08-02-16 Planning Comm Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2016 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
RIEDEL (Jul/Dec) ______
MADDY (Oct) ______
BEAN (Nov) ______
JOHNSON (Sep) ______
DAVIS (Aug) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
19 July 2016
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN SETBACK
Applicant: Rachel and Derek Dahlen
Location: 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: William and Melanie Keegan
Location: 25830 Birch Bluff Road
3. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from 19 July 2016)
Applicant: John Benjamin
Location: 24250 Smithtown Road
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2016 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director
Nielsen; Engineer Hornby; and, Council Liaison Siakel
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for July 19, 2016, as presented. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 7, 2016
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7,
2016, as amended to correct a typographical error on Page 7 and to note that Commissioner
Johnson was absent. Motion passed 5/0.
June 21, 2016
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21,
2016, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN
FRONT SETBACK
Applicant: Debra and Kenneth Hoops
Location: 23755 Smithtown Road
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She
explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use
permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot fence in a front setback for Debra and Kenneth Hoops, 23755 Smithtown
Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 2 of 22
Director Nielsen explained Deborah and Kenneth Hoops, 23755 Smithtown Road, have requested a
C.U.P. to construct a six-foot high, alternating board on board (shadowbox) fence across part of the front
of their property. The property is zoned R-2A/S, Single and Two-Family Residential/Shoreland and
contains approximately 22,130 square feet of area (about one-half acre).
Ordinarily a property owner cannot build a six-foot-high fence within the required front setback. The
Zoning Code was amended several years ago for properties abutting arterial streets to allow fences up to
six feet high. The portion of Smithtown Road (aka County Road 19) the Hoops’ property abuts is
designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street.
The new fence would be located in basically the same area as the old nonconforming fence was located. It
would be about 65 feet across and angles to some extent toward their driveway.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted Section 1203 Subd. 2.f. of the Zoning Code
prescribes criteria for granting a C.U.P. for allowing fences six feet high in the front setback. He reviewed
how the applicants’ fence would comply with the criteria.
1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the front property line. This is intended to
provide space for landscaping. The proposed fence is eight feet back from the right-of-way of
Smithtown Road.
2. Landscaping for the subject fence is somewhat complicated. In addition to existing tree cover,
landscaping needs to grow on the shaded north side of the fence. The plants proposed by the
applicants appear to be both shade and salt tolerant.
3. The location of the fence takes into account traffic visibility. Between the right-of-way for
County Road 19 and the fence, there is ample room for cars on County Road 19 to see cars
exiting the site.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicants’ request for a
C.U.P. be approved, subject to the applicants providing a landscaping plan showing the plant materials
and a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid. The resolution
approving the C.U.P. will state that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the proposed/required landscaping is
maintained.
Commissioner Johnson stated the staff memorandum states the existing fence is nonconforming. He
asked why. Director Nielsen noted it had been a solid fence.
Deborah Hoops, 23755 Smithtown Road and the applicant, noted they do have a landscaping bid.
Chair Davis asked how long the existing fence has been in place. Mr. Hoops clarified there is no fence
there now.
Ms. Hoops stated they tried to do something green and unique. It did not meet everyone’s approval so
they took it down. They then applied for the C.U.P.
Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road, stated he thought they should add a six foot earth berm first and
then put their fence up. He thought about 11,000 cars drive on that roadway. He did not think the six-foot-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 3 of 22
high fence would be high enough along Country Road 19. He noted he supports the Hoops building the
fence; the highest possible fence. He also noted their home is higher up. He stated the area where the
fence will be is very shady.
Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M.
Commissioner Riedel stated it appears that they will satisfy all of the criteria for a six foot high fence. He
then stated if the goal is to create a sound barrier shade tolerant trees might provide a better sound barrier
than a six-foot-high fence noting it would take time for trees to grow. Commissioner Bean stated there are
already some relatively mature trees in that location and he questioned if more trees would fit in there.
Commissioner Bean stated given the location of the property he supports the applicant putting up the
fence. He then stated he went to the site and he thought the applicant has satisfied the criteria in the
Zoning Code.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a six-
foot-high fence in the front setback for Deborah and Kenneth, 23755 Smithtown Road, subject to
the applicants providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape
bid and the resolution approving the C.U.P. stating that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the
proposed/required landscaping is maintained. Motion passed 5/0.
Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its July 25, meeting.
Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Ryan Krieger
Location: 20920 Forest Drive
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a
setback variance for Ryan Krieger, the pending owner of the property located at 20920 Forest Drive.
Director Nielsen explained Ryan Krieger and his wife are arranging to purchase the property located at
20920 Forest Drive from David Moe. The property was the subject of a variance request about one year
ago for Mr. Moe. Mr. Moe had submitted plans for a new house on the property. The subject property is
very nonconforming; it is 50 feet at its widest and tapers back to 37.5 feet on its easterly end.
The Krieger’s propose to tear down the existing house on the property and build a new house. What they
propose is essentially the same footprint as the one Mr. Moe had received a variance for. The difference
between the two variance requests is Mr. Moe would have had only a garage on the easterly end and the
Kriegers want to have living space above the garage. He noted that had Mr. Moe asked for living space
above the garage staff would have recommended approval of Mr. Moe’s variance.
He noted that Mr. Moe had been granted an extension for his variance because it was going to extend past
one year.
He stated the Krieger’s variance would be subject to the same conditions as those put on Mr. Moe’s
variance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 4 of 22
Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the variance request for Ryan Krieger.
Stephanie Krieger, the soon to be owner of the property located at 20920 Forest Drive, stated she and her
husband Ryan have four children. She noted they want living space above the garage for two additional
bedrooms.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
Commissioner Bean stated that for all intents and purposes the Kriegers’ request is basically the same as
what was approved for Mr. Moe a year ago. It is about the only thing that would work on the subject
property. He thought it generally fits with the neighborhood and he is pleased with that.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the Kriegers’ variance request is a modification of a variance already
granted to Mr. Moe or is it new variance request. Director Nielsen stated it should be considered as a new
variance request. Maddy then asked if there is a list of conditions that should be included in the motion.
Nielsen noted they would be listed in the resolution and the resolution will be essentially the same as the
one adopted for Mr. Moe’s variance.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the existing house has been removed. Commissioner Bean responded not
yet.
Commissioner Bean asked if there is a time limit for when the Kriegers have to build. Director Nielsen
noted they have one year to use the variance. Ms. Krieger stated they hope to start building as soon as
possible.
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of setback variances for Ryan Krieger,
20920 Forest Drive, subject to the same conditions stipulated in the April 29, 2015, staff
memorandum for variances requested by David Moe. Motion passed 5/0.
Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its July 25, meeting.
Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M.
3. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING ADDITION
Applicant: Valvoline Instant Oil, Inc. (Represented by John Kosmas)
Location: 19465 State Highway 7
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:20 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous
items. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional
use permit (C.U.P.) for a building addition for Valvoline Instant Oil, Inc., 19465 State Highway 7.
Director Nielsen explained KK Design is representing the owners of Valvoline Instant Oil Change located
at 19465 State Highway 7. It has submitted plans to add a small addition to the existing building. The
property exists under a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) that was approved in May of 1984. The addition is
also subject to the C.U.P. process.
The proposed addition would be located on the east side of the building. It would be used for indoor
storage of new and used oil. That is currently done in the lower level of the building and that is
cumbersome.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 5 of 22
The property is zoned C-1, General Commercial, which includes “auto repair – minor” as a conditional
use. The existing property contains 20,073 square feet of floor area. The existing building is somewhat
nonconforming. A variance was granted when Rapid Oil was located there. It does not meet the 30 foot
setback. The addition would comply with all of the setbacks.
Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows:
West: self-storage facility; zoned R-C, Residential-Commercial
North: State Highway 7, then commercial in Deephaven; zoned commercial
East: park and ride lot
South: single-family residential; zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential
He noted the applicant’s request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The
conditional use requirements are stipulated in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d. of the City Code.
He stated the applicant was asked to provide the hardcover calculations for the site. The hardcover is
about the same size as the building.
