Loading...
04-03-12 Planning Comm Mtg agenda.docx CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE HASEK (Jun) ______ HUTCHINS (Apr) ______ CHARBONNET (May) ______ GARELICK (Mar) ______ MUEHLBERG (Open) ______ DAVIS (Feb) ______ GENG (Jan) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 MARCH 2012  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicants: Tom and Velinda Schrepel Location: 28180 Woodside Road 2. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions – Section 1203.03 Subd. 2.a.-f. 4. DISCUSS TRAIL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION – STATUS OF CO. RD. 19 TRAIL 5. DETERMINE JULY THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2012 LIAISON SCHEDULE 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 3 April 2012 Page 2 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioners Davis and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for March 20, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 6, 2012 Hasek moved, Charbonnet seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has held two public meetings related to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). One was an open house and it was held on October 4, 2011. The other was a public hearing and it was held during the Commission’s December 6, 2011, meeting. During both meetings the Commission received a number of public comments about the Study. Toward the end of the public hearing the Commission suggested making certain improvements to the Study report and addressing the comments and concerns of the people that spoke during the two meetings. The meeting packet contains a cover memorandum he prepared addressing some of the items, a th summary of resident comments from the October 4 meeting, a copy of the minutes from the public hearing discussion, a copy of the table the Commission had prepared that lists the advantages of a unified development as opposed to piece-meal development, a copy of a new Guiding Principles section that will replace the Vision Statement per the Commission’s direction, and a new Executive Summary in bullet- point form. Nielsen asked the Commission if a copy of the table should be included in the Study Report. He stated people are still asking why the Study was conducted. Commissioner Hasek stated he supported including an expanded version of the table. Hasek suggested the short bullet-point like statements in the table be expanded to more clearly explain things. He thought the table is too simplified. Nielsen asked the other Commissioners if they thought the comments in the table could be elaborated upon and if it the table should be added to the Introduction section of the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Executive Summary should be located in the beginning of the report. He stated he agreed that the comments in the table should be expanded upon. Also, the comments should include some clarification of why; not just what. He clarified he thought it would be best to keep the sentences short and concise yet clear. He suggested placing a copy of the revised table in the Introduction section and toward the beginning. Chair Geng expressed his agreement with Commissioners Charbonnet’s and Hasek’s suggestions. Director Nielsen noted the Commission specifically chose not to include the two illustrations of unified versus piece-meal in the Study report. The Commission did not want to direct how the development may look. He asked the Commission if it still thinks that is what it wants to do. Chair Geng stated he did not think it was necessary to include a sketch in the report. It may be beneficial to have a one short introduction that states the development of the Study area is going to occur in one of two ways. It will either be redeveloped on a piece-meal basis (individual property by individual property) or it will be redeveloped in a unified fashion, noting that following are what the Commission has determined to be the pros and cons of those two development scenarios. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the tables in the Study report should be located in one place such as the back. They can be referred to in the body of the report. Director Nielsen stated a question was raised relative to the Study area boundaries and the amount of land that is actually available for redevelopment. He is not sure where that question comes from because the three diagrams in the report have the same boundaries. He noted that the Introduction section explained that the westernmost boundary is left somewhat open and that boundary will depend on a particular development. He also noted that based on the comments from residents living near the area the preference is to keep the two westerly residential properties in the Study area as single-family residential properties. Commissioner Hasek stated the house located on the property between the residential property the City owns and the commercial property appears to be quite old. He commented that if the property owner wanted to sell it as commercial it would be relatively easy to rezone it to commercial. He noted he does not care where the westerly boundary is. Director Nielsen stated he would be reluctant to say the commercial zoning could be extended that far west. Hasek withdrew his comment stating he thought there did need to be a buffer between the two types of zoning. Director Nielsen stated the two westerly residential properties could potential be used for transition. Nielsen then stated it is quite possible that the City-owned property would remain vacant and be used as a buffer with landscaping. He noted there is a height limitation on the two residential properties. He asked if the desire for a transition area should be emphasized in the report. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it should. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he thought that should be kept fairly general. For example, it could say the City encourages the developer to use the two lots at the westerly end of the Study area to create a reasonable transition from commercial into the residential zoning area immediately west of the Study area. Nielsen noted the height limitation is quite specific. Charbonnet stated he is not concerned about that particular specific. Hasek stated he thought the report should specifically state that the two westerly residential properties will be the transition from higher density to the east and residential areas to the west. Nielsen clarified it should state “if the redevelopment goes on to those two residential properties” because the redevelopment may not include them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 3 of 11 Chair Geng noted that based on the comments the Commission received the most common oppositions were regarding height, intensity of use and type of use. He stated he understands the residents in the abutting neighborhood to be saying they do not want to have any commercial development on the westerly end of the northwest quadrant Study area. Director Nielsen clarified the Commission has never indicated there would be commercial development there. The properties would continue to be zoned residential. Commissioner Hasek stated that should be specifically stated in the report. Geng stated it may be prudent to be more specific about what the City means by transition. Nielsen suggested it must be made clear the properties will remain residential and that they will satisfy the transition idea through height, open space and landscape. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on feedback received during the public meetings the most emotional issue was related to the west-end buffer because it has the most impact on property owners closest to the west end of the Study area. Therefore, he thought it prudent to clarify things as best as possible. He questioned what would happen if that west end of the Study area became a natural park rather than single- family residential housing. He stated that could be considered a buffer zone. He suggested that be clarified in the beginning of the Study report. Hutchins noted that Gideon Glen is included in the Study area, yet there is no intent to impact that area at all. Director Nielsen stated that whatever happens to residential or commercial components of the Study area it should take advantage of Gideon Glen and it should protect it. Hutchins suggested the report explain the reason for including Gideon Glen in the Study area. Chair Geng noted that one resident indicated they thought Gideon Glen is where the ponding would go. Geng stated that he agreed with Hutchins that the rational for including Gideon Glen should be explained; it is the aesthetic value of the view. Nielsen noted the goal is to also protect Gideon Glen. Geng suggested the report also clarify there is no intent to develop Gideon Glen. Commissioner Hasek asked if it would be helpful to put the boundary on the back side of the properties that may be redeveloped. He stated he thought the acreages be shown for each parcel in Figure 1 (which shows the Study area boundaries) in the report. Chair Geng suggested it specify Gideon Glen is not developable and that Gideon Glen be shaded a different color. Commissioner Charbonnet agreed that it should specifically say that Gideon Glen is not developable. Hasek suggested the border around Gideon Glen also be made a different color. Chair Geng suggested including a pie-chart graphic which depicts the relative size of the properties in the Study area. Director Nielsen noted the acreages and addresses of the properties are included in the Appendix. Nielsen suggested showing the acreages and addresses on Figure 1 in the report. Commissioner Hasek stated from his vantage point the more information included on the graphic in the report the better. Commissioner Hasek stated at one point there was a concept plan prepared for the Study area that included a buffer. