11-20-12 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2012 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
HUTCHINS (Dec) ______
CHARBONNET (May) ______
GARELICK (Oct) ______
MUEHLBERG (Jul) ______
DAVIS (Aug) ______
GENG (Sep) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2 October 2012
1. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION
Noise Regulations
Zoning Permits
2. DISCUSS SMITHTOWN WEST TRAIL OPEN HOUSE
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2012 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Muehlberg;
Council Liaison Hotvet; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Commissioner Hutchins
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for October 2, 2012, as presented. Motion
passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 18, 2012
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September
18, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS
Applicants: Blair Bury, Triple B Equities, LLC
Location: 24470 Smithtown Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on an October 22, 2012, Regular City
Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted Blair Bury, representing the
applicant Triple B Equities, LLC, (Triple B) is present this evening.
Director Nielsen explained Triple B owns the property located at 24470 Smithtown Road. In 2001 Triple
B was granted a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to operate an auto sales business on the property. Part of
the building was also used for storage of personal property. The meeting packet contains a copy of the
resolution granting the C.U.P. in 2001. The applicant is asking that the 2001 resolution be revised to
allow minor auto repair as a conditional use in the C-1, General Commercial zoning district in which the
property is located. The property is zoned C-1 and it contains just over 40,000 square feet of area. (It used
to be zoned C-3.) Mr. Bury proposes to lease part of the property and the easterly 4,000 square feet of the
existing building to Jim and Jae Steinwand to operate their auto repair business.
Nielsen noted the applicant has suggested deleting paragraph g from the 2001 resolution. Paragraph g
stated “No repair of automobiles shall be allowed on the site.” He explained it is not that simple because
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 2 of 19
the section in the City Code that allows auto repair C.U.P. does have a list of its own conditions that must
be addressed. They would have to be incorporated into a new resolution.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how the applicant’s request complies with the
conditions in City Code Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d.
1. The applicant does not propose to sell or dispense motor fuel. Sale of motor oil will be limited to
oil change service. In this regard, the storage of new and used oil is subject to the requirements of
the State Fire Code and should be subject to review and approval by the Excelsior Fire District.
2. There is no proposal to change the architectural appearance or functional plan of the existing
building.
3. There is no change proposed for the existing site plan. The current C.U.P. allows outdoor sales of
vehicles in the front of the property and it limits it to eight.
4. Drainage for the property remains unchanged.
5. The parking area in front of the property is curbed and striped per City Code requirements.
6. No change is proposed to site lighting.
7. No fuel pumps are proposed, nor should any be allowed.
8. No change in landscaping is proposed by the applicant. Staff recommends additional landscaping
be incorporated along the rear yard of the property, even if it is placed inside the fence. The rear
of the building is quite exposed to the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space property and the
residential uses to the north.
9. Parking and outside storage are already well screened from the view of nearby residential zoning
districts.
10. The site has one driveway onto Smithtown Road and no change is proposed.
11. Signage for the property is subject to the restrictions for the C-1 zoning district which allows up
to three signs, one of which can be a freestanding sign. The total area of signage cannot exceed 10
percent of the area of the building silhouette, as viewed from the street. The existing freestanding
sign structure on the property is nonconforming in that the two faces are not parallel. Unless that
is changed, both faces of the sign will be counted against the total allowable sign area.
12. With respect to noise, it is recommended that no service work be allowed to take place outdoors.
The proposed hours (8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday) should be adequate to
prevent any disturbance to nearby residential development.
13. Outdoor storage should be limited to the confines of the existing fence system. In no instance
should the front parking area be used for any kind of outdoor storage.
14. Future modification of the conditions of approval is not anticipated. Any such modifications
would be addressed as part of code compliance issues that may occur.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 3 of 19
15. The subject property is part of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which has recently
been recommended to the City Council by the Planning Commission. While the proposed use is
not consistent with the character of commercial development envisioned by the Study, it does
comply with current zoning regulations. The Study recognizes that individual sites may develop
independently. The mitigating factor in this case is that neither the site nor the building is being
changed at this time.
Nielsen noted that Staff recommends approving the C.U.P. and drafting a new resolution which would
address the fifteen items he just reviewed. Staff also recommends approval of the C.U.P. include a
requirement that a landscape plan for the rear of the property be subject to review and approval by Staff
and/or the Planning Commission.
Nielsen also noted that Mr. Bury and Mr. Steinwand are present this evening.
Blair Bury, representing Triple B the owner of the property located at 24470 Smithtown Road, stated he
has no issues with any of the items Director Nielsen spoke about other than items 8 and 11. With regard
to item 11 related to signage and the 10 percent restriction, Mr. Bury explained the current total area of
the two sides of the signage is 64 square feet. He thought the current signage complies with the restriction
but that may depend on how the silhouette area is calculated. He noted the intent is to comply. Mr. Bury
stated he was a little bit surprised by the landscaping requirement. He explained he did go to the site and
try and figure out what the issue may be. He noted trees on the Gideon Glen property encroach and
actually grow through the fence on the 24470 property. He explained he trims the trees and cleans them
up so the fence line is clean. He extended the offer to the Public Works Department to access the dead
trees by coming onto his property to trim those trees. He explained there is not a good way to plant trees
inside the fence in the area behind the L-shaped that is part of the lower building. The area is filled with
snow 4 – 5 feet deep during the winter if there is a significant snowfall. Nothing will survive in that area
between the building and the fence. He noted there are heating and air conditioning units on one side.
Therefore, there is only one corner where additional plant screening may survive. He commented that the
Steinwands intend to call their business My Car Guy, LLC.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen to comment on Mr. Bury’s idea about a natural barrier. Nielsen stated
what is being proposed is close to what Staff is looking for. Nielsen noted it is thicker on the westerly
half. It would be good to get something more than what is there. Nielsen stated the City can put in some
plantings on the Gideon Glen property on the City’s side of his fence far enough away from the fence so
they don’t encroach. Geng stated it is his understanding that the dead trees on the Gideon Glen property
near the property line need to be replaced. In response to another question from Geng, Nielsen explained
he would be satisfied with plantings that are a continuation of what has already been done along one side
of the building. A landscape plan would need to be submitted for approval by staff to address buffering
the site from Gideon Glen. Geng asked if that could be addressed in the resolution. Nielsen stated it could.
Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Steinwand where they are running their business from now. Mr.
Steinwand explained he operates the Midas Shop located near Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road and he has
worked with that corporation for 23 years. He and his wife decided now was a good time to run their own
business. Davis then asked how the Steinwands’ business will differ from Lake South Automotive on the
other end of Smithtown Road. Mr. Steinwand stated he does not know what services that company offers.
Davis stated it provides automotive repair. Mr. Steinwand noted that is what they will be doing also, and
highlighted some of the types of repair and maintenance services they will provide. Davis asked what the
lease term is. Mr. Steinwand responded two five-year terms.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 4 of 19
Commissioner Hasek asked if the existing C.U.P. for sales of vehicles would remain in place. Director
Nielsen stated the applicant is asking to retain that flexibility. Hasek stated currently there is 7740 square
feet of building area and there are currently 18 stalls striped. He asked if that is adequate for that amount
of space or is there additional parking being counted inside of the fence. Nielsen responded there is
additional parking inside of the fence being counted, and noted that is why there is a limit of 8 cars for
exterior display.
Hasek stated he thought the arborvitaes planted on the east side are up against the building. He asked
Director Nielsen if he suggested arborvitaes be planted in the back against the building or against the
fence. Nielsen stated he wants to take a look at that, but was thinking more along the fence. Something to
soften the view, not necessarily block it entirely.
Hasek then stated the existing site plan shows there is a small depression along the backside of the
parking on the American Legion property. He asked if that is where part of the drainage goes. Mr. Bury
stated as part of the original C.U.P. there was a requirement to control the drainage on the 24470 site and
have it flow back to the Gideon Glen ponding area. He explained there is no way for the stormwater to
flow to that low area.
Hasek went on to state that as long as the City is being asked to revise the C.U.P. he asked if the City has
the right to ask the applicant to address drainage onsite if it is possible. Director Nielsen explained that if
they were changing anything he would say yes, but they are not physically changing the site or the
building itself. Hasek stated a new building had been built and what had been a gravel parking area is now
all paved. Nielsen noted that was all taken into account as part of the original C.U.P.
Hasek asked if the City has received any complaints from residents regarding noise or lighting on this
site. Director Nielsen responded no. Hasek asked if the current building and site conform to all of the
City’s zoning ordinances. Nielsen stated the buildings are located properly and the parking setbacks are
fine. He noted the older part of the building does not comply with the construction requirements. That
was grandfathered in. Hasek suggested leaving the hours of operation vague until the noise ordinance is
discussed later in the meeting. Nielsen stated that could be left open.
Mr. Bury stated the hours of operation proposed are the same as in the original C.U.P. He expressed his
support for the hours being consistent with those in a proposed noise ordinance.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Garelick, Director Nielsen stated the way the property is
being used and the way it is proposed to be used is not consistent with the guiding principles in the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. It is consistent with the current ordinance.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for Triple B
Equities, LLC, for the property located at 24470 Smithtown Road to allow minor auto repair as a
conditional use subject to the resolution including the fifteen items recommended by Staff and
subject to a landscape plan for the rear of the property being approved by Staff. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 5 of 19
2. REDEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION - AEON
Director Nielsen explained that earlier this year Councilmember Hotvet met a representative from Aeon, a
non-profit developer that has done redevelopment as nearby as Chaska. He noted that James Lenhoff, a
Senior Developer with Aeon, and Miranda Walker, a Project Manager with Aeon, are present this evening
to make a presentation about the kind of work Aeon has been involved in and to relate it to the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study.
The highlights of Mr. Lenhoff’s presentation about Aeon are as follows.
It has been in existence for over 25 years. It was formally known as Central Community Housing
Trust. Aeon is the Latin form of eon which means forever.
Its vision is every person has a home and is interconnected within community.
Its mission is to create and sustain quality affordable homes that strengthen lives and
communities.
It has just over 2100 apartment homes in its portfolio. They are on 35 different properties.
It serves more than 3500 people each year.
It was founded to replace about 300 apartment homes that were demolished to build the
Minneapolis Convention Center.
Part of its philosophy is to develop buildings in such a way that they will be around for much
longer than 10 – 15 years. It takes into consideration how it will interact in the community in 100
– 150 years.
It is a very long-term owner. To date it has never sold a property that it has been a part of.
The three words build, connect and forever are important to Aeon.
It chooses to use the term apartment homes to better reflect its developments are about the people
who live in them.
It is interested in building long-term assets. It uses materials that have long-lasting value. It is
very careful about the design. It works with very experienced architects.
It wants to build communities. Its apartments need to have a positive relationship with its
surrounding neighbors.
It connects people to resources. A sizable portion of its portfolio does serve formerly homeless
individuals primarily in the Minneapolis area. That does not work for every single property. It
connects with various service providers in the area when it does do that.
It addresses how it connects to the community. For example, with sidewalks, bike trails and park
space. It makes sure it has the best possible landscaping that it can and that it manages
stormwater. It is considerate of its transition to the neighboring properties.
It is not just about looking into buildings; it is about looking outside also. It builds porches on its
first floor level apartments.
It focuses on trying to control cost with the initial investment.
It has done more historic rehabilitations in the State of Minnesota than any other developer. But,
it continues to do new construction.
As part of its philosophy it has three expectations of its residents. First, residents have to respect
each other both inside and outside of the building. They need to respect the building itself.
Residents have to pay their rent, whatever the level of rent is.
Community assets come in different forms. He displayed pictures of various developments with
most of them being for properties in the Minneapolis area. He explained a little about the
properties.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 6 of 19
Mr. Lenhoff noted that this was a downsized version of his presentation about Aeon. It normally takes
about one hour.
Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Lenhoff to discuss financing. Are there investors? Mr. Lenhoff stated
financing varies substantially from property to property. Some properties have as few as four funding
sources. Ripley Gardens has about 50. One of the primary funding sources in Minnesota and in the
Country is the Low Income Tax Credit. It is a federal program that has been around for around 20 – 25
years. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency on an annual basis through a competitive process awards
tax credits. Those tax credits are sold to a private investor who becomes the primary equity provider for
the project. The provider provides the equity and they get a tax credit on their corporate balance sheet.
Mr. Lenhoff stated the definition of affordable housing can be different for the Metropolitan Council, the
State and the federal government. He reviewed different criteria that help properties get classified as
affordable housing.
Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Lenhoff if he is saying there is a difference between affordable
housing and subsidized housing. Mr. Lenhoff stated it is more about terminology versus actual difference.
He explained that for example when there is what can be called a tax credit project there isn’t any
subsidy. He noted that Aeon can never have rents above a certain level for those projects unless incomes
go up. He explained that there are a couple of different types of Section 8 housing. At Clover Field
Marketplace in the City of Chaska there are 15 project-based Section 8 vouchers. That means there are 15
apartment homes where through a different funding source residents do get a monthly subsidy so they are
not paying more than one third of their income towards rent.
Commissioner Garelick then asked if Aeon’s operation is similar to Pride In Living. Mr. Lenhoff
responded yes.
Mr. Lenhoff stated for Aeon it is not so much about the individual funding program. It’s about making
sure that what it is providing is affordable for a range of incomes. He then stated it is Aeon’s goal that no
matter who is living in the building it should be a high quality place for people to live. He noted that it is
critical to have good management for a complex. People from Aeon are always involved with property
management in some capacity.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek, Mr. Lenhoff explained Clover Field Marketplace
opened in 2008. It has 117 apartment homes spread between three buildings. There is a mix of studio, one
bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom homes. There is a landscaped courtyard, a community room, a
fitness room, a playground, about 120 underground parking spaces and 7,500 square feet of commercial
space. Where possible Aeon tries to avoid surface parking. It is across from the elementary school. It is
connected to sidewalks and trails. He displayed photographs of the three buildings and explained a little
about them both on the inside and outside. The affordable and subsidized homes are intentionally
intermixed; the apartment homes are all the same. Aeon believes everyone should feel good about where
they live and they should not be singled out.
Mr. Lenhoff reviewed some facts about Clover Field Marketplace. A one bedroom home is slightly less
than 700 square feet in area. A two bedroom is slightly more than 1,000 square feet. A three bedroom is
approximately 1,160 square feet. It is currently approximately 97 percent occupied. He noted a recent
market study shows vacancy rates at less than 2 percent in the southwest metropolitan area, and there are
no three bedroom apartments in the Excelsior area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 7 of 19
Commissioner Garelick stated he appreciates Aeon’s contribution to rejuvenating communities.
Something he thought Shorewood needs.
Mr. Lenhoff stated Aeon is going to be having a ground breaking for its next building in Chaska at 4:00
th
P.M. on October 4 in downtown Chaska. That building will be an all senior building. He noted that one
of the reasons Chaska and Aeon wanted to work together is because there are a lot of single-family homes
in Chaska. As home prices were on the rise in 2006 a lot of people were being forced out or wanted to
move out of their single-family home, but there was nowhere to go while remaining in Chaska. Clover
Field Marketplace provided that transition. It also provided a place for those who could not afford to
purchase a single-family home in Chaska.
Commissioner Davis asked where the new building in Chaska will be located. Mr. Lenhoff stated it will
be downtown Chaska. The building will have 54 one-bedroom apartments for people 62 years of age or
older. The primary funding source is through a HUD program that does provide an ongoing subsidy. He
noted there are many, many seniors living on just social security. He stated this building would make sure
some seniors would have a high quality place to live independently. He then noted that HUD program
will not be funded after this year. That HUD program has produced about 400,000 apartments for seniors
over the last 40 years. As of now HUD has no more funding to keep going.
Chair Geng asked Mr. Lenhoff if he is familiar with the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Mr.
Lenhoff responded he did read it. Geng stated the purpose of the Study is to try and guide the future
development of the Study Area.
Geng then asked Mr. Lenhoff if he had any thoughts about things the City and Planning Commission
should consider.
Mr. Lenhoff stated he thought it important that the community has been working on this and knows that
something will need to be done eventually. He expressed his support for the Guiding Principles outlined
in the Study. Mr. Lenhoff explained what makes some developments difficult are the ability to make them
economical. There can also be diversity when it comes to the size of projects. He thought there is a need
for both flexibility and predictability for developers. Developers don’t want to put a lot of time and
money into a design only to find out that is not quite what a community is looking for. There is a need for
specificity while not being overly rigid.
Mr. Lenhoff explained that for Aeon a project has to be of a certain size to make it work. For Aeon that
would be 50 – 100 apartments, depending on location, of varying sizes depending on a community’s need
or the funding sources. He noted that earlier in his career he was a city planner so he has worked with a
lot of city ordinance design standards. He stated he did pick up on the possibility of mixed use in the
Study, and he noted that Aeon has about 40,000 square feet of commercial space. He explained that
mixed use is not Aeon’s favorite thing to do. Aeon is an expert in affordable homes; not commercial
space. Also, mixed use is very difficult to do from a financial perspective because a lot of Aeon’s funders
don’t want to underwrite that. That is where communities may want to get involved and help facilitate it
somehow because it is an important community goal. Mixed use, if stacked, is very difficult to do in
projects. Not so much so if it is not stacked. He noted that Aeon does not want to end up in a position
where apartment homes are supporting commercial space. He expressed his strong support for a unified
development plan recommended in the Study, and he thought the community would be happier with the
results. He stated it is great when properties can share things such as parking and stormwater management
responsibilities.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 8 of 19
Mr. Lenhoff noted funding support for senior housing is very difficult at this time. He then noted the tax
credits he referenced earlier cannot be used for senior housing; it is against policy. He explained seniors
can live there, but it cannot be seniors only. He stated he thought it important to have a mix of housing for
seniors and for families. He then stated the Study referred to tax increment financing (TIF) and there are
pros and cons to a community offering that incentive. He thought having a policy in place about TIF
ahead of time would be valuable for developers to know one way or the other.
Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lenhoff on behalf of the Planning Commission and the City of Shorewood for
spending time with the Commission this evening. He stated he thought what Aeon has done is
tremendously exciting. He wished Mr. Lenhoff and Aeon the best going forward.
Mr. Lenhoff noted that as a non-profit organization Aeon has a commitment to communities to help
educate communities about affordable housing developers. He extended an offer to people to contact him
if they would like additional information or clarification of information.
Discussion moved to Item 4 on the agenda.
3. DISCUSS TRAILS
This was discussed after Item 4 on the agenda.
Director Nielsen stated on Thursday, November 15, 2012, there will be an open house at the Minnewashta
Elementary School from 6:30 P.M. – 8:00 P.M. to present the feasibility study report for the trail segment
from the Shorewood/Victoria border to the Minnewashta Elementary School (Smithtown West) and from
the School to the LRT Trail. The Planning Commission will front that meeting. He noted Council directed
the Commission to do that earlier this year. He explained that WSB & Associates will prepare the report
and it will presumably identify barriers and obstacles, easements needed and costs. The regular open
house format for the meeting will be followed. He noted that representatives from WSB will be at the
open house to lead people through things.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained the feasibility study
report will talk about all the aspects of the project.
Council Liaison Hotvet noted that along with representatives from the City, Planning Commission and
WSB there will be representatives from the Minnetonka School District, Hennepin County, and Three
Rivers Park District. She explained the intent is to have all agencies involved be part of the supporting
team. The School District will help with communicating various aspects of this potential project, to
reaffirm safety concerns and to explain drop-off traffic issues. The open house will kick this off in a very
positive way. She stated this will not be about the City standing alone to get critiqued. She then stated the
open house will not involve presentations; it should be very informal. She noted there is a concert that
evening so there should be a lot of parent traffic. She stated the intent is to convey this as a collaborative
effort among agencies. She noted Hennepin County will have two senior planner/designer people present.
Director Nielsen stated a notice will be sent out to the members of the Trail Committee asking them to
attend. He then stated the Trail Implementation Plan suggests rallying support each time a trail segment is
considered and the intent is for the Committee to do that.
Council Liaison Hotvet noted that the agencies offer funding sources.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 9 of 19
Director Nielsen noted agency funding can dictate the standard.
Chair Geng noted that because the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is on election
night there will not be a meeting that evening. That means the Commission will not meet again before the
open house. Director Nielsen agreed.
Council Liaison Hotvet stated Engineer Landini wanted the feasibility study report to go to the Planning
Commission before the open house. She noted that it would be tweaking an existing feasibility study.
Chair Geng stated he assumes the Planning Commission’s role that evening will be one of listening.
Council Liaison Hotvet stated Engineer Landini will have something up on the smart board at the open
house.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek, Council Liaison Hotvet explained the report will
talk about one design and the design will match that of the trail in Victoria that ends at the border with
Shorewood.
Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if it thinks it needs to have a meeting between now and
th
November 15 to talk about the feasibility study.
th
Council Liaison Hotvet highlighted why the open house is scheduled for November 15.
Chair Geng stated if the Planning Commissioners’ role is just to be listeners he did not think there is a
need to meet before the open house.
Discussion moved to Item 5 on the agenda.
4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION
Noise
Director Nielsen noted that in some ways the City’s noise ordinance is somewhat vague. Noise is
addressed from the standpoint of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements. It typically
is a sustained noise which can be measured in decibels so enforcers can get after people for exceeding the
daytime and nighttime decibel ratings. It does not address some of the routine noise disturbances. He
explained in the past the City has quite frankly ducked doing a noise ordinance. With respect to
construction, the City has operated under the premise that whatever was imposed for a builder was
imposed on a resident.
Nielsen explained the City currently operates on a policy (relative to construction activities) that restricts
noise-making activities to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays, 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on
Saturdays and no construction noise on Sundays. This has been relatively effective, especially with
professional builders. Professional builders are informed that if the City has to respond to complaints
about working outside of those hours it tends to result in the City’s inspection schedule being slowed
down. Construction noise generated by residential homeowners is usually dealt with by neighbors. It is
usually short lived. The City does have a very vague nuisance ordinance. Because there is no measurable
standard it is difficult to enforce.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 10 of 19
Nielsen stated during review of the general provisions section of the City’s Zoning Code the Planning
Commission decided it would be prudent to review a sample of other cities’ noise ordinances. That
review would help in determining if it is time for Shorewood to adopt its own noise ordinance. Staff did
provide the Commission with copies of ordinances for several southwest area communities. Staff
developed a draft noise ordinance based on what it considered the best components of the ordinances it
reviewed. A copy of that draft is included in the meeting packet. He noted some of the hourly restrictions
on certain operations included in the draft ordinance were taken from the sample ordinances. He
explained the City of Excelsior conducted a noise ordinance survey to find out what the hour restrictions
are for other communities. A compilation of the findings is included in the meeting packet.
Nielsen then stated he thought the Planning Commission should discuss if the draft ordinance is
addressing the problem areas. If so, then the Commission should next discuss what standards should be
included in the ordinance and what activities should be regulated. He commented that at least one
ordinance reviewed mentioned parties/large gatherings of people. He noted the City has not had much of
an issue with that and that the police department fairly effectively handles them.
Nielsen explained the draft noise ordinance attempts to address construction activities (the hours are
consistent with the City’s current Code), recreational vehicles, domestic power equipment (e.g., lawn
mowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, etc.), and refuse hauling (the hours are consistent with the City’s refuse
hauling ordinance). The hours for recreational vehicles and domestic power equipment are up for
discussion. He noted there is some optional language on hourly restrictions relative to residential
construction regarding hours on Sunday. Staff is waiting to hear back from the city attorney as to whether
or not the City can have different restrictions for residential than commercial construction. He explained
there is an exemption section in the draft ordinance related to emergency work. There is also an
exceptions section. He stated Staff modeled the draft ordinance to a large extent after Excelsior’s
ordinance.
In response to a question from Chair Geng, Director Nielsen stated the intent of this ordinance is to
establish noise standards where there aren’t any in the nuisance ordinance. Geng stated he thought he
heard Nielsen say the police department is comfortable with the City’s current nuisance noise ordinance
for controlling large gatherings/parties. Geng asked if this noise ordinance would be in addition to the
nuisance noise ordinance. Nielsen responded it would be in addition. Geng then asked Nielsen if he has
verified that there are not any inconsistencies between this draft ordinance and the nuisance noise
ordinance. Nielsen stated he did not think there are any inconsistencies.
Director Nielsen explained that with regard to enforcement what will likely happen is rather than the
police writing a ticket on the spot the police will provide the City with a police report on a call it made
related to noise. The City will then write a notice informing the individual of the ordinance regulations. If
the noise ordinance is violated again it can be handled through an administrative penalty. It is important
that the police have some standard to enforce.