He explained the height of the building addition is about three feet shorter than the existing building. The
Zoning Code requires nine parking spaces for the subject site/use. There are 10 spaces on the property.
The building and the addition are consistent with Shorewood’s construction requirements for commercial
building. The existing landscaping on the property is adequate and will not be changed.
Nielsen noted based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the C.U.P., subject to
review and approval of the plans by the Excelsior Fire District.
John Kosmas, with KK Design, stated per the request of Director Nielsen the proposed addition was
modified to meet the setback requirements. It therefore has a different look to it than other Valvoline
buildings have. The addition would be a nice enhancement for the function of the building.
Mark Gilbertson, with Valvoline, stated he was the impetus behind the addition. Valvoline is required to
carry many types of oil in order to service a broad spectrum of vehicles and the facility has run out of
space.
Chair Davis asked Mr. Gilbertson if the addition will be adequate to meet future needs. Mr. Gilbertson
indicated that he thought so and noted there is no space to build on the site. Davis stated Valvoline keeps
a clean corner.
Seeing no one wishing to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Commissioner Johnson stated as a person who has the oil in his vehicles changed every 5,000 miles he
thought the addition makes sense. He stated the aesthetics as viewed when waiting for service are not
great because of the dumpster. He asked where the dumpster would be relocated to.
Commissioner Bean asked if the proposed addition would affect the original variance in any way.
Director Nielsen responded no.
Commissioner Maddy thanked the owners for not expanding the nonconformity.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 6 of 22
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for an
addition to the Valvoline Instant Oil Change building located at 19465 State Highway 7, subject to
review and approval of the plans by the Excelsior Fire District. Motion passed 5/0.
Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its July 25, meeting.
Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
4. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Chris Hamdorf
Location: 26425 Arbor Creek Lane
Director Nielsen explained Chris and Amy Hamdorf own the property at 26425 Arbor Creek
Lane. They propose to build a 12 foot by 12 foot garden shed at the rear of their property. The
location available to them requires a 45-foot setback variance from the rear lot line. The property
is just shy of one acre; it contains 40,620 square feet of area, It is zoned R-1A, Single-family
Residential.
The entire Arbor Creek subdivision is characterized by some very extraordinary drainage and
utility easements. The Hamdorf’s property is one of them. The entire southeasterly corner is all
drainage and utility easement. Therefore, there is a very limited buildable area for a lot that size.
There are the normal 10 foot drainage and utility easements around the rest of the perimeter.
The Hamdorfs had been successful in getting the City to modify the original easement and
reduce it somewhat. That effort included a small vacation of the easement as well in anticipation
of the shed.
He reviewed how the applicant’s request for a variance complies with the criteria for variances
set forth in Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Zoning Code:
1.The applicant’s “practical difficulty” is largely the result of the extraordinary size of the
drainage and utility easement that wraps around the south and east sides of the lot,
coupled with the topography of the site. The typical drainage and utility easement is 10
feet. Staff initially suggested the possibility of locating the shed to the west of the
existing sport court which would have met setbacks and been out of the drainage and
utility easements. After walking the site staff agrees that area is subject to storm water
flow. The proposed location of the shed is high and dry, and places it much farther from
surrounding residences (approximately 30 feet from the back corner of the lot to the east)
than if it were located west of the sport court. It would also be quite concealed by the
existing privacy fence on the property and the location of trees in that corner of the site.
The property to the south of the applicants is the school yard for Minnewashta
Elementary School.
2.The applicant’s practical difficulty is not economic in nature.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 7 of 22
3.Despite the standard one acre size of the subject lot the buildable area of the lot is
drastically reduced by the drainage and utility easement. The applicant is unable to use as
much of his lot as other similar sized lots in the R-1A district.
4.The special conditions in this case are not the result of actions by the applicant.
5.No special right or privilege is conveyed to the applicant by granting the variance. The
drainage and utility easements on the property in effect result in a 50-foot setback or open
space on three sides of the property. Even if the variance is granted, the lot provides more
open space than a standard lot.
6.The design and location of the proposed building should not adversely impact the
surrounding properties or the neighborhood in which it is located.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the variance
request.
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
Amy Hamdorf, 26425 Arbor Creek Lane, explained there had been two suggested areas to build the shed
on. The western side of their lot is the wettest part of their lot. If the shed were located there it would have
been close to their neighbor’s property. The proposed site for the shed is the highest point in their yard. It
would not be visible to their neighbors.
Chair Davis asked Ms. Hamdorf if they have a trail coming off of the back of their property.
Ms. Hamdorf explained there is a little sidewalk at the top of the cul-de-sac and it is used to get to the
Minnewashta Elementary School.
Seeing no one to comment on this case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of
the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M.
Commissioner Bean stated at the proposed location it would be nearly impossible to see the shed from
any of the abutting residential properties. Because it would back up to the very back of the Minnewashta
Elementary School property it would have minimum impact. He thought granting the setback makes
sense. Chair Davis concurred.
Commissioner Maddy asked if he heard Director Nielsen say there was a hole in the drainage and utility
easement where the building pad would be. Director Nielsen explained that when the original reduction in
the drainage and utility easement was approved there was also a small area that was vacated. He noted
that from his vantage point a good portion of the corner could have been vacated.
Maddy then asked if the original easement reduction was strictly for drainage purposes. Director Nielsen
confirmed that.
Commissioner Riedel asked what the history of the drainage and utility easements was. Director Nielsen
explained the plat sits up on high ground. There had been drainage issues primarily to the north of Arbor
Creek. There had been a fair number of drainage issues along the edge of the property. There is also a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 8 of 22
drainage way (somewhat of a creek) that runs through the area. When the engineers laid out the plat in
order to get the drainage to flow to where they wanted it to go they dedicated all of the easement. He
thought the engineers thought they were leaving enough buildable area. But, people want to make use of
their property. He thought the easements could have been better confined.
Commissioner Riedel asked what the legal procedure is. Director Nielsen clarified a small area where the
shed would go was included in the part of the area that was vacated.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the setback variance for a shed for
Chris and Amy Hamdorf, 26425 Arbor Creek Lane. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Davis noted Council will consider this item during its July 25, meeting.
Director Nielsen clarified that Chris Hamdorf wanted this to go before Council on August 8.
Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING – TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING OPTING-OUT OF
TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLING LAW
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:40 P.M. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning
Commission is going to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code regarding opting-out of the
temporary family health care dwelling law.
Director Nielsen explained staff routed material to the Planning Commission related to state legislation
that was recently adopted regarding what has been termed “drop homes”. It would allow residential
landowners to place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary health care
dwelling. The legislation allows cities to opt-out of allowing that provided they do so my September 1,
2016.
Shorewood permits alternatives to the temporary health care dwellings. It allows accessory apartments for
senior care or health care. If the City ever wanted to allow for the dwellings it could do that on its own
rather than having the State dictate that.
He noted that this evening he passed out a copy of a draft ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities
that a city could approve opting out of that legislation. It needs to be tweaked for Shorewood.
Nielsen noted staff recommends the City opt out of that legislation.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M.
Chair Davis noted she agrees the City should opt out of the legislation.
Commissioner Maddy stated if the City did not opt out he asked how many different types of structures
could be used for that purpose. Director Nielsen explained it is his understanding that cities can adopt
their own standards. For example, a city could require that setbacks be met. Some photographs he saw
looked a little bit like the tiny houses that are becoming somewhat popular. The drop homes would be
somewhere between those and the nice fish houses.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 9 of 22
Director Nielsen explained some concerns are the units would have to be hooked up to the sanitary sewer
system somehow. In Shorewood water would not be an issue because they would just be hooked up to a
water line. They would not be that much different than an RV. Another issue raised is even though they
are supposed to be temporary there is nothing more permanent than something done temporarily. People
would want to get their money’s worth out of an investment.
He reiterated he thought the City has adequate provisions in its Ordinance that offer alternatives to the
legislation. He noted the City already limits the length someone visiting can stay in their RV on a
residential property to two weeks at a time. The City does not allow more than one dwelling on a property
and it has been consistent with that for the past 30 years.
