COULD 'BE AWARDED TO THE PERSON SELLING THE MOST RAFFLE TICKETS. A. BILL KEELER WILL ORGANIZE THE RAFFLE. B. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN NOT TO ASK THE t1ERCHANTS TO TAKE PART IN EACH ACTIVITY. C. CONRAD SCHMID CAN GET THE .TICKETS PRINTED FOR US D. WHAT QUANTITY OF TICKETS? E. WHEN SHOULD THE RAFFLE TICKETS GO ON SALE? 3. SPONSOR A BMX BIKE RACE WITH FEE PROCEEDS GOING TO THE PARKS. AT THE SAME T I HE THE BI KE RACES ARE BEING HELD THERE COULD ALSO BE AN OPEN HOUSE AT FREEMAN PARK. FUTURE PLANS COULD BE DISPLAYED AND AREAS MARKED OFF TO GIVE RESIDENTS SOME IDEA OF WHAT FREEMAN PARK WILL LOOK LIKE IN THE FUTURE. A. GARY CARL AND J 1M HEI~AND WILL BE ASKED TO HEAD UP THESE ACTIVITIES. B. COULD WE SET THE FREEMAN PARK PLAN BLOWN UP TO LARGE SI ZE BY pLANNER OR OSH? c. CAN WE GET AUGUST 13 OR 14 INTO THE BMX SCHEDULE? D. HOW MUCH WORK WOULD IT TAKE TOI1ARK OF THE VARIOUS AREAS OF FREEMAN PARK AND COULD THESE AREAS BE MADE ACCESSABLE FOR WALKING TOURS? E. SHOULD THE Bt1XRACE BE OPEN OR LIMITED TO SHOREWOOD RESIDENTS ONLY? 4. ROUND ROB I N COMPET IT I ON FOR SHOREWOOD RES I DENTS TO INCLUDE BUT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: A. SOFTBALL TOURNAMENTS FOR YOUTH AND ADlA. TS BY II! ct~ . . 8. SHOREWOOD OPEN GOLF TOURNAI'1ENT AT MINlETONKA COUNTRY CLUB. C. SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB TO SPONSOR A SAILING RACE. D. SHOREWOOD TENNIS TOURNAMENT USING BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACILITIES FOR ELIMINATION COMPETITION. E. FISHING CONTEST FOR CHILDREN UNDER UJ AND ADULTS OVER 60 YEARS. F. HORSESHOE PITCHING CONTEST BY SE~ AND AGE. G. GAMES FOR PICNIC-SACK RACES, THREE LEGGED RACES, H. COORDINATORS TO BE ROGER STEIN AND AL LEONARDO 5. COMMUNITY PICNIC ON AUGUST 14TH A. BRATS AND BEER GARDEN WILL BE ORGANIZED .BY CONRAD SCHMID AND BE MADE AND SERVED BY VOLUNTEERS. MAYBE THEY CAN BE PURCHASED FROM SUPER VALU AND WE CAN RETURN UNUSED QUANTITIES. BEER CAN BE PURCHASED FROM THE MUNICIPAL AT COST. WE MAY NEED TO RENT A LARGE GAS GRILL. 'ALSO WE WILL EXPLORE FINDING A TENT OR BIG TOP TO PUT THESE CONSESS IONS IN. . B. THE STREET DANCE AND MUSIC FOR THE PICNIC WILL BE ORGAN- I ZED BY MARTY JAKEL. THE IDEA WILL BE TO ROPE OFF PART OR ALL OF THE BADGER PARK AND MAYBE EVEN COUNTRY CLUB ROAD FOR DANCING AND GENERAL PICNIC ACTIVITIES. SEVERAL BANDS WILL BE APPROACHED TO DONATE THEIR TIME TO THIS CAUSE.' THE HOCKEY RI NK MAYBE THE BEST PLACE FOR THE BANDS DUE TO LIGHTING AND STAGING CONSIDERATIONS. SOME FRONT END EXPENSES HAY BE NECESSARY FOR RENTING A STAGE AND SOUND EQU I PMENT . A VARI ETY OF BANDS WILL BE INVITED FOR DANCING AND CONCERT ENJOYMENT. C. CONDUCT AN AUCT I ON ON DONATED RUMAGE AND HOLD IT IN ONE ONE OF THE CITY GARAGES. JOHN HOGDONWILL' HELP ORGANIZE THIS ACTIVITY AND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL ASKED TO TAKE AS AUCTIONEERS. D. LAUNISSE COUSINS WILL BE IN CHARGE OF ALL CONCESSIONS AND INCHARGE OF OVERSIGHT OF FINANCIAL MATTERS. E. GORDY LINDSTROM WILL ORGANIZE AND ACT AS THE CONTACT PERSON FOR VOLUNTEERS. ALSO WILL WORK WITH PLACEMENT OF VOLUNTEERS IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND CONCESSIONS. F. POLICE PROTECTION WILL BE ORGANIZED BY CAROL CHAPMAN AND FACILITATED BY MAYOR RASCOP AND CHIEF EARL JOHNSON. · G. PUBLIC RELATIONS WILL BE ORGANIZED BY JAN HAUGEN AND TAD SHAW. TAD WILL ALSO ADVISE THE COUNCIL ON INSURANCE MATTERS FOR AN EVENT SUCH AS THIS. IF THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES AND PICNIC PLANS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE PARK COMMISSION AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING FRIDAY, JUNE 24TH AND ALSO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MONDAY NIGHT JUNE 28TH THEN THE PICNIC COMMITTEE WILL DRAFT A TIME LINE FOR PREPARATION AND DELIVERY OF THE COMMUNITY PICNIC. P.S. PLEASE BE CANDID AND OPEN WITH ADDITIONAL IDEAS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLANS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, STEVE FRAZIER PICNIC CHAIR -l . . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO: SHOREWOOD MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: THE PARK COMMISSION ,m MEETING DATE: FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1983 RE: SHOREWOOD FESTIVAL OF PARKS MOTION: The Park Commission recommends acceptance of the Shorewood Festival of Parks plan as finalized June 24, 1983, including the correspond- ing responsibilities; and requests that $500.00 be earmarked for the Shorewood Festival. MOVED: Conrad Schmid SECONDED: Marty Jakel VOTE: Unanimous AYES: Carol Chapman, Launisse Cousins, Marty Jakel, Gordon Lindstrom, Conrad Schmid NAYS: none ABSTAIN: none . . " . . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND REGULATING ALARM SYSTEMS, ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD The City Council of the City of Shorewood ordains: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF POLICY. The City of Shorewood deems it necessary to provide for the regulations of alarm systems which are designed to signal the presence of a hazard requiring urgent attention to which public safety personnel are expected to respond, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council finds that the regulation of alarms is necessary in order to reduce the increasing frequency of false alarms in the City. The great number of and increasing frequency of these false alarms requires intensive, time consuming efforts by the Department of Public Safety and thereby distracts from and reduces the level of services available to the rest of the community. This diminishes the ability of the City to promote the general health, welfare and safety of the community. In consideration for the necessity on the part of the City to provide numerous public safety services to all segments of the community, without an undue concentration of public services in one area to work to the detriment of members of the general public, it is hereby decided that the alarm systems shall be regulated through the permit process described below. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. As used herein, unless otherwise indicated, the following terms are defined as follows: Subd. a. "Alarm System" shall mean an assembly of equipment and devices (or a single device such as a solid state unit) arranged to signal the presence of a hazard. For the purposes of this ordinance, the alarm, when triggered, must be directly connected to a central monitoring agency which then notifies the police and/or fire departments of an emergency to which public safety personnel must respond, or may emit .an audible signal which will require urgent attention and to which public safety personnel are expected to respond. Subd. b. "Alarm User" shall mean the person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind on whose premises an alarm system is maintained. "Alarm User" shall include persons occupying dwelling units for residential purposes. "Alarm User" shall not include persons maintaining alarm systems in automobiles. I/~ . . Subd. c. "False Alarms" shall mean the activation of an alarm system through mechanical failure, malfunction, improper installation, or the negligence of the ower or lessee of an alarm system or of his employees or agents. It does not include activation of the alarm by utility company power outages or by climatic conditions such as tornadoes, lightning, earthquakes, other violent conditions of nature, or any other conditions which are clearly beyond the control of the alarm manufacturer, installer or owner. Subd. d. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative or other entity. Subd. e. "Calendar Year" shall mean the period January 1 through December 31 of each year. SECTION 3. PERMITS AND EXEMPTIONS. Subd. a. Permits. Effective July 15, 1983, every alarm user who, during the course of a calendar year, incurs more than three (3) false police alarms, or more than one (1) false fire alarm shall be required to obtain an alarm user permit. Subd. b. Review of Permit. The Public Safety Department shall review the issuance of all alarm permits. Subd. c. Process for Issuance of Permit. Upon receipt and determination of the fourth false police alarm report, or the second false fire alarm report at an address, the Public Safety Department, after review, shall notify the City Clerk who shall then assess the alarm user for an alarm user's permit. The assessment invoice shall be sent by certified mail. The alarm user must submit the required permit fee to the City Clerk within ten (10) working days after receipt of the assessment invoice in order to continue to use his alarm system. Any subsequent false police or fire alarms at that address shall automatically revoke that permit and the process must then be repeated. This process shall be repeated for each and every false alarm in excess of three (3) false police alarms and in excess of one (1) false fire alarm during each calendar year. Subd. d. Duration of Permit. All permits, unless otherwise revoked, will expire at the end of each calendar year. Subd. 3. Exemptions. The provlslons of this chapter are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to automobiles. . . SECTION 4. REQUIREMENTS AND DUTIES. Subd. a. False Alarm Reports. The Public Safety Department may, at its discretion, require a false alarm report to be filed by the alarm user with the Public Safety Department, within a time period to be specified by the Public Safety Department. If the Public Safety Department determines that a false alarm has occurred at an address, the alarm user at that address may submit a written report to the Public Safety Department to explain the cause of the alarm activation. If the Public Safety Department determines that the alarm was caused by conditions beyond the control of the alarm user, the alarm will not be counted as a false alarm at that address. Subd. b. "False Alarms" will be excused if they are the result of an effort or order to upgrade, install, test, or maintain an alarm system and if the Public Safety Department is given notice in advance of said upgrade, installation, test and maintenance. SECTION 5. PROHIBITIONS. Subd. a. "Alarm Systems Utilizing Taping or Prerecorded Messages." No person shall install, monitor, or use and possess an operative alarm which utilizes taped or prerecorded messages which deliver a telephone alarm message to the police or fire department. SECTION 6. PERMIT FEES. Subd. a. The fee for alarm user's permits shall be: Police - Fifty Dollars ($50.00); Fire - One hundred fifty Dollars ($150.00). Subd. b. Alarm user's permits shall expire on the last day of each calendar year. Alarm user's permits shall not be required in the next calendar year until there are more than three (3) false police alarms or more than one (1) false fire alarms reported at the alarm user's address during the next calendar year. SECTION 7. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF PERMIT. Subd. a. Basis for revocation or suspension. In addition to the automatic revocation process described in Section 3, the Public Safety Department may suspend or revoke any alarm user permit issued pursuant to this ordinance if the Public Safety Department finds that any of the following occur: 1. That any provision or condition of this ordinance has been violated by an alarm user or his agents; ~ e . 2. That an alarm system has actuated an ex- cessive number of false alarms~ 3. That the alarm user has knowingly made false statements in or regarding his application for an alarm user's permit~ 4. That the alarm user has failed to correct or remove, within a reasonable period, violations of this ordinance after receipt of notice to do so~ 5. That the continued effectiveness of the alarm user permit, constitutes a sub- stantial threat to the public peace, health, safety or welfare. All alleged violations defined above shall be investigated by the Public Safety Department. The alarm user shall be given notice of the proposed revocation of suspension and be provided an opportunity to informally present evidence to the Public Safety Director prior to the final decision on revocation or suspension. Anyone aggrieved by the decision of the Public Safety Director may appeal that decision to the City Council. SECTION 8. CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Subd. a. Any alarm user who continues to use an alarm system after receiving notice of revocation or suspension by the Public Safety Department shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. SECTION 9. SEPARABILITY. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part~ and if any section, provision or part of any ordinance shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part thereof. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage of publication according to law. THIS ATTEST: t"';f-u t"'l",rlc ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD DAY OF , 1983. Robert Rascop, Mayor - . ~ . . " ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING MINNEGASCO, INC., A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE STREETS, ALLEYS, PUBLIC WAYS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, FOR SUCH PURPOSES; AND PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF. The City Council of the City of Shorewood does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall mean: 1.1 COMPANY. Minnegasco, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, its successors and assigns. 1.2 GAS. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other forms of gas energy. 1.3 MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MUNICIPAL CLERK. These terms mean, respectively, the City of Shorewood, the Council of the City of Shorewood, and the Clerk of the City of Shorewood. SECTION 2. GRANT OF FRANCHISE. There is hereby granted to the Company, for a perid of 25 years, the right to import, manufacture, trasport, distribute and sell gas energy for public and private use in. the Municipality, and for these purposes to construct, op~rate, repair and maintain in, on, over, under and across the streets, alleys, public ways and public grounds of the Municipality, all facilities and equipment used in connection therewith, and to do all things which are necessary or customary in the accomplishment of these objectives, subject to the provisions of this Franchise. 2.1 EFFECTIVE DATE; WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. This Franchise shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law and its acceptance in writing by the Company filed with the Municipal Clerk. The Company shall, if it accepts this Franchise and the rights hereby granted, file a written acceptance with the Municipal Clerk within 60 days after publication. 2.2 NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE. This is not an exclusive franchise. , / ~ I~ . . SECTION 3. CONDITIONS OF STREET USE. 1.1 USE OF STREETS. All utility facilities and equipment of t~e Company shall be located, constructed, installed and maintained as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the usual and customary traffic and travel upon the streets, alleys, public ways, and public grounds of the Municipality. 3.2 RESTORATION OF STREETS. The Company shall, upon completion of any work requiring an opening, restore the street, alley, public way or public ground to the same condition as before the opening was made, insofar as reasonably possible. 