Nielsen noted that nuisances are currently addressed in Chapter 501 in the City Code. The suggestion is to
put the draft noise ordinance into Subd. 20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Hasek stated Subd. 20(a.)(1) states for recreational vehicles “… operate any minibike,
snowmobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways.” He asked what
difference it makes if it is licensed or not. Nielsen explained this is directed for recreational vehicles
operated on private property; automobile standards are already in place. Nielsen stated he thought the
hours of operation (no operation between 9:30 P.M. and 7:30 A.M.) are too generous. Hasek agreed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 11 of 19
Hasek suggested adding an exception under application related to notification of abutting residents within
a certain number of feet of the property of origin of the noise. Council Liaison Hotvet noted the City
already has a 10:30 P.M. restriction for noise, bands and so forth. Director Nielsen stated it is part of
special event permits required for 75 or more people.
Hasek asked what a Class A offense is. Director Nielsen responded it is a penalty of $100.
Council Liaison Hotvet stated she could not recollect if any sound or environmental nuisance related
questions were asked in the relatively recent resident survey. Director Nielsen stated he did not remember
either.
Commissioner Davis stated this is based on the assumption that police respond when they are called,
noting she feels compelled to make this comment during every discussion.
Chair Geng stated he thought there would be benefit to try and have the City’s hours of operation for
recreational vehicles close to or the same as those of the neighboring communities. That could be helpful
with enforcement.
Jim Daughton, 5935 Hillendale Road, stated he likes the idea of what the Planning Commission is trying
to do. But, in his neighborhood they have a problem. He explained that his neighbor built his own off-
road track around his yard and house. The neighbor has motocross bikes and motorcycles that he jumps.
He has a side-by-side. The neighbor will ride the track for 3 – 4 hours at a time. He noted he does not
deny anyone having fun for an hour or two. But, waking up at 7:00 A.M. to that going on and on and on
gets old. He stated he and his neighbors would greatly appreciate anything that can address that issue. He
noted the neighbors have spoken with that individual but it has made no difference. He stated the
neighbor believes he has the right to do what he wants to do on his property. He then stated he and his
neighbors have had discussions with that particular neighbor about his boombox radio which that
individual will play for 2 – 3 hours. When asked to be quiet that neighbor ignores the request.
Commissioner Garelick asked Director Nielsen if that resident would be breaking any current laws.
Nielsen responded vaguely the nuisance ordinance. Unfortunately, there is no standard to apply to it.
Commissioner Davis stated in her neighborhood there has been an explosion of recreational motorized
things that children are getting. Children are riding those things on the street. She lives on the dead end of
a street and the amount of traffic from those things is like there is a racetrack. She noted Mr. Daughton is
not speaking about an isolated issue. She commented you have to have traffic control to back out of
driveways on the weekend.
Mike Pierro, 5880 Christmas Lake Road, stated depending on where a person lives there will be a need to
empathize with people who do have these problems. He noted that the person Mr. Daughton was speaking
about also has three snowmobiles. He stated if a person lives on a property that is 120 feet wide and it [the
house] only takes up 50 feet of that it that would leave 35 feet on each side. Currently when the vehicles
are being driven around the track they are right next to the neighbors. He commented that mufflers seem
to be optional. He stated no one likes government intrusion less than he does. But, if what someone is
doing is infringing on other peoples’ rights then something needs to be done. The impacted residents have
a right to be outside on their decks. He then stated he can support the 7:00 A.M. start for construction if
someone is constructing a home. There is no need to have to start a power tool such as a leaf blower at
7:00 A.M. The 8:00 P.M. finish is doable, but not preferable. It would be nice to enjoy a meal on your
deck. He commented there is a lot of remodeling going on. He questioned tying all recreational vehicles
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 12 of 19
together. He stated he can understand why there may be a desire to have the hours of operation for
snowmobiles similar to neighboring cities. He noted he has vehicles traveling as close as 30 feet from his
home, and that is different than if a person has a five-acre property. He stated he is aware that some cities
have different standards for properties that are five acres in size for example. He asked the Planning
Commission to consider those that are in the situation he and his neighbors are.
Chair Geng clarified that this is not something the Planning Commission is going to act on and
recommend to the City Council this evening. The Commission is discussing a draft ordinance and it is
making a concerted effort to recommend the right thing for the City. He explained before the Commission
would take a vote to recommend something to Council it would have to hold a public hearing on the
ordinance once it is close to being finalized. He encouraged the members of the public interested in this
ordinance to attend the public hearing. He stated the input being provided this evening is very helpful.
Debbie Rand, 5885 Hillendale Road, noted her property abuts the property being discussed. She
expressed her agreement with what Mr. Daughton and Mr. Pierro have spoken about. She stated she has
two bedrooms and a living room that are within ten feet of the track on her neighbor’s property. The
vehicles on the track are very noisy and intrusive for her. She noted that she works out of her home. She
explained there have been times when she has had to close the door and stop working because of the noise
from the motorized vehicles. She stated that she has lived in Shorewood for about 31 years. Her current
home is her third home in the City. This is the second time she has had the track issue. She explained that
in addition to having her neighbor or other residents in that home driving all of the vehicles they invite
friends from outside of the community who sometimes bring their own vehicles. At times there were eight
additional vehicles that did not belong to the neighbors on the track. She stated she understands it is
difficult to enforce, noting that she had worked for the City of Chanhassen as a community service officer
and part of her job was to enforce those types of ordinances. But, she also knows that it can be done.
Chair Geng asked Ms. Rand to explain how it can be enforced. Ms. Rand stated for her it was her job and
if she needed some extra reinforcement she would have the Sheriff’s Department come help her or get
them involved. Ms. Rand stated that in Shorewood it is a little more difficult because there are one or two
police officers on at a time and they can get tied up doing other things. When you call them they are not
always able to respond and that is understandable because of their priorities. She apologized in advance
for not knowing if the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) has a community service
officer and clarified she is not suggesting an increase to the SLMPD budget. She stated if the SLMPD is
responsible, she asked if there is a way to get them to be more responsive and come out to this
neighborhood site because it is a big problem to the residents in this neighborhood. She noted it was a big
deal in the other neighborhood she lived in.
Chair Geng stated the way the Planning Commission perceives the problem with noise for the police
department is the standard the City currently has in place is very vague. He clarified that when he asked
Ms. Rand “how” a moment ago he was really asking about the standard; a community standard. He noted
the standard is what the Commission is grappling with this evening. He thanked those people in the
audience for coming and letting the Commission know how big of an issue this is to them.
Ms. Rand stated she was responding with an assumption that the ordinance was going to be changed to be
more stringent than and not as abstract as it currently is. The ordinance needs to have some bite to it.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated that from his perspective this issue does not sound so much like the
noise ordinance as it does the nuisance ordinance. The one neighbor has a continuing disrespect for the
other neighbors.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 13 of 19
Chair Geng stated from his vantage point and a public policy standpoint one of the problems is the
SLMPD officers do not think City’s current nuisance ordinance is sufficient. There is not enough for them
to take action. He expressed concern that what is being considered this evening is good but it does not
address the particular problem the residents are presenting. Director Nielsen expressed his agreement with
that statement.
Director Nielsen stated the police have been called out to the site and have gone out there, but by the time
the officers get to the site the noise is gone. He does not know how the residents are alerted to the police
coming. It is his understanding that the police have made the attempt to deal with this. He noted the draft
noise ordinance does not get at this type of issue. He stated the issue is an activity kind of violation as
much as a noise violation. Law enforcement has gotten after the individual the residents are speaking
about this evening for a violation related to a recreational fire permit. The individual quit doing it for a
time and then started having fires that were too large and by the time the firefighters got to the site the fire
was within regulation. The individual will go from one annoyance to another to simply bother his
neighbors. He then stated he could almost guarantee that if he went to that individual’s site with the noise
meter to measure noise against MPCA standards the noise would not register on the meter.
Commissioner Davis suggested getting rid of the noise meter. She stated the neighbors need to have the
noise meter. She then stated the City gives permits for swimming pools; it wants to know how residents
put in jungle gyms, play systems, fences; it monitors how animals are taken care of; it permits raising
chickens; it monitors how stormwater is being managed; and, so forth. She asked if there is something
that could be looked into with regard to what that individual has done with his structures, grading, ramps
and things.
Director Nielsen stated the individual rides around his yard. He noted there are other places where that
same thing is done. He explained there is a one-acre property on Eureka Road where the property owner
road around in circles. He then explained the draft ordinance would get at the early morning and hours
late in the day. But, if the individual wants to ride his motorized machines for four hours during the day
the ordinance does address that.
Commissioner Davis stated she had been informed that there could not be a motorcycle race trace at
Arctic Fever because the emissions would be too high if there were over six bikes. Director Nielsen stated
he could not imagine how that could be measured.
Ms. Rand stated when she was working in Chanhassen (noting that was a number of years ago) just about
every violation of its nuisance/noise ordinance was a misdemeanor. If she wrote a citation there was a
court appearance. She clarified she is not suggesting the city clog up the court system. She stated she
thought it is imperative that there be some sort of consequence. She then stated when a person repeatedly
violates there has to be a consequence more than just asking a person to, for example, turn their music
down.
Commissioner Hasek suggested getting a copy of Chanhassen’s ordinance to see what standards it
contains. Director Nielsen stated he had previously provided the Planning Commission with a copy of
that ordinance.
Director Nielsen asked Ms. Rand if Chanhassen had a restriction or prohibition on the use of recreational
vehicles other than the noise ordinance. Ms. Rand stated she worked there 20 years ago. Ms. Rand
explained back then there was not much of a problem with recreational vehicles. There was a snowmobile
here or there. But, people did not have the volume of recreational vehicles they have today.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 14 of 19
Commissioner Davis asked Ms. Rand how big the lots are in her neighborhood. Ms. Rand stated the
troublemaker’s lot is two acres, noting it is a long strip. The properties are of different sizes. She then
stated six properties abut the troublemaker’s property. Mr. Daughton stated the long strip lot is in the
middle and all of the noise on his property is heard by the neighbors of that property, and the owner of
that property thoroughly enjoys it.
It was reiterated that the individual keeps his neighbors as prisoners in their homes.
Chair Geng stated it is his perspective that the issue being discussed is not a noise problem, while noting
that he understands that the noise must be intolerable. The primary problem is a behavioral problem. He
then stated he has no idea how to draft an ordinance to prohibit the type of activity that individual is
engaging in yet still have the ordinance be acceptable of the rest of the community. He noted he does not
think this problem can be legislated. He then noted that he does not think the Planning Commission and
City should turn their backs on the problem in that neighborhood. It needs to be addressed, and noted that
he cannot stress that strongly enough. But, he is unsure if it could be addressed with a noise ordinance. He
explained that the ordinance’s intent is to address certain rational normal behavioral activities. It is to
establish standards for the community so someone is not, for example, starting their domestic power
equipment at 6:00 A.M. on a Sunday morning. It would give police something to rely on. It is to restrict
someone from starting their equipment later in the morning. He stated there has to be some solution albeit
he does not know what it is. He then stated the Commission, City Council and City all need to be working
together to decide what can be done to address this issue.
Mr. Pierro asked where it is reasonable for something noisy like a snowmobile to be in operation after
7:00 P.M. Is it reasonable on private property next to you except when coming off a lake or coming from
ice fishing? He stated there is a trapping ordinance which prohibits a person from live trapping in the City
except if it is for nuisance animals. He asked if it is possible to craft a noise ordinance that will pinpoint
where the problem is and is not. The exception would be from a reasonable time in the morning and to a
reasonable hour in the evening. He stated he thought it would be possible to craft a noise ordinance that
would address this type of problem while allowing for things such as snowmobilers coming off of the
lake after ice fishing.
Commissioner Hasek stated that Chair Geng has been saying that the Planning Commission is not sure
how to craft such an ordinance.
Director Nielsen stated that he does think the Planning Commission and Staff can do what Mr. Pierro is
talking about in terms of confining the hours. He noted that is what all of the sample noise ordinances do.
He stated he thought the exceptions for things such as four wheelers or snowmobilers coming off of the
lake are reasonable. The problem is no matter how the hours are confined the individual being talked
about will be able to operate his motorized vehicles all of those hours.
Chair Geng reiterated this is a behavioral problem more than it is a noise problem, noting that the
individual’s behavior generates a lot of noise.
Commissioner Hasek stated that maybe it is not the level of the noise as much as the duration and
continuousness of the noise.
