11-17-2020 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020 7:00 P.M.
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gorham, Gault (arrived at 7:25 p.m.)
and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Siakel
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda for October 6, 2020, as presented.
Roll Call Vote: All – all. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 4, 2020
Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 4, 2020, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.
September 1, 2020 Joint Work Session
Chair Maddy noted a change on page 3, item 4, that should state Strawberry “Lane” and not
Strawberry Land.
Gorham moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Joint Park/Planning Commission Work
Session Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2020, as amended. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all.
Motion passed 4/0.
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 – PUD AMENDMENT FOR MINNETONKA COUNTRY
CLUB-5745 FEATHERIE BAY
Applicant: U.S. Homes dba Lennar
Location: Lot 7, Block 3 Minnetonka Country Club
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 2 of 8
Planning Director Darling summarized the staff report regarding the request to allow the rear yard
of an existing home to be regraded and in the process increase the height of the home beyond
the 35 feet already permitted. She gave an overview of the standards to be considered when
evaluating a PUD amendment and noted that staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the property just needed more slope in order for the water
to drain correctly.
Planning Director Darling stated that regrading will keep the water away from the home rather
than have dirt up against the water barrier.
Commissioner Riedel stated that generally when you dig down further you will increase the
likelihood of water pooling next to the foundation, but in this case, they are lowering the grade to
improve drainage.
Planning Director Darling reiterated the plans to regrade the house are in order to drain water
away from the home and noted that this requires an amendment because it will result in the home
being above the maximum height allowance.
Paul Tabone, Lennar Homes, stated that he believes the original structure was built and
developed in 2015. He stated that when the home was originally graded, there was about one
foot of fill that was brought in to essentially make the home meet the height requirement, so a
vapor barrier was put in along the foundation. He explained that earlier this year, the vapor barrier
failed so the intent is to regrade the back yard by bringing down the grade by about 8 to 10 inches
around the home and then regrade the remainder of the yard so that when the water falls it runs
further away. He stated that because they are taking away the dirt, then more of the house is
showing which means it is roughly 10 feet over the average land grade.
Chair Maddy stated that the applicant had already gone out of its way to make sure this house
was conforming and then a year later there was a surprise.
Mr. Tabone stated that this was correct and the home, as originally proposed, was about 5 or 6
feet taller than it is now. He stated that they ordered roof trusses to bring that down and they did
what they could to meet the definition of average land grade or average height for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Riedel commended Lennar Homes for going through the process and applying for
the amendment because this seems quite minor.
Commissioner Gorham asked if the vapor barrier would be removed.
Mr. Tabone stated that he will have to check to make sure, but imagines that since the barrier
failed it will need to be removed. He stated that he can find out and report back to the
Commission.
Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
Hearing.
There being no public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 3 of 8
Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment to
allow the height of the building to exceed 35 feet a 5645 Featherie Bay. Roll Call Vote: Ayes
– all Motion passed 4/0.
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Variance for Setback to Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake
Applicant: Richard Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Road
Planning Director Darling stated that this application is a request for a variance to the setback of
the OHWL to allow a deck to be constructed six feet from the OHWL where 75 feet is required.
She explained that a previously constructed deck was demolished by a mudslide in 2014 and
indicated that the accessory building and a stairway were not removed as required. She gave an
overview of the proposed location for the deck and how the deck would look. She gave an
overview of the variance criteria and stated that staff is recommending denial. She noted that the
criteria are open to interpretation and the Commission could reasonably disagree. She gave an
overview of the three conditions that staff would attach to the variance, if the Commission saw fit
to approve the request. She updated them on the steps the property owner had taken to stabilize
the bluff. She stated that attached to the staff report is a letter from the neighbor indicating support
for the request.
Commissioner Riedel explained that he would be abstaining from this discussion since he is a
neighbor of the applicant.