3.3 RELOCATION OF UTILITY FACILITIES. The Company shall relocate its facilities or equipment at its own expense whenever the Municipality in the proper exercise of its police power shall grade, regrade, change the line or otherwise improve any street, alley, public way or public ground or construct or reconstruct any sewer or water system therein and shall, with due regard to seasonal working conditions, order the Company to permanently relocate its facilities or equipment located in said street, alley, public way or public ground. The Municipality shall give the Company reasonable notice of plans requiring such relocation. 3.4 RELOCATION WHEN STREETS VACATED. The Municipality may not order the Company to relocate any of its facilities or equipment when a.street, alley, public way or public ground is vacated unless the reasonable cost of such relocation and the loss and expense resulting from such relocation are first paid to the Company. SECTION 4. INDEMNIFICATION. The Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Municipality, its officers, employees and agents from all liability on account of injury to persons or damage to property caused by the Company's construction, maintenance, repair or operations in the Municipality, unless such injury or damage is the result of the negligence of the Municipality, its officers, employees or agents. SECTION 5. TERMINATION OF FRANCHISE. If the Company is in default in the performance of any material part of this Franchise for more than 90 days after receiving written notice from the Municipality of such default, the Municipal Council may, by ordinance duly passed and adopted, terminate all rights granted hereunder to the Company. The notice of default shall be in writing and specify the provision of this Franchise under which the default is claimed and state the . . bases therefor upon all material issues relative to such default. Such notice shall be served on the Company by personally delivering it to an officer thereof at its principal place of business. The reasonableness of any ordinance declaring a termination of the rights and privilege granted by this Franchise shall be subject to judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction. SECTION 6. PUBLICATION EXPENSE. The expense of publication of this franchise ordinance shall be paid by the Company. SECTION 7. ORDINANCES REPEALED. All other ordinances or portions of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 8. ASSIGNMENT. The Company, upon notice to the Municipality, shall have the right and authority to assign all rights conferred upon it by this Franchise ordinance to any person, persons, firm or corporation. The assignee of such rights, by accepting such assignment, shall become subject to the terms and provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 9. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Any change in the form of government of the Municipality shall not affect the validity of this Franchise. Any governmental unit succeeding the Municipality shall, without the consent of the Company, automatically succeed to all of the rights and obligations of the Municipality provided in th~s Franchise. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD THIS ____ DAY OF , 1983. Robert Rascop~ayor-- ATTEST: City Clerk Re:Christmas Lake Addition Launisse T. Cousins 5955 Christmas Lake Road Excelsior,Mo. 55331 City of Shoreweod 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council: The park commission recently passed a motion to consider land dedication for a park frorr Bernice Brooks, Christmas Lake Addition. At the time of the voice vote, I did not register either a positive or negative vote, feeling that I needed more time to consider the proposal. After ~isiting the site, polling the residents in the immediate area and ;ev~e:~ng the Compre?ensive Plan-Report#5(Parks and Open Space/Detaiied .ac~l~ties Plan), I nave decided that I oppose Such a request for the following reasons: A.The la:gest land acquisition possible would be approximately .4 acre(50ft. bJ.318~t). Report,5 does not seem to support a land acquisition of thlS small size. Specl~ically I quote from the plan: ~ages 30-34 ParklandExpansion Crescent Eeach(.27 acre)-100' wide "Shorewood sho~ld continue to participate in the upkeep of Crescent Beach until another more facility becomes availab e or e provide public beach facilities." Y;anor Park(5.5 acres) "Xanor Park is presettly too small for a quality neighborhood park." Parkland 3xpanslon in general fl~uch of Shorewood will develop into large lot single fa~ily homes. Therefore, the need for mumerous small park sites will have a low priority, except where ., residential development exceeds three units per acre. "In addition, we propose that Shorewood seek to a~quir~ anot. "'1er high amenity site for a sILall scaled COml~\.l~~ t.: park(5 acre minimurr),pernaps in west central ~noreWOOQ. It would seeT to be difficult to develop a .4 acre park(including ~ff the street parking and picnic areas) without creating a nuisance .or the neighborinc residents. B.ln addition, suet a park would generate additional maintenance costs for the city such as mowing, garba~e collection, police protection etc. Since at the present ti~e, we can hardly maintain and develop t~e e~isting parkland, it doesn't 6ee~ necessary to add to the city s finene cial burder,. Tae cltj has already spent over~3,OOO to plan the development of ?ree~a~ Park. This acrease holds great promise for the residents of ShorewDod ?