Loading...
1989 pl mn I MINUTES I I I qOUNCIL CHAMBERS ~755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD r30 P.M. I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 3 JANUARY 1989 CALL TO ORDER Chair Watten called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Presen t : Chair Watten; Commissioners Benson. Schultz. Spellman a~d Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning AsSiSl. Commissioners Leslie and Mason (excused). I Robertson; Helgesen. Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Spellman moved. seconded by Robertson to approve the minutes of 6 D~cember 1988 as written. Motion carried unanimously. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Bob Morgan - 4285 Enchanted Lane Planner Nielsen reviewed his report explaining that Mr. Morgan is s setback variance from the 50 foot 1akeshore setback as well as the setback. He would like to expand his deck by extending it 15 feet I setback and 4 feet into the 10 foot side yard areas. In addition h a boulder wall containing two pools and a waterfall extending an ad the 50 foot lakeshore setback. Planner Nielsen noted that the topo of the proposed deck is such that it is not considered useful yard to maintain. The hill at that location would cause the proposed de from the lake. He said that the reason the house is even located i was to comply with the City's setback requirements at the time of c eking approval for a o foot side yard nto the 50 foot wishes to construct itiona1 15 feet into raphy in the location pace and is difficult k to be non-visible that area of the lot nstruction. Planner Nielsen said he recommends approval of the deck. due to exi1ting topography. although the pools are strictly aesthetic and therefore not justifiid. Public portion of the public hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. ~' Mr. Morgan said he has already obtained approval from the DNR and t e Watershed District for his proposal. He said the boulder wall will serve as erosion c ntrol and the pools are planned for added aesthetics. I Dale Pixler. 4325 Enchanted Lane. said that in 1976 he divided the ~ots which are Morgan's. Yanik's and his own property today. He said that at the ime of the subdivision there was discussion of anticipated variances. and vari nces were granted for lot dimensions. Chester Yanik. 4245 Enchanted Lane. said that it is sad that the ho se had to be pushed into the hillside (to meet the buildable area). He said he support the Morgan's request since is will enhance the area. III Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:49 P.M. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 1989 ISChultz asked if there were previous variances granted. Planner Ni+lsen said that the Council minutes from 1976 show that three lots were granted. however. with no mention of variances. He said that today variances are not considered without I specific building plans. It is clear that variances were granted for the lot sizes. ~nd it seems reasonable to believe that variances would have been anticipated fot the building se tbacks. Planner Nielsen said the pools require a variance because they are $ man-made structure and impervious surface. Mr. Morgan replied that the man-made portifn would be underground (the pool/waterfall system). and the design was made to accommodate the topography. I Mr. Pixler said that the deck including the walkway which would enct' oach into the sideyard setback would not affect his view at all. and his would be the only view affected. , Spellman moved. seconded by Benson. to recommend to the Council that a 15 foot variance to the lakeshore setback be granted as per the Planner's recommenda~ions and that the 50 foot front yard setback be maintained. (Side yard setback variancetand variance to allow pools are not included in recommendation for approval.) Basis for he variance being topography and the situation of the house on the lot. Motion carr~ d by roll call vote - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Watten). I I I I This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 January 1989. 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE Lundgren Bros. Const. - 26000 Shorewood Oaks Dr. and 26045 Oak Leaf Tr. Mr. Mike Pflaum of Lundgren Bros. Const. was present to request a v height restriction for two lots within the Shorewood Oaks Deve10pme to the State Highway 7 right-of-way. He proposes to construct a si lot line which directly abuts the right-of-way affecting the two lo the development. riance to the fence t which are adjacent -foot fence along the s at the entrance to Planner Nielsen recommends approval of the variance subject to the landscaping along the fence to break up its massiveness. pp1icant providing Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:09 P.M. Mr. Pflaum said the purpose of the fence is to buffer the highway n ise. activity and headlights from the lots and entire development. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:11 P.M. Benson moved. seconded by Spellman to recommend to Council that the variance be approved subject to required landscaping. Variance being justified due to the proximity of the property to a State Highway. I Watten said he would prefer to see land dedicated as a buffer rathe~ than a fence. till Schultz said he didn't see the traffic situation as being all that hnique. Motion carried by roll call vote - 3 ayes - 2 nays (Watten and SChu~tZ). - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 1989 IIItRECONSIDERATION - SETBACK VARIANCE Chester Yanik - 4245 Enchanted Lane Planner Nielsen reviewed the previous action taken by the Commissio~ and explained that the Council felt additional information was presented to them since I' the public hearing on 6 December 1988 which should be reviewed by the Planning Commission Therefore. this matter is before the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Mr. Yanik said that he wanted to show that a hardship existed with the property and cited four variances apparently being granted in 1976 to develop the prop rty he now owns - minimum lot size; front yard setback; lakeshore setback; garage set ack. He said that Robert Rascop and Jan Haugen recalled that variances were granted. I He said that in May of 1981 a variance was granted for a 20' x 24' ~eck. He said he had obtained a permit for a screen porch and it was built in an area wh~ch did not require a variance. He said this permit was separate from the deck permit. I He has obtained an updated survey of his property which he said he He presented an illustration showing the conditions which existed relative to the location of decks. fccepts if 1976. ! as accurate. 1981 and 1988 Schultz pointed out that the deck constructed in 1981 under a 35 fopt setback variance I approval encroached beyond that approved setback. Mr. Yanik said h~ did not deny that but the deck was built in accordance with an incorrect survey (site plan - Exhibit E). Spellman asked if Mr. Yanik was in dispute with his current certifi ate of survey and Mr. Yanik said he accepts the current survey which shows consistency wi h that of his neighbor's survey. Schultz and Benson noted that the permit application received in No ember of 1988 was for "reconstruction of a deck and screen porch" (Exhibit 7). as request d by Mr. Yanik's contractor. Mr. Yanik referred to a worksheet (Exhibit 8) prepared for fee calculation purposes as showing that the gazebo was considered in determining t e construction value on which the fees are based. Mr. Yanik asked why he was given a permit to build a deck and gazeb. Planner Nielsen replied that upon site inspection is was discussed that a variance ould be required for the gazebo and portions of the deck. He said the permit fee was ba ed upon a deck and gazebo in error. The purpose of requiring plans for the gazebo alo g with the deck was to ensure that the footings would be large enough to support same i the event a variance were approved which would allow the gazebo. i i Spellmen moved. seconded by Robertson. to recommend the original mOtion made by the Planning Commission on 6 December 1988 to the Council - that a setb ck variance be approved in accordance with the Planner's recommendations as set fo th in his report dated 3 November 1988 for a ground-level deck terminating at the 35 foot setback line that the gazebo not be allowed within the 50 foot lakeshore setback. I I I I and till - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 3 January 1989 IItschu1tz asked what the previous setback variance area (of 1981) was Attachment 3 of the 28 December 1988 staff report was referenced to show that in 1981 a permit was issued for an "on-grade construction of a 20' x 24' wood deck". Also known as "Area A" on Exhibit B - the property survey. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 January 1989. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS I Council Liaison Stover said that the Joint Study Session to be sche~u1ed on January 17 should include discussion of communication. and variance hardShiPS.! Further study sessions held by the Planning Commission should include topics that have come up in the past such as R-C district conditional uses and their definitions. f nce ordinance. etc. The Comprehensive Plan is also due for study. ADJOURNMENT , i I P~M. Motion carried I Spellman moved. seconded by Benson to adjourn the meeting at 9:23 unanimously. Respectfully submitted. Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant I - 4 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 1989 tilt JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. ROLL CALL i I i fOUNCIL CHAMBERS 755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD :30 P.M. Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Robertson, Spellman, Benso~, Leslie; Mayor Haugen; Councilmembers Brancel, Stover, Watten, Gagne; tlanner Nielsen; Planning Assist. Helgesen i I Absent: Commissioner Mason (excused). i APPROVAL OF MINUTES Spellman moved, seconded by Robertson to approve the minutes of 3 J~nuary 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Bob Gagne said he feels there is a need for senior housing in Shorefood. Members present 'agreed and considered contacting a developer to represent an apPliCltion for same. Haugen suggested that the City contact potential neighbors to such use and educate them before contacting developers. Various sites were considered and it was noted that any site would need to be close to shopping, banks and medical faciliti s. The City could consider bonding or tax increment financing, etc. as means of encou aging developers. Jan Haugen said that during her campaign she discovered that it appt' ars residents would like to see the City take neighborhood surveys to determine what th people would like to see fill the vacant land around them. Watten said the Comprehensive Plan should be modified to show the sttes appropriate for various land uses, such as senior housing and rezoned where approprfate. Items needing study by the Planning Commission were prioritized as follows: 1) Subdivision Ordinance. 