Chair Geng stated when the noise is confined to an area such as a yard it is almost stationary noise when
it goes on for hours.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 15 of 19
Council Liaison Hotvet asked if anyone has spoken to the police department to find out what they would
need to address this particular behavior.
Director Nielsen stated Excelsior has had good luck with its ordinance with the SLMPD. He noted the
SLMPD does not write tickets for Excelsior. The SLMPD provides Excelsior with a police report and
then Excelsior addresses the enforcement. He stated that is what is being suggested for the City as well.
He noted that currently the City has nothing; it is just a nuisance. There is no way to write a ticket for that
without a standard.
Nielsen suggested looking into that activity issue. He stated if an ordinance were written to stop the
individual being talked about no one in Shorewood would be able to do anything. He commented that the
individual does things to irritate his neighbors.
Chair Geng stated that just because it may not be able to address the issue being discussed in this noise
ordinance it does not mean that the Planning Commission does not understand the issue, or that it does
not care or that there is not something else that can be done. He expressed doubts that the ordinance is the
way to address it. He agreed with Director Nielsen’s comment that the ordinance should not be so
restrictive that the rest of the residents in the City rebel about it. He encouraged the residents to think
about this some more and come back to the Planning Commission with other ideas. He stated when he
was a first-year law student he was taught that property rights were a bundle of sticks. One of the sticks
people enjoy no matter where they live is the right to quiet enjoyment of their home. These residents’
rights are being violated and he feels strongly about that. He expressed hope that there is something the
City can do going forward.
Director Nielsen stated the draft ordinance suggests that domestic power equipment can be operated
between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 9:30 P.M. on any weekday. Commissioner Hasek stated he would be
okay with a 7:00 A.M. start time and 7:00 P.M. end time.
Mr. Daughton stated a chain saw and a wood chipper make a different amount noise than a lawnmower.
He then stated snow blowers may need to go all night to allow people to clear out their driveway. Director
Nielsen clarified the ordinance exempts snow blowers.
Chair Geng stated from his perspective a 7:00 A.M. start is too early on weekends.
Council Liaison Hotvet stated she thought a 7:00 P.M. end time on weekdays is too early. Chair Geng
agreed with that, particularly in the summer.
Director Nielsen noted that Tonka Bay’s weekday hours are from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., Chanhassen’s
and Mound’s are from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., and Deephaven’s is from 7:00 A.M. to 9:30 P.M.
Commissioner Charbonnet suggested considering a time that starts a certain amount of time after sunrise
and ends a certain amount of time after sundown.
Commissioner Hasek stated maybe the hours could vary on a schedule based on when daylight saving
time starts and ends.
Chair Geng stated the types of domestic power equipment are primarily operated in the warmer weather
months. Therefore, he does not think the winter months are a huge concern.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 16 of 19
Mr. Pierro asked what the purpose of a noise ordinance would be. He stated he assumes it would be to
allow quality of life for others around the person making the noise. With that in mind from his perspective
that answers the questions about time. He then stated he too worked 12-hours days yet he found time to
mow his lawn at night or on the weekend. He questioned the need to extend the hours of operation for that
purpose. He stated if the reason for the ordinance is to restrict the noise for neighbors he would not like
the noise at 9:00 P.M. or 9:30 P.M. There are people who go to bed at 9:00 P.M.
Chair Geng stated many people like to spend time on their decks in the evening and they may not want to
hear someone operating their power tools. It is not just a matter of sleeping.
Commissioner Hasek stated the time varies by person. Chair Geng added and by season.
Commissioner Hasek asked Director Nielsen to clarify the first paragraph of Subd. 20. Director Nielsen
read what it states which is “Noise. The purpose of this section is to protect the comfort, repose,
restrictions on the hours during which significant sources of noise may be health, peace, safety, or
welfare of city residents, and the quiet enjoyment of property within the city, by imposing reasonable used
or operated.” Nielsen stated it needs to be rewritten.
Commissioner Garelick stated the issue being discussed this evening is about behavioral problems. It is
about people who are antisocial. They disrespect the neighbors around them and seem to believe the
world revolves around them. He then stated that the previous week a friend of his was murdered while at
work by an employee who was terminated earlier in the day. He went on to state that contacting people
who are so antisocial will have to be done when police are present so things do not escalate. He noted that
he thought it prudent to be cautious when doing something to someone.
Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the necessity for operating a recreational vehicle is not the
same as either construction or operating domestic power equipment. There could be more restriction for
recreational vehicles and identify allowances for things such as vehicles leaving the ice. With regard to
domestic power it comes down to what makes the most sense for people. He indicated that he thought a
7:00 P.M. end time is too early, noting that he has mowed his lawn at 8:00 P.M. He stated he thought 9:00
P.M. would be too late to still be mowing the lawn.
Commissioner Hasek stated his neighbor will mow the lawn around 6:30 P.M. or so just when he and his
wife are sitting down on their deck to eat dinner. He noted it irritates them. He stated his neighbor has the
right to do that. He then stated there are the construction workers who are working as late as they can and
then they have to do their outside chores within restricted hours. That has to be taken into consideration.
Director Nielsen stated the hours are quite subjective. He asked what time children go to bed.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated he lives on a 78-foot-wide lot and there are people mowing lawns
around him and that does not bother him a bit. But, if someone is using a chain saw a block and a half
away it annoys him. He questioned how much noise a power hedge clipper makes. He suggested setting
certain hours from June 1 to September 15, for example.
Commissioner Davis asked the Commissioners to give their times for Monday – Friday, Saturday and
Sunday.
Commissioners Muehlberg suggested 7:30 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, and 9:00 A.M. – 8:00
P.M. Saturday and Sunday.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 17 of 19
Chair Geng stated he could live with the hours Commissioner Muehlberg suggestion.
Commissioner Hasek suggested 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, and 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.
Saturday, Sunday and holidays.
Commissioner Garelick suggested 7:30 A.M. – 7:30 P.M. every day of the week.
Commissioner Charbonnet suggested 7:30 A.M. – 9:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M.
Saturday, and 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. Sunday.
Commissioner Davis suggested 7:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Saturday, and 9:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. Sunday.
Commissioner Davis stated she does like a May – September window. Commissioner Hasek stated he
will mow as early as April.
There was Planning Commission consensus for the hours of operation for domestic power equipment to
be from 7:30 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M. Saturday, and 9:00 A.M. –
8:00 P.M. Sunday.
Director Nielsen asked if those hours would apply to recreational vehicles as well. He noted Excelsior
uses the same hours for domestic power tools and recreational vehicles. He reiterated that he thought the
exceptions for motorized vehicles coming and going off of the lake for ice fishing make sense.
Chair Geng noted there are a lot of snowmobiles coming on the islands because they are surrounded by
water. He then noted that hearing snowmobiles at 10:30 P.M. or later is intolerable. He commented that a
lot of people want to snowmobile late at night.
Geng suggested 7:30 A.M. – 9:30 P.M. for recreational vehicles. He commented he did not think
Shorewood is going to regulate snowmobile use on the lake, noting Shorewood is one of many
communities around Lake Minnetonka. And, snowmobilers have to get to and from a lake. Mr. Pierro
commented not legally. Geng stated he thought if snowmobiles are cut off too early in the evening it
would create an enforcement problem. There aren’t a lot of police resources in this community. Geng
noted that he is philosophically opposed to legislation that breeds contempt and that people are not going
to observe.
Director Nielsen suggested reviewing the City’s snowmobile ordinance because he thought it talks about
using the roads to get to and from a lake or to and from a trail. If that language is incorporated in the
ordinance it would say a snowmobile could get to and from the lake and there would be no harm. But, if
they were running circles in their yard it would not be allowed outside of the hours of operation that
would not be allowed because they are not on the way to the lake. He will assess incorporating that
provision into the ordinance.
Chair Geng suggested that language be for all recreational vehicles.
Director Nielsen noted that he thinks 9:30 P.M. is pretty late to be running a snowmobile around in
circles on private property.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated snowmobiles can be on Lake Minnetonka all night.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 18 of 19
Director Nielsen stated he will review the snowmobile ordinance to see what language can be
incorporated into the noise ordinance to help with the hour restrictions.
Chair Geng recommended there be exceptions for emergency reasons and bad storms. When power lines
and/or trees are down snowmobiles are the only way people can get off the islands.
Director Nielsen stated that earlier he stated this ordinance would become part of the Zoning Ordinance.
That is incorrect. It will be added as Subdivision 20 to Chapter 501.05 Nuisances Affecting Peace and
Safety.
Discussion returned to Item 3 on the agenda.
Zoning Permits
This was not discussed.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This was discussed after Item 3 on the agenda.
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business for discussion.
7. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Garelick expressed his thanks to the sixteen members of the Excelsior Fire District (EFD)
who came to help the residents at Shorewood Ponds ensure their smoke detectors were in working order.
They also handed out brochures to people on how to protect themselves.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there will be a minor subdivision and more discussion about the noise issue on the
November 20, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda.
9. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
None.
• SLUC
None.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 2, 2012
Page 19 of 19
• Other
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 2,
2012, at 10:01 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 16 November 2012
RE: Reconsideration — Zoning Permits
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
Earlier this year the City Council agreed to reconsider an ordinance establishing zoning permits for
various activities, not currently covered by building permits. The original recommendation (see 24
April 2012 memorandum attached) included a relatively short list of items that would be addressed
by the amendment. In its discussion, the Council asked the Planning Commission to consider other
activities that might be included also. Staff suggested using the General Provisions section of the
Code as a menu of potential items for consideration. This "menu" will be discussed on Tuesday
night as we formulate a list to present back to the Council before conducting a new public hearing
on the draft ordinance.
The minutes of the 11 June joint Planning Commission/Council meeting are attached for your
review also.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Scott Zerby
®�
�` ®�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® Sf OREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -£3927 • (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 m www.d.shorewood.mn.us a dtyha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us
IfflymuTre ►�:��� 1 '3I
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 24 April 2012
RE: Reconsideration — Zoning Permits
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
Early in 2010, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the Zoning Code that would
establish a system of "zoning permits" (see attached staff report, dated 25 February 2010 —
Attachment I). The proposal was recommended to the City Council on a 4 -2 split vote (see
Planning Commission minutes, dated 2 March 2010 and 6 April 2010 — Attachment II and III,
respectively). The draft ordinance considered at the public hearing is attached as Attachment IV.
The matter was considered by the Council at its 26 April 2010 meeting (see minutes — Attachment
V). As you can see the amendment died for lack of a motion.
In preparing this year's work program, members of the Planning Commission asked that this matter
be brought up for reconsideration. It is scheduled for the 1 May 2012 meeting. For what it is
worth, staff continues to believe that this would be a valuable tool for enforcing the City's Zoning
Code.
Cc: Larry Brown
Tim Keane
If*
f ®1 { PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
ITT OF
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, (MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 25 February 2010
RE: Zoning Code — Zoning Permits
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
One of the items on the 2010 Work Program is consideration of an amendment to the
Shorewood Zoning Code, which would establish a system of zoning permits for
activities that are not addressed by the State Building Code. For example, the City
has requirements relative to decks and patios that, if less than 30 inches in height, are
not covered by the Building Code. The City's main concern has to do with location
and hardcover vs. the standard of construction. When a property owner inquires
about permit requirements we simply advise them that no pen is required, but the
feature in question must meet zoning requirements. Without a permit process there is
no way to monitor the activity for compliance. Further, when some owners find out
that no permit required, they also assume no rules apply.
Many cities have adopted systems of zoning permits to address such activities.
Nowhere is it better explained than in a brochure published by the City of Chanhassen
(see Exhibit A, attached). Not only does this explain the City's reason for requiring
the permit, but they explain the advantage to the homeowner of having a record of the
approved activity on file with the City.
Building Inspection and P1am ing staff have assembled a list of projects that would
require a zoning permit in Shorewood:
• Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area*
• Fences
• Driveways
• Temporary signs
• Sport and tennis courts
ATTACHMENT I
®%
f . J * PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Permits
25 February 2010
0 Patios and sidewalks
• Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a
building permit is required for grading)
• Above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable
appliances
*Staff also proposes that the City's requirement for small sheds be made
consistent with the State Building Code. Currently, if a shed is less than 100
square feet in area, it does not require a building permit. The Building Code
allows sheds less than 120 square feet without a permit. Our suggestion is that a
zoning permit would be required for sheds less than 120 square feet in area.