Chair Davis stated if a person came to the City and stated they really needed to do that for a defined
period of time she asked if there would be some recourse for a conditional use permit or a temporary
permit. Director Nielsen stated they would have to apply for an amendment to the City Ordinance.
Director Nielsen stated there are relatively big houses in the City that could accommodate having
someone stay in a household for some time.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of an ordinance opting out of State
Statutes, Section 462.3593 pertaining to temporary family health care dwellings. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M.
6. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from June 7,
2016)
Applicant: John Benjamin
Location: 24250 Smithtown Road
Director Nielsen explained Mr. John Benjamin has arranged to purchase the property at 24250 Smithtown
Road. He has requested that the property be rezoned from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to
C-1, General Commercial. The property contains 1.59 acres and is currently occupied by a single-family
residence.
The land use and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follow:
North: Shorewood Public Works Department; zoned R-2A
East: South Lake Public Safety Facility (Police and Fire); zoned R-2A
South: Auto repair and self-serve car wash; zoned C-1
West: Candy store, in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial
With regard to the issues and analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed the following.
Plan –
A. Comprehensive Section 1201.04 Subd. 1.d. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth the
considerations to be used by the Planning Commission in evaluating requests for amendments to
the Code – in this case, a change in the zoning district. Perhaps the most significant consideration
is consistency with the Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. The Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study had been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and is effectively the area
plan for the vicinity in which the site is located. When staff met with the applicant’s consultant
prior to it making an application for the rezoning staff directed the consultant to the Study.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 10 of 22
The Study recommends the following with regard to the subject site:
“The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by
commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The
City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial.”
The applicant chose to apply for C-1, General Commercial zoning, presumably for its
considerably greater latitude in land use choices. The C-1 district has less restrictive zoning
standards (e.g.; setbacks, height, etc.) and less restrictive regulations (e.g.; hours of operation).
The applicant’s most recent idea is for a motel facility. The C-1 district would be his only way to
achieve that use of the land. Motels are not allowed in the R-C district.
B. Site Plan – The site plan submitted with the rezoning request is intended to illustrate how the
proposed use of the property might fit. The plan proposes using the existing driveway that goes to
the house. It is located very close to County Road 19. This location may present issues with
respect to stacking on the City’s access drive. The applicant indicates that he is exploring what, if
any, access easement rights the subject property may have over the City’s property. Staff could
not find any easement of the subject property over the City’s property to the east.
The plan illustration with the Project Narrative appears to maximize the site, even using C-1
setback requirements. The plan does not show any kind of storm water ponding that may be
necessary to control drainage on the property.
C. Traffic – There is a tremendous amount of traffic on Country Road 19 which at times makes it
difficult to get in and out of the site. Therefore, staff does not recommend adding intense zoning
to the site. If that rezoning were to be considered, then staff recommends doing an in depth traffic
study.
Nielsen stated there are enough open ended issues related to this request to warrant additional study. He
again noted the C-1 zoning is not consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff
recommends denial of the C-1 zoning request.
Nielsen noted that Brad Scheib, with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. and representing John Benjamin and
his partner Bonnie Witrak, was present this evening. He also noted that Mr. Scheib had submitted a letter
dated May 26, 2016, in response to the April 28, 2016, staff report regarding the rezoning request.
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:55 P.M.
Brad Scheib, a planner with Hoisington Koegler Group, noted he agreed with a lot of what Director
Nielsen talked about. But, there are differing perspectives on the timing and sequence of things.
Mr. Scheib explained he has been in planning for just over 20 years. He started his career working for a
city where his job was to implement a redevelopment plan. His role was to remove barriers because the
plan was created in the 1970s and he started in the 1990s. Nothing had happened before he started. One
strategy to get the redevelopment started was to first purchase the property so it would be available.
Another strategy was to modify zoning to remove the barrier of having to go through the entitlement
process to get zoning in.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 11 of 22
Mr. Scheib then explained that Mr. Benjamin and Ms. Witrak approached Hoisington and asked them to
help get the 24250 parcel through the entitlement process. Most of the time Hoisington’s clients are in the
public sector; there are a few occasions when they work with the private sector. They first decide if the
proposed project has merit. Does it have a lot of value and is it consistent with a city’s planning?
For this project it was not crystal clear if it was consistent with Shorewood’s planning when looking just
at information online. The Comp Plan, Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance show the site as residential.
The Smithtown Crossing Study is very clear that the City has a vision of wanting to explore
redevelopment at the core area along Smithtown Road. The Study includes the 24250 parcel. After
browsing the Study they concluded there was a vision for the area. They did not review the Study in
detail. They missed the one sentence that states the City should be open to R-C zoning for the parcel.
Mr. Scheib stated they met with Director Nielsen before submitting the rezoning application. Nielsen
made it clear the Study was approved and was amended into the Comp Plan. He thought that was a good
first step even though there was not a Land Use Map that showed the parcel as commercial. It was clear
the intent in the Study was it would either be a commercial or mixed-use parcel. During the meeting
Nielsen made it clear the City should consider R-C zoning. They discussed C-1 zoning and the issues
(e.g.; traffic, stormwater, size of the site) associated with it were brought up and discussed. The
conversation was that anything could be considered; C-1 could be considered. Yet, the Study made
reference to R-C.
Hoisington’s client had bigger visions for the area at the time. The 24250 parcel was connected to the
vision but also independent. Because it was connected they asked that the rezoning application be pulled
from the agenda a couple of times. Now the bigger vision has more clarity. Therefore, they decided to
move forward with the rezoning application as an independent parcel and independent project.
He stated redevelopment is complicated and it takes time to do it.
Mr. Scheib noted Mr. Benjamin does not have a specific user for the site at this time; he has spoken with
many potential users. Hoisington representatives’ conversations with Mr. Benjamin have been focused on
a professional office use, another has been professional office use with some medical clinical component
to it, and yet another has been a hotel.
He stated rezoning to C-1 would provide for the greatest flexibility relative to use that might be proposed
for the site. He explained the development standards and performance standards for the R-C district are
different than for C-1 district; in some cases they are more restrictive and in other cases they are about
equal.
He explained that they understand the site has limited capacity. The limited capacity is constrained
predominantly by traffic and to some extent by typography. They understand those things need to be
resolved as the due process effort progresses. He noted their first step is to secure C-1 zoning so they can
explore alternative uses on the site.
Mr. Scheib stated his team understands that R-C zoning is transitional zoning. There is pretty much
commercial use on all sides of the site from a form and pattern standpoint recognizing there are public
facilities on the east side of the site. The Public Safety facility and the Public Works facility function
more like an industrial use. When thinking about transitioning from commercial to residential the
transition happens east of the Public Safety facility. That is why they think C-1 could be considered.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 12 of 22
The Smithtown Crossing Study discussed R-C in the transition concept. But, the emphasis of that
discussion was on the west side of County Road 19. On the west there is a clear transition connecting to a
predominate pattern of lower density residential use where redevelopment was considered in the study.
They believe R-C zoning would be appropriate on the west. R-C for the subject site would be more of an
interpretation of the Study. Therefore, they are advocating for it to be rezoned to C-1. That is why they
have continued to move forward despite Director Nielsen’s recommendation. He noted they make a
concerted effort to be on the same page as staff; unfortunately, that does not always happen. That made
their decision to move forward with the request to rezone to C-1 more difficult. They thought it has merit
and they will continue to advocate for it.
Mr. Scheib stated they researched the easement question. The parcel has to have access; otherwise there is
a taking and it becomes a legal issue. They investigated into how the easement happened. Originally the
Public Works facility and the subject site were owned by the same person. The owner of that property
split the property into two parcels while continuing to maintain ownership of both. At the time he
subdivided his property he created a full cross access easement for ingress and egress. A document
showing that was filed with Hennepin County. That cross access granted access to the entire north/south
segment on the east side. The issue became whether or not the easement still exists. When the property
owner sold the property to the north to the City he did a quit claim sale. According to the legal advice
they received that quit claim sale nullified that cross access easement.