~d ,in sy opinion, should be developed before any other parkla~d ~~ acq~ired. Qi......e..,.e}" ~j n/' '"' ....... :, '.. L'-(' 'c..-<-,J.~,.....4 ti. -t......~.~~ 6 ., MEMORANI;UM TO: FROM: DATE: HE: FILE NO: .3.ACKGRO~m <) l CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 3rad Nielsen 11 !\~ar ch 1983 Tex-Sota Construction - Zoning District and Text Amendment 405 (83.02) ~~. Bruce Hubbard, President of Tex-Sota Construction has submitted a request to build a self-storage facility (Minnesota Mini-Storage) on the property located at 19545 and 19585 state ~ighway 7 (see Site ~ocation ~ap x attached as ~xhibit A). The property contains approximately 2.6 acres in area, is zoned R-1, and is currently occupied by two single family dwellings. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North: East: South: \"iest: state Highway 7 vacant building (Vine Hill Floral Shop), zoned C-3 and the rear of a single family residential lot, zoned R-1 two single family dwellings, zoned R-1 undeveloped, zoned E-1 Generally, the proposed facility consists of five, single story buildings, divided into storage bays ranging in size from large closets to large garages. The units are rented out to individuals and, in some cases to ousinesses, strictly for storage. A sixth building in the front of the site (see Exhibit C, attached) would be occupied by the rental office and caretaker's residence. As can be seen on the proposed Site Plan the largest building forms a "U" shape around the north, west and south sides of the site. A chain link fence creates a complete enclosure for security purposes. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore '1'V ;(j , Plannning Commission, Mayor and City Council 11 March 1983 l Page Two ISSUES AND ~~ALYSIS 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 buildings. 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 ~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 haB 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 ~ay 1975, from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to Wally Mortenson (current owner) supports this conclusion. In his request, ~~. 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. ~x. 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. l l Pla~~ing Commission, Mayor and City Council 11 March 1983 Page Three 3. Traffic. Any development request for the area in question immediately brings to mind the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 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 relativel~ minimal. Storage bays 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. ~x. Eubbard will undoubtedly be able to answer questions 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 sewer to collect the runoff and direct it to the drainage ditch on Highway 1. This will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 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 may 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 market larger than just immediately adjacent neighborhoods, the range of such a market is primarily considered local. The proposed facility was not considered in character with the R-C District and uses in other commercial districts are generally higher in intensity than the mini- storage facility. In considering the C-1 District, the question arises as to where else in the community the proposed use could occur. Currently, only one site is zoned C-1. The property in the southwest corner of the Christmas Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection is currently occupied by a nonconforming use (the existing billboard). The next question which comes to mind is what uses are permitted in the event the applicant's proposal falls through. This is always a concern when rezoning property to a higher use district, and the City must 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 Ordinance is quite low key and would present no problem for the area in question. The uses allowed in the current C-1 District do present some l Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 11 iilarch 1983 l Page Four concerns, however. Retail 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 problem 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. No retail sales, service etc. should be allowed to occur on the property. 2. The caretaker residence should 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 based 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 applic~~t has either addressed these items or agreed to comply with them. l Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council 11 March 1983 , Page Five RECOMMENDATIONS If the request is considered generally acceptable, the first step is to amend the Zoning Ordinance text to include the proposed use. It may also be advisable to define a self storage facility. The next step is to approve the rezoning from R-1 to C-1. The City may 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.? (the C.U.P. will require an additional public hearing). cc: Doug Uhrhammer Gary Larson Jim Norton Bruce Hubbard \-..j"'~ ~~ ~ I I~I ~ 1:0. I J:) .,. --:""?