10-06-2020 Planning Commission Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY OCTOBER 6, 2020 7:00 P.M.
Due to the Centers for Disease Control’s recommendation limiting the number of people present at a
meeting, and pursuant to MN Statute §13D.02, the Shorewood Planning Commission meetings will be
held by electronic means. For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to
http://ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting/ for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900
during regular business hours with questions. For link issues at meeting time, call 952.960.7906.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MADDY (___) ______
GORHAM (___) ______
EGGENBERGER (___) _ _
GAULT (___) ______
RIEDEL (___) ______
COUNCIL LIAISON (SIAKEL) ______
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 4, 2020
September 1, 2020 Joint Work Session
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) PUD Amendment for Minnetonka Country Club- 5745 Featherie Bay
Applicant: U.S. Homes dba Lennar
Location: Lot 7 Block 3 Minnetonka Country Club
4. NEW BUSINESS
A) Variance for setback to OHWL of Christmas Lake
Applicant: Richard Hoyt
Location 5710 Ridge Road
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A) ZONING ORDINANCES AMENDMENT (CONTINUED)
Miscellaneous text amendments discussion
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
7. REPORTS
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
October 6, 2020
Page 2
Council Meeting Report
Draft Next Meeting Agenda
Liaison Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2020 7:00 P.M.
DRAFT MINUTES
Due to a recording failure, some information was not able to be accurately included.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gorham, Gault and Riedel; Planning
Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Siakel
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gault moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for August 4, 2020, as presented.
Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 7, 2020
Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of July 7, 2020, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 (Commissioner Gorham
abstained due to absence at the previous meeting).
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised 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.
A. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING
AND PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE VILLAS OF SHOREWOOD VILLAGE
Applicant: Stoddard Company
Location: Vacant parcel north of Highway 7 between Eureka Road and
Seamans Drive
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
Hearing and asked for Planning Director Planning Director Darling to present the request.
Director Darling presented the staff report and indicated that staff were recommending approval
of the item subject to several conditions. Planning Director Darling also indicated that staff had
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 4, 2020 ----DRAFT----
Page 2 of 4
received a letter from the Shorewood Ponds board of directors that included a preference that the
road be constructed through the subdivision rather than end in a cul-de-sac.
Chair Maddy recognized the applicant, Bill Stoddard representing Stoddard Companies.
Commissioner Riedel asked the applicant if more information would be presented on the design
of the storm water plan.
The applicant is responded affirmatively, noting that information would be presented with more
detail in later PUD phases.
Commissioner Gorham asked about the email from MnDOT staff indicating that their staff is of
the conclusion that the development would be too small to warrant any improvements to the
intersection.
The applicant indicated that they agreed with MnDOT and noted that staff had directed them to
provide a traffic study of the intersection, but due to the impact of the COVID pandemic, they did
not think any traffic study would be accurate.
Director Darling noted that the development may not warrant improvements to the intersection,
but without the study staff is unable to determine if the waits at the intersection would increase to
the point that residents would take alternative routes to the other intersections with Highway 7.
Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M.
Chair Maddy recognized Kim Koehnen, 6115 Seamans Drive, indicated that she is in supportive
of the reduction in density from previous sketches and supports the cul-de-sac as it would cut
down on through traffic to Cub and park traffic after events.
Chair Maddy recognized Joe Quillen, 6100 Seamans Drive, indicated that he is concerned about
property values and does not believe that they would not be impacted.
Chair Maddy recognized Steve Frazier, 6125 Seamans Drive, preferred this layout over a through
street to cut down on traffic from the park. He remembered that the property owner cut down a
number of trees in the southeast corner of the site after a previous development approval was
denied because it would have been too high a density. He also asked if approval of this PUD
would be a precedent for any additional requests in the area and if this would be based on a
particular zoning district.
Director Darling noted that each PUD is custom-suited to the property and based on a particular
situation property. As such, they do not act as a precedent to approve additional developments.
This development would be most consistent with the R-1D zoning district, although not fully
compliant.
Chair Maddy recognized Sandy Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive, listed a number of comments:
she felt this development would make the traffic situation in the neighborhood worse
she proposed the City buy the property and create a park
she was concerned that the development would encourage parking on Seamans Drive
she was concerned with how close the homes would be to the property to the north and
felt the largest setbacks should be adjacent to the north property line
she was supportive of limiting sheds and other property issues could be limited
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 4, 2020 ----DRAFT----
Page 3 of 4
Chair Maddy recognized Robert Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive stated that he agreed with Sandy’s
point, did not feel there was a need for change and was not in support of the additional lots.
Chair Maddy recognized Mike Steadman, 24505 Niblick Alcove stated that detached villas are
perfect for empty nesters and the market is very strong. He indicated that the villas in the
Minnetonka Country Club have sold out. He stated that the homes provide 2500-3500 square
feet on the main floor and a maintenance free living, which is a nice alternative.
8:xx
Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at P.M.
Eggenberger moved, Gualt seconded, recommending approval of the application for
comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning to PUD and PUD Concept plan subject to the
conditions listed in the memo. Motion passed 4/1, with Chair Maddy dissenting.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Variance to Front Setback for a Deck
Applicant: Elizabeth Witchger and Gerry Trainor
Location: 5840 Strawberry Land
Chair Maddy introduced the application and recognized Director Darling to present the staff report.
Planning Director Darling presented the staff report and indicated that she had received two letter
expressing support for the application from the following neighbors,
Dan Malone, 5830 Strawberry Lane
Dania Schulman, 26425 Strawberry Ct.
Chair Maddy recognized the applicant and Pat Mackey, the applicant’s architect who spoke in
favor of the request.
Mr. Mackey indicated the purpose of the project was to provide both a safe entrance to the home
and to provide more community interaction.
Chair Maddy recognized Dania Schulman, 26425 Strawberry Ct. who also spoke in favor of the
request.
Commissioner Riedel asked about the concerns with the setback.
he supported the project and did not think it was intrusive, but
Commissioner Gorman indicated
without a practical difficulty he could not, in strict interpretation of the code, recommend
approving the variance.
Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, recommending approval of the application for
variance to front setback subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion failed
1/4. (Commissioner Eggenberger voting aye)
Those voting against the variance found that the applicant, while not a request for an
unreasonable variance, had not shown practical difficulties existed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 4, 2020 ----DRAFT----
Page 4 of 4
Director Darling indicated that both applications would move to the City Council on August 24,
2020.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
6. REPORTS
• Council Meeting Report
Councilmember Siakel summarized several items that were on the last Council agenda.
• Draft Next Meeting Agenda
Director Darling indicated the next meeting would include a variance application. A separate
meeting would likely be scheduled to discuss the fire lane tours.
Commissioner Gorham volunteered to present the items at the October City Council meeting,
Commissioner Eggenberger volunteered for November, and Commissioner Riedel volunteered in
December.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Reidel moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August
4, 2020, at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CONVENE JOINT PLANNING AND PARK COMMISSION WORK SESSION MEETING
Chair Maddy and Chair Mangold called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Planning Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gault (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Gorham,
Eggenberger, and Riedel; Park Commissioners Mangold, Hirner, Gallivan;
Planning Director Darling; Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Siakel;
Communications Director Moore
Absent: Park Commissioner Schmid
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Riedel moved, Mangold seconded, approving the Joint Planning and Park Commission
agenda, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 7/0
1. FIRE LANE DISCUSSION
Planning Director Darling stated that both Commissions have been able to tour the fire lanes.
She explained that now the task is to ask the following questions: How well does each fire lane
serve the public as a lake access?; Are the uses that are currently allowed appropriate in each of
the fire lanes?; Are there other uses that are currently not permitted that could be approved based
on the characteristics of each fire lane?; Should improvements be completed to allow the site to
serve as public lake access more effectively? She reviewed the currently allowed uses for Class
1, Class 2 and Class 3 fire lanes. She stated that she received 2 letters after the packet was sent
out to the Commissioners, so she has sent those along separately.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen to a fire lane if the City decides
to close it.
Planning Director Darling stated that would depend on whether the City would decide to put up
barriers, have zero maintenance so it would be natural vegetation, or if they would like to vacate
the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if a fire lane was vacated whether it simply becomes
part of the adjoining property.
Planning Director Darling explained that it would depend on how the City originally acquired the
land. She stated that this may mean that the property may not be split evenly between the two
adjacent properties. She stated that if the land is platted, that would be an entirely different
situation and noted that she knows that there is one that is in an easement which has utilities in
that location.
The Commissions decided to discuss each fire land individually.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 2 of 23
Planning Director Darling reviewed the location of Fire Lane 1.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the City is technically responsible for maintaining the
fire lanes and asked what the City currently does regarding maintenance.
Planning Director Darling stated that there is not much that the City has been tasked to do and
noted that they are not on mowing schedules. She explained that if a tree dies or falls and a
property owner asks the City to remove it that is about the extent of what the City has done.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this fire lane seems to be the most challenging
one because the neighbor appears to have commandeered a good portion of this public property.
He stated that he believes someone was even storing a boat lift on this property.
Planning Director Darling stated that there was a boat lift on the fire lane which was part of the
correspondence that was sent out earlier. She explained that the City had asked the property
owner to remove their private, transportable private property and cut off their irrigation system at
the property line, which they have done. She stated that now staff is waiting for more direction
from the Planning and Park Commissions before they have them complete any additional work.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked how all the rip rap was put in along the shoreland without
the City being made aware of it or having any permit pulled.
Planning Director Darling stated that the City has not gone any further with enforcement until staff
knows the outcome of the discussions by the two Commissions.
Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he was at the property earlier today and the boat lift
was still located on the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that she was unsure if there were any others in the area, but
knows that the one that the City sent notice to has been removed.
Chair Maddy stated that the City has received substantial correspondence from the Yacht Club
about how they wish to take care of that property. He asked if the City had gotten any input from
the home at 4595, which has commandeered a good chunk of public property.