The driveway to the existing house used to be in a different location and was eventually shifted down to
Smithtown Road. Several years later Hennepin County decided to make improvements to Smithtown
Road. That is when things became messy. The property owner has provided a document from the County
that states we grant you full access to the City’s property. Their attorneys have a copy of that document
but he has not seen it. He noted they do not think that easement issue needs to be resolved now. It needs
to be resolved when people get into the site plan details.
Mr. Scheib stated they agree with Director Nielsen that the proximity of the driveway on their site plan
would be difficult for any commercial use regardless of the magnitude of the use. Any commercial use
there will generate more traffic than a single-family house and therefore create stacking issues. The
reason for where it is on the site plan is that is where the driveway is now. They have considered various
scenarios for the location of the building and the driveway. Whatever happens with the site plan approval
process and the developer’s agreement, there will need to be an agreement between the City and whoever
develops the property to get the access figured out. If no agreement can be reached they believe there is
legal recourse the property owner would have to take to get access back on to Smithtown Road.
Otherwise it is a taking. They understand there are some legal issues but they do not think they need to be
resolved now. It would be a detail that would have to be resolved during the site plan review process.
Chair Davis asked how wide the access road is. Commissioner Bean stated two cars can pass on the road.
Davis stated it could serve as an actual road. Bean concurred. Mr. Scheib stated they thought it may have
been designed to serve more than just the Public Works facility or it was designed to have heavy trucks
going to and from the facility.
Mr. Scheib stated during the site plan review process and depending on what happens on the site the
development would be responsible for making whatever improvements are needed to the road to make it
work. Who pays for them would be addressed in the development agreement.
Mr. Scheib explained in situations where cities do not have a site plan approval process sometimes there
would be a concurrent site plan review and rezoning. Shorewood has a site plan approval process. The
Planning Commission and City Council review the site plan. Those bodies have the discretion of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 13 of 22
reviewing the plan against the performance standards and not necessarily the use. The zoning entitles the
use. The physical site itself is constrained by a number of things that have to be addressed during the
detailed site plan process. They decided they needed to at least demonstrate that there would be an ability
to develop the site. For them it was somewhat of a feasibility test.
Mr. Scheib stated they considered one-story, two-story and three-story office buildings. For a three-story
building there is difficulty adding parking to meet the parking requirements. They believe they can do a
three-story building with parking underground. They would do some unique things for stormwater
management including some underground stormwater treatments. But, those come at a cost. The costs can
be justified if they can get enough critical mass on site. They understand some traffic improvements
would have to be made. A detailed traffic study would identify them. Their traffic advisor told them
Smithtown Road is a county road (County Road 19) and that it is a commercial corridor. The intersections
beyond the immediate area need to be studied to understand the traffic flow. They may also have to be
improved. Again, the development agreement would address who pays for the improvements.
They assessed how to address stormwater management. If there were to be a lesser intense development
pattern it would be possible to handle the stormwater on site. If the development were intensified
stormwater management improvements would be more costly noting they could be done. They know it is
feasible. They understand the stormwater improvements must comply with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District’s (MCWD) requirements and the City’s requirements.
He reiterated that they had hoped that staff would have been supportive of their rezoning request. They
appreciate the concerns and issues staff expressed. They are aware conditions can be put on the rezoning
provided the conditions are in the public’s best interest. If the conditions would not be in the public’s best
interest then there would be a question about whether the conditions would be a best practice.
They understand Shorewood’s site plan approval process requires them to do the detailed site design and
to understand the implications of it. That site planning process would answer many of the questions. If the
site were to be rezoned to C-1 it would not entitle the applicant to maximum development on the site. The
site has natural constraints.
Mr. Scheib presented a number of conditions that could be added to the request. The first is to clarify the
land use issue in the Comp Plan. They believe that by the Comp Plan adopting the Smithtown Crossing
Study the general intent is there. However, they would feel more comfortable if Land Use Map was
amended to have the correct color on it. They view that as a technical modification. They believe the text
and the intent in the Study is there. The second is the City and the property owner both have to agree upon
a preferred access arrangement that provides adequate ingress and egress to the property. The access
would be negotiated as part of the site plan approval process. The third, and final, condition is a detailed
traffic study would be completed as part of the site plan approval process. They understand traffic is the
number one issue that creates the challenge in understanding what the use is on the subject site. A C-1
zoning would give them the greatest flexibility to be able to deal with the challenges and be able to
financially do a redevelopment project.
He noted their client has a contract on the property that is subject to getting the property rezoned to C-1.
If the rezoning request is not approved they go back to negotiations on the project or they are done with it.
He stated they are requesting C-1 zoning to give them flexibility noting they recognize the issues that
Director Nielsen has conveyed.
Mr. Scheib asked the Planning Commission for its consideration. He offered to entertain any questions
the Commissioners may have.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 14 of 22
Chair Davis asked if market research has been done that shows there is a need for more office space. Mr.
Scheib stated their client had engaged Maxfield Research and Consulting to do a market study. Study
results indicate there is a need strong market for medical and office space in this area including the
subject site. There is also a relatively strong demand for hotel space as well. The study referenced the
demand in the City of Excelsior as an example for that. In the real estate world hotels are going crazy at
this time.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Scheib to elaborate on the grander plans Mr. Benjamin has for the area.
Mr. Scheib explained their client had been exploring the possibility of redevelopment on Badger Park
land and the City Hall area and moving City Hall to the subject site. After that vision was presented to
Council during a work session Council informed Mr. Benjamin that the City was not interested in that.
The reason his client proceeded with this site through separate action is absent the grander vision the
subject site still had good development potential.
Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony
Portion of the Public Hearing at 8:16 P.M.
Commissioner Johnson stated if vehicles were stacked up trying to leave the redeveloped site and if there
were a police emergency he assumes the patrol officers would have to drive around the stacked vehicles
to respond to the emergency. Commissioner Bean confirmed that.
Commissioner Riedel stated from his vantage point that would be a terrible place to consider allowing for
stacked up traffic. Commissioner Johnson stated not without significantly widening the roadway.
Commissioner Maddy asked if anyone has spoken with representatives of the SLMPD (South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department) or Public Works.
Commissioner Bean asked what is immediately west of the Public Works building noting that whatever it
is would be in the City of Tonka Bay. Director Nielsen noted the chocolate shop. Chair Davis clarified
north of the chocolate shop. Commissioner Maddy stated he thought it is a vacant lot. Nielsen stated
Tonka Bay has a water tower there. Bean asked if anyone knows anything about the vacant pad. Nielsen
stated it is part of the commercial property.
Bean stated from his perspective the last thing that is needed is more access on to County Road 19. The
intersection is the biggest committee approved cluster that we have ever encountered. It is a disaster and
he thought adding traffic to it would only exacerbate the disaster.
Bean then stated that even though the Public Works and the Public Safety facilities can be considered
commercial uses he thought they generate substantially few trips than a commercial business would
generate.
Bean asked if an access could come in from the Tonka Bay shopping center on to the subject property.
Mr. Scheib noted that the points raised by Commissioner Bean are items they have already discussed.
From a traffic standpoint they understand that fire service vehicles depart the public safety site on an
access point to the east of the facility. Director Nielsen clarified police vehicles primarily depart the site
from the northerly driveway. Mr. Scheib stated they understand those things need to be resolved. When
they get into site plan details their intent is to work collaboratively with representatives from public safety
and Public Works to work on transportation improvements. They recognize the traffic challenges in the
area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 15 of 22
Commissioner Bean stated he hears Mr. Scheib to be indicating there could be a lot of infrastructure
impact to make a redevelopment work properly. All of that infrastructure cost would likely not be borne
by the developer. The developer may make a contribution but it would not be the millions of dollars it
would take to redo the intersection and roadways. He noted Hennepin County needs to be brought into the
loop because County Road 19 is a Hennepin County roadway.