2) Needs Analysis for Public Works Department. 3) Rental Housing Ordinance. 4) Senior Housing. 5) By-laws for Planning Commission. The Zoning Ordinance is an on-going study, and the Comprehensive Plfn will be ready for study by mid-year. Schultz said that the Planning Commission shoul meet twice a month indefinitely until all study items are resolved. I i 'Members present briefly discussed how a rental housing ordinance shpuld be approached. ___ It was determined that goals must first be established. i Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 17 January 1989 tlltVARIANCE POLICY DISCUSSION Discussion on variances was brought thinking of the Planning Commission up to help alleviate discrepanc~,.es between the and Council. Planner Nielsen explained that some of the reasons for building setfaCkS were for safety purposes such as distance from buildings to streets. and building t building; open space; and to preserve vegetation and accommodate drainage. Planne Nielsen presented slides showing examples of where buildings and outdoor storage were located right next to the street. ! Nielsen reported that the Zoning Ordinance is a law. not merely a gride1ine. Standards must be set in a reasonable manner which apply to everybody. I , Nielsen referenced the memo by the City Attorney dated 11/3/87 defiping undue hardship. Nielsen cited some examples of variances granted where reasonable u~e of the property could have been made without the variance. These were cases where ~he Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the variance. and the Counc~l approved. , Haugen said that staff and the Planning Commission do not tell the ~ouncil what to do. they are there to advise. Schultz reminded the Council that the Zoring Ordinance is a law which applies to them as well as the Planning Commission. i 'Members present discussed that there are various ways of interpretir., g reasonable use. The Council agreed to refer back questionable variance requests. i , It was further noted that the City Attorney had advised that voting on variances should always be done for the original request. A modified version of the request as a result of recommendations. etc. should be voted on separately. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMUNICATION Haugen urged the Planning Commission to inform the Council of any c~ncerns they have. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Schultz said he thinks the City should determine how the increased ?eve1opment has affected revenues and what the City is doing with that revenue. I REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved. seconded by Spellman to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 unanaimously. M. Motion carried 'Respectfully submitted. Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant - 2 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I TUESDAY. 7 FEBRUARY 1989 POUNCIL CHAMBERS ~755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD r:30 P.M. I MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Leslie. Robertson. Spellma ; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assistant Helgesen. Absen t : Commissioners Mason (excused). Benson; Council Liaison ptover. : APPROVAL OF MINUTES Spellman said he wished to protest the "censure of criticism of the: City Planning Commission members" at the Joint Study Session of 17 JanuaJ:'y in Variance Policy Discussion. He suggested that those minutes be apPfoved "abbreviated" . Counc i1 by regard to as Leslie moved. seconded by Spellman to approved the "abbreviated" mi~utes of 17 January. 1989. Motion carried unanimously. I , 7 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Clifford Anderson - 5351 Shady Hills uircle Planner Nielsen reviewed his report. Mr. Anderson would like to bU1ld a single-family home on this lot and requests a 15 foot variance to the front yard etback due to severe topography in the buildable area. Additional justificationS of the variance include the limited depth (96 feet) of the lot; the driveway grade would not be considered safe if the house is moved more into the buildable area; gravity sewer serv ce is not deep enough to accommodate the house in the buildable area; attempting to buildlwithout a variance would result in extensive site alteration. and likely drainage and rrosion problems. Mr. Anderson has moved the structure back 5 feet from his original rroposal to minimize the variance to the front yard setback as much as possible. as welltas providing for a 20 foot driveway. This adjustment locates the proposed structure at t e rear setback. leaving no space for a deck at the rear of the house. Planner Niel en has suggested that the Commission consider granting a rear yard variance of no more thin 12 feet for the construction of a deck. if the applicant so requests. i I I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. Pat Malmsten. 5350 Shady Hills Circle. said all homes are at the nOfmal setback. To develop a house like this is a great mistake. He said he does not ~ant to look at a house only 20 feet from the road. 'Planning Nielsen noted that the time (50 foot setback) zoning district. setback) . of development. the In 1985 the area was I Shady Hillr' area was in the R-1A rezoned to R-1C (35 foot front Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 1989 ILes Anderson, 5385 Shady Hills Circle, said there is poor ViSibi1itf driving on the street. and a short driveway will cause cars to be parked on the st eet. This will also set a precedent for buildings on the adjacent vacant lots. Brian Dedolf. 