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if the concept plan, a schematic, should be included in the report. Hasek stated he thought that would have helped residents understand things a little more. Director Nielsen stated in the Study area graphics in the report he will pull the boundary in the northwest quadrant down to the backs of the individual properties, and he will highlight Gideon Glen as being a protected and undevelopable area. He noted the report should still address Gideon Glen as an amenity and the need to protect it. He asked if the Commission wants to change the boundary on the northeast quadrant as well. He explained the entire acreage of the public safety and public works facilities yet the boundary only goes up to the back of the one residential property in that quadrant. He asked if those acreages should be subtracted out. He explained the issue in that quadrant is what to do with that one residential property and with what to do about a pedestrian crossing that would connect to Badger Park. Commissioner Hasek CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 4 of 11 suggested color coding the property those facilities are on as public land. Nielsen clarified it is labeled as such. Hasek stated the boundary of those areas could be color coded for clarification. Chair Geng supported taking the public facilities out. Nielsen stated that boundary will be pulled in and the acreages for the public facilities will be subtracted out of the total acreage. Chair Geng stated the Study has not focused on the areas east of Country Club Road. The Study report addresses the northwest quadrant of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection area. He suggested the Commission focus on that for now. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the same concepts and principles should apply to the northeast quadrant. Nielsen expressed he agreed the focus has been on the northwest quadrant. Nielsen stated the focus for the northeast quadrant will primarily be a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Hasek suggested reducing the scale of Figure 1 in order to include more of the Echo Road neighborhood, the Minnetonka Golf Course property and the Christopher Road neighborhood in the graphic. He also suggested making Badger Park green on the graphic. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if there would be value in having a site location map included at the beginning of the report. He explained there has already been a suggestion made to add more information and shrinking the scale down would not be conducive to that. Commissioner Hasek stated the topography map could be modified to include the above areas and some of the detail information could be eliminated. Nielsen stated he will have a site location map prepared that shrinks the Study area and that shows more context, noting it would be included in the beginning of the report. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if it wants the concept plan included in the report. Commissioner Hutchins stated when people are given as little as a concept plan they tend to lock into it and they get hung up on the concept. Hutchins noted the Commission has no idea what the concept would actually look like. Hutchins expressed concern that a concept plan would generate more questions than it would answer. Commissioner Hasek stated that depends on what a concept plan shows. For example, if it shows buildings then he thinks Hutchins concern is very valid. If it is quite general he thought there wouldn’t be a problem. Nielsen noted photographs of different developments the Commission visited and liked were included in the report. Nielsen stated the logical place to include a concept plan would be at the end of the report. Nielsen suggested he write a lead-in to that graphic for the Commission to discuss. Hutchins stated it is critical the explanation for why the concept plan is included is very clear, and it should explain what it is intended to communicate. Nielsen stated it is intended to reflect the different components and their relationships. He noted that he thought the concept plan was useful when speaking with people who attended the open house on the Study. Commissioner Hutchins suggested that this evening the Commission be cognizant that Councilmember Zerby expressed his concern that it didn’t appear that the Commission gave credence to the comments and concerns expressed by the residents during the open house and in writing. He quoted the following excerpt th of Zerby’s comments from the minutes of the December 6 Planning Commission meeting during which the public hearing was held. The excerpt read as follows. “He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn’t appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn’t changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on.” He encouraged the Commission to do everything it can to at least consider the comments and concerns. He noted that to date the Commission has heard only from CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 5 of 11 residents who have a specific interest because they live close to or in the Study area. It is an emotional issue for them as well. Director Nielsen reiterated that on the Figure 1 he: has put the property addresses and their acreages; will pull the Study area boundary down to the backs of the individual properties; will highlight Gideon Glen as being a protected and undevelopable area; will change the boundary on the northeast quadrant by taking the public facilities out of the Study area; and, adjust the acreages in the text of the report. Nielsen asked the Commission if the new proposed Guiding Principles section does what it was intended to do. He explained as part of that section he took what had been the Vision Statement paragraph and broke it apart into individual guiding principles. Commissioner Hutchins suggested adding the word redevelopment in front of the words guiding principles throughout that that section. Chair Geng noted that the last sentence in the section states “… these principles will likely evolve as they are subjected to public input” while noting they have not evolved so far despite public input. Geng stated he did not think the report should suggest something that Commission has not been delivering. Nielsen suggested adding another principle regarding the specifics about the transitional portion on the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area. Hutchins suggested replacing the current number 4 principle which states “Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing.” with the principle about that transition area. There was consensus to replace the current principle number 4 with one regarding the specifics about the transition portion of the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area. There was also consensus to delete the last line of the section which reads “It must be realized that these principles will likely evolve as they are subjected to public input.” Director Nielsen stated his plan is to publish a third draft of the Study report that does not track the additions, changes and deletions in various colors. He noted the changes made in response to public comment will be pointed out during the next public hearing on the Study. He noted he will revise the Executive Summary to reflect the specifics about the transitional area. Chair Geng asked if the public comments are going to become part of the Study report in the Appendix. Director Nielsen stated he did not recommend they be included in the report, but the plan is to put them along with the Study report on the City’s website for people to access. Commissioner Garelick stated he thought the comments should be kept separate from the report. Commissioner Garelick questioned if the residents may act more positively to a duplex in the transitional area rather than only single-family residential. Director Nielsen stated he thought the Commission talked about that area being lower intensity, lower buildings, and heavily landscaped but not anything more specific than that. Chair Geng stated that after the Commission has completed its work and the next draft of the Study report is forwarded to the City Council for review and comment he assumes Council will at that time also be provided with a copy of the comments received from the public. Director Nielsen stated that is correct. Geng withdrew his suggestion to include the comments in the Study report. Nielsen reiterated the comments will be made available on the City’s website along with the report. Council Liaison Hotvet suggested there be some reference made to having addressed the public’s concerns about their desire for a transitional area included in the Study report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 6 of 11 The Commission now started to discuss public comments received during the October 4. 2011, open house about the Study. With regard to the public comment “I’d suggest a strong perspective on the “type” of housing which is considered… top choice – single-family, 2nd choice – senior housing, 3rd – apartments”, Chair Geng stated the Commission has intentionally tried to avoid doing that. Director Nielsen stated the Study report will specify to some extent that low intensity, low building housing would be considered for the most westerly properties in the northwest quadrant Study area. With regard to the comment “Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land without the need of removing existing housing.” Director Nielsen stated that is up to the American Legion. With regard to the comment “Buffering and land use transitions were unclear at the meeting – some charts showed the housing in the buffer zone and some did not. There is not enough property to add senior housing or any multi-level housing.”, Director Nielsen stated the Commission has already discussed the need to clarify that. There were a few comments about pedestrian / bicycle circulation / connection. With regard to the comment “Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19/Smithtown and public transportation needs for planned development on the corner.”, Director Nielsen stated the Commission has considered that. With regard to the comment “There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Road. This redevelopment will make it even worse. It will also increase “turnaround” traffic on Christopher Road which is already a problem. It would necessitate a bike path on Smithtown which residents have opposed.”, Nielsen stated the current sentiment seems to favor bike and pedestrian passageways City wide. Nielsen explained this dove tails with the Trail Plan Implementation