Planning Director Darling stated that they had sent in the letter that she e-mailed to the
Commissioners earlier today and noted that they have complied with what the City has asked
them to do. She stated that they are waiting to see if there will be more required of them based
on the outcome of tonight’s meeting.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is its
remoteness. He stated that if the City will convert it into access and maintain it, he is concerned
about how much it would actually be used.
Planning Director Darling stated that the Yacht Club has indicated that there are quite a few
people who are interested in launching kayaks through the fire lane. She stated that if the City
would put in a parking space or two along the fire lane, it could be a more popular attraction for
kayakers and canoes. She stated that the Yacht Club is already allowing some people from the
public to launch from their property and that activity could be shifted to the fire lane. She stated
that it appears that there is demand for small vessels.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 3 of 23
Councilmember Siakel asked how Planning Director Darling knows that there is demand.
Planning Director Darling stated that at this point, she can only pass along what she has been
told by the Board of Directors at the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it appears that the Yacht Club is also willing to maintain
the property.
Scott Brown stated that he lives in the neighborhood near this fire lane. He stated that he is a
former Commodore of the Yacht Club and is the only one who lives in the east side of the road.
He stated that when he served as the Commodore about 20 years ago, the fire lane was
abandoned swamp land. He stated that while he served as Commodore, they cleaned up a lot of
the lake shore and pulled out materials, but this was not associated with the fire lane. He stated
that if the Yacht Club is allowing people to launch across their property, it is in violation of the
CUP and noted that there is no parking on this street. He stated he cannot imagine a concept
that says that there is demand for lake access out in this area because they are just a remote,
small street. He stated that he does not think storage for kayaks or canoes would be allowed in
this location either. He stated he is also an avid cross-country skier and he cannot fathom
somebody using a lake access to get onto the lake to cross country ski and doesn’t understand
why this was included as a use.
Planning Director Darling explained that cross country skiing is a listed use for this classification
of fire lane which is listed within the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Brown stated that he just doesn’t feel that the end of this street is a good place to have a
public access.
Mike and Siggit Rosenberg, 4595 Enchanted Point, stated that they have not commandeered the
property. He explained that they purchased it in 2003, and the grass, sod, irrigation system as
well as the landscaping were all in the fire lane at the time when they purchased the property and
was done prior to their ownership. He stated that the rip rap that was there was mostly existing,
but noted that they did extend a small portion of it. He stated that they are small boulders that
can be carried and were just there to help with the erosion and flooding which have helped. He
stated that he feels that they have always respected that property as fire lane and are not trying
to misrepresent anything and want to fully cooperate with the City. He explained that the lift that
is currently on the property is not their lift and explained that he thinks it belongs to the Yacht
Club. He agreed with the there is a boat lift in the fire lane, but reiterated that it is not their boat
lift.
Mr. Brown stated that the flooding in the area a few years ago was caused because the Yacht
Club dredged the land and their contractor cut a swath to the lake and lowered the shoreline which
meant the whole neighborhood flooded when the lake went up. He stated that he built a dam to
stop the water and the City came out and he pointed out to the Mayor who also came out to tour
the area that the Yacht Club was illegally storing their boat lifts on the fire lane property. He stated
that he can see the boat lifts that the Yacht Club has collected just looking from his property to
theirs.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City is not trying to point fingers at anybody
for wrongdoing, but is trying to clean up this situation.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that she also agreed with Mr. Brown that this is a quiet residential
neighborhood and they would not want to see this area turned into a storage area for personal
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 4 of 23
watercraft, such as wave runners or jet skis. She stated that this would totally change the
residential neighborhood and expand the commercial use of that land. She stated that it would
change something that is called Enchanted Island into something that is not so enchanted.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy noted that the ordinance would not allow for motorized
vehicles so it would just be kayaks and canoes.
Planning Director Darling agreed and clarified that there may be things like a kayak or
paddleboard, but nothing like a jet ski.
Mr. Brown stated that there is also zero parking in the area. He noted that they cannot park on
the street because the streets are so narrow.
Mr. Rosenberg agreed that there is absolutely no place to park. He stated that due to COVID-19
they have actually used the property more than they have in several years. He noted that the
property is currently for sale, but they may decide to keep it and move out there permanently.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know from the current Commodore
whether the people that are launching canoes and kayaks are residents that do not have direct
lake access from the west side of the island. He stated that he agrees that he cannot imagine
people are driving out there to do that.
Mr. Brown stated that the CUP states that no one is to be there unless they are a member or
accompanied by a member. He stated that this is a major point of contention because it is violated
literally every day.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know if the people that are launching
from the Yacht Club are the same ones that would launch from the fire lane if it is all cleaned up
and made accessible.
Mr. Brown stated that he thinks it is fictitious because if someone is using the Yacht Club to launch
a kayak it is illegal and shouldn’t be happening. He stated that he does not think there are actually
people launching their kayaks from the Yacht Club.
Councilmember Siakel asked if the neighbors have any knowledge of anyone using the fire lane
for launching any canoes or kayaks. She asked if this was a moot point because it has not been
used that way.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that since 2003 when they purchased the property, no one has come down
to use the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked where people would park if they were launching the
watercraft from either the fire lane or the Yacht Club.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that if this was a public use and it is being discussed in
the same context at parks, they would think about what they put in the park and whether or not
the City has the capacity for parking and traffic flow for that use. He stated that if there is not
enough traffic flow, they are limited to how many ball fields or playgrounds they have. He stated
that if there isn’t parking, it is not able to be public access. He stated that he does not think there
is a way to create parking in this location that would be a viable option.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks that is a commonality to all of the fire lanes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 5 of 23
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that this is one of the City’s larger fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he thinks of it as an access factor where people who
live within close proximity to the fire lane could use it on a regular basis.
Mr. Brown stated that he is familiar with using fire lanes because he races ice boats and they use
the fire lanes on the lower lake side, but the difference between that fire lane and this fire lane is
the other one is a black topped, curbed road and this is technically a dirt road with no parking
allowed.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked whether it would be an option for the City to work with the Yacht
Club to change their permit and allow the launching of personal watercrafts and if so, whether the
City needs to retain the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling explained that the Yacht Club is private property and not public property.
She stated that just because one membership board may allow public access, it does not mean
any future boards would also allow that use. She stated that if the City is interested in adding use
such as a storage rack for canoes in the area, then she thinks the City could look at how to add
parking in the area. She stated that there may be some good ground suitable for this purpose.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn’t understand why people would use this fire
lane. He stated that he doesn’t want to put the onus on the City or the residents to have to
maintain them. He stated that to him, the question is, if the City were to no longer designate them
as fire lanes, what would be done with them. He reiterated that he does not think this is a location
that people will use.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Park Commissioner Gallivan
that the City should look at the option of closing fire lane #1.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that they would be interested in talking to the City if there is any possibility
of a lease or purchase of that property.
Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that the discussion move on to the other fire lanes in
the City because he doesn’t want them all to be lumped in together.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels fire lane #1 is different than the other fire lanes
because there is potential here for some development, but he is going to echo what the other
Commissioners have said that he doubts that the public will use this location. He stated that he
drove out there earlier today and it took him 45 minutes to get there. He stated that he agrees
that there is the potential for parking and another use, but feels it would be very minimally used
by the public.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that there is enough room for a few parking spots and
a place to store a few kayaks, but asked if it was the consensus that there would not be any
demand for this and would ultimately be a waste of the City’s resources.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that part of his concern is the perception and making too
many assumptions on how it is being used now versus how it may be used in the future. He
stated that he has concerns about the perception of turning over public property for private use to
wealthier shoreland owners while restricting lake access to people who are more inland. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 6 of 23
stated that he would rather keep most of the fire lanes as they are rather than turning some of the
property over because lake access is pretty precious.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he agrees and would rather the City send the
maintenance crew there a few times a month to keep it clean than consider conveying it to
different property owners and disallowing the public use of the space.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he doesn’t want people to look back and say that in
2020, people weren’t using it, so we gave the people next door the right to it. He stated that he
doesn’t think the City is going bankrupt by maintaining it.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concerns are for the property owners on the island that
do not have lake access and if this goes away, where can they go to get access to the lake.
Mr. Brown stated that there is the Shady Island bridge area that has about five times better access
to the water than this fire lane. He stated that to his knowledge, the fire lane has not been used
in the 25 years he has lived in his home. He stated that this would not be “taking anything away”
from people because it is not walkable.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he walked out there today and feels it is walkable.
Mr. Brown noted that it is walkable right now because the Yacht Club went out with chainsaws
last winter and cut down trees. He reiterated that he has never seen someone walk through that
property to the water.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that when he was out touring this fire lane, there was a
family that walked up behind him that had been fishing. He stated that he feels it is at least getting
limited use.
Mr. Brown expressed his surprise because he has not seen anyone walking on this fire lane.
Mr. Rosenberg stated that they had recently gone fishing, so it may have been them. He
concurred with Mr. Brown that they have also never seen anybody come down the fire lane or
ask about going through there.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked whether there would be better lake access for the community
from the J.E. Memorial Park.
Planning Director Darling stated that she doesn’t have information on that because it is not in the
City of Shorewood.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to caution the group regarding their tone in
talking about wealthy lake owners and turning this into an elitist conversation. She stated that
many of people along the fire lanes have lived in their homes for a long time and do not have
wads of cash falling out of their pockets. She stated that the discussion at tonight’s meeting
should be on the current use of the fire lanes and should not just be about expanding the use of
them. She noted that many of the fire lanes are inaccessible and have not been maintained by
the City, nor is there a budget for the City to maintain them. She stated that she thinks the City
should be talking about the current use and whether it is reasonable to maintain it. She stated
that based on these questions the group should consider abandoning the fire lane or changing
the classifications. She stated that it should not just be about expanding the use and should look
at the entirety and also look at the purpose of the fire lanes in the first place, which was to fight
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 7 of 23
fires. She stated that the City has not used a fire lane in about 100 years for this purpose. She
stated that the fire lanes were not designed to create access for people to use the lake.