Mr. Scheib explained when a developer initiates a project the developer will make a concerted effort to
make the project work financially. His team understands there are infrastructure issues that absent the
development project would not be resolved. The project could be the catalyst to get deferred maintenance
components done; therefore, there could potentially be cost sharing to get them done. There has not been
any discussion about that yet. Initially, they have to assume the cost for infrastructure improvements
would be borne by the developer. When they get into the site plan approval process if they think there
should be a public cost share then that becomes part of a discussion with the Planning Commission and
City Councils. It would be their objective to make the conditions better because that would bring the City
on board.
The Planning Commission would not have recommended a preference for a unified redevelopment of the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area if there was not something that needed to be resolved. Leaving
the subject site as a single-family residence would not generate any more traffic. But, it would also not
achieve the redevelopment objectives the City is trying to achieve. Any redevelopment their client would
do on the site would have additional impacts. They hope that can be collectively done through
negotiations.
Commissioner Bean asked Director Nielsen to refresh his memory about the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study. He thought it primarily focused on the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Road
and County Road 19 intersection. Director Nielsen confirmed the focus was on that quadrant but the
subject site is part of the Redevelopment Area. He explained the subject site is somewhat of an orphan
piece of land. It is zoned single-family and nothing it is surrounded by is single-family. The Study
intended to allow for some use of the site other than single-family.
Bean then asked if there had been any discussion about R-C zoning and then going with a planned unit
development (PUD). Nielsen noted the Study recommends PUD but that is primarily for the northwest
and southwest quadrants of that intersection.
Commissioner Maddy stated if a decision was made to allow rezoning the property to C-1 he asked if that
would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. Nielsen stated he thought it would in light of the specific
language in the Smithtown Crossing Study.
Chair Davis stated the traffic that will be generated by the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development
project will significantly increase the traffic volume at the west side of the intersection. Her experience
trying to get on to County Road 19 from Caribou Coffee in the shopping center is extremely challenging.
She questioned if the redevelopment of the site would be a way for the applicant to get a toehold after
Council decided to terminate any further discussions about the applicant’s grand vision.
Commissioner Bean stated that would be his concern with rezoning the site to C-1. He then stated he does
not think a hotel would work on that site. He commented that he thought the only hotel that would work
in the area would have to be 6 – 8 stories high. Mr. Scheib clarified the hotel model that has been
discussed would be three stories and noted that he cannot guarantee that is solidified. Bean stated it could
be three stories if there was a big enough footprint. Mr. Scheib explained they tested the three-story
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 16 of 22
model and determined it would be costly. Bean stated during his travels when he has seen three-story
motels they tend to have big footprints. Footprints much larger than the site would allow for.
Bean expressed his desire to go with Residential/Commercial zoning then use the PUD process to help
ensure everyone knows what the exact outcome is going to be. He stated he thought that by rezoning the
site to C-1 the City would give up too much control over what happens with the site. R-C zoning would
be in the best interest of the City.
Commissioner Maddy clarified there is no specific land use proposal. The applicant could propose a C-1
land use that would not generate a lot of traffic.
Commissioner Bean expressed concern about allowing a high intensity use without the City having much
control about a project if it complied with zoning regulations and was a permitted use in the C-1 district.
He again expressed his desire for a more conservative zoning district with a development that uses the
PUD process. That would give the City the most control over what happens. Commissioner Riedel
concurred.
Commissioner Riedel stated the applicant wants to have the property rezoned to C-1, General
Commercial so they can have the most flexibility to explore various options with the fewest constraints.
He thought that is the reason for moving forward with the rezoning request without having any solid
plans.
Mr. Scheib stated the City would have control over the magnitude of the site based on traffic implications
and the agreement on the improvements through the site plan approval process.
Director Nielsen clarified that if the proposed development satisfies the setback requirements, the
drainage requirements and so forth, and unless it is a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) the City would be
required to allow it if it was a permitted use.
Mr. Scheib stated the plan review process requires a developer’s agreement for public improvements
related to access, traffic, transportation, infrastructure, sewer and water. Director Nielsen clarified the
City does not always require a developer’s agreement for a commercial site.
Director Nielsen noted that in this case the issue of the easement would have to be resolved and he
encouraged the current property owner to resolve it sooner versus later.
Chair Davis asked the Commissioner’s if they want to send this back for more discussion or vote on the
rezoning request.
Mr. Scheib asked if he could ask that this be tabled with direction to consider alternatives such as R-C,
Residential/Commercial zoning and PUD rather than having the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the rezoning request for C-1, General Commercial. Or, should they come back with a more detailed site
plan that gets into the traffic implications and solutions to them.
Chair Davis stated she would like to have more options presented. She did not find the concept plan to be
very imaginative.
Mr. Scheib stated their intent was to conceptually look at feasibility. The challenge is the developer
spends a great deal of resources and money to prepare a detailed site plan only to have the City deny the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 17 of 22
rezoning. They prepared some high level site plans and identified challenges. He reiterated they would
prefer to discuss this more among themselves than have their request be recommended for denial.
Director Nielsen noted a PUD would require a specific proposal.
Mr. Scheib asked if the Shorewood PUD would allow flexibility with use. Director Nielsen explained the
property could be rezoned to PUD but it would more typically be a C.U.P. for the current zoning. He
thought there would have to be some type of rezoning whether it be the underlying zoning or the PUD.
Mr. Scheib stated they need to learn more about that process and the risks associated with it before
proceeding with it. An action to table this would give them the ability to do that.
Commissioner Bean asked if there could be a way to incorporate access from the shopping center or in
front of the Chocolate Shop. That would force the developer to use the existing access points into that
corner rather than create another one.
Chair Davis asked Director Nielsen what action needs to be taken to table this. Director Nielsen clarified
it would need to be a motion to continue the public hearing.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the 60-day rule needs to be taken into account. Director Nielsen explained
the applicant had submitted a request in writing to delay the process. Therefore, it was suspended until
now. If the City receives another request from the applicant requesting additional time then that would
cover the City. Maddy stated if the Planning Commission continues the Pubic Hearing to its August 2,
2016, meeting. The applicant could then decide to extend it for however long they need to.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a request to rezone the
property located at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C-1,
General Commercial to the Planning Commission’s August 2, 2016, meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 8:37 P.M.
7. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Location: 21445 State Highway 7
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 8:37 P.M. P.M. She stated during this Public Hearing the
Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) amendment for Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES).
Director Nielsen explained that late 2015 the City approved a C.U.P. for MCES. MCES currently
operates a sanitary sewer lift station at 21445 State Highway 7 (at the intersection of Christmas Lake
Road and Third Avenue). MCES wants to replace its existing lift station facility on the property.
Council adopted Resolution No. 15-095 approving the C.U.P. subject to four conditions stipulated in the
Resolution (a copy of the Resolution was included in the meeting packet). One of the conditions was
MCES was to extend Excelsior watermain along Third Avenue to service the site. There is only a single
bathroom in the facility on the site.
Another condition was the City was going to provide MCES clear title to the property. The property had
been acquired by the City several years ago. It appears that the paper work was either not filed or
improperly filed. The property is reverting back to the State Land Department or to Hennepin County.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 18 of 22
The City is shown as the fee owner. MCES is going to go through a friendly condemnation process; the
City does not object to MCES doing that. Because the City is not providing clear title that condition
would be removed.
He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a revised resolution granting the C.U.P.
He reviewed the conditions listed in the amended resolution.
A. MCES shall acquire the entire parcel through an eminent domain proceeding, deeding back to the
City a conservation easement over the wetland portion of the property and drainage and utility
easements as recommended by the City Engineer.
B. Water service to the site may be extended to the new facility from Excelsior’s water system to the
east.
C. The proposed service extension shall be bored underground so as to preserve the wooded area on
the easterly portion of the property.
D. MCES shall reconstruct the Christmas Lake storm water outlet that extends through the property.
E. MCES shall restore the wetland area disturbed by its construction activities.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends adopting the new resolution granting the C.U.P.
Seeing no one present to comment on the Case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 8:43 P.M.