Report. Nielsen suggested the City hold its ground on this. Commissioner Hasek stated if a trail/bike path were to be constructed on the side of Smithtown Road where there are two residential properties it would be right next to those properties and property owners will likely not be supportive of that. Commissioner Hutchins stated that circulation was one of the 4 – 5 items that the public brought up. He did not think the Study report addresses circulation. It does talk about circulation within the Study area itself. It does not talk about the impact of circulation or what the City might do about the impact the circulation may have on County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He asked if circulation and traffic patterns and impacts should be discussed in more detail in the Study report. Director Nielsen stated the Study report just talks about pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Hutchins suggested the report talk about vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the impact of it in the report. Nielsen noted that guiding principle number 7 states “Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly”. Nielsen stated he thought the report included a reference to doing traffic studies. Hutchins explained there is a section in the report titled Planning Issues and one of the bulleted items states “Access (vehicular) to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road.” He stated total circulation around the area has been an issue for quite some time. He suggested including a paragraph in the Study report about how circulation in general may be addressed. Chair Geng agreed the concern about increased traffic was expressed frequently. Commissioner Hasek stated he agreed with that and then stated that was another pro for a cohesive development approach because there will be fewer access points into the northwest quadrant. Director Nielsen stated that although he can’t find it in the current draft of the Study report he does think it should include a requirement to conduct a traffic study for the area and assess the impact of the proposed redevelopment on traffic. He then stated that one of the reasons Staff had been pushing senior housing for CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 7 of 11 increased density in the northwest quadrant was it would have the least impact on traffic. He noted that in recent discussions the Commission has moved away from senior housing. He also noted that the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan has recommended senior housing for higher density because of the lower volume of traffic when compared to apartment traffic. Chair Geng noted that throughout Study discussions the Commission has acknowledged that a developer is actually going to drive how the northwest quadrant is redeveloped. It will be determined based on what the market dictates. Director Nielsen explained the current commercial zoning in the northwest quadrant goes up to the single- family residential property. If a developer wants to include some type of housing in the redevelopment a traffic study will have to assess traffic comparisons for housing versus all commercial. Nielsen stated it will be prudent to explain to residents that the redevelopment options will somewhat be dictated by market analysis and traffic studies. One of the reasons senior housing is recommended is because of the lower traffic impact. Nielsen explained the City has some general traffic information. For single-family detached homes it is 8 – 10 trips per day. For townhouses it is 5 – 8. Commissioner Hasek stated that high-end residential generates more traffic than low-end residential because of there being more vehicles. Nielsen stated he does not share Hasek’s perspective based on his experience growing up. Nielsen then stated he thought he could find general traffic comparisons for various types of housing and various density housing and include that in the Study report. Commissioner Garelick asked why some people are so strongly opposed to senior housing. Director Nielsen stated one reason is people resist change. Nielsen then stated if an area next to a single-family residential area was going to be something other than single-family residential he does not understand why people would object to an office building or senior housing. Senior housing can be a great neighbor. He noted that many fears were expressed about the Shorewood Ponds development. None of the concerns came to fruition. He stated they are a law abiding group and very good neighbors. Commissioner Hutchins stated a single-family property owner is going to be concerned about their property value if senior housing is developed next to them. Director Nielsen stated if something isn’t done transitionally with the two residential lots on the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area the commercial will happen at the existing commercial zoning line. Council Liaison Hotvet commented that she and her husband sold a previous residential property located th near 50 and France Avenue in Edina after owning it for seven years for an increase in value of 200 percent when that area was being developed commercially. Some people want to live close to a commercial district for convenience purposes. Commissioner Hasek stated that perception is often what gets people concerned. They may not be able to back up their perception but that does not make any difference. With regard to the public comment “Do not need senior housing. I do not support a multi-level complex, including a variance to exceed the current height restrictions. I believe this portion of the redevelopment will decrease my property value.”, Director Nielsen stated it is appropriate to agree to disagree in this instance. With regard to the public comment “I’m also opposed to the thinning of the wooded area behind my home and that of my neighbors on Christopher Road as this area helps reduce traffic noise from Highway 19 and obstructs views of commercial signage.”, Director Nielsen stated the intent is to enhance the landscaping. Commissioner Hasek stated if the person who made this comments lives farther north on CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 8 of 11 Christopher Road there is nothing the redevelopment would do about that. Nielsen stated he did not know who made this comment and noted there are still a number of residents who are upset about Gideon Glen in part because some large trees were taken down. Residents forget about the improvements made there. With regard to the comment “I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the existing Legion building). I do not support a senior housing complex and new retail/business.”, Director Nielsen noted that entire area is zoned commercial. Commissioner Hutchins stated that there were two other items that he thought stood out based on the comments received at the open house and the public hearing. He thought they were addressed in the redevelopment guiding principles and the rest of the Study report. One was building mass. People are concerned a massive building will be constructed on the northwest quadrant Study area and that it will not fit in with the character of the rest of the area. This is of particular concern if a taller building is allowed than is currently allowed today. The other is the commercial. The City can’t control what the specific needs are. But, he thought it important to make it clear in the report that the City has to serve the needs of the entire community not just the neighboring community. The concept is about community services. He explained that principle 6 states “Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole.” Principle 11 states “Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: variations in roofline and form; use of ground level arcades and covered areas; use of protected and recessed entries; inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building.” Director Nielsen stated in the Design Section of the Study report there is a photograph of a building made with natural materials that is over four stories tall and he has been told that people were disturbed by it. He asked the Commission if it thought it should be removed. Chair Geng stated it is his impression that residents are opposed to high buildings. Therefore, he supported removing that photograph. Commissioner Hutchins stated he could understand people being concerned about a building of similar height being constructed along side of County Road 19. Nielsen stated he will find a photograph of a building constructed with natural materials that is not so tall to include in the report. Nielsen noted that the current Ordinance for that commercial zoning district states a structure can be three stories tall or up to 40 feet high whichever is less. Nielsen expressed his discomfort with allowing a future development to be four stories high. He noted that height increase is included in the report as an incentive. He stated that allowing a building with a height that extends above the tree tops is not something the City’s residents want. He commented that senior housing developers have indicated they build three-story buildings all the time. He recommended removing that height increase incentive from the report. He suggested going away from a number-of-stories regulation and having just a building-height regulation of not to exceed 40 feet. He noted for a pitched roof it can be slightly higher. Chair Geng suggested including in the Study report an acknowledgement of a common resident concern expressed about building height. And, explain that based on the current zoning for the property the City’s Ordinance allows a developer to construct a pitched-roof building with a height of over 40 feet. Director Nielsen stated if the possibility of increasing the height is taken out of the report he thought that would help. The report could note that the Ordinance allows buildings to be constructed up to 40 plus feet high and that the visual impact of that height can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Commissioner Hasek stated it is important to refer to current City Code restrictions. Geng then suggested acknowledging that there is a difference of opinion regarding building height between developers and residents, and noting resident concern about height that is out of character with the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 9 of 11 area will be taken into consideration. Nielsen noted the current report states the City will consider increased height as an incentive to get the developer to do some things the City would like to see. Nielsen stated the reaction would be the same anywhere in the City. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he agreed with Geng that it should be acknowledged in the report and explained that the Commission can’t resolve it because the Commission doesn’t know what a developer is going to propose. Geng stated he thought it appropriate to let developers know the residents’ sentiments regarding height and to let residents know their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. And, also acknowledging developers may want to build buildings that would be taller than what the Zoning Code currently allows. Commissioner Hutchins suggested including something about the desire to be consistent with the character of the area while also considering current Zoning Code allowances. Director Nielsen stated he will draft some preliminary language about height concerns and desires; both developers’ and residents’. Nielsen noted the City has not committed to tax increment financing but it has acknowledged that it would give it some consideration. The discussion moved to the process used to date. Director Nielsen stated he regretted that the City did not have a sign-in sheet for the open house. The City does not know who came. He explained the plan is to have the revised draft of the Study report along with residents’ comments on the City’s website for a period of 30 days. He noted as resident’s comments come in they will be added to the website. He asked if the next public meeting should be informal or a public hearing. Commissioner Hasek stated he preferred a public hearing or at least some organized type of meeting. Commissioner Hasek stated residents have asked what will happen with the Minnetonka Country Club property. He noted the City doesn’t know the answer to that. He stated he doesn’t know how that should be addressed. Director Nielsen stated his preference would be to tell residents what the City approached the owner of that property with. He noted the City would like to have a golf course remain in that vicinity. The City has spoken to the property owner unofficially about the possibility of an opportunity coming along where the housing development could be concentrated on a portion of the property and that a 9-hole golf be located on the other part of the property. He noted he is not sure that is viable. Chair Geng stated he did not think that should be addressed in the Study report. Nielsen noted it should not because that is not an official City position. Geng stated if that comes up it should be explained that it is outside of the focus on the northwest quadrant, the property is privately held and that no one knows when something will happen to that property. Nielsen noted the property is zoned for single-family houses. Hasek commented that the Commission had previously decided to exclude that from the Study report. In response to a comment from Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the report will elaborate that if the properties are developed on a piece-meal basis each property will have to have its own ponding based on current watershed rules. A unified development would allow for the ponding to be consolidated. Also, Gideon Glen was not sized to accommodate run off from the redevelopment site. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the runoff from the Heartbreaker property flows into Gideon Glen. Nielsen explained it does while noting if that property were to be redeveloped it would have to have its own ponding. Hutchins stated that would reduce the flow into the pond at Gideon Glen. Nielsen said that the reason Gideon Glen cannot be used for runoff should be explained during the meeting but not included in the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 10 of 11 Director Nielsen stated he has to assess how much time it will take to revamp the Study report before he can suggest dates for anything else in the process. He commented that the City and Commission will likely still be criticized by residents. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the process schedule will allow for the Commission to get feedback about the revised Study report from Council prior to holding the next public hearing. Director Nielsen stated the Commission could have a joint meeting with the Council once the third draft is finalized and before it is publicized. Commissioner Hasek suggested that joint meeting be scheduled far enough in advance to attempt to accommodate all of the Councilmembers and the Commissioners schedules so everyone can be in attendance, noting that it was impossible to ask that. Hasek suggested having the discussion during a Council work session. Chair Geng stated he did not think there needs to be a lengthy discussion. Nielsen stated if it is held before the end of May more people may be around; possibly the work session before Council’s second meeting in May. Chair Geng asked when the next public hearing will be held. Director Nielsen stated probably in July. 2. DETERMINE REMAINDER OF 2012 COUNCIL LISIAONS Council Liaisons were selected as followed: March 2012 Commissioner Garelick April 2012 Commissioner Hutchins May 2012 Commissioner Charbonnet June 2012 Commissioner Hasek The Liaisons for the remainder of the year will be selected during the next Planning Commission meeting. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS Director Nielsen noted the meeting packets for this meeting were delivered on Thursday evening instead of the typical Friday delivery. He explained the process has been changed to ensure the Commissioners get their packets on the Thursday before their upcoming meeting. He then explained that he will set aside time on Mondays preceding the meeting (maybe from 11:00 A.M. to Noon) to take phone or email questions from the Commissioners about the packet materials. If he can’t answer the questions right away he will try and have an answer available at the meeting. He noted that if the City receives comments from residents after the packet is delivered there is nothing he can do about that. Council Liaison Hotvet asked if anyone is aware of what the plans are for the commercial redevelopment of the corner of County Road 19 and Water Street in the City of Excelsior. She noted Jon Munson is going to develop the area. She stated she thought the Planning Commission should keep abreast of this. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 20, 2012 Page 11 of 11 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Commissioner Charbonnet noted he will not be able to attend the April 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen stated during the April 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting there will be continued discussion about Smithtown Crossing. There will also be some discussion about life-cycle housing. There will be consideration of a conditional use permit. There will be discussion about the Commission’s new responsibility for implementing the Trail Plan and the trail segment along County Road 19. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Garelick stated he was the Liaison to the March 12, 2012, Regular City Council meeting. He expressed his amazement at the number of times Mayor Lizée mentioned the Planning Commission. He stated it reinforced for him the importance of the Commission. He explained that he went on a ride along with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Patrol Sergeant Mark Guyer recently. He spent one half day with him. He encouraged other Commissioners to do the same. Commissioner Hasek asked Commissioner Garelick to give an example of something that he found beneficial during the ride along. Garelick stated they drove to the partially constructed mansion in the City of Greenwood. He explained to Sergeant Guyer some of the history of it. Things he knew because he is a member of the Hennepin County Board of Equalization. He then stated the Guyer told him some history about various properties in the South Lake community. He commented that his ride along gave him a better sense of community. Commissioner Garelick stated he had asked SLMPD Community Service Supervisor (CSS) Hohertz to speak to the Shorewood Ponds property owners about fraud that elderly residents were experiencing. He explained the fraud that is most concerning involves young people calling what they say are their grandparents and asking them to wire money to them because they are in some type of predicament and they need money. • SLUC Commissioner Hasek asked if Director Nielsen is going to report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) going forward. Director Nielsen stated he will take on that responsibility, noting it may just be about upcoming sessions. • Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 20, 2012, at 9:21 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD a SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -3927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 a www.ci.shorewood.mn.us s cityhaI1 @d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 March 2012 RE: Schrepel, Tom and Velinda — C.U.P. for Single - Family Dwelling on a Substandard Lot and C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (12.04) BACKGROUND Sharratt Design, LLC, on behalf of Tom and Velinda Schrepel, has submitted plans for the construction of a new home on the property located at 28180 Woodside Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The lot is substandard with respect to the lot width requirement for the R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district in which it is located. As such, a conditional use permit is required to build on the lot. In addition, the Schrepels propose to build a detached garage, the area of which (when combined with the attached garage on the proposed house) exceeds 1200 square feet of area. This also requires a conditional use permit. You will recall that this property was the subject of a lot line rearrangement approved last month (see Cannon, Mike). That previous application eliminated the need for any kind of variance in this case. The subject property is currently vacant and contains 40,747 square feet of area. While this complies with the area requirement for the R -lA /S zoning district, the lot is only 84 feet wide at the front building line. Although substandard, the width does comply with the 70 percent requirement that allows nonconforming lots of record to be considered buildable. The property slopes from east to west, dropping dramatically as it approaches the lake. This elevation change constitutes a bluff, the top of which is shown on the existing survey (Exhibit 0% ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Schrepel CUP 27 March 2012 B, attached). Exhibit C illustrates how the property is to be developed, including the new home, the detached garage, and the driveway system serving the home. The home is to be located on the level portion of the lot, where a previous house was located years ago. Exhibit D is a letter from the applicant's arborist, evaluating the significant trees on the property and describing those to be removed. The proposed house, shown on Exhibits E -K, contains 2520 square feet of floor area on the upper two levels, plus another 1130 square feet on the basement walkout level. The attached garage contains 676 square feet of floor area and the detached garage contains 728 square feet of floor area. It should be noted that the upper level of the detached garage will have storage trusses with a ceiling height of less than seven feet. As such, this space does not constitute a second story, nor is the floor area counted in the C.U.P. calculations. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION A. C.U.P. — Substandard Lot. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.e.(3) of the City Code (Zoning) provides that a substandard lot is considered buildable as long as it meets four criteria. Following is how this application complies with those criteria: 1. The lot is in separate ownership from adjoining properties. 2. The lot complies with the area requirement for the R -1A /S zoning district. The width of the lot complies with the 70 percent requirement for existing lots of record. 3. The proposed home and detached garage comply with setback requirements for the R -IA /S zoning district. In taking advantage of the level area of the lot, the home not only sits well back from the shoreline of the lake, it is 64 feet behind the bluff line on the property (only 20 feet is required). 4. At just over 15 percent, the proposed floor area ratio, details of which are shown on Exhibit L, is well under the 30 percent maximum provided by the Code. B. C.U.P. — Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the City Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: 1. The total area of accessory building_ s (1404 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (4449 square feet — upper two levels) above grade of the existing home. 2. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R -IA /S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). The proposed garages comply with R -IA /S setback requirements. The detached garage is somewhat buffered by existing vegetation to the east of it. -2- Memorandum Re: Schrepel CUP 27 March 2012 It is worth noting that the proposed hardcover for the site is at the maximum 25 percent, including a shared portion of driveway for the house to the north and 184 square feet of "contingency hardcover ". At such time as the property to the north is redeveloped, it is anticipated that it will have its own driveway, freeing up 486 square feet of hardcover for the subject property. Exhibit D contains an evaluation of trees proposed to be removed, primarily due to their condition. As part of the building permit application, the applicant must provide a tree preservation and reforestation plan showing how existing trees are to be protected. In particular, the trees located to the south of the proposed house will require some extraordinary measures (e.g. wood chip bed to prevent root compaction from construction activities). With respect to site protection, the building permit plans should include erosion control measures to be placed east of trees marked as B and D on Exhibit B. 4. The architectural character of the detached garage will be the same as the proposed house. Siding and roofing will match the house. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following: 1. Building permit plans for the detached garage must show storage trusses for the upper level with a permanent ceiling height of less than seven feet. 2. For the building permit, the applicant's arborist must provide a tree protection plan, among all else describing in detail how the trees to the south of the new house will be protected. 3. Erosion control consistent with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements must be in place prior to excavation. Silt fence should be located to the east of trees shown as B and D on Exhibit B. cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Tom and Velinda Schrepel Mike Sharratt Kyle Hunt -3- Tkla Dr �idge Bend 0 4 , M 0' CD 0 0 a -E > p�sp °OM c) a) C) LL C) co CD 0 o Q) Cl) CL C) co RS C) Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Schrepel C.U.P. ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING Co es ar er . & P.S. No. 5300 S. H No. 101 Minneto wy. nL;i, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 - Fax (952) 474 8267 LIMITATIONS & NOTES: I. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not SURVEY FOR =E HLWT & PA RIN ERS INC include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters I of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. SURVEYED: September 30, 2004 DRAFTED: October 1, 2004 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. REVISED: December 15, 2011, to show additional topography. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. REVISED: January 4, 2012, to show proposed lot split. 4. Showing the topography of the site by contour lines and spot elevations, the elevations shown relate only to the REVISED: January 19, 2012, to show existing conditions of both lots, benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the map when Township 117 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie westerly of a line parallel to and 17 feet West determining other elevations for use on this site. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: 5. The bluff line (on the southerly lot) shown was interpreted from a sketch provided by Kyle Hunt. The location of this bluff line is per a meeting between Kyle Hunt and the City of SborewGod on 12/15/2011. While have NORTHERLY PARCEL: That part of Lot 10, Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 we shown the bluff line on the northerly lot as a continuation of the bluff line as determined on the southerly lot, we suggest you gain approval from the city that we have shown the bluff line correctly on the northerly lot. West; Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies South of the North 32.98 feet thereof; and that part of the vacated sheet 6. At the time of the survey, we have not been provided a current title commitment for the property, which would list any adjacent and south of said Lot 10, and of Government Lot 3, Section 31, Township 117, Range 23, which lies westerly of the easements that could affect the property. This survey does not purport to show easements or other exceptions that may be southerly extension of the West line of the street adjacent to Lots i through 10 in said Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section revealed by said title commitment. 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, and which lies northerly of the following described Line "A ": III Commencing at the intersection of the West right of way line of said street and the North line of said Government Lot 3; thence easterly along said North line to an intersection with said street centerline extension; thence southerly along said STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " " Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted centerline extension a distance of 31.19 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point `B "; thence deflecting to the right an CERTIFICATION: angle of 85 degrees 36 minutes a distance of 89.36 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "C'; thence northeasterly to the point of commencement and the beginning of said Line "A"; thence southwesterly to said Point "C "; thence westerly to I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Professional E the shore of Lake Minnetonka, on a westerly extension of the line from Point "B" to Point "C" and there terminating. CONTAINS: 35,883 SQ. FT. eer end Profess tonal Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. O H J P k P E GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) c J r3 SOUTHERLY PARCEL: That part of the North 97.45 feet of Government Lot 3, Section 31, Township 117, Range 23, es ar er . & P.S. No. 9235 I Hennepin County, Minnesota and of the vacated street adjacent and south of Lot 10, Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lie westerly of a line parallel to and 17 feet West of the southerly extension of the centerline of the street adjacent to Lots 1 through 10 in Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, and which lie southerly the following described Line "A ': 1 + of Commencing at the intersection of the West right of way line of said street and the North line of said Government Lot 3; thence North line J easterly along said to an intersection with said street centerline extension; thence southerly along said ' centerline extension a distance of 31.19 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point ' 'B"; thence deflecting to the right an line of Cot 10, Scott's Subdivision angle of 85 degrees 36 minutes a distance of 89.36 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "C`; thence northeasterly to — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - North — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ I the point of commencement and the beginning Of said Line "A "; thence southwesterly to said Point "C "; thence westerly t0 sin � �'-' "•" the shore of Lake Minnetonka, on a westerly extension of the line from Point `B" to Point "C" and there terminating, _ -7 � CONTAINS: 40,747 S FT. Q A ) d C) -L e3 I- cJ r n l L_ i C , d � .