Mr. Brown stated that his home was one of 3 properties affected when Michael Catain moved a
dry hydrant and built his home. He stated that when they asked the City about it, they were told
they didn’t have to worry because the City had abandoned the dry hydrants, because they use
the fire lanes. He stated that he is amazed to hear that the City does not use the fire lanes. He
reiterated that this fire lane does not get used and he would describe it as abandoned property.
Planning Director Darling stated that in 1985 and 1986, the fire lanes were studied exhaustively
and at that time it was determined that there was no practical use of them for fire fighting purposes
and the only use for them was for public lake access.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels the City needs to take responsibility for the fire
lanes that will be retained. He stated that he feels that there needs to be certainty about whether
they are going to be access points or not and then the City needs to take responsibility with regard
to maintenance.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving the discussion along to the other fire lanes.
He asked if there was anyone else from the public that would like to specifically comment on fire
lane #1 before the discussion moves on. There being no public comment, the group moved onto
fire lane #2.
Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the location of fire lane #2. She noted that there
is a lift station near the shoreline and one parking space.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that it appeared as though there was irrigation piping from
the adjacent lot running across the fire lane as well as wire put in place to deter geese across the
fire lane.
Planning Director Darling noted that she had seen similar geese barriers at other fire lanes
throughout the City.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels this deters the use for public access because
it is an obstruction.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he feels this kind of thing can be expected because
the City has not been maintaining them. He stated that this is a beautiful piece of the lake and
asked if there were residents that did not have lake access that used this fire lane.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he spoke with a resident who lives up the hill and the
feedback he gave was that the status quo works for everyone that is there.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that it was awkward when he went to tour because he
had to park in the middle of the island and walk down because the road is so narrow.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he believes the City needs to retain public access in
order to get to the lift station.
Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that this fire lane provides a simpler picture of what is
going on because it is not a piece of land that can be used in any other way than its current use.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 8 of 23
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City could install a sign that explains what is
allowed, such as non-motorized vehicles.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if it should be re-classified as a service road.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if anyone from the public would like to speak
specifically regarding fire lane #2. There being no comments, he suggested moving on to fire
lane #3 which was the fire lane that the City received the most correspondence about.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he stopped by this fire lane today. He stated that in
looking at where the boundary stake was located, it appeared as though the stakes had been
pulled by the neighbor to the west. He stated that there appears to be significant encroachment.
He stated that this fire lane gets a lot of use and he has gotten feedback from numerous residents
that they do not want to see this use changed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that technically, this fire lane is a Class 1, but what they have
heard from many residents is that it is used as a Class 2. He stated that he thinks the discussion
should be on whether it should be changed to a Class 2 and the City needs to be able to step in
and create certainty for the residents. He stated that currently there appears to be some conflicts
about the use and it has essentially been left up to residents to enforce it.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that our law says that you cannot have motorized
vehicles, but it sounds like that has been used. He noted that the City did put up barriers last year
and noted that the property owner at 26260 bought it after being told that there were no motorized
vehicles allowed on the fire lane. He stated that the City had not enforced this until last year and
now there are a lot of neighbors inland who want to use it for their snow machines.
Park Commission Chair Mangold noted that the parking at this fire lane is drastically different than
the parking situation on the island.
Councilmember Siakel stated that there is parking available but this is a dangerous corner.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he understood that and wasn’t implying that they
should park on the corner, but it is significantly closer to walk to than there is on the island.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the people he was speaking with earlier today live on
Eureka and use the fire lane a lot to walk down to the lake. He reiterated that the neighbors he
spoke with support the continued use of the fire lane and allowing snowmobile and ATV access,
with some limitation on hours.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he feels there clearly needs to be better signage around
this one and there should also be some clarity on the hours of use. He stated that he believes
there should be access somewhere for people to use snowmobiles to get on the lake, but he
hesitates because if a property owner bought this with the understanding that it was zoned as one
thing and then the rules change, that gives him concern.
Jillian Blomquist, 5425 Birch Bluff Road, stated that one thing she wanted to bring up, even in
relation to the first two fire lanes, is the presumption that people are driving from far away places
or other neighborhoods and parking their cars to use the fire lane access. She stated that she
believes that is a misnomer or a misunderstanding of the use because the people in the
neighborhood are walking from their houses miles in order to use the lake access in both the
summer and winter months. She stated that they have lived in this home for 7 years and there
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 9 of 23
were snowmobiles going up and down Grant Lorenz all winter long up until this last winter. She
stated that it is really not people coming from other places and parking, so the idea that there
needs to be parking for the fire lanes to be useful is a misunderstanding. She stated that this
access has always been used for snowmobiles, but she understands the adjacent homeowner
bought this with a different understanding. She stated that she has spoken with neighbors who
have lived on Oak Ridge Circle for thirty years and they say there have been snowmobiles going
down that fire lane for the whole thirty years. She stated that she agrees that signage limiting the
operation hours or even limiting it to weekends would be a good compromise.
Sarah Fisher-Johnson, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, stated that she lives on the south side of Birch
Bluff and she was told when she purchased her house and researched the Class 1 and Class 2
designations. She stated that the barriers that were installed last year limited her being able to
pull her niece in a sled and even her walking her dog with her snowshoes. She agrees that the
usage needs some clarity and noted that there are some neighbors that do not have a fire hydrant
near so it is terrifying to her to not actually have access to the lake.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he wanted to be clear that the fire lanes are
never used to fight fires.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that when he was out in this area speaking with residents
they were standing under a pole, and it appears that the property owner at 26310 has installed
permanent fixtures within the fire lane right-of-way. He stated that it includes video surveillance
cameras and permanent snow fencing. He stated that when he saw the survey marker last
Saturday, he thought he was looking at a 10 foot fire lane and then he received the most recent
paperwork, and saw this was a 25 foot fire lane, which was why he went back again this evening
to take another look. He stated that the survey stakes have been pulled he believes to obfuscate
the nature of the fire lane. He stated that he would like to have it resurveyed and know whether
or not the City needs to be talking to the resident about removing their permanent fixtures and
landscaping.
Mark Bongard, 26260 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had removed the stakes, but the hard
stakes are still in the ground. He stated that there were some storms and winds and a few of
them fell down, so he just pulled the remaining that were standing. He stated that the marker
stakes are still in the ground with pink ribbons on them, so the boundary can still be identified. He
stated that he wasn’t trying to cause harm.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that they were not there at 6:30 p.m. this evening. He noted
that he appreciated that Mr. Bongard has been maintaining the fire lane and mowing it.
Mr. Bongard stated that their biggest issue with this situation is that would like the rules that they
were told when they purchased the home to be in play. He stated that the use of the fire lane for
pedestrian use, kayaks, canoes, paddleboards, and people fishing is fine. He stated that the only
issue they have is the winter time usage with motorized vehicles. He stated that he doesn’t agree
with the people that are saying that his is the way it has always been done because that begs the
question whether they are okay with breaking the law for 30 years. He stated that just because it
has been done doesn’t mean it is okay. He stated that the fire lane is wide enough and flat enough
that people been driving through with fish houses and noted that this activity happens at all hours
of the night. He reiterated that they purchased the home with the understanding that there would
be pedestrian use along this fire lane. He stated that all of their bedrooms are on the side of the
home near the fire lane and the snowmobiles are not quiet especially when they come through in
large groups. He stated that if there was a way to control it, perhaps a 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. rule or
daylight hours rule or something similar, he doesn’t think he would be opposed to it as long as it
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 10 of 23
is enforceable. He stated that last year when the barriers came up, it cut down on the snowmobile
traffic but pedestrian traffic just cut around them and trespassed on his property in order to get
back on the fire lane. He reiterated that he would prefer it remain pedestrian only, but would ask
that regardless of what the City decides that it is something that is actually enforceable.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he feels there is no question that this fire lane is
getting used by the public.
Dave Garske, stated that he lives about a mile away from this fire lane on Smithtown near
Freeman Park. He stated that he has lived in the area for about two years and runs quite a bit in
this area and never realized that this was a public access point to the lake. He stated that he
doesn’t think there is any signage that indicates this is public access. He stated that one day he
walked down it out of curiosity, but turned around because he felt like he was encroaching on
someone’s property. He stated that he just wanted to bring up the point that he thinks a lot of
people don’t know that the fire lanes can be used as public access to the lake.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that none of the fire lanes throughout the City have been
marked to indicate what they are.
Ms. Blomquist stated that she agrees that all of fire lanes should be marked unless they are going
to be abandoned. She stated that this would address the enforcement issue, because she doesn’t
think people in the neighborhood would willingly break the law and feels if there was a sign there
that makes it clear what is and isn’t allowed, she thinks most people would follow the rules.
Gretchen Thompson, 26295 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for
about 14 years and when she first moved in there were remnants of that fire lane having been
partially paved which has eroded over the years. She explained that over the years it sort of filled
in and got narrower, but the whole time she has lived here this has been used for public access
for snowmobiles and ATVs. She stated that she understands the noise concerns because she
gets that at her home also, but likes to see everyone be able to have public enjoyment of the lake.
She stated that she is in favor of clearer signage and understanding what the rules and hours.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked if there was a common law principal at play here because
the snowmobile access has allowed without dispute for so many years. He stated that the City of
Shorewood has no public access to the largest recreation lake in the Twin Cities, which he feels
is disgraceful and he feels it is incumbent on the City to provide full recreational access to Lake
Minnetonka whenever and wherever it can.
Councilmember Siakel noted that she does not believe it was the City that ever paved that fire
lane, but rather one of the adjoining properties. She stated that before Mr. Bongard built his
home, that home was only occupied during the summer so the City didn’t hear a lot of complaints.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked Mr. Bongard if he had known that access was used for
snowmobile access whether he would have purchased the property.