Commissioner Bean asked if MCES has the authority to extend the Excelsior water service. Director
Nielsen clarified it would have to get approval from Excelsior to do that and noted he thought Excelsior is
willing to allow that. He explained Excelsior staff was a little nervous about extending its watermain
because it may have been asked to service more area than the site. Bean then asked if the Greenwood
Market is located in Greenwood. Nielsen confirmed that. Bean went on to ask if the water to that site
comes from Excelsior. Chair Davis confirmed that. Bean assumes the water service does not concern
Shorewood. Nielsen confirmed that. Bean asked if it would be better to eliminate conclusion B in the
resolution. Nielsen noted it states it “…may be extended …”.
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, recommending adoption of the new resolution approving the
conditional use permit for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to replace an existing lift
station in the southeast corner of the State Highway 7 / Christmas Lake Road intersection. Motion
passed 5/0.
Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M.
8. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPER 1004 (RENTAL
HOUSING CODE) REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL
Director Nielsen stated that because he had not provided any material to the Planning Commission for this
item he asked that the Public Hearing be continued.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 19 of 22
He explained there have been a couple of instances in Shorewood where short-term rentals have created
problems for nearby residents. The amendment is more complicated than what he initially thought. Staff
is leaning toward amending the Rental Housing Code and the Zoning Code. Staff is going to suggest that
anything less than a 30-day-long rental would be considered short-term rental and it would not be
allowed. He clarified the amendment would not help with the current compliance case. Therefore, there is
no reason to rush the amendment. It would be better to get the amendment right. The short-term rental
issue is spreading across the country. The use of short-term rentals is tending to be party houses.
He noted when this item is considered he will provide the Commission with a stack of information.
Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 8:50 P.M.
Commissioner Maddy asked what Planning Commission meeting Director Nielsen wants to continue the
Public Hearing to. Nielsen responded its September meeting.
Maddy moved, Bean seconded, continuing the Public Hearing on an amendment to the City Code
regarding short-term rental to the Planning Commission’s September 2016 meeting.
Commissioner Bean stated if a homeowner rents out their house periodically that is different than owning
a rental property. Director Nielsen clarified the City Code does not require that it has to be rented for at
least 30 days. With the short-term rentals people are making it a business.
Director Nielsen explained the two short-term rental situations are basically being operated as a hotel.
One is being advertised as a place for multiple unrelated people and as a place for business. Or as if they
were renting a hall for an event. The City needs to clarify things.
Chair Davis stated the problem properties are not owned by people who just want to rent their homes, for
example, during the Ryder Cup event. The properties Director Nielsen was referring to are ones where the
house is empty.
Commissioner Bean asked if the intent is to limit the activity in an R-C zoning district.
Director Nielsen stated it would be a permitted use in a residential zoning district. He then stated the
Ryder Cup is a very different thing.
Chair Davis asked how many houses are short-term rental problems. Director Nielsen stated there are two
that have been brought to the City’s attention. Davis then asked if the City of Excelsior is having similar
issues. Nielson stated he is not sure and noted that Excelsior may have a different perspective on short-
term rentals.
Director Nielsen clarified that the City’s intent is not to interfere with rentals during the Ryder Cup event.
Council Liaison Siakel made a suggestion that maybe rentals for one-time events like the Ryder Cup
should be exempt.
Chair Davis stated the problem property along Wild Rose Lane has a very large house on it. It is in an
area with substantially smaller houses in it.
Commissioner Riedel noted Airbnb is engaged in a legal battle with the City of San Francisco, California.
He summarized what is going on there.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 20 of 22
Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 8:59 P.M.
9. CLARIFY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING REQUEST
Applicant: Peter Lehman
Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road
Director Nielsen explained that Peter Lehman had made a multifaceted request for the redevelopment of
his property located at Merry Lane and Radisson Inn Road. At one point he had requested rezoning it to
R-1C so that he could have smaller lots. He wanted variances because if he moved the lot line then the
existing house would become somewhat nonconforming. He wanted to keep at least one of the cabins; it
was unclear if he wanted to keep more of them.
During its April 19, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision
of the lot line rearrangement and the variance subject to the current setback requirements.
Mr. Lehman has requested a specific ruling on his request for rezoning from R-1A/S, Single-Family
Residential Shoreland to R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential Shoreland. Staff continues to recommend
against that rezoning because that would clearly be spot zoning.
Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission consider a motion recommending the City Council deny the
rezoning from R-1A/S to R-1C/S.
Chair Davis stated she recollected that during the April 19 meeting there was discussion about whether or
not the cottages were being rented or lived in. She remembers them saying no one was living in them now
but people had lived in them in the past.
Commissioner Johnson stated Mr. Lehman’s May 4, 2016, email to Director Nielsen states that Mr.
Lehman and his wife, his children, and their extended family and friends use the cottages now but in the
past they had been rented.
Director Nielsen stated Mr. Lehman wants to keep at least one if not two of the cottages until he is ready
to build something. Toward the end of the April 19 discussion Mr. Lehman was suggesting he keep the
northerly cottage for historic preservation reasons.
Nielsen noted that the recommendation made by the Planning Commission was all of cottages would be
removed; two within 60 days and the other within one year.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending the request from Peter Lehman to rezone his
properties located at 21265 and 211285 Radisson Road from R-1A/S to R-1C/S be denied. Motion
passed 5/0.
Commissioner Riedel asked what the motivation was to ask the Planning Commission to specifically
make a recommendation on the rezoning request when the outcome was almost certain.
Director Nielsen stated after the April 19 meeting Mr. Lehman could have gone before Council with the
recommendation for two fairly buildable lots. One of the existing lots is perfectly buildable and the other
is too small to build on. He assumes Mr. Lehman did not want to part with the cottages. He explained that
Mr. Lehman asked that Council consideration of his requests be postponed. He later came back with
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 21 of 22
issues about the minutes for the meeting. The Recording Secretary re-listened to the audio recording of
the minutes and verified the accuracy of the portion of the minutes Mr. Lehman had issue with.
Commissioner Riedel asked if Mr. Lehman wants to use tonight’s action in a future argument. Director
Nielsen responded he does not know.
Commissioner Maddy asked if the Lehmans were looking for more clarification.
Director Nielsen explained that one of the reasons Mr. Lehman asked for rezoning is because the setbacks
in the R-1C/S zoning district are less than in the R-1A/S zoning district. Mr. Lehman was seeking a
guarantee that he would have the smaller setbacks without there being any strings attached.
Commissioner Johnson stated his recollection was Mr. Lehman was trying to maximize the marketability
of the properties. Commissioner Maddy concurred. Commissioner Riedel stated staff’s recommendation
was to grant him variances so he could have two buildable lots and he thought that was generous
considering the amount of nonconformity.
10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
11. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Chair Davis stated when the HVAC company moved into the old bait shop she thought the intent was
keep people from cutting through the lot. Director Nielsen stated the company representatives did not say
that and noted that he recommended that. Drivers are cutting through there frequently. Nielsen stated he
thought the American Legion objected to them closing it off. Davis stated she was almost t-boned by a
kid driving a convertible recently. Nielson stated he thought it would be prudent to close that cut-thru; it
is an accident waiting to happen.
Davis asked for an update on the paving of the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension. Director Nielsen
stated he was not sure.
Commissioner Bean asked if the City had any input about increasing the speed limit on Highway 7 to 55
miles per hour (mph) in those areas where it was less than that all the way to Hopkins. Council Liaison
Siakel stated the City was basically told by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) that is
what was going to happen. Chair Davis stated anyone who regularly drives that roadway on a Saturday
morning knows that the only way to make the lights is to drive 55 mph. Bean questioned the reasoning for
raising the speed limit near the schools.
12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is the continued public hearing from tonight regarding rezoning slated for
the August 2, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. There are also two other items.
Commissioner Riedel noted that he cannot attend the August 2 meeting.
Commissioner Johnson stated his status for that meeting is not known at this time noting there is a good
chance he could be out of town.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 19, 2016
Page 22 of 22
13. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Siakel reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s July 11,
2016, meetings (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She also reported on the July 14 Shorewood
Economic Development Authority meeting and Council special meeting (as detailed in the minutes of
those meetings).
• SLUC
Director Nielsen stated he has been remiss in sending the Planning Commissioners notices of Sensible
Land Use Coalition sessions.