Use of a zoning permit process also helps to minimize confusion. When a building
permit process is used for zoning matters, there is some assumption that there is a
provision in the Building Code relative to the activity. The zoning permit would
point people in the right direction — the Zoning Code.
It is recommended that Section 1201.07 of the Shorewood City Code be amended to
read: "ADMINISTRATION: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; ZONING
PERMITS " , with the items listed above as being subject to the permit process.
With respect to fees, staff suggests that the charge for zoning permits be kept
minimal. Currently, we charge $20 for fence and sign permits, and that is what is
suggested for a zoning permit. This basically covers some minimal paperwork and
one inspection.
This item will be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 2
March 2010. If the Plamling Commission is in agreement with staff a public hearing
will be scheduled for 6 April 2010.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Brian Heck
Mary Tietj en
Joe Pazandak
Patti Helgesen
-2-
Exhibit A
>
*.a
0
Ln
a)
a)
E
CD
-C
c 0
Lm
E cj
M
L-
cu
L _3
co
.0 C:)
co
\�
\
^�
G
a)
0
� �
��
�:
CL
(D
C\
- E LO
0')
S-
N
U)
0)
CN
U-)
0)
Room
z
CL
LIJ
Exhibit A
>
LO E
Ln
0
z
CD
-C
c 0
cl)
0
CD
G
Exhibit A
CIO
w
0
(D
cu r
m
0
co
0 -
W
>
S O
E 0 C)
CL
o
0 C
CL
E
•
in
14-
0
CT5
o)
•
CL
cn
0
DL
Co
-0 u)
c
a> .—
L) -C •
C
(D
La
L o
(3)
cu
•
z
U) N
cn
ca.
0
m cz
C)
>
N
0
"
M
-4—
>, (1)
•
u
a)
E
0)
M L)
E
cn
=
0
L) - 0
0
M
o
m
o
ca,%EEW-C
Lo
7 0
U) U)
- 0
0
M U3
in
•
U
a)
E
0
(D
La
(D
cu r
m
W
>
S O
E 0 C)
CL
o
0 C
CL
E
•
in
o
c)
a a)
CT5
o)
•
CL
C:
a)
>
0
Co
-0 u)
c
a> .—
L) -C •
M
CL
La
L o
0
L)
z
U) N
cn
ca.
0
(D
C)
•
•
m
W
>
cn
E
o
CL
CT5
w
C
a)
Co
C)
tjj
-.cm
fr%
CL
U) N
cn
C3
CL
(D
.0
N
0
a)
L- (n
C 7:�
—6
Co
M L)
E
=
cc C) M
0
= .�;
m
Lo
7 0
U) U)
- 0
M
0
(n
W
0 =
O a)
cn
U)
La
O
L)
(D
V5
M
47 0
CL
(n
-0
0
C:
cu
3:
E
-
-#.-
CM
cu
> 0
<
0
cz
C:
L)
0
0
U)
0 -0
-
cn
FU
-C:
0
UA a) E
E
0
0 -
M
O
CL
0
D-
0
cr-
CD
<
0
(n
DL
Z <
•
•
m
W
>
cn
E
o
CL
w
C
a)
Co
tjj
-.cm
fr%
m
m
CL
(D
a)
0
Co
•
•
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
). .. y
TUESDAY,
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Hasek, Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett, and Davis; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 16, 2010
Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 16, 2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1 ( Vilett abstained).
1. ZONING PERMITS
Director Nielsen explained that there are a number of activities, such as driveways, patios, temporary
signs, etc. that are not covered by the Building Code, or are inappropriately handled by Building Permit.
These activities are however regulated by the Zoning Code. hn an effort to ensure these regulations are
followed, it is being recommended that a system of Zoning Permits be established.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hutchins regarding fences and docks, Nielsen said that only
fences that are six feet or higher are covered by the Building Code, whereas zoning regulations apply to
all fences. The issue of docks was studied just a few years ago when it was decided not to require permits
for them as they are also regulated by the LMCD.
Director Nielsen said currently sheds under 100 square feet or less do not require a permit. Therefore,
they would become subject to a Zoning Permit. Furthermore, the code should be amended so that it refers
to sheds 120 square feet or less, making it consistent with the Building Code. Commissioner Arnst asked
if the plastic or canvas "garages" are regulated. Nielsen said they are subject to the same rules as sheds or
other buildings, and any violation of the rules is subject to enforcement on a complaint- basis. Chair Geng
suggested having something on the City website informing people about the requirements for these
canvas structures.
Commissioner Hasek said lie thought the $20 fee is too low and suggested it be at least $30. Nielsen said
he hadn't suggested raising the fee because he didn't want it to become a deterrent. Arnst said she
thought it should be based on actual cost to some degree. Nielsen said he would find out what the loaded
labor rate is for the Building Inspector and report that information at the next meeting on March 16`
along with a draft ordinance for review. ATTACHMENT II
Director Nielsen stated that, as suggested at January's training seminar, the rules, or by -laws, of the
Planning Commission should be reviewed annually to ensure they are up to date. He provided a model
ordinance published by the League of Minnesota Cities for review. He said the main item that stands out
to hire is that Shorewood's rules, as contained in Chapter 201 of the City Code, does not have a residency
requirement for Planning Commission membership.
Chair Geng suggested that the Code state that the Commission's Liaisons interact with the other
Commissions on an as- needed basis, which would reflect what they actually do.
The Commissioners discussed the merits of the model ordinance, deciding to incorporate some of its
subsections into the current Chapter 201 of the City Code. A draft amendment of the Chapter will be
reviewed at the next meeting on March 16"'.
3. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen shared his thoughts regarding the advantages of a unified approach rather than a piece-
meal form of development of the Smithtown Crossing area parcels. He said it may be helpful to have the
benefits laid out when presenting the concept for the area to landowners. The unified approach would
maximize exposure to County Road 19; maximize the view of Gideon Glen; allow drainage to be more
efficient and less expensive; be developed as a P.U.D. which would allow flexibility with setbacks;
parking could be shared; hardcover would be less restricted; access could be consolidated; more
pedestrian - friendly; businesses would be better identified; City assistance could be available via T.I.F.
and other incentives. These benefits would generally not be available with a piecemeal approach.
Nielsen presented a slide show of photographs of commercial business buildings which contain certain
elements that create residential character to various degrees.
Commissioner Ruoff inquired about the plan for the southeast quadrant and landscaping requirements.
Nielsen responded that it has its own set of issues, so the focus has been on the northwest quadrant for the
time being. As for landscaping, he said from the LRT Trail crossing to the north, and all the way to
Excelsior, commercial properties shall be landscaped consistent with the Co. Rd. 19 Corridor Study.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Arnst distributed a handout containing examples of sustainability. Commissioner Hasek
requested that the Work Program schedule be adjusted to allow discussion of sustainability throughout the
year and to be a common thread in all topics of discussion.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The March 16, 2010 Agenda will include review of draft Ordinance amendments regarding Zoning
Permits and By -laws; appointment of a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2010; determine Liaisons to Council for
remainder of the year; continued discussion of Smithtown Crossing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 April 2010
Page 2 of 4
the same criteria and is subject to other restrictions as outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010.
The applicant's lot does meet the criteria required by the Code, and the proposed house will conform with
the R- I A District setbacks.
Tom Vehmer, the applicant's contractor, said that they would like to keep the existing garage for storage
as it is currently being used and, if necessary, tear it down after the house is constructed. He said the
applicant would also like to keep the deck and shed by the lake if there is any way to do so.
Mary Edwards, property owner, reiterated that she would like to keep the garage and shed. She said there
is a motorized ramp for getting down to the lakeshore which ends at the deck and shed area and her
elderly mother couldn't get down to the lake any other way.
Commissioner Vilett asked if the nonconforming structures would have to be removed if this were a
remodel rather than a rebuild. Director Nielsen responded that if just a portion of the house were being
replaced through remodeling, and the replacement represented 50 percent or more of its value, the same
conditions would apply. The same rule applies if an addition to a house equals 50 percent or more of
increase in gross floor area. Nielsen pointed out that the ramp and stairs are permitted to remain,
including a landing area near the lake up to 4 by 8 feet in size. The only option for keeping the
nonconforming structures is to apply for a variance and demonstrate a hardship.
Commissioner Arnst asked if the garage could remain during construction. Nielsen said the practice has
been to allow that and require an escrow deposit to ensure its removal after construction is complete.
Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M.
Commissioner Hasek asked if it was clear where the bluff is located on the lot because it appears that the
house could be moved closer toward the lake which would allow for a deeper garage to compensate for
storage space lost with the garage removal. Nielsen said the bluff line is very distinct at the site, but it's
possible that there is room to shift the house location.
Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to
the recommendations outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010, and to recommend that the
existing garage be allowed to remain on the site during construction and removed no later than two
weeks after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CODE AMENDMENT FOR ZONING PERMITS
Director Nielsen said, as has been discussed at previous meetings, a system of Zoning Permits is proposed
to require a permit for activities that are not adequately covered by the State Building Code, but are
regulated by the Zoning Code. He said he plans to prepare a brochure for Zoning Permits as a means of
information and education about the requirements.
Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, to recommend approval of the Code Amendment for the
establishment of a system of Zoning Permits.
Commissioner Davis commented that, as a homeowner, she thought this amendment was a form of
micromanagement. Commissioner Arnst agreed. The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons
of the proposed code.
Motion passed 4/2 (Davis and Arnst opposed). ATTACHMENT III
r
LL
' ; c
CITY OF
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 m (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us a cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 11 March 2010
RE: Zoning Permits — Preliminary Draft
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
Attached is a preliminary draft of the language establishing zoning permits for
activities that do not require building permits, but for which the City desires to
monitor. As always, deletions to the existing text are shown with str keoHts and
additions are shown in red.
Relative to the Planning Commission's concern about what fee to charge, we found
that the Building Official's loaded labor rate is approximately $45 per hour. Based on
roughly one half hour of administrative /inspection time, we are suggesting a minimal
fee of $25 ($20 had previously been suggested).
The amendment will be scheduled for a public hearing on 6 April.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Brian Heck
Mary Tieta en
Patti Helgesen
Joe Pazandak
ATTACHMENT IV
� ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Subd. 1. Certificate of occupancy.
a. No building or structure hereafter erected or moved, or that portion of an
existing structure or building erected or moved, shall be occupied or used
in whole or in part for any purpose whatsoever until a certificate of
occupancy shall have been issued by the Building Official stating that the
building or structure complies with all of the provisions within this
chapter.
S ubEl. 2. b. The certificate shall be applied for coincidentally with the application for a
building permit, conditional use permit and /or variance and shall be issued
within ten days after the Building Official shall have found the building or
structure satisfactory and given final inspection. The application shall be
accompanied by a fee as established by City Council resolution.
Subd. 2. Zoning Permits.
a. A zoning permit shall be required for activities that do not require building
permits but for which it is necessary to determine compliance with zoning
requirements such as setbacks, impervious surface coverage, structure
height, etc.:
(1) Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in area.
(2) Fences.
(3) Driveways.
(4) Temporary signs.
(5) Sport and tennis courts.
(6) Patios and sidewalks.
(7) Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required
when a building permit is required for grading).
(8) Above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including
portable appliances.
(1987 Code, 1201.07)
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 26, 2010
Page 7 of 14
Councilmember Bailey stated he would be opposed to changing the language to include a "for cause"
provision. Just cause provisions are needed for termination of people employed by the City whose
livelihood is dependant on Council's rationale actions. He did not think that was needed for volunteer
commissioners. He agreed that Council should be able to remove a commissioner from their position
without just cause. He noted he would not take such a decision lightly, and he couldn't imagine a
situation in which he would make such a decision. Nevertheless, he did think councils should have the
right to do that.
Bailey then stated he did not think that the reference to the Planning Commission Chair excusing
absences needed to be added back to Councils revised Section 201.05 Attendance. He reiterated a
statement he made during Council's April 12 meeting that he thought the bar was set low when requiring
50 percent attendance at the Commission's meetings. Councilmember Turgeon stated with regard to the
statement "In addition, failure to attend four - consecutive regular meetings without the excuse of the Chair
of the Planning Commission shall be considered as formal notice of resignation" the Planning
Commission thought Council should consider removing "without the excuse of the Chair of the Planning
Commission ". Bailey stated he did not think there was inconsistency. He could envision a commissioner
missing four consecutive meetings, for example due to an illness, and the chair excusing that absence.