Mr. Bongard stated that they would not have purchased the property and they most certainly
would not have designed their new home with the bedrooms located along the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gault asked how Mr. Bongard had checked the use of the fire lane prior
to purchasing the property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 11 of 23
Mr. Bongard explained that they were told by their realtor that this was a fire lane, so they spoke
to the seller’s realtor and the owner about the use of the fire lane. He stated that they told them
that it was very quiet and nobody every used it and it hadn’t been a problem, but suggested they
check with the City. He stated that he physically went to the City and went to the front desk and
spoke with two gentleman from the City who told him it was a pedestrian only fire lane and that if
there were abuses or transgressions to let the City know and they would promptly deal with it.
Jennifer Labadie, 5510 Howards Point Road, noted that she is a member of the City Council and
she had received over 12 phone calls last year when the barriers were put in place at this fire
lane. She stated that Mr. Bongard was not the only resident that has been complaining about the
noise of the snowmobiles. She stated this issue is not being looked at just because of Mr.
Bongard and is because of the wording in the ordinance. She stated that she received calls both
for and against blocking the fire lane.
Michael Blomquist, asked if residents at 26310 or 26245 had complained about noise.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that he would like to keep conversations more
general and noted that Councilmember Labadie mentioned that she had received numerous
complaints about the noise.
Councilmember Labadie stated that the residents at 26310 and 26245 did not contact her with a
noise complaint. She reiterated that she had received comments that were both pro and con of
putting up barriers on the fire lane which was the point she was trying to make.
Ms. Blomquist stated that she would like to be clear that cutting off the snowmobile access to this
fire lane will not stop the snowmobile noise from happening because they will still come through
the neighborhood and up their road.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he thinks there is a difference between
snowmobiles riding up and down the road and congregating in the fire lane.
Mr. Bongard stated that most people now know that the fire lane is not designed for motorized
vehicles, but once it is opened the activity level is bound to increase as word gets out and noted
that there will be a cumulative effect for him when that happens.
Councilmember Siakel asked if snowmobiles and ATVs are allowed on City streets.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does not have the City code in front of her, but believes
there is a significant limitation on the use of public streets for snowmobiles.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that if he recalls correctly that it is allowed if you are
on your way to an access point and is also allowed if there is a huge blizzard and cars cannot
traverse the roadways.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that in the summer months, the City has “no wake” zones and
asked about the possibility of slow speed zone until you are a certain distance off the shore to
help with some of the noise issues.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he does not think the City has any authority once
people are on the lake. He stated that the City can regulate on the fire lane, but once they are on
the lake it is the responsibility of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. He asked if the
Commissions would like to move on and talk about the other fire lanes.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 12 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel noted that he has the City code in front of him and read aloud the
portion of City code that pertains to snowmobiles.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that his biggest issue with this fire lane is how the City
would handle enforcement if it were restricted by times or days.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would be enforced by the police, similar to a situation where
people are in City parks after hours. She stated that it has been tricky enforcing snowmobile use
of the fire lanes because the police to have witness someone using the fire lane which means
they would almost have to park near them in order to watch.
Planning Commissioner Gorham asked whether it could involve opening or closing a gate of some
kind.
Planning Director Darling stated that the only place the City has gated access is the west side of
Christmas Lake at the boat launch.
Park Commission Chair Mangold that this gate has had a whole lot of problems and complications.
He stated that he would not say the City cannot explore a gate, but it does open up a whole other
world of how it is used and what it is used for.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that it may also create the problem that Mr. Bongard was
sharing of people going around the barriers and trespassing on his property to get onto the fire
lane.
The Commissions decided to move on to discuss fire lane #4.
Planning Director Darling noted the location of fire lane #4.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City was aware of anyone using this fire lane because
it feels as though you are walking through two people’s yards.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he felt the same and it was very uncomfortable to
walk this fire lane because it is basically private property at this point.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that it is not a good launch area, so he doesn’t think
anybody would go through there.
Planning Commission Chair stated that he that feels this is the least accessible fire lane of the
ones discussed thus far.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he doesn’t see any reason for this fire lane to exist.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed that this fire lane shouldn’t exist.
Jaz Boysen, 26100 Birch Bluff Road, stated that they have lived here about 5 years and does not
recall anybody using this fire lane while he has lived there.
Kathy Bongard stated that this fire lane does look like you are walking between two people’s yard
and feels pretty invasive, but it is basically the same elevation to the lake as fire lane #3. She
stated that the reason people don’t use fire lane #4 is that people have no idea that it exists. She
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 13 of 23
explained that fire lane #3 has had its path well worn, so people know it is there and is used like
a road and theirs is used like a yard.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that is an interesting point because with fire lane #4 you
don’t feel like you can enter it but that is partially the City’s fault for not keeping it maintained. He
stated that perhaps that may be a reason to keep this fire lane, maintain it and try to alleviate
some of the traffic down Grant Lorenz.
Ms. Bongard stated that she doesn’t want to push their traffic off onto someone’s property, but if
the City is serious about creating public access to the lake, she feels they will have to purchase
a home on the lake and turn it into public access. She stated that she feels this is the only way
to provide suitable public access to the lake. She stated that the City could sell of the remaining
fire lanes and purchase the home to provide public access. She reiterated that only difference
between fire lane #3 and fire lane #4 is that fire lane #3 has turned into a well-worn path to the
lake.
Park Commission Chair Mangold asked about lake access and whether it was included in the
long-term Comprehensive Plan to provide public access to the lake.
Planning Director Darling stated that there has been discussion, but is not sure that it made it as
far as the policy stage. She noted that when the City conducted a survey a few years ago, one
of the most common responses was that people wanted more lake access.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Parks Commission standpoint, they use the
Comprehensive Plan as a guiding tool as to where the City is investing long-term. He asked if
public access is something that the City should be setting money aside for sometime in the future.
He noted that the Park Commission’s general attitude right now is that it is not looking for more
park land and are simply trying to focus on improving the existing facilities. He stated that if the
goal is to add public access in the future, that would be going against their current strategy. He
stated that fire lane #4 is similar to fire lanes #1 and #2 in its current use, but demand in the
neighborhood with people who may use it, is similar to fire lane #3.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated there has been lake front property that has come available
for reasonable prices and the City did not jump on the opportunity.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that this fire lane is already 25 feet wide and will be a nice
site if it is cleared, but doesn’t believe it would constitute a new park.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he agreed, but if, at a concept level, that is something
that both Commissions would like to see in the City, he thinks it is something that should be built
towards and could be part of the fire lane discussion. He stated that he wants to make sure that
the Commissions are not getting caught up in discussions about what the fire lane is versus what
the long-term goal is for the City.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that the responses on the survey to have lake access, so
the idea of abandoning lake access rather than improving it and letting people know that it is there
flies into the face of the survey responses.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that in looking at the Comprehensive Plan, there is actually
language that does suggest that the City should seek to expand its lakeshore access. He read
aloud a portion of the Comprehensive Plan regarding lake access.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 14 of 23
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he takes this language as a strong argument to keep
the fire lanes as what they are from a long-term strategy so the City does not lose ground.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would like know what it would cost to maintain the fire
lanes in a way that is adequate versus whether the City needs to look at investing in a property
that could become essentially a park with lake access. He stated that he doesn’t know the
answer, but feels it should be examined.
Planning Director Darling stated that it would depend on the level of maintenance that the
Commissions would direct the City to undertake.
Councilmember Siakel stated that the discussion around the Comprehensive Plan should focus
on the lake area and not just Shorewood, related to access to the lake. She stated that the City
is mostly residential and has always been that way, but it looks to the greater lake area for access
at multiple points throughout the lake. She stated that in her time with the Council, which has
been over 10 years, she has never had a discussion about creating more access for people. She
stated that the discussion has been about the area, having access, and protecting Lake
Minnetonka as an asset to the community that expands beyond just Shorewood.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the discussion move onto fire lane #5.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that fire lane #5 is like fire lane #4 except there is a
very steep slope to the water, so the lake access in this location is not good.
Park Commissioner Gallivan asked if the City had a liability issue with the steep slope if the City
chose to do more with the fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that there would be no more liability than there is with any other
park or playground in the City.
Planning Commissioner Gault noted that this lot is a saleable lot on the lake with 66 feet of
frontage.
Planning Director Darling stated that this is dedicated right-of-way, so the City would not be able
to sell this property, but could only vacate it. She stated that most of the fire lanes are in this
same situation and could not be sold, but could only be vacated.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that this fire lane feels completely different than the others
given its width. He stated that in principal there could be a small trail and a bench and this could
be a very small park with lake access.
Councilmember Siakel asked why the Commissions would consider that and not consider the fire
lane down the street. She stated that both fire lanes run between two adjacent properties and
noted that it would cost a fortune to put in stairs or do anything to update at this parcel.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed and only mentioned it because this fire lane
is so much wider than the others.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that this parcel has not been maintained and agreed with
Councilmember Siakel that this is right between two homeowners and doesn’t know how much
would be gained by adding a small park in this location.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 15 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agreed but noted that there doesn’t seem to be
much incentive to vacate this fire lane. He stated while it is wide enough to do something with, it
is not wide enough to create a City park and agrees that the steepness of the slope near the lake
would be a challenge. He suggested that the discussion just move on.
Park Commissioner Mangold stated that he is unofficially grouping the fire lanes into their potential
use and actual use and feels this fire lane feels much more like those that are on the island.
Jim Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, asked to comment on fire lane #4. He stated that he was
19 years old when his dad bought this property in 1950, so he claims seniority in the area. He
stated that he doesn’t see people using the fire lane and believes the neighbors know of its
existence. He stated that for public use, there is no parking on Birch Bluff Road and the access
to the water in this location is fairly abrupt. He stated that if it were vacated, he does not think it
would inconvenience people too much because its use is very occasional.