• Other
14. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2016, at
9:15 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
arsh -Pt
,cK I ,
I
cn
901
L'
o�
'erly Dr
ca
U
9 c U
O�
n
Sn)ithtown
;Maple Shore
��
Carver County Border
m ithtowr
L
La
0 250 500
Freeman Park
L �
_� -'3
o
ak
Os
Epr
c�
0
1,000 � Han'rl
M Feet
I1
Park _
Hyd.
Building Pormit Surve for:
900
N
to
11 to
a
D I
�
O
�O
G
tT� g0b "
98oA 155.Z�
o
O „C x
80 4� 5 G ; _1 --1
19.0 7
to
33.91
1"Elm `!
O
10
I
I
6 "Asa ; vQ �°
at
2 4' °J
N
i
/
'go
O
I .? x ...........01:..0
r . .. X
..........-
24.00 0 16.00 �;
fV
C9
°
~
,ti,
III .00 O 6 "As
s
0
21 "C.W.115 "C.W.
22 "Ash
I
b
6
5.3 PROPOSED
HOUS
o
1
1300
S, .21 " 18
rve Inv: 5'80 a
" °o J
9773 11.50
I
a
N
CN
11 "C.wn
0
2.00 o M "berry
o
� 18
7"A
i I b`•; " 20.33ts............. .........�
!'�C� p•fb• x e� / �
Q 20A';
od. II V 18 "Asa�ri- ..._. •Building Setback Line 10
IT
N
961
X X.,
901 � -•-
►• Stump location was done by \
by Waterstreet Builders.
C.W. — Cottonwood
Denotes Tree Stump
o Denotes Iron Monument Set
• Denotes Iron Monument Found
960.tx Denotes Existing Elevation
x Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Proposed Surface Drainage
o Denotes Hub
LS 141.95
0
x 900
i°
�Y N Nu-
H��HVIi
STATE
Scale: Exhibit B
I hereby certify that thii PROPERTY SURVEY
representation of a sun
the land above describe
a proposed house.
906 `
of
z
n�.
r�
r
r
H
H
O
z
P�
O
Or
O
(JQ
0
O
C
O
W
Vt
CQ
R.
dq
9F
e1Rd
,--, -1
-� it
�y
WO
iz 1
Lake Minnetonka
CD
\a"'Ridg
ir
Subject
property
llllgl� ON-PS-2dill 0 — F.O..
Creek
\' L`"
5mitntowr
Cir
_CU
o�
500 1,000
Feet
g-
CD
Ir_chard n
Cir
C,.
elsine_.Dr,
9
GRAPHIC SCALE
20 o to 20 40
eI
( IN FEET )
m
t„
��S Jam,• rlixn n �'�g�T{,
9J9s - -929.4 conjoin
_ 1Yood Dock (B]tJ
___ _ _
_
_ -
_�.Zz_.
N "- -------- _
N :Zzzz
zz_ __'Z -----
M5 14' Dck
9aei' ♦.981, I- _, -.••'_
01.] X901.6 BB� 0 901.0
I I �B , W I X9 §IA- ZBFF`•B
" X-1
I1�991.8 BBI� to XB� �, , X.—
II n] 31.1 a�
I @ u
I LM I
.9
X a
3
Existing (Dwelling
Le •� HJ 1 ° s� � I
II _ � y• 61� R
y I O Al
I W I X
Ilk
♦, � ' �wd�a I
• g flacv9974.6; aJ7. t B)h] 9JBX]
J
W 9J,.9 co were 9> {A g Eb i 6i a
B�' ,
X 7M I
I I i' '
�
I I � ,; aJ3B ♦♦
X. u B)f.l t� 9]AT♦ I
` I sewv__-_j ' N O
1
94 I aiaB \ ' X
I °]20 m ♦
B]I1 ♦t 9]21 C tt' '1 Fas \�9)SA
912S',�,�U x♦ \ I
I I Bn.B t I
I °itp
S h ed 9 o Ja
9 s I t'1114 Jae
I I am� tt ,'Tile) vch Tiee � I �C\
I
yy BJ0.0 I -972- I
It
I `\ I Bba9 \ \XsJ44 ♦ \�� I
*76 J
9]0.0 9>40
VIA
606—',
oos
8]44
X9]1.0
Ed9B lift: - � Xa]as
a � 1 7` Road
( IX999.e �t }4CY�
r, Be o h �pu�is g64 B
taa r m
Exhibit B
EXISTING SURVEY
July 5, 2016
City Council and Planning Commission Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposed Home Construction and Variance for 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood,lVLN
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
This intent of this letter and the attached Zoning and Subdivision Application is to detail the proposed new home
construction for the Keegan residence located at 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN and to request a variance to the
residential side yard setback requirements listed in Section 1201.26 S, Subd. 5 of the City of Shorewood (City) Zoning
Regulations. The proposed front and rear elevations, floor plans, lot layout, and proposed hardcover are shown on the
attached NRDI architectural drawings dated September 6, 2015. Also included with this application is a survey of the
property dated July 8, 2015 which details the existing conditions and tabulates the existing hardcover for the property.
Specifically, the variance being requested is only for the total side yard setback required, thirty feet (30'), and the home
would still meet the minimum required side yard setback of ten feet (10') on both sides of the property, resulting in a total
of twenty feet (20') of side yard setback for the property. The primary factor behind this request is the unique
configuration of this property, being only 60' in width but 330' in length, which without a variance, the side yard setbacks
would consume 50% of the property width making any new home limited to thirty feet (30') wide. Additionally, the
existing home is only four feet (4') from westerly property line which would be increased to ten feet (10') under the
proposal bringing the lot into conformance with the minimum side yard setback requirement. Finally, the proposed design
will decrease the hard cover for the property from 34.4% to 30% in an attempt to better conform to the city hard cover
requirements.
The specific criteria listed in the city zoning ordinance for variances are listed below followed by our responses.
Is the proposed variance a reasonable use of the property?
- The existing home is quite modest compared to other homes on the block and thus it is reasonable to improve the
house to be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood;
- The proposed home would be a more reasonable use of the property as it would conform to the existing building
codes and fire codes as well as improve compliance with existing City ordinances - namely set back and hard
cover requirements;
- The location of the home on the lot, positioned near the lake end of the lot, is desirable and common for homes in
the Shoreline District to enjoy the full view and access of the lake. It's location on the lot meets the bluff and lake
setback requirements in the City ordinance and is also consistent with the neighboring home setbacks. The
proposed house would be set back farther from the lake compared to the home to the south and closer to the lake
compared to the home to the north roughly splitting the difference between the two for setback from the lake.
Are there circumstances unique to the property to justify the variance?
- The property is unique fiom other properties on the block due to how narrow and deep the lot is (60'x 330'). The
lot width is only sixty feet (60') wide, half of which would be required for setbacks. The narrowness of the
property causes unique building challenges which are the driving force behind the variance request;
- Without the variance request, any newly constructed home would be extremely narrow and inconsistent with the
other homes in the neighborhood. Exhibit C
APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER
Have the circumstances requiring the variance been caused by the property owner(s)?
- The width of the lot was not caused by any of the property owners. However, the current side yard setback of
four feet (4') was caused by a previous property owner and the proposed design would eliminate this non-
conformance by increasing it to a ten foot (10') setback.
Is the proposed use consistent with the zoning code and comprehensive plan?
- The proposed construction is consistent with the current City zoning ordinances for General Development (GD) in
the Shoreland District and comprehensive plan for the area to be developed as residential property. The proposal
will increase the existing side yard setbacks and decrease the existing hard cover on the property.
Does the variance alter the essential character of the area?
- The proposed home would not alter the character of the surrounding area but rather would improve it to be more
consistent with the surrounding property uses. Currently, the home is one of the lowest valued homes in the
neighborhood and the new construction would have a value more consistent with other Shoreland District homes
in the neighborhood.
Does the existing ordinance create a practical difficulty in achieving the manner of use?