-: -- b I . I- . I -: -~------ -- \ c ~ \ ~ '" ~~~ '- .~-atllA ~ t;;; ~ ~~ I .., I ~cn ,-_u__ -~1' ~ ~'J'~ C. ~\ ~ ~- ~)4N6.1.3NNIN ~O "..,...... ... ~, All::> ~ aOOM3~OHS .:10 . ~ :::J o ~ r;- ~ N 3.,H,HoOS ..~~ ~\ ~\ --~ --\ \ t.\ \ t:; ::::J '::" l-. G. '-. ~ . ,,... , Z ~.~'tv Os I ~.h ----\ -- \ 0.\ ~ ~ ~ ~\ \ \ --on-- en '" .,. r- ~ I"'l Sit ; ~~:I --u ,,-vv;;r/c, ;.. Q~ ../::> -- r I" of · : ~~~ ~! ~N~': ttl i ~~ or "'.-;:: lr.:i.. ~ I ~ ~ -c.-I- i...::::.ll <.1"'0 , . ,;-" <>01 is ~ . ex: ~I~--UIV-.~" "",. {<. ..- ~ ... .~. - ~~ + <r. 'C ~ ~ID'~ ~ .. :;? ~... In... oq- .. ''I,~'' .$'.,;, /' ~ ~ " f"If ", ' //. "D .,.,.......~ "" t'\ .. ... ~ cJ. 5 .\C; "" ~ ..,.' ,- 2lll' .,;. ~ ... "J ~ o ~ .. 1-1 ~(j ~ U .. o .oJ J>- I "'1111 -.. ,g : .- "5 r:.'" o ~, \; 'i ~ '. :o..~ .>~ ~ .... -' -- -wn' .. ~ \.;. ... ~N:. '" "- '''.... .., ~ 10'" .;, \. ~ " ,-... ~ ... ~ 1>' _ r. '.:.J ~. . .:.."': '- ,-~iH,-(\f , ~'!' \ . ..~ c-. "".. ,,~~.. I .;., " I ",;.:: ~ ~ 5t r.!1,O ct" r-- ~, ; -N_\;... 511' , 'J; ~ "'~ ~." 01- C I co; ~ ..c' ~ ~ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION .. o .oJ \ ( /' ,.~./- .,.. '~\ \ ~'OoI.).O' ...\ \ I \ \ __IZ.MQP' . I \ \ 0\ ) \ ) .' ""k.- I ' : I I I I .., ~ O I ; lEi . lC I" Dead 1 : t:, 1 J (.1,,"-; I I ",4u'I!r:H<.~..,.,j / I I / I I - ._-- / / / / I I "'E:/rn-O_'/' ,," I ,"" / " ~// X . I '" ~~\/ / / .~ ~.F I I 1... - / I. 1 " ~ 11 ~ i.l. i~ ~ iii // I -- .- \ " ~-~ ~~" -'\ \ \ \ \ \ "r.t.. . .,:!i .~!! & . I ~ It :.~ '.1'. i I ; , ~ ,. '~ i It': J. I I --., \i ------"", (,.. .... " " . ... If r 8 . I I J -+ 1 I ~] ~ I;~ ~" ~~ l..:~ I "'i~~ j:J :iZ " ..,. , . "~\ , / .~.I " i I I i , \ (:: : .._Cdq. .f T~ '- , "0'>3 --.0.,.,..' ;... - Wood Canee ,/ " \ \ '\ ... , "" /~t / _:',_ \ ilort*, I I ~ / l.t ~ ".,t.ry ""!4.f ~",mf. \ ,. --...:i oJ......'.>: . : .....t )f tr. O'.lt.: .i' ..] .' ..... :.r. . ~ 11.,.. r .~. ".,," 01 J ..,..... :... ..:., -,~.\.:.:I*r1It 7('" ~ ....r. ."'. -.., ~:'. :. -'-,,", . i.,.... ::~~... -. .... ,...... ,';"'01. .' " !....:>,-; 'j I \/ I !(i ~~(~: r .{ ~/ ;/ ,/ / ~ ( // 6 .,: / \, " IU \ "' ~ C<lt:lt ot II",is - C) ~ '. " \, ." Sc ".'. \ .,.~., _/ i / \ Exhibit B EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS . j:. :.. r: .... ; ~ :.: .v.; t. ~ CI .', _~~'" t: ,,;,' ..: :"1'.-~ .... :.....0 A',... tJ.: . . ..1 ..J.' ..':. ..<~> ....:.-. ' C-, \ ' // /' /// ('; ~ , ' .;' 'i:: -.,. . ' ~ /" <",r,iC "," <"~~"'.,~ .. ./' St.> ..A4. - /\ .' '" .", /. ..,-.7'" '. ~ ::>::> / .i. i !..,' 'V ~ /'i..: ". '"y, ,.. . \ , c:' .",' '~'4"\\ \. ,... '0', / .+- ~ .' : ,'"' '- . . .>, /;) 1/'..7 .~. " .:.....;.. ,( / ~ ",'" /... .~-_. I ' '\ . ...:;{ \...\ '.... ''; I.". ..:,.... ~ ./' ~ " ~I J .' \~ :y. ~ \i:~ _~_ I 1'.,. i' " , ~ " , ~ '. \. i \ } l \......t ''1 l ~ .i { . I \ \....-.__.."'W'-...._,--.................~.~.~ ,~: ~ ~, ~, ~' :V' ~. If';'~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ''!Jr- ~. :it." I L.~_, ___._____ ,.... ~_. .- '....-. .~ . , , . , ':--'-' .- -"-. ,:, ;:,j ,..........~..,..~ y:~ .....;-...................~:_~......~.~~_. .....,....----...--.... ,_.... -- ~-.- .--.......... .~~. ...--,~ '. ....-- --.. - ...... . '\ " " " 'J! . " \." t~.~ 1 'j I ,-tf- Exhibit C /' "\, e :". . , .~. ,~, I ~ ~ ., ..,:.~: I ' 1, .. f fi - " j I ; ;: , . ' t : r . i t ! II I i l' I . ' ~ J, i ~. I i ~, Ii. ! " jl~ : ') I :' :'1, . ,I , j, ; : jll ~ . i ! " '! , :,.',.." I ' ! ~ 11 . 'f I;"-~ " fJ' ", . .1 ; 1 ~~ i' ~!: 'I. J ;;' ".i . i ..1 ~~ \,! iJ _ _ _"':..:l.~ ' \ ' PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 . .. ; ',-'^"'" , ~,~ { . / '. .......'1 i' ,.;....; MINr-.aES07{.> FO~lUTtON..t:Or5TROL AG~NCY 19::;5 W. County ~(.,".:U' ,-2, I :-.~'_,."mr,. Mir.!\esclo 55113 ';" 612-296-7280 May 7, 1975 ~tt. Wally Mortenson 19545 High~'lay #7 Sherwood Village, MN Dear l'.r. Mortenson: tf' ,t.".V The results of the noise survey taken onA}~y 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 LIO of 75 dBA and an LSO of 67 dBA. This means that for 10% of the monitoring hour, the level of the noise exceeded 75 deci- bels measured on theA-weighted characteristic. Similarly, 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 fJ'J.nnesota in November, 1974. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. /JJAJ~ J. TDITH H. WYL-D .oise Pollution Control section Division of Air Quality JHW:es Exhibit D ( j J '.' I I f 1 (I. .... ('~ i" MPCA LETTER RE: NOISE /t/J ~, I' t~ c.'! AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER .-.... h.