Councilmember Siakel noted that for fire lane #5, Mary Kay Pilley had submitted a document to
City Administrator Lerud and Planning Director Darling about Planning Commission meetings
from 1972 that reviewed some of the fire lanes. She noted that they had they had actually made
a recommendation at that time to vacate fire lane #5. She stated that many of the things the
Commissions are discussing have been talked about, but not acted on.
Paul King, 25620 Birch Bluff Road, stated that their family has been Shorewood residents for 75
years and as Mary Kay Pilley showed, the City has been talking about this since 1972. He stated
that they would be happy to finally have a resolution to this issue.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that now he is curious to know if the Commissions are
just doing the same thing that they did in 1972.
Mr. King stated that it feels like it and there has just been a constant conversation about it and
time spent analyzing it and then nothing is done.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked Planning Director Darling if she had records of what
had happened in the past.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does and noted that in 1972 the request to vacate the
fire lane was denied by the City Council and in 1985 and 1986, there was some talk about getting
rid of them, but instead they were kept. She stated that the uses that were permitted were placed
into the ordinance, but that the fire lanes would have only minimal maintenance, if any. She stated
that the fire lanes have kind of been left to their own devices since that time.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving onto fire lane #6.
Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he had purchased this property in May of
2019. He stated that as a former fire fighter he would agree that fire lane #6 is not usable for
fighting fires. He stated that his driveway cuts across the fire lane ditch, so travel in the ditch
would be virtually impossible by pedestrians or cross country skiers. He stated that he feels there
is plenty of year-round access through Crescent Beach. He stated that he also does not think fire
lane #6 is usable for public access to the lake. He noted that he feels the enjoyment of his own
property has been diminished because of the unmaintained status of the fire lane property. He
stated that he feels it would be very expensive for the City to maintain this fire lane and noted that
if the City chose to abandon it, he would be more than happy to clean up the property and maintain
it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 16 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he doesn’t think abandoning the whole fire lane would
be possible because the north portion is connected to Crescent Beach and the parking area.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if any of the beach parking area was located on
Shorewood property.
Planning Director Darling stated that it is pretty close to the jurisdictional boundary and there could
be some part that goes over and noted that the City does need to maintain control of the drainage
ditch.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that from a Park Commission perspective, Crescent
Beach used to be a cooperative project with Tonka Bay and Tonka Bay took over full care and
maintenance a few years ago.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he knows there were some comments from residents
and asked if the City knows if, legally, motorized vehicles are allowed on Crescent Beach.
Planning Director Darling stated that motorized vehicles are allowed in the parking area, but
Tonka Bay does not allow snowmobile access on their side of the fire lane.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the City does allow snowmobile access on its side
of the fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that Mr. Melnychuk had mentioned an ice road which implies
that it is open to all motorized traffic.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that Tonka Bay does their
best to restrict vehicle access at this point.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he has spent 2 winters here and has not seen any attempt to limit
motorized vehicles through this area. He stated that there is quite a bit of traffic and it is plowed,
even if it isn’t by the city. He stated that there is a quite a bit of car and snowmobile traffic that
goes through the area.
Michael Blomquist, stated that he has been fishing the lake for 20 years and the ice roads are
plowed by residents that just want to go fish the lake. He stated that they take their own time to
plow the road. He stated that people want to fish the lake and use a safe access which is Crescent
Beach and the end of Grant Lorenz. He stated that you don’t want to have ice shifts. He stated
that people should know this before they buy a house because this is one of the busiest public
lakes in the area.
Councilmember Siakel stated that Tonka Bay does maintain Crescent Beach and Shorewood
pays them a fee towards those services. She stated that she has never seen a police officer or
anybody enforcing traffic on or off the lake at Crescent Beach and she has lived there since 1993.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested moving discussion onto fire lane #7.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked if, for the purpose of discussion, if they could group
fire lanes #7-#10 together.
There was a consensus to group fire lanes #7-#10 together.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 17 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that all four of these fire lanes are overgrown with mature
trees.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if the City needed four fire lanes in the area because
of the size of Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that in the event that the City wants to maintain some
lake access here, he thinks fire lane #7 seems like the only decent option because the other ones
are very steep and inaccessible. He noted that he had spoken with one of the neighbors who
shared with him that once upon a time it was a pretty popular lake and people did use the access
points from time to time. He stated that he would hate to see them all go away, but agrees that
the City probably doesn’t need all of them, especially because the others are fairly steep and
inaccessible.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy asked if there was a structure located on fire lane #10.
Communications Director Moore stated that there is a resident who would like to speak, but has
not been able to be unmuted on the call. She explained that this resident had typed comments
that stated, “There is a parking lot right on Minnetonka Boulevard and also it gives direct access
to them right off the trail.”
Councilmember Johnson explained how people can “raise their hand” and be unmuted in order
to speak to the Commissions.
Communications Director Moore stated that the resident added a comment, “It is right across from
the Greenwood entrance.”
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that may speak to keeping an access on that side of
Lake William.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he does not see a use for these fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that given there is access for anybody who may want to
kayak or otherwise from Minnetonka Boulevard and given it is a small lake without much incentive
to go snowmobiling on it, he thinks there would be minimal use to any fire lane. He stated that
this is essentially a completely different discussion from the fire lanes on Lake Minnetonka where
there is considerable pressure and motivation to use them.
Communications Director Moore stated that another resident who has realized that they can
communicate via the comment section stated, “They would like to get back to the
snowmobile/ATV discussion and that it is not legal on the streets at any time and that
snowmobilers that are on the inside of the plow ridge it will reduce speed and there is a curfew.”
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions had checked the ordinance on
that issue.
Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to copy and paste the ordinance that he read aloud earlier
into the chat window.
Planning Director Darling stated that she does believe there are some hourly restrictions on it, but
it is in a different part of the snowmobile section.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 18 of 23
Planning Commissioner Riedel offered to cut and paste that section in the chat window also.
Councilmember Siakel suggested that City staff research that issue and report back because it
appears as though the group is generalizing without accurate data. She stated that she thought
it was clarified at a Council meeting that they are not allowed on City streets, so she thinks that
issue needs to be clarified.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that since there is access from Minnetonka Boulevard to this
lake, he agrees that there is no reason for the City to retain the fire lanes on Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees.
Councilmember Siakel stated that all the fire lanes are in residential areas and just because this
is Lake William, she doesn’t see that much of a difference between what is on Lake William and
what has been seen on some of the other fire lanes along Birch Bluff. She stated that they all cut
between houses, have rugged terrain, have not been maintained, have not been used, and are
obsolete.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would argue that there are only two fire lanes that
the Commissions have discussed that are really being used.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the fire lane with a drainage ditch is in a different
category as well, so the City will need to keep that easement. He stated he feels, at the very
least, the City should declassify them as “fire lanes”. He stated that they are not being used as
fire lanes and perhaps the City should call them lake access, service road, or park.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that is a good point that the City should not call these
something that they haven’t been for over 100 years.
Councilmember Siakel stated that most of the descriptions are also obsolete for almost all of the
fire lanes. She gave examples of being able to launch a kayak which at most of the fire lanes
would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do and will not be used in that fashion.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that his concern is that if the City would get rid of all 4 fire lanes
on Lake William there would not be any access to the lake within Shorewood, which he feels is a
mistake.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what kind of access the City would need to Lake
William.
Park Commissioner Hirner stated that he didn’t know, but if the purpose is to have lake access,
within Shorewood, the City would not have access to Lake William.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that the neighbor told him that the fire lane was highly
used before the lake became too toxic to inhabit, but should the lake get cleaned up sometime,
the City may want to have access. He stated that he hates to see it go away if at some point the
City may want it.
Councilmember Siakel asked for clarification around the idea that the City has to maintain lake
access for people. She noted that there are multiple places along Lake Minnetonka that have
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 19 of 23
free access to the lake so she is unsure why it needs to be a goal of Shorewood to maintain lake
access.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he thinks this became part of the conversation
because the City was under-utilizing some properties and through our Comprehensive Plan
update, they found that people like to be connected to the lakes. He stated that the City has
access to the lakes and our citizens like that access and he feels the conversation tonight is to
decide whether they want to change this or leave it as it is. He stated that he thinks this is the
higher-level discussion that the Commissioners were aiming for in discussing what they want to
recommend to Council.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is personally at the point where he believes the
City does not need all of the fire lanes, but doesn’t think he wants to let all of them go.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he agrees with Park Commission Chair Mangold and
feels the fire lanes along Birch Bluff deserve more discussion, specific maintenance, and signage.
He stated that none of the other fire lanes have immediate or long-term value to the City because
the access is so limited and constrained. He stated that his personal opinion is that the two fire
lanes on the islands and the four on Lake William should be vacated and much more discussion
is needed for the fire lanes on Birch Bluff.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he agreed and does not think that the City needs to retain
all four fire lanes along Birch Bluff, but agrees that will require a broader conversation. He stated
that he agrees with Park Commissioner Chair Mangold that if the City is going to have them, the
City should be taking care of them and there should also be signage. He stated that he thinks
the discussion about providing greater access to the lakes is an important conversation, because
he is not sure that these really fulfill what people envision when they talk about access to the
lakes.
Park Commissioner Chair Mangold stated that he agrees that the fire lanes along Birch Bluff need
much more discussion surrounding the various options, but the others he would support looking
at options for vacating them.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated he thinks the Commissions are in agreement that fire
lanes 8-10 should be vacated and suggested that the City begin with those and then tackle the
nuances of the other ones individually. He stated that he feels like the City should hold on to
them, because he is taking a conservative approach.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the City really wants lake access, perhaps
they should buy a property, as was suggested earlier, in order to make a decent lake access and
not try to make one out of a fire lane.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels that solution feels extreme and feels that
some of these parcels would just require some imagination to be able to make the most of what
the City already has.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that the City also needs to be willing to spend the money to
maintain these parcels. He stated that if the City is going to keep these parcels, the City needs
to maintain them. He stated that he feels some certainty needs to be provided and gave the
example of near altercations that have occurred surrounding the use of fire lane #3.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 20 of 23
Planning Commission Chair Maddy suggested that the group give a definitive separate
recommendation for fire lane #3.