� .,i v C� DMA ffiDy° ' e i 7 F Carp //.A2W G Ib i7t t. �' nl �l I ;�. Tom,' S 89.57'40« W\ ` IS�1TH I1NE OF THE NORTH 3298 FEET OF to / -, C4A ii44 , ^' / 'p n /C2AIXA�RD,MY E45F)/EUi' _ - - - __ - -_ _ - _ -__ _ _ 10• -sBa'" 4r ;fY MEW / `' _ -- -_ '- tnrt•: d {' B ' _ - � _ i .•fLlgp a e M"CD�EX T.4BMTION /NOXTHP"CFL) / '.I9 1 , ';1; ;1',';/` „1 %jf1 t 1 1 1 ° i2 �__ \\ ip __ _ d ,a a� � to g L • 2,1785 .FT. /l; 1 1 �� Y "` ° _ \ a. o a aE L DWELLING Q ! /' ; ,';);, > j, /, �\`` \ I I rte¢ r B117UMINOUS DRIVE 259 SQ. FT. 6 / ;, '; / '/; ',' /l '; /!, '; /,;Y; ld• `7� {. ��,'' 1 �> k i' _ ' \\ / `\ 4 f d z s� a tsEe d b Y CONC RETE 249 SQ. FT. Q L, , 1;,';ll,','1;,•';l', ,/' .aD %" ! \ - ( J / A �J DE« / 1 -' DECK 145 S FT. !,% '•'/ �' " /,', "/; i ( b Unw wo a a» I 3 RETAINING WALLS 10 SQ FT. . l; �';h, `;C, I / I A V ` \ �� 1 1 �V 1 r 1 l; I , `1 i ;' 11 \ J \swT" uINE O Lof tb, soorr's susavism (a ersr4o w) ", a 1 1 \ d TOTAL Wry / „'/ itr mre HARDCOVER 2,841 SQ. AREA OF LOT (TO OHW) 35,883 SQ. Fr. ' / " %% % %•:5�, ";'` { %" r t°EF \ 9 \ ° p i! r V 1 1 ss• vnEE\ 1 \ ( 1 I d e 11 %HARDCOVER 7.9% iTiU (;' Itq lr, I% $( j 21 1 ;Leer \ b 24• Va , + A /N A +r-n ' ;.:.il `, f • \\ \ `,� s jw v rn r 1, GV I I \u_L_ I 1 \ 12 tiSE d - - 1, .+a '1 gp i I 2y . NOTE: DECK WTH FRAMING ONLY NOT COUNTED IN TABULATION _ _ ,�6 }. - sau x u cs aovr m 2 x LxE 1 I a ME •A; I / c f I l.. 4 av _ 4roVT LDT ] PPis aL to 10 t. \ 5 / g -.�.� 24•'tNEE, { 9 B' X .S ;' 1PEE2 {• TREE g ' _ X/1RDCOY�R TABlIL4TION(SDIJTHPi1ItCCELf d ' z 4 6 oax � r I �j .-- �\� T +uran,o� _� 4 aEE I 1 1 BITUMINOUS DRIVE 4042S .FT. :DrtNaACee/inutr r�i ' .vcri+- �! - rewawMq -- - eq1 POINT 'e- Q �; , rf n CONCRETE 31SSQ.FT. �3 �' / „''y�' /,�,� >: /,',��' -� / / zb `, J�, - r- .- _._ -.- ---�; 4 r 326.32- y,--- axamt•__�, - - '- ";G....- - -o t> I \ _ o N ! a' 1 y _ e ►1 I 5• rz• rata TOTAL HARDCOVER 4,357 SQ. Fr. l;;S� /;.;;C;;;II b l„ 1 -- - - -- — — M114 - - -39 - �rVa rtue 1� o .°tt 1 ,1Y f / 4 1 w" d 0 ff A 4, AREA OF LOT (TO OHW) 40,747 SQ. FT. Y• / / ”' Y -- _ -- _ - - q / `l.r ;•�'l/ a ��`, r;w�i. � - \ '� --"_ I - as.as o D �< ,.' ts • ,- - -- __.io• - - -- - -- ; -_ ,r tat2 -- - -- io• na � ! t r tsEE q r , 1L `! /o HARDCOVER 10.7 /D -• (sl o a /,'; ; //, ''% Lit + • I I I l �t4' wr E 1 " - ' y fig_ P ok 1�l ace,; Na smEe s $ I;;f s �E dl I o 4 r te- - -'-� -'rte -- 1R. 6• �� / �� 'tarr \ e m�� u 1 - Y wi - -J. _ -? rta'E IY iNFE - -- -•- fgJ \,. -_ - _- I - _-- -_ Lace d I �z � ^ �•.L 2C txtr °' 'I px\�S, j b 1pRAxuceeUBU7.EASEMkTtT V -==- s� sewn t2¢ wrwtlw - ` 428.70 - -w S 89 57 40 W .fPV+ o+tea>• 'sDUnD ?;wvm �tDa C - K I --- NORTH LINE OF R.L.S. N0. 1585 PER MONUMENTATION S `-•NORTH LINE OF R.LS. NO. 1585 PER MONUMENTATIOP' _ _ �D t Exhibit B - f1EV.�fi)4., t:)�O I r r',r �I nit+ t\I 'I� ^ q r aa SURVEY \Ci L_CJt d S v Ci t l + I�t D L 1 t " \ C LJJ } North line of Lot 10, Scott's Subdivision — — — J — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —�- —. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ,SHED _ - -- i a �� $� I � - K � i K,r L.�.lrii.l ��sl v C� IVY %. ...,I dasru+c otavE l Ci l Ci � OARAGE 91NMV •, \`� •,�• \• ,) I' / / / / „'/J�ln�r , j; , / , / / A � . -SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 32,98 FEET OF LOT 10 l m I --- ----- - S 89'57'40” W {� { ' t !'.' --� _ ea,, -- 382.52-- ;"AGE #UMMY EASWNT % __,1r--- - - - - -- tG • �-9ea ;lr 1 8." RFP b t I ; I T — "e_TREE _ — _ y — S"Q'1 8_REE T _ - -- _— �... ___ ____ _ ______ , •r`.•10" TREE ___- _ - "975" � _ -- -_ � ir "� \ - _ .d -. 28 � 10 - N 1 TREE TREE\ ���'' I 3 , l �l,'i! l ' !r ' , ' 1, YYr /1 ' tf/ „ ( z6 ( ' f; ( \ k 7 i '9'1 - - _ _ \ \ • \ N ` � ( � _ _ -- 8• � i% rTREE �t 18 TREE ' 6 fa arw » ,I f l;,/!, ;;!"? t I 1 \ \souTH upe of Loti4r scorns sueolHSloN (s sa's7'4o°,.) ��' ° - - o " /;; \ ( p 7 ( J l 4 /;aTr' \� \ J { �i ; f 4. { / ', \ 8 • 1 , �' ,' �/ % „ r%' l, ; , j „ R; %;!,' /,';1 „J � �` \ ��-, zo•,'TREE% � 1 .i \ hi ----•- _� to 9 I nd 24•TREE ft / %' Z` ' `` // z• ' �' ,TREE ', s- w � ,� NNING S � 72',R TREE\ Z 24' TREE , r { 3 1 121,,TTRR�� ,/! 'Hsi:€ \ \ :o ,w T r A eN A � ^ - r ^)t (REE`, ' V nun 1. L_v I f �u_ L_ Id� l rte, Y -� ,� T \ -`- � c � t”` \ �C \ _ E'QNT OF RE? _,' L CO ' / ' �i I � 4 _ ' SOUTH LINE OF TN l GOVT LOT zMLIKE E I 1 n / /�^ I - - _ `OF uNE •A; ` � /'-” ' '/ YT T3 PER LOT R.I.S t� /37 -,, p 24 / ryb 24�7Rg •'�C 5� 1r TREE 14 TREE l - 17.21r 4 Oak 'DRAINAGE k,GTwTr EASbENi : ,1�` • `waL'.•r - ) - - - PANT • c• r B� � � 14�� , p : �Ol UMTr EA -328.32 - 7 ( d 1 1 ( rr qil I A , I O ''7 � •% 1 /l�l /,e' /r: /I '�'°- I ' ,,� `�,� {” �:��. MIN. f` �. —_ E � ,9 ^ ,,' „ rte / °•TRE,: � t� ' �- r l 9 � z: , 6 l' ` ' /;;I'R(ii'i!'r, l /,, /IJ I I I I 'J n ':r s L 3 ,:,..: 'M` a "--- ir— �- -�__ ? _ �• , °� - r/ ' a =t 1 C I , I . ' l ' „!r ,','.1 �" r; f ; . ', � 'I �, � 1 K�� � �1 > � �� �`� R Y: � 1 r _ { �?— � , i — ;a �' � (`� 'o _ ' � - � ._._ r l I �s ,- r e'�:• n , alyr, L ----gym _. -- _ r T-` '�'Z � �� e /,'; , ` , `,` /� , „/' � 18• Nepl. � - Iso• bml ' is t . r� � r ^� ,:� ; xu t � �; � 1 c � t. _..__ ' � ' � 1Q• ,� s! _ , — / 1G• TREE , � T 6 . ,� h 1 o m ; I` �� _.� d I �`�• 1 I 4 O I 1 _ 1 14• FRJ I t +t I pp I : tO• - e" L , /. ,'�" P, - yx i Yt v c �,,.. _si— Mae- I OOI- r , /,� ' 7 �/, / t 1 < : y i � � " ' o - = ' _ -C -(�� I N � 6• �j ^ � I � PLO �- / N p 1z• mm; X AW .1 .... .., i , Y , , 1 .r ,,, rl r � , `/ , ', 'I ' � ' i ( � :. ':�>� 3 k•' ...- . c., -._. �Wrr_ICMt'/ ::. c M , � o., s -.� t 1' z . : � y ,, s t :r . "f'0'QJ ,, i Li 1.1 , • - , J , I - .,-!_: -, .,,. ...,,. •.c .. _r._i� _:: ,.: r'...: � .,, .. y. -.,��a ,� 1 s ty Y.. s�. - ..2t 4 - 9 1 fi , , u - ,u ., 4h,, t . MIN", ,, r , I I r I I y-- I�. g /'fir .,,, ,-' -' �.L- -• :5.. �,y - 7m f I � , ` ' ! I i , 19• bdt W-11 1 , r ,I 1 1 11 / , _. , , r , I ' , " T-- -�. r I ��r r+ a - d -.I - I I 1• S= "'+�` �, _ _ _ ,..a v t so.i7�' Jl , 1 20• mm y _ \ _' _ ,+' TREE .9e'' q --- - � -- O �' � F ! 'L -20• � {__ -� i ` -i-, x - -� -- � r _i_ -� `�L- =� 9' Q ,__� ``,_, 8 TREE' �� ___I _ 8 TREE - 0M1 - r I _ __.__.__ -_ _ 9 J_+ I , a 8'7 E 1Y 8= , 9 jJ� \, _ -� _ `� ° -1-,� ____ 8 g d I i n a a b \ Q . 1 `9 _ —��,� �_ _.L —.�— --- T --— ��� — - -��� o iz TREE I��\ \ \' zs T>tEE MIX I`�; i m i i 10" TREE \„ S , `Z �' }ORAINAG£ k_ UTNT�' `EASEMENT:: •`, OU , Q • 1 13U 1' o � 1 7,21- : f ,l ' ` ,� " •'j� 1� ' ', , i I ' f -'- -1 _r , \ UU I 428.7D -- s SEM LINE LOCATION. 1 ��� 7E7° I �„' - r �' • 8' 4 ii' ♦ (PER OWNER),. \ ` -Fa- trA .°PED {OM t Famv cw o vau -' - -NORTH LINE OF R.LS. NO. 1585 PER MONUMENTAMON j"'�•� - � S MANHOLE `--NORTH LINE OF R.L.S. N0. 1585 PER MONUMENTATION \ ,a k 1) rf / c SHm .. �j g 3 - ELEV.•.974.1 ct GRAPHIC SCALE LCZ Ci �! L_�����.7 ,...- v I V \�1 1�.. ,I y 20 0 10 20 40 \ "q ( IN FEET) r ff ljf&r NQ Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN OSTVIG TREE, INC. SINCE 1933 A Tradition of Excellence March 6, 2012 Mr. Mike Sharratt Sharratt Design Suite 100 464 Second Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mike; The following is an evaluation of the trees that will need to be removed because of the new construction at 28180 Woodside Road, Shorewood, MN. The letters identifying each tree corresponds with the letters for the trees on the lot survey, The list begins from the road and goes into the lot. 1) H — 6" diameter 3 Sugar Maple Trees (Acer saccharum), all three of these are healthy trees. 2) G -- 6" diameter Sugar Maple Tree (Acer saccharum), this tree has extensive decay on the trunk creating a hazard for trunk failure in the future and shortening the life of this tree, 3) F —12" diameter Sugar Maple Tree (Acer saccharum), this is a healthy tree. 4) E —14" diameter Sugar Maple Tree (Acer saccharum), this tree has a main crotch that is very tight and weak and has included bark creating a structural defect in the tree that will cause it to fail in the future. 5) A — 20" diameter Sugar Maple Tree (Acer saccharum), this tree was struck by lightning many years ago and has extensive decay and cankers in the trunk causing the tree to decline substantially in health and causing a safety hazard for failure in the future. The tree has already begun to die back and will not live much longer. 6) C -- 30" diameter Basswood tree (Tillia americana), this tree will not be affected by the new construction, but has a substantial amount of decay in the truck causing a safety hazard and decline and die back in the tree. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or other concerns you may have. Sincerely Jim D. Ostvig International Society of Arboriculture certified arborlst ISA certification 4 MN -0196A l 161 E. Wayzata Blvd.. 3f l - Wayzata. MN 55301 West Metro: (952) 473.0534 `East Metro: (651) 653 -9930 Fax: (1 - 63) 479 -3620 Website: x+nvw.ostvigtree.com Exhibit D A Family Owned Business For Three Generations TREE EVALUATION i 1 c�T7— op - _ , J / �.%�" _ - . _ _ r C Via: � I W�'bK• �¢r_ltf'1 I __�___ f _ 'Yam =.- { t~ �; •{ {', G�� ,�— P V lZe �., � ... - —_� 4' lam'-- - --' --- , 3 �j !. ' , I <_ � —�z�� — — I E - - - -_ (�._:!�' -i >E 4 _�,'_ ____ `•; � �?, 1 f f r a f I o w_ fill ,: t — ` I ti. i S -tv' �lEd,..T�r ,y ._S f P � '°,^' fill.. , - � .•".. \ 41 tt i I � , � .� {'.. I J E - 5�E• �. , r _ _ ....__ M1 - � N4f`•f �,- � � t Uf If f _.. - r , { Z � _ { , �- .. _.... __._.�. 5 vG,! �'� °__.__?1l_/2+?1'`�" i�'.e, � bIM >✓ti!� !G? i. -15 P'r�� � � ?N �y� i�_;�or i � n ,�._.� /mil✓ �uJ �-a M l -��(L GNP w Exhibit E FIRST FLOOR PLAN L " n 0 t jF Exhibit F SECOND FLOOR PLAN 11 -- I ,, I l o� ------------ -- -------------- - - .. ........ . ... Exhibit G BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Exhibit I SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION Exhibit J NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION - �'�a�� ter►' _.� � yrr �� � l pw L in —�+7� r..► — ,eta _.. -v_ � ! �!( - ter' � �C, '=''�� /�.. ,B � � Q ' x•, 12 t '.. '..aY►.. \:� l � . �� "' _.w� � i �•*•� �� iapaa ► .. C eCi,�, �..: a a� ' � R _. _ g '� ` AJ��Aep$y9���1aq i . a' , s, 9 6 a o 1�f }J`y�� A- f �► �.- a , ® b .: @! �+r� f x+74 k * ® � „ ! �`►• `' I ,.