<l }, .,. ) ') -.,a MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Kristi Stover ADMINISTRATOR Doug Uhrhammer CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN/DOUG UHRHAMMER DATE: 19 MAY 1983 FILE NO.: 405 (83.02) RE: LAND USE - HIGHWAY 7 INTRODUCTION In the preparation of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and more recently in the review of a proposal by Tex-Sota Construction, the City has come to realize that the current zoning along portions of State Highway may not be appro- priate. In conjuction with the Tex-Sota request, the Council ha~requested that staff prepare an analysis of various land uses which could occur along the highway corridor and specifically on the Mortenson property. Bear in mind that this report is far from exhaustive. However, to do more would require a formal "land use marketability study" which would take considerable time, effort and money to prepare. For lack of a better approach we suggest that the land use study be done by applying uses within our current zoning districts to the property in question, examining how the types of uses would fit the property. While some of the com- ments contained herein apply specifically to the subject site, others also per- tain to other areas along Highway 7. Since many of the zoning districts are quite similar in nature, varying mainly in degree of intensity, we have grouped the~ to reduce repetition. . R-1, R-2 and R-3 DISTRICTS These are residential districts allowing primarily single and two-family homes. The adverse impacts associated with Highway 7 are only accentuated for this type of development. The greatest problem is noise. The existing grade of the highway and proximity to an intersection result in noise levels which exceed standards used by lenders for home loans. Visual impact from the highway is A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore //6 } Mayor and City Council 19 May 1983 Page Two also considered detrimental to low density residential development. While both visual and noise aspects can be somewhat mitigated by landscaping and design, the Mortenson property is considered too shallow to effectively screen out the highway. In addition to residential development, churches and parks are allowed in the R-l through R-3 Districts. Proximity to the highway may work in favor of a church, but the desirability of parks near highways is questionable. It must also be realized that the area can only support so many churches and parks, especially considering the proposed low density of the community. All of the above affects the marketability of the property. Even if someone could provide his own financing to build single or two-family homes on the site, the cost of such housing would have to be so low to entice buyers to purchase a house on the highway that the quality of the housing would have to be a concern. It is not the City's job to ensure that a landowner makes money on his prop- erty. In regulating land use, however, the City should attempt to allow reasonable return. To do otherwise typically results in disinvestment and deterioration as is somewhat evidenced by the Mortenson property. R-4 and R-5 DISTRICTS These districts allow higher density residential development in the form of townhouses and multiple family dwellings. Such development is considered ap- propriate for Highway 7 for a number of reasons. First, the increased density undoubtedly enhances the potential for investment. Discussions with developers indicate that the market for such housing is excellent due to the existing short supply. As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan there is a need in the community for affordable starter homes, and housing for "empty nesters" and the elderly. In many cases the adverse impact of the highway can be overlooked by residents because their tenancy may be limited to a few years (e.g. a young family building equity in a townhome until they're able to afford a larger home). Oftentimes multiple family construction and design can mitigate noise and visual impact. These conclusions are supported by the projects currently being developed along other areas of Highway 7. Finally, as noted in the Com- prehensive Plan, higher density development should be located near major traf- fic carriers and service facilities, not as a buffer, but simply to prevent traffic from penetrating lower density areas. While this type of development may be suitable for portions of Highway 7, the suitability of the Mortenson property is questionable. The size of the site, paricularly the depth, may not be adequate to provide buffer areas along the south and west boundaries for ~he protection of the existing neighborhood, and a buffer area along the highway for protection of the site itself. R-C DISTRICT The permitted uses in this district, single and two-family residential, have already been discussed. Nurseries and offices are allowed by conditional use permit. While either of these could serve as transitional land use, it should .