Park Commissioner Gallivan suggested recommending that the City vacate fire lanes #8, #9, and
#10.
There was a consensus of the Commissions that fire lanes #8, #9, and #10 do not show
any long-term benefit for the citizens and could be vacated.
Planning Director Darling explained the process to vacate the fire lanes.
Park Commission Chair Mangold suggested that perhaps the fire lanes that are kept should have
a different classification and have some sort of signage clarifying that it is City land.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he likes that idea.
Park Commissioner Hirner asked what legalities the City would have if the designation was
different.
Planning Commissioner Chair Maddy stated that it is City property and can be regulated as such.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are public right-of-way, but are defined as fire lanes and
shown on the official zoning map as fire lanes. She stated that if anything changed, it would also
have to be changed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he is not sure his idea makes sense and just threw
out the idea because of the lift station located at fire lane #2.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that he would suggest that the City just leave fire lane #2
alone.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he likes the idea of putting up signage.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not think the City needs to keep it as
is, as a fire lane. He stated that he feels it could be classified as City property that doesn’t really
fall under one of the categories of use because it is basically a service road.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he likes the idea of designating it as a service road
because it is located at the most remote location in the City.
There was consensus of the Commissions to review the classification of fire lane #2 and
consider designation as a service road, look at maintenance expectations from Public
Works, and whatever decision is made that signage be placed on the property clarifying it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 21 of 23
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to keep fire lane #1, but would like to
hear more from Public Works regarding the maintenance needs. He reiterated that he would like
to keep all the fire lanes, besides #8, #9, and #10.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that perhaps that is the direction for right now is to get
input from Public Works regarding maintenance of the other fire lanes and see if there are any
liability issues that the City should make the Commissions aware of before any decisions are
made regarding signage.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that his understanding is that the group would like to
look into vacating #8, #9, and #10 and Public Works feedback on the other fire lanes, especially
the drainage ditch near Crescent Beach and fire lane #2.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he feels that whatever the City decides to keep,
maintenance of them needs to be kept up.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that the Commissions will get input from Public Works
on all of the fire lanes.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he would like to know what kind of maintenance they
are talking about, especially for some of the fire lanes that are fully treed. He stated that for those
it would be very difficult for someone to get a canoe or kayak down there and asked if the
Commissions were saying that Public Works should be looking at maintaining a clear path to the
lake shore.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that even if the City does not allow public access,
he feels the fire lane properties should be maintained, such as having the tree trimmed so it is not
just wild property that no one knows is City property.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he believes that there are different levels of
maintenance within Public Works on City owned properties so if these fell into the lowest, outlot
category, he doesn’t think much would be done other than to know that they needed to follow up
if a tree fell down.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger stated that perhaps the minimum would be just a sign.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that a sign would be fine, but if they are at the lowest
maintenance category now, he would like to know how much it would cost to take the maintenance
to the next level.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that his point is that if the City is going to maintain the
property, it should be maintained to the level that the class allows. He stated that if the City
doesn’t want to do anything with the property, he doesn’t understand why they would keep them.
He stated that he thinks the minimum maintenance should be defined by the class, which would
be allowing someone to walk from the street to the lake. He stated that he sees no sense in
keeping them unless they are going to be maintained so they are usable to the residents of the
City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 22 of 23
Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the conversation has migrated to the functionality and
maintenance with really not much discussion about the impact to the people and the residents
that live near the fire lanes. She stated that if the City does vacate them there will be tax
implications to the nearby residents so she feels it is not just a question of the functionality of the
fire lane but also the impact it will have on the residents. She stated that she feels the City needs
to solicit more feedback from the people that this will immediately impact before a decision is
made.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he agreed that the City should be soliciting feedback
but disagrees that we should give more credence to the people that happen to be adjacent to the
properties than the people that would use it if they knew about it and it was accessible. He stated
that this is not property that should just be considered as only impacting the lake shore residents.
Park Commissioner Gallivan stated that all the residents have access to the lake via neighboring
towns, which brings up an important point about how important that is and whether our residents
are currently being adequately served by what is available.
Planning Commissioner Gorham stated that Councilmember Siakel is correct, because he doesn’t
fully understand the implications of vacating properties or if the nearby property owners would
welcome having extra land or not.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger asked what would happen if the City decides they want to
vacate a fire lane and the adjacent property owners are not interested in the land.
Planning Commissioner Gorham suggested that perhaps this warrants another joint meeting to
allow for discussion of some of the deeper points on this issue.
The Commissions discussed giving parameters to Public Works regarding what type of
maintenance costs they are looking for.
Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she has a good handle on what information the
Commissions are looking for regarding maintenance for the fire lanes.
Park Commission Chair Mangold stated that he would summarize the discussion as looking for
input from Public Works on maintenance costs, signage options, input from residents around the
fire lanes, and options for vacating.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would add the elephant in the room of whether
the City would like to change the use of any of the fire lanes or have them remain with the status
quo.
Mr. Melnychuk stated that he is confused by the conversation that the Crescent Beach fire lane
having use because there is no use on that fire lane as it exists today, because it is a ditch with
overgrown trees, weeds, and buckthorn. He stated that is willing to maintain the property.
Bruce Russell, stated that his grandpa owns the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road. He stated
that he knows that the fire lane near his property has not been maintained by the City at all and
he has personally done quite a bit of the mowing on the property. He stated that a few years ago
his grandpa installed new rip rap, but received a permit from the City and was allowed to put it
along the fire lane as well, at his own cost.
Park Commissioners Hirner and Gallivan left the meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Page 23 of 23
2. Discussion for Planning Commission Regarding August 4, 2020 Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes (no official action request at this meeting)
Planning Director Darling noted that there was a problem with the recording and noted that she
needed some information that is missing from the minutes, especially surrounding motions and
seconds as reflected in the draft minutes.
The Planning Commission discussed the August 4, 2020 meeting details.
Planning Commissioner Eggenberger shared his feelings regarding the vote for the deck at 5840
Strawberry Lane. He stated that he understands the Commission voted how they thought they
should vote but feels the Commission missed the point of the City have a variance process for
this type of situation. He stated that staff and all the neighbors supported the variance request to
put on this deck and he feels that should have been taken into consideration.
Councilmember Johnson noted that he wished Planning Commissioner Eggenberger could have
heard the comments that Planning Commission Chair Maddy made when he presented this item
to Council. He stated that it was very clear that while on paper, this looked like the right decision,
Planning Commission Chair Maddy encouraged the Council to consider approving the request.
He stated that there was additional information presented to Council that showed that a practical
difficulty did exist because of the grade on the property so it was very easy for him to come to a
decision to overrule the Planning Commission recommendation to deny this request based on the
new facts and Planning Commission Chair Maddy’s comments. He clarified that the Council did
go against the Planning Commission recommendation and approved the variance request for
5840 Strawberry Lane.
Planning Commissioner Gorham thanked Planning Commissioner Eggenberger for sharing his
feelings and noted that one of the things he likes about this Commission is that they have different
perspectives on the Code.
Councilmember Johnson expressed his appreciation that both the Council and the Planning
Commission are able to have discussions and not always agree, but are always respectful of each
other.
Planning Commissioner Riedel stated that he appreciates Planning Commissioner Eggenberger
for expressing his sentiments on this issue and agrees with Councilmember Johnson that the
constructive debate that happens shows respect for the issues at hand.
Planning Commissioner Gault stated that he voted against this request because there was a non-
variance option that was available to these homeowners that they didn’t want to undertake
because of cost. He stated that financial considerations are not supposed to be taken into account
in making these types of decisions.
Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that he would like to state, for the record, that he thinks
this is the best Planning Commission he has ever seen.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Joint Planning/Park Commission
Worksession Meeting of September 1, 2020, at 10:26 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Motion passed
6/0.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
·
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927
952.960.7900
·
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE:
October 6, 2020
RE: PUD Amendment to allow the height of a building to exceed 35 feet
APPLICANT: Lennar Homes
LOCATION: 5745 Featherie Bay
ZONING:
PUD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Low Density Residential
REVIEW DEADLINE:
January 20, 2021
FILE NO.: 20
.14
REQUEST SUMMARY
The applicant has proposed modifying the height
requirement for the existing home on Featherie Bay
to resolve a drainage issue around the foundation.
Because the property is a PUD, requests for
modifications to the original approval are
considered amendments to the PUD rather than
variances.
Notice of this application was published in the City’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners
within 750 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commissions public hearing.
BACKGROUND
Context:
In 2015, the City Council approved a concept plan to develop the subject property for 142 single
family residential lots and various outlots.
Page 2
In 2016, the City Council approved a development stage plan and final plat/development agreement
for the first addition which included 73 lots.
In 2017, the City Council approved a final plat/development agreement for the second addition. The
development agreement included two amendments: a) to the phasing plan to increase the number of lots in
the second addition (to 53 lots) and reduce the number in the third addition (to 16) and b) to make a setback
adjustment to allow window wells within the 10 foot setback and drainage and utility easement to be located
as close six feet from the property line for some of the lots. The first addition was subsequently amended to
include the change for window wells.
In 2018, the City Council approved a final plat/development agreement for the third addition that
included the final 16 lots and a PUD amendment to allow taller homes on a select number of lots that were
internal to the development.