Commissioner Gorham stated that the applicant had already received a variance in 1997 for the
previous deck structure, but asked if the Commission should consider this as a new application
since the location of the deck is in a different location.
Planning Director Darling confirmed that each variance has to be reviewed on its own merits.
Commissioner Gault stated that a key point for him is that some of the key components of the
1997 variance have not been fulfilled and asked why the City would have any expectation that
the conditions on a new variance would be fulfilled.
Chair Maddy asked if the property was under the same ownership as during the previous variance.
Planning Director Darling stated that it was the same owners.
Commissioner Gault noted that the 1997 variance was granted after the deck had already been
constructed without any permitting.
Commissioner Gorham stated that the letter gives the impression that this is a replacing a
previous deck that had a previous variance, which is a bit misleading.
Commissioner Gault asked about access to the deck from the trolley area.
Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant would just walk across the grass because the
lot is relatively flat in that area.
Chair Maddy asked if there was still a funicular rail.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 4 of 8
Planning Director Darling noted that the original one was destroyed in the mudslide and they have
repaired and replaced it in the same location.
Chair Maddy opened this item up for public testimony at 7:35 p.m. There being no public
comments, he closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Gorham stated that he does not see the criteria being met to allow for a variance.
He noted that the Commission has not discussed the essential character issue and feels it would
set a really bad precedent if it is allowed.
Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Commissioner Gorham.
Commissioner Gault stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners.
Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, recommending denial of the variance request by
Richard Hoyt for the property at 5710 Ridge Road. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – 4 (Maddy,
Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault). Abstain – 1 (Riedel). Motion passed 4/0/1
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinances Amendment (Continued)- Miscellaneous text
amendments discussion
Planning Director Darling stated that before there is a public hearing on these proposed
amendments, she would like the Commission to take another look at the amendments that they
had previously discussed. She reminded the Commission that these changes were discussed in
January and February of 2020 but then the COVID-19 pandemic hit which pushed them to the
back burner. She stated that the proposed changes primarily fall into two categories, substantive
and housekeeping. She stated that the substantive changes are related to lighting regulations,
two homes on a property, allowing decks and porticos to encroach into the front setback, egress
pit encroachments, digital order signs, zoning permits, and the PUD process. She reiterated that
she is looking to gather comments from the Commission on the proposed ordinance amendments.
Planning Director Darling went through the proposed changes page by page and asked for
comments.
The Commission discussed clarifying the language around the building height requirement so it
makes sense as a standalone statement even if people do not go look up the definitions.
Commissioner Riedel noted that the definition of the word “dock” went to the Minnesota Supreme
Court.
Chair Maddy stated that the City had cleaned up that issue a few years ago.
Planning Director Darling stated that she will double check this one because the codifiers did not
get all of the code changes. She noted that she will compare ordinances to make sure she didn’t
miss anything. She reviewed Section 1201.03, General Provisions as it relates to two homes on
a property.
Commissioner Gault noted that he thought the Commission had discussed tying this to the
Occupancy Permit if construction of the new home was going to take longer than 9 months.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 5 of 8
Planning Director Darling stated that she will look back over the minutes and incorporate the
feedback from the Commission.
Chair Maddy noted that it is not uncommon for a custom home to take a year of construction.
Commissioner Gault stated that he does not have a problem with the language as it is proposed,
but was looking for ways to perhaps not have to deal with this in the future.
Commissioner Riedel asked about the detached accessory building language. He stated that he
understands the intent, however modification 12, seems redundant.
There was discussion about the accessory building language and the Commission decided to
leave the detached accessory building language alone.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels the detail on the lighting provisions is very well written.
Chair Maddy stated that he agreed and while this language cannot be perfect, is on the right track.
Commissioner Gorham asked where Planning Director Darling got the changes to the lighting
provisions.
Planning Director Darling explained that she had used information gathered from Plymouth,
Bloomington, and Excelsior. She stated that if the Commission felt it was too much, it can be
stepped back because the City only has about 15 commercial properties.