- ) " Mayor and City Council 19 May 1983 Page Three be noted that nurseries are often developed as interim uses, with littl~ initial investment and anticipation that some other use will be proposed when the time is right. Site size, combined with setback requirements, may make an office layout difficult. As a commercial district the R-C was the first one considered for the self- storage proposal. In order to accommodate the request, not only would the use have to be included, ,but size and lot coverage requirements would have to be changed. It was felt that this may possibly result in intensifying the district and was therefore eliminated from further consideration. C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS When evaluating certain parcels of land from the standpoint of anticipating the type of future growth that may occur on the parce Is, two axioms must be be kept in mind. They are: 1) A new development (Residential or Commercial) is most likely to have it's greatest effect on the value of real property located close to the project. For example, an intense commercial or residential development that locates next to an existing low density resident area may have the negative impact of depressing the property values of the low density residential area, while increasing the. value of adjacent undeveloped land. 2) As pointed out earlier, nonresidential property and high density residential property values are more sensitive to differences in accessibility than are low density residential housing values. For example, land zoned for commercial or high density residential use is extremely valuable if located near intersections of major road networks or in relatively urbanized areas. The existance of physical charactistics such as major intersections or existing commercial properties tends to decrease the usefulness of adjacent undeveloped property for low density residential development. The problems associated with traffic (noise, lights, etc.) as a result of physical characteristics already exist in the area under exanination. It seems reasonable to assume that the existing problems combined with the existing low density residential zoning on the Mortensen property has already created disinvestment and deteriorization on the Mortensen property, and has in effect depressed the attractiveness of the adjacent low density residential property to the south of Mortensen's. In order to m1n1m1ze future negative impacts in the area under evaluation, it may be prudent to address a rezoning of the Mortensen property that will help stimulate the following: 1) Proper, well designed development of the property (investment-not disinvestment). 2) Investment that will m1n1m1ze and help alleviate the already existing negative amenities that are affecting the residential properties to the immediate south. , ~ ) Mayor and City Council 10 May 1983 Page Four The staff recommended a C-1 zoning district for the Mortensen property because it is the least intense zoning district that would accommodate the proposed development, while stimulating a type of investment that would accomplish the goal of minimizing future negative impacts on adjacent residential property. From the public hearing held on the proposed development, the adjoining neighbors, consciously or unconsciously, seemed to agree with this line of thought. C-4 DISTRICT Although the proposed self-storage facility could fit quite nicely into the C-4 District, the acceptability of the C-4 District for the Mortensen property may be questionable. This is not to say that C-4 development shouldn't be located on Highway 7, however, such development would work much better and efficiently if located among other commercial activities. In that way, potential for adverse impact on surrounding residences is eliminated and the development can devote more of its property to the actual use than to buffering. P.U.D. DISTRICT Regardless of which district is considered there is always a question as to what could happen on the site if the zoning is approved and then the developer backs out. The only district in which this need not be a concern is the Planned Unit Development District. The reason is simple. If the project is not completed as approved by the City, the zoning reverts back to what it previously was. The P.U.D. District was the first zoning the staff considered when the self- storage facility was proposed. The relative uniqueness of the proposal, the multiple structures and the mixture of commercial and residential activity were one of the ways in which the P.U.D. District was originally intended to be used. Unfortunately, when the City finally approved the P.U.D. ordinance, they included a 20 acre minimum site size where mixtures of use were involved. Considering the political atmosphere at the time, the action was under- standable. From a planning perspective, however, it was somewhat shortsighted. It is hoped that the fear of having commercial development occur just anywhere in the community through use of P.U.D. has been dispelled. The IXI proposal demonstrated that even though the site met the 20 acre minimum it could still be denied based upon the City's Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION Assuming the proposed project is desirable, or at least acceptable, the use could be included in any of the commercial districts, the least intense of which is the C-1 District. Short of amending the P.U.D. District to eliminate the 20 acre minimum, this remains the staff recommendation. CC: Gary Larson, Jim Norton, Planning Commission, Bruce Hubbard, Kathy West