Mayor Lizee and Councilmembers Bailey and Zerby thought that decision should be left up to the Chair.
Lizee thought it would be common courtesy for a commissioner to let the chair know of an extended
absence. Turgeon thought it should be up to the entire Commission to decide to excuse an extended
absence.
Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 466 "An Ordinance Amending
the Shorewood City Code to Replace Existing Chapter 201 in its Entirety with a Revised Chapter
201 (Planning Commission)" as included in the meeting packet for this meeting, and Adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 10 -020 "A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 466 by Title
and Summary."
Councilmember Turgeon stated if Council accepts the by -laws for the Planning Commission then she
recommended the by -laws for the Park Commission be consistent with the Planning Commission by-
laws.
Motion passed 4/1 with Turgeon dissenting.
Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to review the by -laws for the Park Commission
and to draft language to conform with the language in the by -laws for the Planning Commission,
and to route the draft amendment to the Park Commission for comment. Motion passed 5/0.
C. City Code Amendment — Establishing Zoning Permits
Director Nielsen stated Staff has recommended an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code
establishing a system of zoning permits where the use of building permits is not appropriate. Staff
proposes that the following types of projects require a zoning permit in the City: accessory buildings less
than 120 square feet in floor area; fences (if a fence is not over 6 feet the Building Code doesn't address
it); driveways; temporary signs; sport and tennis courts; patios and sidewalks; retaining walls higher than
three feet; and, above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable appliances.
Without a permit process, there is no way to monitor these activities for compliance. Nielsen noted the
Planning Commission voted on a 4/2 vote to recommend the Zoning Code amendment for zoning
permits.
ATTACHMENT V
CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 26, 2010
Page 8 of 14
Councihnember Bailey asked if the zoning permit for driveways is only for new driveways. Director
Nielsen responded it would include replacement driveways as well. He explained if the driveway was too
close to a lot line it may have to be moved.
Councihnember Woodruff stated it's his understanding that the two Planning Commissioners who
dissented on recommending the amendment expressed concern about "creeping big government ". He
indicated he could appreciate their perspective. He questioned how effective the City could be in getting
residents to comply with the zoning permit process. With regard to a zoning permit for temporary signs,
he asked if a resident would have to act a permit to put up a garage sale sign. Director Nielsen stated
garage sale signs are exempt provided a resident doesn't have more than four sales in a year. Woodruff
stated he would be more comfortable if temporary signs were not included in the list for zoning permits
because everything else on the list is permanent structure. Nielsen stated currently a building permit
application is required for temporary signs, but Staff believes that is the wrong application to make.
Councilmember Zerby stated he agreed with Councihnember Woodruff s comment regarding the size of
government and the burden it places on the City. He questioned how this could be enforced. He stated the
$20 permit fee would not cover Staff's time. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission
recommended the fee be raised to $25. Zerby stated he is not in favor of this zoning permit process.
Councilmember Turgeon stated the two Planning Commissioners who dissented thought this would be
rnicromanaging residents. Part of the dissention was about the items listed was not all inclusive. Things
such big play areas are not covered. She expressed that she personally doesn't have an issue with
including driveways. She stated the current Building Code states sheds less than 100 square feet do not
require a zoning permit, yet the State's requirement is for sheds under 120 square feet. Director Nielsen
stated the entire proposed list is more restrictive than the State's.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she doesn't agree with a lot that is on the list. She then stated it appears
this system for zoning permits will ensure people don't encroach on another person's property. This
process lets residents know there are rules that must be adhered to. Councilmember Zerby stated there are
rules in place today. Director Nielsen stated the rules that pertain to the list of items are already in
existence; what's missing is a permit requirement.
This item died for lack of a motion.
ftoommm"
9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Bituminous Seal Coating of Street in 2010
Engineer Landini read the list of 38 roadways scheduled for bituminous seal coating in 2010. He noted
there is $214,400 bud for this effort. The bid opening is scheduled for Wednesday May 19, 2010, at
10:00 A.M.
Landini explained the resolution included in the meeting packet states the advertisement for bids will be
inserted in the Construction Bulletin. Unfortunately, the City received notice on April 22, 2010, that the
Construction Bulletin is no longer advertising. If approved, the resolution will be rectified to specify
where the advertisement for bids will be published.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 10 -019 "A Resolution Approving
Specifications and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bide for Bituminous Seal Coat
CITE' OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF HE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 11, 2012
Page 3 of 7
Commissioner Hutchins stated this draft of the Report includes a lot of comments from residents. He then
stated he thought it important to include text explaining the Concept Sketch. He noted a concept plan is
one example of what it could be.
Councilmember Zerby thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for the efforts that went into
conducting the Study and preparing the Report. He noted that his property is located close to the Study
Area so he has a personal as well as professional interest in this.
Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission wants to have the task of potentially amending
the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits put back on its 2012 work program. Early in 2010 the
Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. The Commission recommended approval of
such an amendment on a 5/2 vote. The permits would be for a small list of items. Things not covered
under the Building Code that are provided for in the Zoning Code but do not have any permit process
associated with them. He noted the City has a permit for signs. He stated there have been instances that
arose over the years where if the residents knew what the rules were, problems encountered when
building without a building permit could have been avoided.
Nielsen then explained the most significant thing that would be addressed with a zoning permit would be
driveways. People may install driveways that are wider or closer to the property line than the City's
Ordinance allows or they may seriously violate the hardcover restrictions. He cited an example of such a
problem. Within two weeks of Council not taking action on the Commission's recommendation to
establish zoning permits during Council's April 26, 2010, meeting the City received a call from a
property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be constructed. It is five feet. That
individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to their property which they
had.
Another item that would be addressed would be patios. He cited another example. An individual was
going to do work on his property. Staff checked the property file and found out that a couple of years
before that the then property owner was required to remove some hardcover in order to get a permit for
something they wanted to do. That individual removed a ground level deck to reduce his hardcover area.
Unfortunately, after that the property owner put is a ground cover patio. The current owner now has
hardcover issues. When residents call the City and ask if a permit is needed for things such as driveways,
patios and smaller sheds (sheds less than 120 square feet in area) Staff explains a permit is not required
but the City does have zoning requirements.
Nielsen related that Councilmember Hotvet, as liaison to the Planning Commission, had suggested Staff
research what other cities do with regard to these types of things. Staff found out few cities have zoning
permits. But, many cities require permits for things such as driveways, fences, and smaller sheds. They
just don't call them zoning permits.
Nielsen stated that in the past Staff has suggested that zoning permits would be a valuable tool, and he
thought the Planning Commission shares that perspective. He explained the City of Chanhassen put
together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one.
That is not only of benefit to that City but of benefit to the residents. He then stated it gets very messy for
the second and third owner of a property who inherit a violation to correct it. He explained that if the
codes are not enforced uniformly it ends up punishing those individuals who follow the rules.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CI'T'Y COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 11, 2012
Page 4 n17
Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission wants to know if Council is receptive to the idea of zoning
permits before it holds a public hearing on this topic.
Commissioner Hasek stated that from his perspective zoning permits would be extremely beneficial just
to protect all property owners in the City. He expressed that he did not think it is appropriate to expect
the residents to monitor what goes on with development or properties adjacent to their property. He cited
his personal example where a neighbor, who did have at least a survey sketch, built a fence where the
fence in the back was on the neighbor's property and the front was on Hasek's property. If that had been
surveyed and a permit required that would likely not have happened. He noted that he has not called the
neighbor on it, but it could become an issue if /when one of them sells their property.
Chair Geng stated his support for it is very similar. He cited his personal example. When he and his wife
purchased their home 12 years ago they had a survey done a few months later. The survey revealed that
the previous owner had built a large, stone retaining wall on the neighbor's property. They drew up a
document that was recorded with Hennepin County making it clear that they did not want to take the
neighbor's property through adverse possession. He stated he did not think the City is doing a service to
its residents by requiring residents to police each other. He noted that he is sensitive that this could be
considered a "big brother" type of thing. That the City is getting too intrusive. He stated he has no desire
for a large, intrusive government. He did think the City should promote some degree of uniformity, and
remove this aspect of favoritism. He clarified he did not think the zoning permits have to be expensive.
He thought it would help people get along.
Commissioner Davis stated she agrees some things need to be managed, and she cautioned against
micromanaging things. She noted that she will be wary with her vote. She stated she thought the permits
need to be low cost to get residents to comply.
Commissioner Hutchins stated much of what comes up are boundary issues. He cited a personal example.
He applied for and got a permit to put up a two -rail fence. The survey discovered that on one side of his
property the neighbor had installed their irrigation system on his property. On the other side that neighbor
installed their invisible fence on his property. He noted that he had a boundary survey done to identify
where the stakes are; not a full blown survey. He stated boundary issues cause problems for neighbors.
Some of the emotion can be eliminated through the permitting process. He noted he thought the cost for a
permit should be minimal. When the Planning Commission discussed this the last time it thought $25
would be a reasonable fee. He stated a boundary survey costs $300 — $500.
Councilmember I- Iotvet stated she supports revisiting this topic because she was not on the Council the
last time it carne up for consideration. She then stated that when she and her family moved into the City
12 years ago they had no idea what the rules and regulations were. Having a check list clarifies things for
residents. She went on to state that Shorewood is an older community. People are renovating things. It is
different when compared to a relatively new, developing community.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the City in general has colossal boundary issues. She cited the
example where the American Legion hired a licensed surveyor to do a full blown survey. Hennepin
County was involved. Yet, to this day it is unclear what the boundaries are. She commented that most
property owners in the City have pencil -drawn surveys.
Councilmember Siakel stated that "Minnesota nice" goes away when issues with property lines arise. She
commented that it is never a problem until a property owner decides to sell. She stated that she agrees
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSI ®N
June 11, 2012
Page 5 of 7
that tightening up the process would be helpful. She then stated that process needs to be easy and cost
effective. It should not be an arduous task.
Councilmember Zerby asked how to go about determining which items should require a zoning permit.
For example, a large playground system is not on the list. He questioned if that is because it is technically
considered a movable system. He stated some of those types of systems are too large to move. He
commented that there was discussion about irrigation systems, yet there is nothing on the zoning permit
list that is below ground. He stated that some property owners put pipes below ground to get the drainage
to the road. He asked where the line should be drawn for requiring zoning permits. He stated the
boundary issues are the biggest thing. He questioned if it may be best to just consider those things that
are within ten feet of the property line. He stated he would Like to have it in a simpler context.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission came up with a list of things that could be included. He
suggested shortening the list if Council thinks the list is too picky. He stated signs are already covered
and real estate signs are allowed as long as they meet the rules. Temporary signs are handled through an
administrative process. Things that are hard to correct, such as driveways, should be covered by zoning
permits. He stated that establishing zoning permits is not a panacea. But, he thought it would go a long
way toward eliminating problems.
Councilmember Zerby stated if a fence is constructed over the property line he asked what the corrective
measure would be. Director Nielsen stated it would have to be moved. Zerby stated if a permit is required
and it is constructed over the property line he asked what the recourse would be. Nielsen stated it would
have to be moved. He noted that before the fence is constructed there would be an inspection to assess
that it would be constructed in the correct spot. He stated that at least this way the current owner would
be the person dealing with the issue.
Zerby stated that from his vantage point the zoning permit process would be more educational then
anything. Director Nielsen stated that is largely true. Nielsen noted that when an applicant picks up a
permit there is a handout that goes with it.
Councilmember Siakel asked Director Nielsen what items are being proposed for a zoning permit.
Director Nielsen stated it could be as minimal as driveways, patios, ground level decks, and small sheds.
Nielsen commented that could be determined based on input received during a public hearing.
Councilmember Zerby cited a personal example where his neighbor planted trees along the property line
and now that the trees have grown there is a lot of overhang over his property. He stated he would
consider a lot of items to be included on the list.
Commissioner Hasek stated there is someone in his neighborhood who installed a play structure that is
right outside of another neighbor's window. He asked if there are items that should be included on the
list that have not been considered yet.
Councilmember Woodruff stated he is troubled by what is on the list of items the Planning Commission
proposed for zoning permits the last time it considered this item. And, there may be some items that
should be included on the list that are not currently on it. He suggested the Commission review the list
and determine if the items on the list will accomplish what the Commission wants zoning permits to
accomplish. He commented that for him there is no difference between a large play structure and a tennis
court. He cited an old example of the location of a garage on a former resident's property. The comment
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 11, 2012
Page 6 of 7
on the location of a garage was a person does not own the view. If a person wants to own the view then
they should buy the property next to theirs. He stated caution should be exercised when trying to regulate
where residents locate things on their property. The then provided an example where there is a 10 -foot by
20 -foot garden in a middle of the property and the person wants to put chicken wire around it. He asked
if that would require a zoning permit for a fence should zoning permits come to fruition.