In 2019, a building permit was issued for the home on the subject property. The house was under
construction when staff noticed the home was too tall and re-reviewed the plans. Staff had missed that the
height of the home was over the requirement and worked with Lennar to correct the issue. Lennar revised
the roof trusses to reduce the height of the home. The revised trusses brought the home within eight inches
of compliance with the city’s height requirement. To make the house fully conforming, Lennar proposed to
regrade the rear of the home to be no greater than 35 feet.
Earlier this year, the construction methods Lennar used to protect the basement from water intrusion
failed during a rainstorm and the basement of the home flooded.
REQUEST
Lennar provided emergency grading behind the home and corrected the issues to protect the home from
further water issues. Lowering the grade means that the height of the home is out of compliance by 10
inches. The total height of the home would be 35 feet, 10 inches.
To review the application, staff used the following criteria:
Consideration of the specific policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan
Compatibility with present and future land uses in the area
Likelihood to depreciate the area
Accommodated by the existing public services
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is residential in an area classified residential before and after the proposed grade changes.
COMPATIBILITY/ DEPRECIATE THE AREA
Because only the grades of the rear yard are changing and nothing with the building, the additional 10
inches in height would not be noticeable from the adjacent streets. Additionally, the home is situated on a
lot that is separated from Country Club Road by a landscaped buffer of trees and additional distance.
The property values of adjacent homes are unlikely to be affected by the request. With or without the
amendment, each of the homes in the subdivision affected by the amendment would be constructed with
Page 3
quality materials to the same and higher standards as any of the new homes being constructed in
Shorewood.
EXISTING PUBLIC SERVICES
The alteration of the rear grades would have no impact on the public infrastructure and would return the
rear yard grades to the original grading plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the applicant’s request meets the standards for PUD’s and is beneficial to protect the new
homeowners from further water damage and recommends approval of the request to allow a home to be 35
feet, 10 inches in height where 35 feet is required.
Staff notes the city has more discretion with requests for PUD amendments and the Planning Commission
could reasonably disagree.
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Applicants Narrative and Plans
S:\Planning\Planning Files\Applications\2020 Cases\5745 Featherie Bay Height PUDA\PC memo 10 6 2020.docx
5745 Featherie Bay Location Map
September 8, 2020
Ms. Marie Darling
Planning Director, City of Shorewood
RE: PUD Amendment, 5745 Featherie Bay, Minnetonka Country Club
Dear Marie:
As previously discussed, please consider this our formal submittal for a PUD amendment at 5745 Featherie
Bay in Minnetonka Country Club. The request is for a PUD amendment to allow this home to be
approximately 36’ feet in height. As demonstrated by the grading plan, the homesite was originally
designed to be graded with a finished rear elevation of approximately 983 feet.
nd
This home already had the 2 story framed when the discovery regarding average land grade was made;
it was not caught during building permit review. The home was put on hold, and new roof trusses were
re-designed to lower the roof peak 5’-3” from the original design (re-designed elevations & roof plan
attached).
Even with these modifications, the height is still roughly 10” over the 35’ maximum. In order to adhere to
the average land grade interpretation, Lennar was required to build up the grade along the rear walkout
wall of the home (see the Grading as-built attached). Material was placed against the wood framed
basement walls (not our typical construction method). After our recent heavy rains, this system failed and
water intruded into the home which has a finished basement.
In an effort to remedy this situation, Lennar is asking for a PUD Amendment to allow us to grade this home
as originally designed and ensure this homeowner doesn’t have any future water intrusion issues in their
basement.
Please let me know if you have questions and we look forward to getting on an agenda quickly so we can
move this forward. Thank you for assisting us through this process.
Regards,
Paul J. Tabone
Land Entitlement Mgr
Lennar Minnesota
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
·
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 952.960.7900
·
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE:
October 6, 2020
REQUEST:
Variance to shoreland setback regulations
APPLICANT:
Richard and Ingrid Hoyt
LOCATION:
5710 Ridge Road
REVIEW DEADLINE:
January 19, 2021
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION:
Minimum Density Residential
ZONING:
R-1A/S
FILE NUMBER:
20.13
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a variance to construct a
deck that would be 6 feet from the ordinary high
water level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake where 75
feet is required.
Notice of this application and the public meeting
was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet
of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
BACKGROUND
Context: The adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes and zoned R-1A/S.
The lot was created in 1985 as part of the Silver Ridge subdivision and the home was originally constructed
in 1957. No portion of the property is within a floodplain. The property contains mature trees, but the
proposed project is not subject to the tree preservation policy. No trees are proposed to be removed for the
proposed project.
Page 2
In 1997, the property owner built a multi-level deck into the bluff without requesting permits. After the city
received a complaint regarding the structure, the owners applied for and received a variance to keep the
deck although he was required to remove several improvements including a screen porch built on top of the
deck, the easterly four feet of the deck, stairs, an accessory building, and a holding tank. A mudslide on the
property destroyed the previous deck in 2014.
The property contains a bluff with about 90
feet of elevation change between the bluff and
the lakeshore.
Applicable Code Sections:
Section 1201.26 subd. 5. a. of the zoning
regulations prohibits any structures except
stairs, lifts, piers and docks, walkways and
steps placed closer than 75 feet of the OHWL.
Additionally, Section 1201.26 subd. 5. d.
prohibits any structures or accessory features,
except stairways, lifts and landings from being placed within a bluff impact zone.
Section 1201.02 defines the bluff impact zone as the bluff and land within 20 feet from the top of the bluff.
ANALYSIS
The applicant’s narrative and supporting documents are attached. The applicant proposes to construct a
deck that would be 15 feet by 25 feet with a fabric canopy that would be 12 feet by 20 feet. The deck
platform is about 30 inches off the ground, and it sits below the toe of the bluff. The deck platform is
shown as sitting on top of the ground rather than having permanent footings.
Variance Criteria:
Section 1201.05 subd.3.a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance
requests. These criteria are open to interpretation. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria
as follows:
1.Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The comprehensive plan includes the
following objectives and policies related to preservation of the natural environment:
(obj) All environmentally sensitive areas (shoreland, floodplain, wetlands) are to be
protected.
(pol) Environmental regulations shall be formulated, updated and enforced to
ensure the proper protection of natural environmental resources.
(pol) New development and the expansion of existing activities shall be restricted
and regulated where environmental damage may result.
(pol) Development on or near shorelands, wetlands, floodplains and other natural
features which perform important environmental functions in their natural state
shall be restricted or prohibited.
(pol) To the extent possible, development policies and regulations shall be applied
consistently and uniformly.
Page 3
(pol) Shorewood’s lakeshore shall be protected from over-intensification of use and
development.
(pol) Residential development shall be prohibited on floodplains, bluffs, wetlands,
and other natural features that perform important protection functions in their
natural state.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan’s objectives and policies is to prevent any development or
expansion of development within sensitive environmental areas. The intent of the setback from the
ordinary high water elevation is to implement the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
2.Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met.
a.Reasonable: A deck is a reasonable residential use on a residential property.
b.Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: While the property has a great deal of challenging
topography, the slope is not the factor that prevents the applicant from having structures that
others are permitted. The only structures permitted in the setback are those to provide access
to the shoreline and the applicant has access to the shoreline. Many of the properties
abutting the shore of Christmas Lake have either steep slopes or bluffs and are prohibited
from constructing new structures on them.
c.Essential Character: The essential character of the area could be affected by allowing this
property owner a structure that others are not permitted. The applicant states that he will
construct the deck behind a tree line. According to the applicant’s photos, the tree line
consists of two small saplings and would be fully visible from the water. While there are a
few non-conforming structures around the lake, the City has not permitted new structures,
(except those expressly permitted, including docks, piers, stairs and lifts, and landings no
greater than 4 feet by 8 feet.)
The previous deck was constructed six feet from the water and when the mudslide occurred,
the structure ended up in the lake, see applicant’s photos 4 and 5. That could reasonably
occur again, especially as the structure is proposed without any footings. Additionally, the
canopy proposed could reasonably also be pulled off the structure during high winds and end
up into the lake.
3.Economic Considerations: The applicant has not proposed the variance solely based on economic
considerations, but to enjoy the lakeshore.
4.Impact on Area: The property owner is not proposing anything that would impair an adequate
supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire, or increase the impact on
adjacent streets. However, debris in the lake could cause a safety hazard to others enjoying the
lake.
5.Impact to Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: The project could be detrimental to the
public water based on the reasonable hazard for mudslides on the slopes, debris in the water and
other improvements to the area, etc. At the time of packet release, the applicant had not answered
questions regarding whether he had had the slope integrity evaluated by an engineer. Any
additional information provided on this topic after printing will be sent to the Planning
Commission separately.
Page 4
6.Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: Staff finds the variance request has not shown that
situation faced by the property owner is unique nor that it would not impact the essential character
of the area. Consequently, the request is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulties on the property.
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds the variance proposal does not meet the criteria above and recommends denial of the
variance. The variance criteria are open to interpretation and the Planning Commission could
reasonably find otherwise.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance, staff recommends the following
conditions:
1.The applicant be required to acquire all necessary permits (zoning or building) prior to
construction.
2.With the permit application, the applicant shall provide the following:
A foundation plan to prevent the structure from sliding into the lake under periods of high
water or wake.
Documentation that the canopy would be designed consistent with the building code’s
exposure category B, to withstand ultimate wind speeds of 115 miles per hour.
Provide existing and proposed impervious surface coverage calculations indicating that the
property would conform to the 25 percent maximum impervious surface coverage.
ATTACHMENTS
Location map
Applicants’ narrative, photos and plans
Resolution 97-64
Correspondence Received
S:\Planning\Planning Files\Applications\2020 Cases\Hoyt 5710 Ridge Road\PC memo.docx
5710 Ridge Road Location Map
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
·
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927
952.960.7900
·
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE:
October 6, 2020
RE: Update of Zoning Text Amendments for Discussion Purposes
Attached are amendments to the zoning regulations.The amendments are split into two groups –
Housekeeping (H) or Substantive (S). Housekeeping regulations are self-explanatory; they provide
clarification or correct references, grammar, spelling, spacing, etc., and are not presented separately below.