5320 Shady Hills Circle. said he enjoys the private c~aracter of the neighborhood and doesn't want to see that change. I Scott Sandell. 5345 Shady Hills Circle. said he concurs with Brian.l He asked the builder. Scott Duffney. if the house could be built without the varoance. Duffney said no. the house would not fit anywhere else on the lot. Planner Nielsen pointed out that the driveway would actually be app oximately 30 feet long to the paved portion of the road. considering the portion of bpulevard included in the r.o.w. I I A letter of objection to the proposal was also submitted by Jody an~ Chuck Lodge of 5370 Shady Hills Circle. Les Anderson said a previous variance request for this property was denied. Public portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:04 P.M. Schultz said this lot has existed for 27 years. and unfortunately it needs a variance to 'be built upon. An alternative would be for the community to buy th~ lot itself. The City can't deny the owner to make reasonable use of the property. ~, variance is not bending the rules. but applying the rules. I : I Spellman said the builder should design a house to suit the lot. no~ reshape the lot to fit a particular house design. Scott Duffney said this design is a safe one. and practical. Planner Nielsen said a lot of fill and site alteration would be nee~' ed to accommodate any house within the buildable area and many trees would likely be lost in the process. Also the driveway is safer when it is level and short than the alternati e which would be longer. but too steep. I Spellman said the builder should design the house to fit the lot. Cliff Anderson said he would appreciate it if the Planning Cammissipn would make a site visit to this lot. Spellman moved. seconded by Robertson to recommend 'be denied. Motion was split by roll call vote - 2 (Leslie. Schultz). This item will appear on the Council agenda of 13 Schultz reviewed the hardship criteria of the Zoning Ordinance. I It was noted that the adjacent Lot 10 is similar or worse in topogr~phY than this one. Lots 5. 6 and 7 should be buildable as is. I I to Council that ,he setback variance ayes (Robertson. Spellman) - 2 nays I February 1989. - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 1989 tlt7.45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY Ann Stover - 25270 Smithtown Road PLAT The Planner's report explains that the proposal is for a proposed plat to divide apprxoximately 82.016 square feet of property into three single-fam}1y residential lots located in the R-1C zoning district. An existing home and garage wtll remain on the lot fronting Smithtown Road. The two northerly lots will front on a cul-de-sac proposed to be e:tended from Harding Lane. The plat meets or exceeds the Zonin~ and Subdivision requ1rements. I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:21 P.M. Richard Conry was present to represent the request. I I I I Oddlr I shaped. Ann Stover (owner of the property) commented that Lot 2 seemed Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Spellman moved. seconded by Leslie to recommend to Council approval I of the preliminary plat subject to the Planner's recommendations: i 1. The applicant must submit an up-to-date (within 30 days) title fPinion at the time she submits a final plat. 3. I I Park dedication fees must be paid prior to release of the final I plat. $1000 ($500 per lot with credit given for the existing dwelling~. The applicant must advise the City Clerk as to how sewer equali*ation spread against the lots. I The fees total '2. charges will be 4. A complete final plat. including construction plans and specifi9ations. must be submitted within six months of the Council's approval of the prtliminary plat. The staff should be directed to prepare a simple development agteement to cover the construction of the proposed improvements. I 5. 6. The preliminary plat approval is contingent upon satisfactory utility plans by the City Engineer. rtview I I I I I of drainage and Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 13 February 1989. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR i Planner Nielsen informed the Planning Commission that three differef. t developers were prepared to discuss senior housing within the community at the Stud Session of 21 February. He said he intends to invite the Council to that meeting , REPORTS None. - 3 - I Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 February 1989 ADJOURNMENT Janet Leslie and Richard Spellman each announced that they will be ~nable to attend the Planning Commission meetings of 21 February and 7 March 1989. WithiPat Mason on leave of absence. there will not be a quorum available until the Council apppints a new Planning Commission member. I Leslie moved. seconded by Spellman to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 P~M. unanimously. I Motion carried Submitted by: Patti Helgesen I I - 4 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD .PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 21 FEBRUARY 1989 ClOUNCIL CHAMBERS S755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ~:30 P.M. S T U D Y S E S S ION MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioner Robertson; Planner Nielse1; Planning Assistant Helgesen.. ! Absent: Commissioners Benson. Mason. Leslie. and