� ` . • °- .i ; ,p ss � ,� -fi a 19 d. f`'t feh1��''►9#4yv+ ��� + $�AF�7� Y®I�1 � 'rr` �1drs►.... v ®�►��►� - . r�,�y� ? •� . � Ayf►'.�„- "y - r• • o � � .• ` _. � a .,r a - 6�.1 �t°b�,g�,p'`-0ra4d 5 ....� >sRTt►- dais s �OR b � ��i i�h�Y'���•Q 6 ev I -46m caa ®v ss v r3s / ® s r Una- o K &® Alin b- a ma O d+ 9 B1 harra s s coin p any 3/5/2012 C.U.P. Application Proposed Schrepel Home - 28180 Woodside Road, Excelsior, MN 55331 HARDCOVER TAKEOFF Home (including screen porch) Attached Garage Rear Upper Patio Lower Walkout Patio Detached Garage Covered Front Porch Front Walk Driveway Near Garages Driveway to Woodside Drive Access to Cannon Home Contingency Hardcover - Door slab, additional retaining, etc. ALLOWABLE HARDCOVER: Site Area = x 25% _ C.U.P. Garage Size = as part of lot subdivision F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) Home - 1st Floor - 2nd Floor - Walkout Basement Attached Garage Detached Garage Covered Front Porch 2,520 676 840 200 728 294 150 1,468 2,640 486 184 10,186 0 sf over 40,747 sf 10,186.75 sf allowed 1,404 sf application (for C.U.P. over required) 2,520 1,929 0 676 728 294 6,147 4 6 4 S e c o n d S t r e e t 0 S u i t e t 0 0 0 E x c Exhibit p h o n e: 9 5 2. 4 7 0. 9 7 5 0 f a x: AREA TABULATIONS w e b s i t e: s h a r r a t t d e s i g n. c o m • e m a i l: i n f o C crr} or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 March 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Draft 3 FILE NO. Smithtown Crsg. Redev. Study Staff has been working on the revisions that were discussed at the last meeting. Attached are a couple of items we talked about: 1) elaborating on the Unified vs. Piecemeal spreadsheet to be included in the introduction to the report; and 2) the Study Area Boundary map, revising the boundary and including the sizes of properties. We continue working on the other maps (e.g. Study Area Location map, etc.). Please note that we had agreed that another joint meeting with the Council is in order. The Council work session scheduled for their second Monday meeting has already been filled. Consequently, we will meet with them on 11 June instead. Cc: Larry Brown Laura Hotvet 40rf f . 0* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Cd 1 CI CID 0i vz ct ct Er- 0 > C) ot� M v� O H W� v� a, Cd w � o a� 3 w Cd w a ';� ct w � cn P.0 cn in. o Y) Cd Er Cd 4 Cd Cd ;z Cd C d Cd C�3 ct cz; 4. Cd Cd CIO Q. cn O m V) � cn ct N N cd Cf) V) C) p m 14-1 ct CITY OF SIiURIW()C)L7 I 5755 COUNTRY CLUE ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 March 2012 RE: Zoning Discussion — General Provisions — Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.a. — f. FILE NO. Zoning Code — 1201.03 Tuesday night we begin chipping away at the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code. We will be studying Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.a. — f. We have copied this portion of the Code for your review (attached). Although staff has a couple of minor items to bring up in this section, we haven't identified anything significant. Perhaps the section on fences will generate the most discussion. Cc: Larry Brown Laura Hotvet 41ir �Fabr` PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1201.03 Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision. Regulations h. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful nonconforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or the nonconformity. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located; (2) That if the nonconformity exists because the lot area does not meet the minimum requirement for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30 %. (3) That the granting of the expansion shall not adversely affect the aesthetics or character of the adjacent property. (4) That any expansion shall take into consideration the protection of light and air to the adjacent property. (5) That in cases where a structure is too close to a lot line, the city may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example: where a building is eight feet from a side lot line in a district in which a ten foot setback is required, the city may require a 12 foot setback on the other side.) Subd. 2. General building and performance requirements. a. Purpose. The purpose of this section of the zoning ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designated to assure compatibility of uses; to prevent urban blight, deterioration and decay; and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community. b. Dwelling unit restriction. (1) No cellar, basement, garage, tent or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or permanently. In residential districts recreational vehicles or equipment 1201 -24 2011 S -6 Zoning Regulations 1201.03 may be used as temporary living quarters, on property where an occupied residence exists, for no more than 14 days in any calendar year. There shall be no open discharge of sanitary waste from the vehicle or equipment. (2) Basements may be used as living quarters or rooms as a portion of residential dwellings. (3) Earth- sheltered housing shall not be considered as a basement or cellar. (4) Tents, playhouses or similar structures may be used for play or recreational purposes. (5) All dwelling units shall be serviced with sanitary sewer, water supply and energy supply systems. c. Property development. (1) Any person desiring to improve property for which a building permit is required shall submit to the Building Official a survey prepared by a registered surveyor of the property showing the location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments and any other information which may be necessary to ensure conformance to city ordinances. The Building Official may waive the requirement of a survey in cases where it is deemed unnecessary or where the location of property boundaries can be verified. (2) All structures shall be so placed so that they will not obstruct future streets which may be constructed by the city in conformity with existing streets and according to the system and standards employed by the city. (3) A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this chapter in a residential district which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single- family detached dwelling purpose, provided that: �a� 111e lot tAtllst U iii separate o` r'nership --- llllt of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership; (b) The measurement of the area and width are within 70% of the requirements of this chapter; 1201 -25 2011 S -6 (d) The ratio of the floor area of all structures to lot area shall not exceed 30%. (4) Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in § 1201.06 of this chapter, not more than one principal building shall be located on a lot. The city may, by conditional use permit, allow a single - family residential dwelling to remain on a lot while a new dwelling is being constructed on the same lot, provided that: (a) The new dwelling shall conform to the setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located; (b) Construction of the new dwelling shall not result in substantially greater site alteration (for example, tree removal or grading) than if the original house is first removed; (c) The property owner must provide an estimate from a licensed contractor for the cost of removing the original dwelling and restoring the site. From this estimate the city shall require a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 % of the estimate to ensure that the original dwelling will be removed within six months of the date the building permit is issued for the new dwelling. (d) The property owner shall provide the cash escrow or letter of credit referenced in (c) above at the time a building permit is issued for the new dwelling. The new dwelling shall not be occupied until a certificate of occupancy has been issued. (5) On a through lot both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the yard and parking regulations of this chapter. d. Accessor buildings, uses and equipment. (1) An accessory structure shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway. 1201 -26 2011 S -6 1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03 (2) Accessory structures shall not exceed 15 feet or one story in height. (3) Accessory buildings and structures shall be constructed within the buildable area of the lots as defined in § 1201.02 of this chapter except as provided in subdivision 3c of this section. (4) For single- family and two - family homes, no accessory building, including attached garages or combination of accessory buildings, shall exceed three in number, or 1,200 square feet in area in the R -IA, R -113, RAC, R -2A, R -213 and R -3A Districts; or, 1,000 square feet in area in the R -ID, R -2C, R -313 and R -C Districts, except by conditional use permit as provided for in § 1201.04 of this chapter. In addition the following conditions shall apply: (a) The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the floor area of all stories above grade of the principal structure. The City Council may grant an exception for greenhouses, as defined herein, under the following conditions: (i) The lot on which the greenhouse is to be located shall contain a minimum of 80,000 square feet of area. In no case shall the lot area be reduced to less than 80,000 square feet in area; (ii) Side yard setbacks for the greenhouse shall be double that required for the district in which the property is located; (iii) The property owner shall landscape around accessory buildings according to a landscape plait approved by the City Council; (iv) In no case shall the total area of accessory buildings exceed 7 % of the minimum lot area for the district in which the property is located. (b) In no case shall the total area of accessory buildings exceed 10 % of the minirnurn tot area for the district in which the property is located . (c) In evaluating the conditional use permit, the city shall take into consideration the location of existing and proposed structures, site drainage and landscaping. 