The existing ordinance creates undue hardship for the enjoyment and use of a typical lakefront property given that
the total setback requirements would consume 50% of the lot width leaving an extremely narrow home, only
thirty feet (30') wide. Additionally, given the depth and narrowness of the lot, a sprinkler system will be required
to meet the City fire code on a home size that would not otherwise require a sprinkler system. This additional
cost of construction is a significant detriment to the development of a new home if the home can only be 3 0'
wide. These aspects are unique to this property which will not create a precedent for other properties in the future
unless they are similarly narrow and deep, which very few are.
In summary, the proposed design and layout for the property will decrease the total hardcover by 4.4 %, increase the
existing side yard setback from four feet (41) to ten feet (10') while maintaining the minimum side yard setbacks of ten
feet (10') on both sides of the lot, and make the property more consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood.
We have met with the immediate neighbors on the project and they are supportive of our efforts to invest in and improve
the property as can be seen by the attached letters of support. Finally, the proposed variance will increase the conformity
of the property to the existing building and fire codes. We appreciate your time and consideration of this variance request
and are available to provide any additional information or answer any questions you may have regarding the project.
Sincerely,
William an Melanie Keegan
25830 Birch Bluff Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
612 - 845 -5075
Cc: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
Attachments
- Zoning/Subdivision Application Form & Fee
- Architectural Drawings dated 9 -6 -16;
- Property Survey dated 7 -8 -15;
- Mailing list of property owners within 500 feet;
I n7se •�_D29q Can /ovr
` 9zar I
DI a
4� its
— --
�{ '- `158,-
79' Wk
J(-A
...__..__.- �i�_ �F- �C%1 C •�__��- 5"cL_',.__U4.1�:`Lf..iwt �:° "£. - -__ � I X63LbLBFfvt
_._ �_....... _ ._ - .------ .._..-- _..--- -_..., X981.1
B I
0 .._ _ XmA
� 1
a I� DX NiP,
77"
_ I-
Exislinq I D gelling
cz > I
� � I ✓ ✓✓ �v iD S / 7' ( nsr, ry 0
1 � vIJB� t I
9121 Jti_..,_ 0rs1f `�Mr >SJ 9�C !
nz m I
Xaro:�
171.2 ` 1 '`• ` : m``y D]S.r
'72't\
I � i
I� r71D v I
I '1
I11 I i 1 IXvaD.l ltd -_ �
l _ 60.96'„ B r:LD
Jr f J A,O 0 0V811 170.,
XD185
O &7 I
,l xn7DA 11 Bluff goad
��Xvar.s T -Birch
n h �d► 4b9.8
r°v ar 0
Exhibit D
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
I
i
i
i
.i. ,. -.I,., - ......{ _ i• j ! I � f i
Pb
i t s ti•.; t
'I;�_-
_ o, 5Yh _L '✓ _ z..- y!f -:. 0 i)
_ = —
�
I
-i.
( I
i t 1
! i
I
F
f
:
�d d®
Ila minim] Rol
1
I
Ila
.`
Odom
�d d®
Ila minim] Rol
1
� Dl�
IZA
FF
cr
�
' --1�--�
,
-7� ------------------
� ' ---__-�-_-----_�
. 7117
f 7!
JI
fy
! L-I
--- -------
tl
..... . ..... ..........
TC
:
•; i i i , ! j
f__,. I..._.. '— T-- .....�.�._,_.,1 —_.- ._:war_:.? • awl -.�k '. . �. s. ... _i _
i . I I { -'i_^ —� k . � -j � - f...''��: rte}.. :3'• .' _ "... t i } f � r
4.T.._.._,.. —F�._ f t 3 ._.. ` I # 3 � i ; �D• K�w°S.!� it •�•__ �. i ..3 ..- I Ij 1 t i I t
i t �I _ �� • --- -l- i I 1 € � � _.!_, _i_T;i - ". I' ._.�w.: _I_- -�__ "_.I_.- .._r....F i_ I ,
— "� t ; ; •_ __�_- _.. —I —��_ � � "� ��([I�� .—. �.....�i i t' I— �• - -� I 4'u I M= t� I i } i f !
ti
vi CKV6
Lill-
11
— 1
A-1— t'!^ur ? Pao _.�.._ . ._ _ - , G 25
_w.
:
{ 9i48 ' '7 ?'9f Cp�lOy/
i
P.41_4> r 1 ' U S a....�
- - ----
yy ' tots I
.". .'' a1,3 Xeals I XaywLeFfrea J(MA
.._ ---------
Xaoz4
- -�� •�� � , 2�_ -_ - -- / -- --- 4;0Z�, a auto �•
.. .l%52Lv'� ltj R'1_ .. - - - -- �� r(,� yam" ✓fr � I� n u� � �a `r `'' a ,° I
4\§ E &J q�� I rj1� fs'' I t6 'a ua 'I • Existing welling
_ _ . -- ._..._.. ...... ...... ..... . ...I - _._ —_.... i a Y
e G `
Iti 1,a' " ai0
a
I
9j �p`9 lea
1 i
6 PAC,
2,( ,6
9)la
'���� �. 4 �i t Cr" y°`� � �� � �� � � I y M � •> t ; � s: P� ° -'koi Xni .> I
i , Taal t, I
a 1
I------------------
40 zi
• � � I � ', I ,x2� a�° I
I, r ailn I
I'' a ti71p I
hA I� I
or 0
/ > izo
II �� ' �TijSle bb<h Ticc ' I ' iCt
Y ray nms
r �wa1
_ C, 96' aiLa
0'08'11'
Fdja g1L -- ) Xn)as
.l Xa700 Xtoad
Birch Bluff
L'
TOP Of
Exhibit F
AVERAGE SETBACK
July 5, 2016
City Council and Planning Commission Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposed Home Construction and Variance for 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
This intent of this letter is to inform you that we are supportive of the proposed new home construction and
variance to the side yard setbacks for the Keegan residence located at 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
as shown on the NRDI plans dated September 6, 2015.. We have met with the Keegan's and we understand that
variance being requested is to the total side yard setback required, thirty feet (30'), and that the minimum
required side yard setback of ten feet (10') will still be met on both sides of the property, resulting in a total of
twenty feet (20') of side yard setback for the property. Further, we understand that the hard cover for the
property is being reduced from 34.4% to 30% as a result of the reconstruction project.
Sincerely,
Name(s):
1� � 4s-IA W,14D
Address: P b k 44 �AK1)
Signature:
tlu6lo - L , 4
6 V �N
Cc: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
July 5, 2016
City Council and Planning Commission Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposed Home Construction and Variance for 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
This intent of this letter is to inform you that we are supportive of the proposed new home construction and
variance to the side yard setbacks for the Keegan residence located at 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
as shown on the NRDI plans dated September 6, 2015. We have met with the Keegan's and we understand that
variance being requested is to the total side yard setback required, thirty feet (30'), and that the minimum
required side yard setback of ten feet (10') will still be met on both sides of the property, resulting in a total of
twenty feet (20') of side yard setback for the property. Further, we understand that the hard cover for the
property is being reduced from 34.4% to 30% as a result of the reconstruction project.
Sincerely,
Name(s): -X• I • I�R�t)&e
Address:
Signature:
Cc: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
July 5, 2016
City Council and Planning Commission Members
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Proposed Home Construction and Variance for 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members:
This intent of this letter is to inform you that we are supportive of the proposed new home construction and
variance to the side yard setbacks for the Keegan residence located at 25830 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN
as shown on the NRDI plans dated September 6, 2015.. We have met with the Keegan's and we understand that
variance being requested is to the total side yard setback required, thirty feet (30'), and that the minimum
required side yard setback of ten feet (10') will still be met on both sides of the property, resulting in a total of
twenty feet (20') of side yard setback for the property. Further, we understand that the hard cover for the
property is being reduced from 34.4% to 30% as a result of the reconstruction project.
Sincerely,
Name(s): %d A//O L D 2" OaWZ5 oW�,V&l
Address: CRS ��0 Arz( fw 41L4/F/C Iz
Signature
SX,,W- t Ja 6f7, /,14 SS33 /
Cc: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director