Spellman. (a~l excused). Approval of the minutes of 7 February 1989 was deferred to the lack of a quorum. I next Imeeting due to the APPROVAL OF MINUTES SENIOR HOUSING . Chair Schul tz welcomed and Watten. i Counc ilmeibers Planner Nielsen introduced George Sherman. of Sherman-Boosalis Intetests. Inc.. Mike Wiley of M.R. Wiley and Associates. Inc.. and Vern Knoll. whose soniis an architect and builder. Mr. Sherman was invited by Commissioner Robertson to prov~de information to the Planning Commission and Council in regard to senior housing concept1' Mr. Wiley and Mr. Knoll were invited to present their view from a developer's perspec~ive as they may have specific proposals in mind for the City. . the attendance of Mayor Haugen and Gagne. Brancel George Sherman said that his business is metro area housing develop.ent. His company. over the last several years has developed 5000 housing units. and 2QOO rental units. one-third of which are rented to seniors. He is a member of the Mi4neapolis Board of Housing Task Force. as well as the State of Minnesota Housing Finanqe Agency (MHFA). I He advises the City that whatever proposal it hears. a market placeiinvestigation be requested and changes that the future will bring be factored in. ~e senior market is expanding and growing every year due to life expectancy factors. PioPle are now retiring as early as age 45. However. government subsidies are available to persons age 55 and over. I He said that a vast majority of the failures in development is in Slnior housing due to the fact that: government is not financing for senior housing; the air Housing Law (passed in the past 30 days) says that a "senior project" must be a le to demonstrate . that the majority of it is devoted to seniors and must be in the me ro area. the federal government demands a mixed occupancy unless services are provided s rictly for seniors on Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 21 February 1989 .a daily basis; unstable financing by developers; seniors want what single-family homes). but they are unable to afford them; seniors w need alternative forms of financing; senior housing sites should be services (within the community) over a long period of time; occupan very high. hey are used to (i.e. t variety. and also able to provide y turnover rate is Mr. Sherman suggested that cities should consider shared facilities with other communities. I Mike Wiley explained that there are four types of housing availableito seniors: subsidized (many seniors won't accept); multi-family (lacking in sef. ices); high-rise facility (seniors experience loss of lifestyle); or Bungalows. whic Mr. Wiley went on to describe. The Bungalows offer one-story. single-family style living available I within its own community. Services provided include a full-time director. occupati~nal therapist on staff. support groups for grief; other limited on-site services. U,its are available for sale at $50.000 to 70.000. or rent at $395 for one bedroom or $465 jWO bedroom. utilities and maintenance included. Site maintenance and services are paid t rough association fees for purchased units. Mr. Wiley suggested that the City consider forming a committee of s niors to make recommendations as to what they would like to see in the City for s,nior housing. .He said he is looking for a 7 - 10 acre site for a 9 - 10 unit per lcre density. The Bungalows provide 2+ spaces per unit parking. so there is not a pro*lem satisfying a mixed occupancy criteria. I Vern Knoll said he was appearing for his son. Judd. who is an architect and a builder based in Madison. Wisconsin. He said they are interested in building lower-income elderly housin;'. Up to 16 units per site blended in with the existing neighborhood. Rental prices rang $250 - 300 which includes all utilities and maintenance. He said he was advised tha Shorewood would be eligible for "Farm Home" financing. i Jan Haugen suggested agreed that a market do the market survey discussed. that a market survey be done possibly as a joi*t venture. It was survey is the first step. Vern Watten said helfeels the City should itself. It was also agreed that Tax IncrementlFinanCing needs to be I Jim Schultz said the City should update the Comprehensive Plan to d+termine what the City is ready to accept. and where. ! i ZONING - PERMITS FOR UTILITY SHEDS i The Council has asked the Planning Commission to address the issue ff requ1r1ng building permits for all structures regardless of size. This measure would tnsure that all structures are meeting the required setbacks. and that construction I is completed in a timely fashion. . i This item was deferred to the next study session due to the lack ofla quorum. - 2 - , The Planning Commission and Council briefly discussed the idea of eJforCing a Rental Housing Regulations ordinance. The objective being to protect the enter and the City. Bob Gagne said aesthetics. safety. etc. can be protected by the Cit . and feels the "Truth in Housing" code should be adopted. ' Planner Nielsen said liability and enforcement is a concern. AdditJonal inspection services would be needed to keep up with such an ordinance. 