Director Nielsen explained that one of the items on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is to
review the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Code. That is where most of the items
recommended for zoning permits are found in the code. Each of the items in the General Provisions could
be assessed as to whether or not it should require a zoning permit as part of that review process.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that based on the list a permit would not be required to install a
basketball hoop pole on their driveway. Yet, that could encroach on the neighbor's property. He stated
there needs to be careful thought given to what items are proposed for requiring zoning permits.
Mayor Lizee asked if the zoning permit process is working for Chanhassen. Director Nielsen noted that
Staff has not spoken with representatives at Chanhassen since this was considered the last time. Nielsen
stated he will follow up with them. He then stated he thought the Cities of Eagan and Edina both have
good programs.
Mayor Lizee stated that part of the older discussion was about play structures. A few years ago there was
also discussion about skate board ramps being built in front of a property owner's house. The ramp didn't
bother the owners but the neighbors had to live with seeing it.
Director Nielsen stated play structures were taken off the list because they are considered somewhat
temporary.
Commissioner Davis stated there is the question of how safely a play structure is installed.
Commissioner Hasek asked if there is any liability for the City if it were to permit a play structure. Is the
City actually implying that it is safe? Director Nielsen explained this code would not be warranting the
construction of any of the items on a zoning permit list. There is no standard in the Building Code for
them.
Councilmember Siakel asked how the Planning Commission came up with the list of eight items it
proposed require zoning permits when this was last discussed. Director Nielsen explained it was based on
the City's history and experiences as well as Chanhassen's program. Nielsen stated that invisible fences
notoriously go over a property line.
Commissioner Davis stated that when her family installed their invisible fence 25 years ago they were
told they didn't need a permit and to put the fence where they think it needed to be located. It is located
in the right of way.
Councilmember Siakel stated she would like the Planning Commission to draft of list of what it thinks
should require zoning permits. Director Nielsen reiterated the best way to do it is to consider each of the
items in the General Provisions of the Zoning Code as to whether or not they warrant requiring a zoning
permit.
Smithtown Trail (West) Open House
November 15, 2012
RESIDENT COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
C: I completely concur with the Trail Plan, and completely agree with the need for a trail to the school. This
important segment should be completed as soon as is possible. I also feel this trail should continue to the
intersection with Co. Rd. 19 as an eastern connection to the school, and should also be installed as soon as
possible.
Q: Is the proposed trail cross section the safest and least costly possible?
Will other important linkages be installed at no cost to residents as well?
C: 1) Would be safer. 2) Would feel more of a community. 3) Kids could walk to school and be healthier. 4) The
community would be more of a destination for families and property values could increase. 5) One day we could
walk/bike/etc. to redesigned County Rd. 19 corner and local services. 6) We live on Smithtown and Wedgewood,
you can put a trail across our property/city r.o.w.
C: I absolutely love the idea! We would use this sidewalk often. As the road is, I consider it dangerous for my
children to walk along Smithtown Road which would connect them to their friends’ houses, schools and parks.
Provide safe place for people to walk their pets. Thank you for starting this project!
C: Do it! Make it work. Be creative! Be brave! Every year you wait adds to the cost. It’s about livability and
sustainability.
C: Would LOVE to see comprehensive trail system through Shorewood. Surrounding communities (Chan) seem
WAY ahead. Trails offer safe recreation opportunities for all residents.
Q: Will homeowners be compensated for landscaping/tree replacement? Any assessments? Other costs to residents
on trail and/or residents throughout city?
C: Thank you for all of your hard work and consideration of this project! I feel strongly that having a sidewalk along
Smithtown is a necessity. It will improve access to the school and offer a safe route for pedestrians and bikers. I
would also like to see a safe crossing over Co. Rd. 19 at the trail. We need to improve the intersection of
Smithtown and Co. Rd. 19. Having a pedestrian friendly community will improve our lifestyles and the lifestyles
of our children. This will make our community a desirable place to live.
C: Try and keep as many trees as possible. Smaller width, winding path is fine. Whatever side is fine, even if you
have to switch sides is fine. Hope you can get it down to Eureka/LRT! We are completely in favor of the trail.
YES PLEASE.
Q: How soon can it be done – before my kids are in college?
C: First of all, I support this trail, just feel you should be reconsidering what side of the road you build it on. Please
consider utilizing the north side of Smithtown for the following reasons:
– Powerlines run primarily on the north side of road so homeowners do not have vegetative screening to lose as
many homeowners do on south side of road.
– Northside will be a safer trail in winter because it will get more sunlight than on the south side of road, resulting
in less ice.
Q: – I understand you will replant some trees, but will you reimburse homeowners for diminished property value
after losing their screening when trees are lost?
– Even if trees are not removed for trail construction, cutting down 18” for trail construction will result in tree loss
due to root interference, how long will you remove trees and replace after the trail is constructed?
– What is the cost of construction for both sides of the road?
Smithtown Trail (West) Open House
RESIDENT COMMENTS
Page 2 of 5
C: A welcome addition to our area’s sidewalks and paths. Good for the safety of our citizens.
C: Absolutely needed! Long overdue.. We need a safe way to walk on our Shorewood streets especially near the
school. I would love to see the sidewalk set in about 10 feet with a grass area between sidewalk and road.
C: I/we agree with the implementation of Phase I – Smithtown Road to school. I am however concerned with the
cost and fluidity of the expansion plan beyond Phase I. It is difficult to give support to additional phases that are
yet defined by fact/cost/necessity. I do not think for instance the Howard’s Point loop is in desperate need of
sidewalk. Perhaps a slight road-extension (in width) would be a better alternative for non-through streets.
Q: Suggest a unified FAQ posted on the website:
1) Where is the funding coming from?
2) How much will it cost/any additional costs?
3) Define the scope of Phase I, II, III, costs, implementation dates, decision making process (e.g. council vote).
4) Background should be provided on the “why”, including safety studies, etc…
C: I agree with Smithtown Road for needed safety and Strawberry Lane for elementary school kids safety to and
from school and to access Hwy 7 trail and Minnewashta Parkway trail to Arboratum. No need for Howard’s
Point loop.
Q: Are taxes increasing for year-round maintenance?
Q: > What is the liability for homeowners if trail is in front of their yard?
> Who will clear trails of snow?
> No plans to switch to north side?
C: This City of Shorewood proposed walking/bike trail is misleading. Clearly it is NOT simply a “walking trail”. It
will be used by bikes and city leaders must accept the fact that bike use on part of the city’s streets create the
responsibility for the city to follow federal “Traffic Controls for Bicycle Facilities” as mandated in the
“Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices”. For city leaders not to require known established
bicycle signage and marking controls on the walking/bike path and to overlook safety concerns on city streets that
add bike paths then this foolish thinking shall place the city in a legally indefensible position when future injury
and death lawsuits are brought. In short, the city must accept the responsibility to acknowledge the trail will be
used by bikes; therefore, the city must adopt all state mandated bike safety signage and road marking
requirements.
C: The proposed Shorewood “walking trail” is a nice but not necessary misuse of city funds. The trail/path proposal
appears to be funded from already collected resident tax or service related fees. e.g. sewer fees. Unfortunately the
trail project’s cost/benefit analysis does not justify the use of city funds for a “nice, but not necessary project”.
Clearly, more fundamental city infrastructure, basic city equipment replacement needs, and higher priority city
park fund needs far outweigh the misuse of resident dollars (taxes and service fees) funds for this trail. In other
words, if current city funds are misused for this “walking/bike trail” then necessary funds needed for future sewer
projects – city equipment needs will be exhausted, which will then require the Shorewood City Council to RAISE
property TAXES in the near future to obtain and replace city funds that were misspent for this nice/but not
necessary boondoggle.
C: I wholeheartedly support the trail on Smithtown Rd. My only regret is that it is 40 years too late. My wife and I
do not ride bicycles any more after knee and hip surgeries. I would like to see the completion from Eureka Rd. to
Co. Rd. 19 and then from Shopping Center north to the trail.
Q: 1) Why not use recycled tires as an overlay over concrete (could get by with a thinner layer of concrete).
Rev. 11/20/12
Smithtown Trail (West) Open House
RESIDENT COMMENTS
Page 3 of 5
2) As an alternative to concrete, do the same as above by putting an overlay of blacktop over the concrete. You
will get the durability of the concrete, but the comfort of rubber or asphalt.
C: I am in favor of this trail, it should have been here 40 years ago. My husband and I cannot ride anymore. The
children need a trail for safety reasons. I would not want ours to be riding on Smithtown now. I think the trail
should be blacktop.
C: Overall, please spend our money wisely and consider the value of every dollar spent. Yes – I think trails are
important to provide safe access to the schools and the LRT. I have concern about the surface being cement. If
this “trail” is for walking, that is hard on people’s joints. Please consider what is the best surface health-wise.
Consider other surfaces please that are more forgiving. Please limit signage on the trail. Signs that are valuable
and important safety wise – but limit the “feed people’s egos” signs, e.g. “trail by LMCD, Shorewood…..”
C: Can’t wait for the new trails! Great job in planning. Good luck.
C: I’m in full support of safer trails on Smithtown Rd., and those that unite pieces of the existing trail systems. As a
parent of young children, and an active person interested in reducing our reliance on car travel, I look forward to a
healthier and safer network of trails in our community! Go, Trails, Go!
Q: Is there any chance that any of the “Phase II” segments will be completed sooner than in 5 – 10 years? I’d like to
know what criteria was used to determine how these areas were prioritized. Can costs/taxes be shared by the
city/cities and neighborhoods, not just those properties affected?
C: I live next to Smithtown Road and very much do not want to have this trail on the south side of the road. The
school has a path on the north side by it. Keep that in place and put the trail on the north side. The drainage in
my yard has already been messed up from the road widening and it will be worse with the path. I’ve lost trees
already from this and don’t want to lose more.
north side so should the new path
C: I think the south side of Smithtown is wrong, with the school on the !! Even if
Victoria put theirs on the south side, Shorewood should cross over to the northside. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
C: My concerns are 1) cost/assessment to homeowners; 2) deterioration of my house value if trail goes thru my yard
on Smithtown or Eureka since I’m near that intersection; 3) overall cost in these tough financial times; 4) on-
going maintenance.
Q: What are next steps? Who shovels the trail in winter? What cost will we incur to do so as taxpayers?
C: We cannot afford to NOT put in these trails. Safety! Make it happen Council.
C: Reach out to residents for help with planning. Smithtown, Country Club, and Yellowstone Trail should be a
major concern. A 10 yr. plan is laughable. This is a major concern for residents and needs to be accomplished
much sooner. Public safety is at risk. In the meantime, speed traps should be in place to control speed. I’m glad
to see the city is trying to make a difference. But talk doesn’t cook rice. It’s time to do your job and put this trail
throughout the city. If you need help – ask. Residents will help.
C: Please keep our kids safe and put the trail in before someone gets hurt.
C: We fully support this project. Any funding should be a general city-wide assessment. It’s currently unsafe! We
wouldn’t let our son ride up to Minnewashta School without taking the trail to Strawberry Lane. The sidewalks in
Victoria are beautiful. It’s frustrating to see the difference upon entering/leaving Shorewood.
Rev. 11/20/12
Smithtown Trail (West) Open House
RESIDENT COMMENTS
Page 4 of 5
C: Thank you for taking the time to complete this study, clearly something needs to be done. That being said, as an
avid cyclist who’s children also ride on Smithtown my personal preference would be for an expanded roadway.
Put in a curb if a separation is needed but keep everything on the same grade and same surface material. I find an
actual sidewalk to be highly restrictive in use and costly. Basically, on a 30 M.P.H. road, I’d rather see more
opportunity for shared use of the road.
C: I am a strong supporter of this trail. We have a 6 and 10 year old that go to Minnewashta. We live in Victoria.
We are expected to pay for bus because we are so close. If you want to know how dangerous Smithtown is –
follow a 6 year old walking or biking along the side. We avoid using it due to concern with getting hit.
C: The purpose of path is safety. How many people have been injured on Smithtown Road in the last 20 yrs. You
are just placing more people on the road with this path. How many trees are you going to kill. If you cut roots on
one side that side of tree dies.