Chair Maddy that he thinks the proposed changes are within the realm of reasonable.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks that as commercial applications come into the City that
is when the problems will come to “light” and reiterated that he feels this is well written and very
specialized.
Commissioner Eggenberger suggested that it may be a good idea to see if the proposed changes
stand the test of time.
Planning Director Darling reviewed the revision related to allowing encroachments into residential
areas and one thing the Council has expressed interest in having the Commission review some
of these for things like attached open decks and porticos and allowing them to bump out into the
front setback regardless of when the home was constructed.
Commissioner Riedel that just above Section 19, he believes that there is a copy/paste error on
number 7.
Planning Director Darling stated that she will double check that section and correct it if
appropriate.
Commissioner Gault noted that throughout the document there is significantly different formatting
between the commercial and the residential. He noted that he thinks the commercial formatting
is more clear and suggests that the formatting under the residential be revised so it is similar. He
gave examples of a bullet pointed list being easier to understand than a paragraph.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 6 of 8
Planning Director Darling reviewed the sign section and asked if there was anything that needed
to be revised in this section.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he assumes political signs are specifically excluded and are
allowed without a permit.
Planning Director Darling stated that is correct.
Chair Maddy stated that he believes that is pre-empted by State law so the City does not need to
cite it.
Planning Director Darling stated that there are some things that can be done to limit political
signage but it is nothing the City will take on without discussion from a wider group of people and
not during an election year. She reviewed the proposed changes in CUP and administration.
Commissioner Riedel asked about the possibility of going paperless with digital applications.
Chair Maddy noted that at his work they use Bluebeam so they do not deal with paper anymore.
Planning Director Darling stated that they are looking into some options such as Bluebeam but
still need to use paper for some applications for the time being.
Chair Maddy asked the Commission for their opinion on the City moving towards becoming
paperless.
Commissioner Riedel stated that he would support that but understands that it also will mean
dealing with the archival aspects of the stacks of plans and surveys that are in the basement. He
stated that he agrees it should be done, but realizes that would involve a substantial amount of
time and effort in order to be converted.
Planning Director Darling explained that the City already has the surveys scanned in and are
available electronically. She stated that the plans would probably not be scanned in and noted
that it is not required that the City keep them beyond a certain time period so the additional
expense of scanning them all would be unnecessary.
Commissioner Gault asked what determines whether or not a residential deck requires a building
permit.
Planning Director Darling stated that it is outlined within the building code. She stated that if it is
30 inches or more off the ground, it requires a building permit and if it is less than 30 inches it
does not and simply requires a zoning permit. She reviewed the proposed changes to the PUD
section of the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Riedel noted that the 60-day requirement for PUD applications was removed. He
asked if State law mandated that there be a response within 60 days.
Planning Director Darling confirmed that State law does mandate a 60-day response and the City
has the right to extend it.
Commissioner Riedel commended Planning Director Darling for doing such a great job on this
document and noted the importance of language in this type of document.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 7 of 8
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Tim Leister, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that he has lived in this location since 1993 and in
the area since 1971. He stated that he understands the City is doing a survey regarding the fire
lanes and wanted to specifically address Fire Lane #3. He stated that there are a group of about
20 people in the neighborhood that are interested in amending the fire lane to a class 2 status.
He explained that the objective is to allow them to continue to reasonably use the fire lane in a
manner consistent with what they have been doing for over 30 years. He stated that he
understands that the City is conducting a study and is curious about the status of the study and
asked what the next steps are in the process.
Chair Maddy stated that Fire Lane #3 is at the end of Grant Lorenz Road and explained that
barriers were put up last winter when there was concern that as the law is right now, people are
not allowed to use motorized vehicles on that fire lane.
Planning Director Darling stated that there was a discussion at City Council about the fire lanes.