The substantive amendments reflect a change in process or practice and are explained below individually.
Each of the changes was specifically discussed in January and February and the changes the Commission
recommended have been incorporated. Because of the lapse between the last discussion and this meeting,
staff included these amendments as discussion items rather than hold a public hearing. Minutes from the
previous meetings are attached.
Other code amendments will be brought for Commission review separately.
Primary issues included are:
Lighting regulations
Initially, the amendments were proposed in response to a complaint although regulations needed to be
updated. The proposed lighting regulations were drafted primarily to reduce glare and brightness of non-
residential lighting and for residential properties with apartments larger than six units.
Allowing two homes on a property
nd
The City’s zoning regulations allow two dwellings on a property temporarily while the 2 dwelling is
being construction by approval of a conditional use permit. Because conditional use permits are typically
used for permanent approvals, staff recommends reviewing this type of request using an interim use permit
as they usually have a defined end date. Staff also recommends increasing the amount of time the property
owner can keep a second home on the property because the duration of construction projects is increasing
with the size and complexity of many new homes.
Allow decks and portico additions to encroach into the front setback in all districts
During the review of a variance application in 2018 and earlier this year, one of the Councilmembers
suggested that a portico may be an appropriate allowance for all homes, not just those constructed prior to
1986. The proposed regulations would open up the opportunity to all homes.
Page 2
Egress pit encroachments
During the review of a similar PUD amendment for the Minnetonka Country Club, the City Council
considered whether it would be appropriate to allow egress pits to encroach into yards for homes outside
the Minnetonka Country Club. Because homes in older subdivisions may not have had an extensive
drainage review, staff propose to allow the egress pits in required front, side abutting a public street or rear
yards, but reserve the 10-foot side-yard setbacks. The 10-foot side yard setback would allow homeowners
more room to correct drainage problems between homes without a permanent structure in the way.
Digital order signs
This amendment is to allow all drive-thru businesses the ability to add a digital order confirmation board as
a separate sign rather than having to combine it with their menu board. This amendment was discussed
originally during the review of the Starbucks variance request for the separate order station.
Zoning permits
The list of uses and projects in the code that require a zoning permit doesn’t match the current practice and
there is no expiration date for such approvals. The permits are supposed to be used for checking setbacks
and impervious surface coverage where no other permit is required. Two uses currently listed in the code
aren’t affected by dimensional/hardcover regulations and staff has never processed a permit for either:
irrigation systems and dog fences. Additionally, another listed use is for tents and canopies for periods
longer than 2 weeks, but the zoning regulations don’t allow those structures except as permitted for outdoor
sales through a conditional use permit. Also, common practice has included issuing temporary signs, decks
that don’t require permits, patios, sidewalks and similar. Consequently, staff has added those uses to this
section.
PUD process
The current PUD requirements are process intensive. For example, the concept plan requires multiple
public hearings, one at the Planning Commission and one at the City Council. Each hearing requires
separate publication in the official newspaper and mailed notices to neighbors. Published legal notices are
the least effective means to convey information to the public and the most expensive. Staff propose to limit
the public hearings to one at concept stage and one at development stage. Both public hearings would be
held in front of the Planning Commission, which is the same as for any request for development without a
PUD.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes from the January and February 2020 Planning Commission Meetings
Draft Ordinance Amendments
List of Ordinance Amendments
Table of Proposed Revisions
Amendment S/H Reason for Revision Page #
#
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
1 H Clarify definition to reflect practice 1
2 H Change definition of church to religious institution, both terms used 1
throughout ordinance
3 H Change definition to reflect current practice 1
4 H Remove dimensions from definition (repeated in 1201.03 Subd. 14) 1
5 H Correct definition to reflect practice 1
6 H Clarify definition to reflect practice 1
7 H Clarify definition to reflect practice 1
8 S Add lighting related definitions to provide additional regulations 2
9 H Change definition of church to religious institution, both terms used 2
throughout ordinance
10 H Change reference from church to religious institution 2
11 S Change process for the allowance of two structures on a lot from 2-3
conditional to interim and to reflect current building practices
12 H Previous removed this language, but left in by codifiers 3
13 H Change process to reflect current practice 3
14 H Add language to reflect current practice 3
15 H Change regulations to reflect recent change in Right-of-Way 4
regulations or to reflect current practice
16 H Grammar correction 4
17 S Clarify glare regulations 4
18 H Correct district references 5
19 S Add additional lighting regulations 5-8
20 H/S Separate two unrelated regulations into separate paragraphs, allow 8
decks and portico additions in front of homes regardless of date of
construction
21 H Provide clarity to regulation 8
22 H Amend pool setbacks to allow safety egress around pool 8
23 H Grammar correction 9
24 S Allow for egress pits in front and rear yards as directed after change 9
in PUD for Mntka Country Club subdivison
25 H Change reference 10
26 H Grammar correction 10
27 H Preserve drainage and utility easements for those purposes 10
28 H Change references 11
29 H Change references 11
30 H Clarify status of canvas/vinyl. Revise 150 square foot reference to be 11
st
consistent with 1 sentence
31 H Add prohibited materials in residential construction 12
32 H Add stucco to the list of allowable uses and some additional 12
flexibility in the design of commercial structures
33 H Add a maximum height for directional signs 13
34 H Correct spelling error 13
35 S Allow digital order confirmation signs in addition to menu boards for 14
drive-thru service windows
36 H Change process to correct current practice 14
37 H Correct home occupation prohibition to avoid duplication in section 14
502 of City code.
38 H Correct reference to terms used elsewhere in the zoning regulations 15
39 H Correct district references 15
40 H Add PUDs and correct reference to current practice 15
41 H Reduce number of plans submitted 15
42 S Change process to reflect current practice 15-18
43 S Amend zoning permits regulations to reflect current practice 18
44 H Clarify reference, remove uses that are not likely to occur 19
45 H Correct references 19
46 H Correct reference 20
47 H Correct reference 21
48 H Add religious institutions and parks as permitted uses 22-23
49 H Remove extra space 23
50 H Correct lighting references 23-30
51 H Add the reference to the permitted use 30
52 H Correct lighting reference 30
53 S Correct the PUD process to reflect current practice and state statute 31-33
54 S Correct the PUD process to be consistent with state statute and 33-34
current practice
55 S Correct the PUD process to be consistent with state statute and 34
current practice. Allow final plan approval to last one year
Variances and Nonconformities: Understanding
Land Use Terms
By Rachel Carlson and Jed Burkett
Land use decisions can feel particularly difficult for city officials, often because of the personal
dimension. While many city decisions — such as property tax rates and new ordinances — apply
to the city as a whole, land use decisions often apply to only a few people, usually a single
property owner and his or her neighbors. Perhaps this is why such decisions can get so
contentious.
Two particularly difficult concepts are variances and
nonconforming uses. The more you understand about
them the more comfortable you’ll feel making decisions.
Understanding variances
When landowners request a variance, it is usually
because they have encountered a problem with a
building project. The project they envision does not fit
the limits of the land they own. For example, a deck
project encroaches on a required setback from
neighboring property.
A variance is a way that a city may allow an exception to
part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as
applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such
as setbacks or height limits).
Landowners will sometimes seek a variance to allow for a particular use of their property that
would otherwise not be permitted by the city’s zoning ordinance. For example, they would like
to run a manufacturing operation in their home garage in an area that is zoned strictly residential.
Such variances are often called “use variances” and are not generally allowed in Minnesota.
State law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the
ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located.
Three-factor test
Provided that the requested variance is not a use variance, what is the standard the city must use
to evaluate the landowner’s application? A variance may be granted if the landowner can satisfy
a three-factor “practical difficulties” test. These three factors are:
Reasonableness: Will the variance allow the property owner to use the property in a reasonable
manner?
Uniqueness: Is the variance necessary because of circumstances unique to the property (not
caused by the landowner)? For example, does a steep slope prevent usual setbacks?
Essential character: Will the variance alter the essential character of the locality? For example,
will the resulting structure be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the
surrounding area?
If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be
granted. Finally, even if the practical difficulties test is met, variances are only permitted when
they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of
the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Understanding nonconformities
Communities and their land use ordinances change over time. As a result, landowners may find
themselves with structures or lots that no longer meet current ordinance requirements. For
example, a lake home built in the 1950s might not conform to current setback requirements from
the shoreline. These are considered “legal nonconformities.”
Properties with legal nonconformities may be bought and sold, with each new property owner
allowed to continue on as before. Property owners may also repair, replace, restore, maintain,
and improve their nonconformities. However, expansion is not protected — which is often how
nonconformities end up as an issue before city councils.
State statute does not define “expansion,” so many cities choose to define the term in local
ordinance. Expansion of a nonconforming use could refer to physical expansion or
intensification of use.
An expansion of a nonconforming use is often a chance for the city to bring the use into
conformance with current city ordinance — frequently by granting a variance, as discussed
above.
When granting a variance (in all circumstances, not only nonconforming uses), conditions may
be attached. Conditions must be related to an impact created by the variance. For example,
requiring the planting of privacy trees where a setback is encroached upon.
As a city official, making difficult land use decisions can be helped by a familiarity with the law
and its requirements. A solid foundation in land use concepts can change what feels like a
personal decision about an individual property owner’s request into a formal, factual evaluation
of whether or not the property owner meets required legal standards.
Rachel Carlson is loss control manager and Jed Burkett is loss control/land use attorney with
the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact Carlson: rcarlson@lmc.org or (651) 281-1210. Contact
Burkett: jburkett@lmc.org or (651) 281-1247.
From MN Cities Magazine (A publication of the League of MN Cities), Published in Sept-Oct.
2020 Issue,