C: We strongly support the connection of the trail. We live across the street from Victoria sidewalk/trail and it has
been a great enhancement to the neighborhood/community as well as safe for our children.
C: Very excited to hear about the extension of the trail!
C: Out of all of the trail segments being considered, the Galpin Lake Rd/Hwy 7 segment is the only one that
currently puts bikers and pedestrians within a few feet of cars traveling 55 M.P.H. Galpin Lake Rd has a pretty
large number of people walking and biking north (as is evidenced by the well-worn cow path through the median
of Hwy 7), and then all of those people are forced to either illegally cross Hwy 7 without a crosswalk, or walk
several hundred feet along Hwy 7 in an area that has no shoulder on the road and has a guardrail that prevents the
pedestrians from being more than a few feet from cars going 55 M.P.H. This is a very dangerous situation and
thankfully no one has been seriously injured, or worse, in the recent past. Several years ago someone was killed
crossing Hwy 7 on the eastern side (Excelsior side) of the County Road 19/Hwy 7 intersection, and Excelsior has
rectified the situation by putting in a pedestrian path that leads to the crosswalk. Don’t Shorewood residents
deserve the same level of safety and concern?
Q: Is it possible to further breakdown some of these projects into even smaller sections? The Galpin Lake Rd project
currently appears to be one project that stretches from the Chanhassen city limits to the Hwy 7/County Road 19
intersection. I would be in favor of breaking it into 2 projects – one that goes from the Chanhassen city limits to
Hwy 7, and one that handles the situation bringing pedestrians and bikers across Hwy 7. If breaking the Galpin
Lake Rd segment into those two projects would fast-track a crossing area on Hwy 7, then I would support that
move.
C: School maintenance staff could be responsible for plowing the sidewalk if it is installed on school property.
Please consider runoff issues and grade of sidewalk installment in our already saturated area. Please do not
remove the crosswalk at 26405 Smithtown Rd; the faster we can get across the street – the safer the kids – more
obvious signage at the crosswalks. I don’t think the sidewalk should be intended for bikers – they (racers) won’t
ride on a sidewalk! Please reconsider adding the sidewalk on the unfinished, no-shoulder school side of the street.
There are minimal walking lanes in the parking lot and around the school grounds. Child safety should be the
priority around a school. It is paramount that on the school block of Smithtown Road, you consider keeping the
safety of children/walkers since a significant line-up of parent pick-up traffic clogs the road at the beginning and
end of the school day. We’ve seen many near misses of accidents as we cross.
Q: Wonder why the power lines on the school side can’t be placed underground in order to beautify the area and
make room for sidewalks on the school property. Any way to place group mailboxes on the south side of the
street?
Rev. 11/20/12
Smithtown Trail (West) Open House
RESIDENT COMMENTS
Page 5 of 5
C: I do have some concerns re: the east side of Cajed Ln/Smithown corner. That corner has always been wet ever
since the watermain was run through. I believe there may be a leaking gate valve or other issues with the piping.
Also there are other problems associated with curbing on both sides of Cajed Ln. Also, would blacktop be more
cost effective? Concrete vs. bituminous for long-term. We have wanted to improve landscaping for a long time
on that corner and would like to work with the contractor re: grading and drainage and grade elevations. Would
also like to include a driveway cut for future use.
C: As the parent of two young kids, the sidewalk doesn’t come soon enough. I walk to get the kids from school
almost every day. Also, I would love to see the school zone at 15 M.P.H. at start and release of school and have it
patrolled heavily. So many drivers fly on Smithtown Rd even when kids are present. The sidewalk will greatly
connect our neighborhoods to one another and to parks and trails. Let’s get it built. Thank you.
Rev. 11/20/12
Front: Pat Fasching
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8 :25 AM
To: Bill Joynes; Larry Brown; Brad Nielsen
Subject: FW: Trail meeting
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: sgabbert@amchsi.com [ mailto:sgabbert(mchsi.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:00 PM
To: Pat Fasching
Subject: Fwd: Trail meeting
- - - -- Forwarded Message - - - --
From: sgabbert @mchsi.com
To: ilandi.ni(@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:45:47 PM GMT -06:00 US /Canada Central
Subject: Trail meeting
Hello,
I cannot attend the meeting Thurs. night, but I wanted to share a few thoughts.
The proposed trail along Smithtown is a good idea. I bike and walk along there occasionally,
but would do so more often with my children, if we had a safer way to do it (trail). I drive
along there often, and I would feel better if we could have a trail that could get people
places without having them so close to traffic.
Thank you for your consideration,
Regards,
Steven Gabbert
5835 Brentridge Drive
1
rnom: Wendy Ampund~mndyos»|unU0mQmai|nnm
Smithtown Trail Support
mote� November 15.2V1c4:o8PM
To' SPCscxa6onn�xDQmai|com
My husband and | are iD1OOY6 support of the new trail proposal. VVehave experienced first hand the
construction Qf the sidewalk and feel it would not only provide safety to all, but would create a sense of
community with expanded walking trails. On behalf 0fall the residents of Sunny 8hadovva, we are in support
of the Smithtown Trail.
Thank you,
Greg & Wendy Asplund
Wendy Asplund
-
s
From: Pat Fasching
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 3:37 PM
To: Brad Nielsen; Steve Gurney
Subject: FW: Smithtown Trrail West Comments
From: Laura Turgeon [ mailto:lrturgeon@visi.com ]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:21 PM
To: Pat Fasching
Subject: Smithtown Trrail West Comments
Comments:
Thank goodness Victoria had a vision and a plan we could copy or we would be circling this issue for another 10 years. Plan looks
good and makes sense.
Keep the sidewalk all on the south side, and do it all the way to the LRT in one phase because if it is split in two we may never see the
second phase.
This sidewalk will prove to be even more beneficial once the grade separated trail being proposed by Three Rivers Park over CR19 is
completed.
Questions:
This is basically a $3m project, after you've thrown in land acquisition and attorney fees ... we have $1.6m budgeted .... How will this
project be funded?
If construction is to begin in June, is that enough time to obtain grant monies to cover part of the cost?
Since this is an MSA road, can we use those monies, and borrow forward, for this project like we did for the CR 19 intersection?
Paoc | o[|
REVER30112
Subject: New trail
Hello, my name is Steve Korin, I live at 6135 Cathcart Drive in Shorewood. I have been a resident here
for 18 years and I love this city. I feel the addition of the new trail/sidewalk would enhance the experience
of being m resident ofShorewood for some residents.
K8y concerns are�
a) Where is the money coming from not only tu complete this project but also !o maintain i17
b) What is this going to mean for the people who live on the LRT that this new project is connecting to.
First will comment on the money issue, As we all know taxes in the not going down. Last year
lost value in my property but my taxes still went up, | am sure other residents experienced the same
phenomenon. Money is always on |ooue, we all know that. In an attempt to please the majority of the
residents in the city funds must bespread thin,
Although I feel that the introduction of new trails and or sidewalks is great for aesthetics it is NOT the
best use o[ the tax payers money,
| talked to one of our city council members on Thursday night and she insisted that '' the money |anot
coming from taxes" and " i already has the money for the pnojeo(." Unless this was o donation, ora
gift from the gods, the money for this project came from tax dollars, or am I mistaken?
Even if the city has the money to complete the initial project it still has to be maintained and that costs
eddidon|money.Afewyeamago|oaUadthacityofficeeandmaked'\whyareyounotp|mwingCathcert
Drive all the way 0z the edge" The response |recieved surprised me. "we don't have the eeoumes'
Where will waget the resources to plow the tmi|/oidovva|kY
| drive HVVY 7 every day and | watch the progress of the sewer and curb project taking | in
Chanhassen, I am guessing that their tax rate is much higher than ours? Daily I think about how a project
like that would benefit a huge number of Shorewood residents. In the past I approached the city with a
request for a project to alleviate water problems in my area (i.e. storm sewer ora holding pond). | even
ofensdiodonmteaome|andforapondpxject.|vvasmetwi1hthanaepunsa'`wedon'thovethomoney
Lets use out limited financial resources wisely.
My second concern stems fromo fear that this project will bring more traffic onto the LRT, The present
trail runs a stones throw from my deck and my bedroom windows. Although |1 may have changed, inthe
pasttheThreeRivemParkDisdric1hadasunhsetosundmwn''hou/aofusaru|e''fo/theLRT.Thiaiunot
foUmwud, in facia council member told me on Thursday evening "| didn't think there were ANY rules for
the LRT'
I cannot sleep with my windows open without being awakened by an early rising group of ch atty
or bicyclists. If it happens to be a single runner or cyclist it makes my dogs bark since they are kenneled
on the trail side of my home. Evidently they don't like being awoken either. We cannot be the
only household that would be directly affected by an increase in trail traffic,
I think this problem can be alleviated by posting signs at the trail entrances with the hours of use and
then enforcing them. If the council members don't know the rules I am guessing other citizens don't
Steve Korim
I }b/ZU\2
Brad Nielsen
From: Sue Davis [bisquite @earthlink.net]
Seat: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:42 AM
To: Larry Brown; Julie Moore; Scott Zerby_Contact; Laura Hotvet; Dick Woodruff Contact; Debbie
Siakel_Contact; Brad Nielsen; Tom Geng
Cc: Bill Joynes
Subject: Smithtown Trail Open House
Friends,
Last night I was proud of my city. Not to say that I am not usually proud, but last night I was especially so. The
Smithtown Trail Open House was well planned and well attended and, I thought, downright fun. Marketing and
preparation for this event was excellent. (Loved the mailer.) The exhibits were accessible for the average person and
staff and WSB's Steve Gurney were prepared, ready to field questions and talk about the proposal. I noticed that almost
everyone was smiling.
Residents who came had a lot of positive feedback and some good suggestions. And commissioners were able to speak
with people about other issues in their neighborhoods beyond the Smithtown Trail. I was surprised at how many other
neighborhoods came to support this project. After reviewing the Trail Plan several people expressed the wish that their
neighborhood's trail segment could be moved up in the phasing. (If only we had a whole bunch of money.) I look forward
to reading all of the comment sheets.
And I wonder how we could get a crowd like this to show up periodically to discuss other things in our city? There seems
to be a lot on people's minds and with a crowd milling about, they seemed to feel more comfortable sharing their
thoughts. Neighborhoods are working together without our encouragement. Just a thought.
Thank you all again.
Sue Davis
AM�;`1
From: Crisy Schmidt [babybalgard @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:09 AM
To: Brad Nielsen
Subject: FW: Smithtown Trail (West) Open House Resident Comments
Good Morning Mr. Nielsen,
I was at the meeting on November 15th at Minnewashta School and was not able to get my questions answered.
When I was trying to talk to the different people for information I was quickly talked over and ignored.
I have several questions and concerns I would Like addressed if possible.
Is the money for this project already set aside?
Are the grants for this project already approved and awarded? ( I understood (over heard at the meeting) the money for
this project is from grants and money already raised and set aside)
Exactly how wide will this "trail" be?
How much property will be taken for the "trail "?
What is the "trail" going to be made of ?
How will this "trail" be kept clean? (Sweeping in the summers and plowing in the winters)
Will Property owners be responsible? If someone is injured on the "trail" on there property, will property owner be
responsible?
How will the drainage be maintained? Keeping the trash, leaves and so on from plugging the drains?
How is the maintenance of the "trail" being paid for?
Will taxes go up to pay for the additional workers to keep the "trail" clean and useable?
Drainage issues, how will this be addressed?
When the road was widened a few years ago we were told water would not sit in our yard and more water came. Then
the water pond was put in to take care of the water and that did not help make the water go, how will the curbs and
drainage take the water away? I can not afford to keep getting more water in my yard.
What about the increase of dog droppings and trash being thrown in the yard from all of this new foot traffic?
I do not want to have to clean up after dogs and people all the time?
Where is the money going to come from to repair the "trail" when it starts to crumble and fall apart?
What about the "trail" on the smaller side roads? The loss of property, the roads will be to narrow, houses to close to the
roads, things like that?
We already have a very beautiful regional trail that is used all the time, I do not understand how putting "trails" on the
roads and making the community an eyesore is a good idea.
Will there be an official vote that the people can decide if they want this "trail" or not?
I am very much against the "trails"
Thank you for your time and I hope to get some answers,
Crisy Schmidt
babybalgard(ftotmail.com
952 - 474 -5729