She stated that the Council directed to staff to enforce the current codes while the City was
studying the issue, which is why the barriers were put up last winter. She stated that at this point,
the fire lanes have been surveyed and staked and Park Commission and Planning Commission
members have all toured them. She stated that they held one joint meeting where the
Commissioners could share their ideas regarding public uses in some of the fire lanes and have
asked for some additional information, regarding vacation of fire lanes, but noted that this doesn’t
necessarily pertain to fire lane #3. She stated that she will be bringing this information back to
the two Commissions for further discussion sometime in November of 2020.
Mr. Leister asked if it will be in front of the Council in November.
Planning Director Darling stated that she is not sure when it will be on the Council agenda, but
will be on the Park Commission and the Planning Commission agenda for one of their November
meetings.
Mr. Leister asked if the public will be allowed to speak at those meetings.
Planning Director Darling explained that would be at the discretion of the Chairs.
Chair Maddy stated that the public will be allowed to speak at the Planning Commission meeting.
Planning Director Darling noted that usually Matters from the Floor is located earlier in the agenda
and suggested that the Commission may want to move it for future meetings.
Commissioner Eggenberger agreed and stated that he had already written himself a note to bring
that up so people don’t have to sit through the bulk of the meeting in order to speak to the
Commission.
Chair Maddy asked that Matters from the Floor be moved to item #3, directly following Approval
of the Minutes, on all future agendas.
7. REPORTS
• Council Meeting Report
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2020
Page 8 of 8
Council Liaison Siakel reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s
September 28, 2020, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting).
• Draft Next Meeting Agenda
Planning Director Darling noted that the Commission will discuss the code amendments and there
may also be a CUP for fencing on the agenda
• Liaison Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
October – Commissioner Gorham
November – Commissioner Eggenberger
December – Commissioner Gault
January – Commissioner Riedel
February – Chair Maddy
8. ADJOURNMENT
Riedel moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October
6, 2020, at 8:37 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
CITY OFSHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
952-960-7900 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
To: Park Commission and Planning Commission
From: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Meeting Dates: November 10, 2020 (Park Commission)
November 17, 2020 (Planning Commission)
Re: Fire Lanes Open Questions
Attachments: DNR Input on Vacation Requests
Information from Assessor on Tax Impact of Vacation
Minutes from the September 1, 2020 meeting
Correspondence Received
At the joint work session on September 1, 2020, the Commissioners asked for three
additional pieces of information:
How vacations are processed
The cost to provide additional maintenance
The tax implications if adjacent property owners receive additional property
through vacations
At that same meeting, the commissioners were generally in consensus with the
following:
They suggested that Fire Lane 2 may have no public park purpose and
suggested keeping it as a utility access for lift station maintenance and removing
that from the ordinance and zoning map
They needed more information to decide on the future of Fire Lanes 3-6
They thought Fire Lanes 8-10 would have little public use in the future and
should be considered for vacation
THE VACATION PROCESS:
The process to vacate streets, alleys, public grounds, public ways, etc. is governed by
Minnesota Statute 412.851. The statute indicates that vacations may only be
undertaken if it is in the public interest to do so.
The City would need to hire a surveyor to prepare a legal description of the property(ies)
if a legal description is not currently available.
The City Council must order a public hearing to complete the vacation. Staff would then
publish a notice of the meeting twice and post the notices in the entrance to City Hall
and on the website at least 10 days before the hearing.
The city is also required to send notice to the Commissioner of the DNR at least 60
days prior to the hearing. Additionally, at least 15 days prior to convening the public
hearing, the Council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural
resources to review the proposed vacation and advise the City on the evaluation based
on specific criteria:
1. The proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so.
2. The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters.
3. How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources.
Staff also consulted with the DNR staff on how they would review the requests and they
submitted the attached information.
Additionally, an abutting property owner who suffers lack of access from the vacation of
the area may be entitled to compensation.
TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR RECEIVING PROPERTY OWNERS:
The County Assessor provided information on the tax implications for the adjacent
property owners that may receive additional land. The tax implications for the
properties adjacent to Lake Minnetonka appear to be greater than the implications for
the properties adjacent to Lake William. The Assessor’s information is attached.
MAINTENANCE:
The public works director provided the following information regarding the cost of any
additional fire lane maintenance:
The cost to provide a walkway to the shore or top of bluff are not fully known at this
time. Staff are still asking for information from contractors, but any spraying that would
be needed for noxious weeds would cost approximately $300-$400 per fire lane per
application due to topography and other constraints. Removal of noxious weeds may
require more than one spraying.
The cost to provide signage at the boundaries and one sign stating the allowed uses
and hours would cost a minimum of $120 per sign, plus posts and installation.
Public works staff would not recommend changes to the ditch in Fire Lane 6 to allow for
additional access as the ditch is highly important for stormwater purposes. He
recommends the winter access be through the beach area instead.
Regarding Fire Lane 2 – Larry Brown, Public Works Director recommends removing this
as a fire lane, but the easements would need to remain.
Liability:
The City Attorney has advised that the liability of Fire Lanes is similar to any park
property, whether left as they are or if opened up to encourage greater public access.
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 lane 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.
Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Regulations
Subd. 19. Fire lanes.
a. Purpose. Recognizing that all fire lanes are to provide lake access to the
public, this subdivision is established to identify, classify and regulate the use thereof based upon
their historic use within the city.
b. Use classifications. The use of fire lanes in Shorewood shall be restricted
to one of the following classifications:
(1) Class I may be used for pedestrian access to the lake, fishing from
shore, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer and cross-country skiing;
(2) Class II may be used for all of the activities as designated in Class
I except fishing, as well as snowmobile access during the winter, parking and swimming;
(3) Class III may be used only for pedestrian access to the lake,
fishing, launching canoes and other small boats not requiring a trailer. In addition, a single dock
may be installed subject to the following:
(a) The person or group of persons installing the dock shall be
Shorewood residents and apply for an annual building permit prior to installation of the dock;
(b) The total length of the dock shall not exceed 25 feet;
(c) The dock shall be installed by a professional installer and
maintained in a safe and workmanlike manner;
(d) The use of the dock shall be for the general public and shall
not be limited to use by those who install it;
(e) Docking of boats shall be limited to daytime hours only
between sunrise and sunset;
(f) The dock shall comply with all requirements of the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District.
c. Designation of fire lanes. The following fire lanes shall be identified on
the Official Zoning Map and shall be classified as follows:
(1) Class I: 1-Enchanted Island, 2-Shady Island, 3-Grant Lorenze, 4-
Third Street, 7-Ferncroft, 8-Ivy Lane, 9-Rustic Way South, 10-Rustic Way North;
(2) Class II: 6-Crescent Beach;
(3) Class III: 5-Eureka.
d. General regulations.
(1) Fire lanes shall be used only for the activities provided for in
subdivision b above. No sporting activities shall be allowed which involve thrown objects such
as catch, softball, baseball, frisbee, volleyball or football.
(2) Fire lanes shall be subject to the rules and regulations contained in
Shorewood Ordinance 140, as may be amended, (Chapter 902) pertaining to the use of city
parks, including, but not limited to, use of intoxicating beverages.
(3) Maintenance and improvements of fire lanes shall be the sole
responsibility of the city. No one shall maintain or make improvements, except as modified
herein, without the approval of the City Administrator/Clerk or his or her agent.
(4) Except in Class II fire lanes, there shall be no parking of
automobiles, boat trailers or snowmobiles on or adjacent to any of the fire lanes identified herein.
(5) Except for snowmobiles in Class II fire lanes, motorized vehicles
shall be prohibited on fire lanes.
(6) Lots with side yards abutting fire lanes shall provide a total of 30
feet of side yard setback with no one side being less than ten feet.