1201 -27 2011 S -6 (e) Properties occupied by nonconforming accessory structures are not allowed to exceed three accessory structures, or to exceed 1,000 square feet or 1,200 square feet of accessory floor area, based upon the district in which they are located. Exception: An existing nonconforming accessory structure may be allowed to remain nonconforming, and the total number of accessory structures or the total area of accessory space may be expanded, provided that the following can be demonstrated with respect to the nonconforming accessory structure: (i) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure was constructed prior to August 2, 1956. Evidence of date of construction may include, but is not limited to, property surveys, assessor's information, aerial photographs or affidavits from persons who lived on or near the property on or before August 2, 1956. (ii) The structure must be in sound structural condition with respect to roof, walls, and foundation. If the structure requires 50% or more replacement, the building must be removed or brought into conformity with this code. The extent of replacement required shall be determined by the Building Official. (iii) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure has historic, architectural or cultural value. Specifically, the structure shall meet one or more criteria established by the city and patterned after the National Park Service standards for historic desi gnation. The historic, alchite of cultural value of the structure shall be subject to review and comment by a special ad hoc committee, consisting of one member of the Planning Commission, City Council and Park Commission, 1201 -28 2011 S -6 1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03 (iv) The owner of the property shall enter into a development agreement with the city, the purpose of which is to set forth what, if any, repairs may be necessary to place the structure in good condition. The agreement shall be recorded against the property to ensure that the structure is kept in good condition. Repairs to the structure shall be consistent with the original architectural style and materials of the structure. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner from bringing the structure into conformance with this code or removing it from the property. (5) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (4) above, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one private detached garage structure for each detached single - family dwelling, except on the approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of § 1201.04 of this chapter. Every detached single - family dwelling unit erected after the effective date hereof shall be so located on the lot so that at least a two car garage, either attached or detached, can be located on the lot. (6) No accessory uses or equipment, such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensors, which generate noise may be located in a required side yard setback, except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view. e. Drainage plans. (1) In the case of all multiple - family and nonresidential developments, detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his or her review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to his or her written approval. (2) In the case of single- family lots where no drainage plan has been approved by the city, the Building Official shall determine the need for a drainage plan. In any case where the first floor of the structure is lower than the e t �/ +;�„ ,f the street or �x�}.Pre rhP ln;z,egt IPVPI of Y}lf? structure is bP_.i[lw levation Vl t..e the elevation of the sanitary sewer, detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his or her review and approval. 1201 -28A 2011 S -6 1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03 f. Fences - g eneral requirements. (1) Permit required. No person, firm or corporation shall construct or erect any fence without first securing a building permit. (2) Locations. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that the fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence. (3) Surveys. The Building Official may require an applicant for a fence permit to establish his or her true boundary line by a survey thereof to be made by a registered land surveyor. (4) Construction and maintenance. Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in the condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be so constructed that the finished side faces away from the fence owner's lot. Any fence which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be considered a public nuisance and abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city official if within 15 days after notification the owner of the fence has not undertaken the necessary repairs himself or herself to abate the nuisance. Link fences, where permitted, shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the top. (5) Nonconforming fences. All fences existing on the date of the adoption of this chapter, but not conforming herewith, except as to height restrictions, shall conform and be subject to the terms of this chapter. If at any time a nonconforming fence shall be damaged to the extent of more than 25% in any plane, then without further action by the Council, the fence shall, from and after the date of the damage, be subject to all the regulations specified by these zoning regulations. Any fence which is damaged to an extent of less than 25% may be restored to its former extent. It is the C.___....:... �. onne ehnll he eventually intent of this section that all noncon�O rinng � i6=jv �__�_• brought into conformity. (6) Prohibited fences. Electric fences shall not be permitted except in conjunction with the issuance of a horse permit pursuant to Chapter 702 of this code and shall be removed upon expiration or revocation of a horse permit. Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted except as hereinafter provided. Fences of the picket, rail or slat types shall be so constructed that the spaces between the pickets, rails or slats shall be greater than 12 1201 -29 1201.03 Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 1201.03 (S) Shoreline fences. No fence shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area as specified in § 1201.26 Subd. 5a(3) of this chapter. In addition, fences on or adjacent to the shoreline of any navigable lake, channel or stream or on or along that portion of a lot line extending from a navigable lake, channel or stream to the near side of the average building construction line, shall not exceed four feet in height. (9) Residential District fences. (a) Boundary line fences. In all parts of Shorewood which are zoned residential, no boundary line fences shall exceed four feet in height, except that: (i) Fences on all corner lots erected within 30 feet of the intersecting property line shall be subject to subdivision 2h of this section; Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in height; (iii) Fences along a rear property line, which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in height for a distance as calculated in (iv) below and shall not exceed four feet in height when abutting a front yard line; Subject to other restrictions within this section, fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side yard property line from the rear lot line to the required front yard setback line; 1201 -30 1201.03 Zoning Regulations 1201.03 (vi) All boundary line fences in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open; (vii) Fences in yards abutting an intermediate arterial or minor arterial street, as designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, may be constructed to a height of six feet in a front or side yard abutting the arterial street, by conditional use permit as provided for in § 1201.04. In addition the following conditions shall apply: A. The fence shall be located no closer than eight feet to the property line; B. A landscape plan for the above- referenced eight foot setback area must be submitted in compliance with § 1201.03 subd. 2.g. of this chapter; C. The fence shall not obstruct traffic visibility. (b) Interior yard fences. (i) Any fence erected within any portion of the required front yard shall not exceed four feet in height and shall be at least 25% open. (ii) Within a rear yard, at a point eight feet beyond any property line, a solid fence up to six feet in height may be erected as a total enclosure. The enclosure shall not exceed 25% of the required rear yard area and shall have adequate means of emergency access. 1201 -31 1201.03 Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations (iii) Chain link or woven wire fences (without slat screens, canvas or other screening material opaque in nature) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other recreational purposes shall not exceed ten feet in height. (10) Commercial District fences. Fences in all Commercial Districts shall not exceed eight feet in height, except that: (a) Boundary line fences abutting R Districts shall conform to those regulations applicable to the R District; (b) Security fences: (i) Fences which are erected primarily to secure a particular area may have "arms" not to exceed 36 inches in length, located a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet above ground level, on which arms barbed wire may be strung; A survey establishing the true boundary line must be made by a registered land surveyor and submitted to the city; (iii) Fence arm extensions may not extend across an abutting property line or over any public right -of -way; (c) Fences erected within the required front yard area shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be of a chain link or woven wire construction which affords maximum visibility. (11) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit. (12) Fence height. The height of fences prescribed herein shall be considered to be the maximum height allowed. Fence posts may extend above the e e specified height by no more than eight inches. .sue_ �;WIp g, Required screening and landscaping. (1) General residential. Any portion of a lot that is disturbed by grading or construction activities must be restored by seeding, sodding or landscaping to prevent erosion. If restoration cannot be completed within the growing season for which a certificate of occupancy is requested, the property owner shall enter into an escrow agreement with the city and submit a cash escrow or letter of credit for one and one -half times the estimated amount 1201 -32