1 I I Minutes ~Planning Commission "21 February 1989 Meeting RENTAL HOUSING REGULATIONS Barb Brancel suggested having the Fire Marshall involved. i Further discussion was deferred to the next Planning Commission stu4y session. I I , MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Planner Nielsen mentioned that Cliff Anderson has requested that his variance request be considered at the next available Council meeting (the request was ~bled at the 13 February Council meeting). All present determined that since the.n ture of the request has changed. it should go back to the Planning Commission for reV1 . . REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT Robertson moved. seconded by Schultz to adjourn the meeting at unanimously. Submitted by: Patti Helgesen . - 3 - 10: 11 I P.M. Motion carried MINUTES I I I ~OUNCIL CHAMBERS r~ ;~~ CLUB ROAD I CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WESDAY. 7 MARCH 1989 . CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:46 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Robertson and Benson; Coun il Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assistant Helgesen. Absent: Commissioners Mason. Leslie. Spellman and Bongaards (al excused). Approval of minutes was deferred to the next meeting due to the I I I 1act I I of a quorum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ADJOURNMENT There being no quorum present. Chair Schultz suggested adjournment tf followed by informal discussion of rental housing regulations. the meeting. to be I I I Kobertson moved. seconded by Schultz to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 P.M. .RENTAL HOUSING REGULATIONS - INFORMAL DISCUSSION Motion carried. I I Planner Nielsen said that he has discussed proposed rental housing regulations among staff members Joe Pazandak. Building Inspector. and Joe Wallin. Fir, Marshal. He provided an outline of items for consideration. and said that he is also compiling a sampling of ordinances from other cities for purposes of drafting a proposed ordinance for Shorewood. He said that staff agrees that the ordinance should apply to all rental properties. i.e. single-family as well as apartment unit dwellings. , Schultz asked what Nielsen thought was the common denominator of pr blem properties. Nielsen said that lack of maintenance appears to be the underlying ause of problems which lead to unsafe conditions. Nielsen said enforcement of neces ary corrections is a problem. and adopting an ordinance would make enforcement more feas ble. Frequency of inspections was discussed. Staff recommends an initial inspection (upon license application). inspection upon complaint. and inspections evtry three years. Schultz asked if this proposed ordinance would protect commercial property tenants as well as residential tenants. Stover said she would like to see a c9mmercial rental ordinance. Nielsen said that a commercial rental ordinance. if pro*osed. should be covered under a separate ordinance. i , Some leases the tenant. . that issue. state that any necessary repairs and maintenance are tht' responsibility of Nielsen said that one of the sample ordinances has a d sclaimer addressing which should be an item that is adopted by Shorewood. I I I Rental Housing Regulations . Informal Discussion. continued: . . Some cities actually take it upon themselves to correct the problem and assess the cost back to the property. such as Shorewood can do through its nuisance ordinance. Liability over this and other items such as evicting tenants due to hazardous conditions was discussed. Where would the tenants go? Who pays for accommodation? Who is to determine what is "hazardous" enough to warrant such action? Perha s ordering the landlord to evict the tenant would be the solution in that case. th reby the landlord becomes responsible to accommodate the tenant. Nielsen also provided an outline for implementation of the ordinancf" The first draft of an ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission at its 4 pril 1989 meeting. Submitted by: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant - 2 - . MINUTES I ~OUNCIL CHAMBERS ~ 755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 1'30 P.II. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 21 MARCH 1989 CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Robertson. Benson and Bong ards; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assistant Helgesen. Absen t: Commissioners Mason. Leslie. Spellman (all excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Robertson moved. seconded by Benson to approve the minutes of 7 February. 21 February. and 7 March. 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. SETBACK VARIANCE - RECONSIDERATION Cliff Anderson - 5351 Shady Hills Circle This request was originally presented to the Planning Commission atlits 7 February meeting. A revision of the request was presented to the Council wh+ referred the . proposal back to the Planning Commission. . Chair Schultz reopened the public portion of the public hearing at t:43 P.M. Planner Nielsen explained the change in the request as presented inltwo alternative forms: 1) a 5 foot front yard setback variance for a corner of thf garage. with a 12 foot rear yard setback variance for a corner of the house; or 2) . 21 foot rear yard setback variance. with the house meeting the front yard setback. N~elsen said that any of the proposals would be acceptable in demonstrating hardship inclfding the original proposal. Dexter Marston. representing Peggy and Phil Marsten for the proposat. reviewed the I history of the lot. He stated that the site meets the hardship criteria for severe topography (40%). lot configuration/shallowness. and said that no of her lot in the neighborhood has this combination of physical constraints. Site alteration would be less necessary with the proposed plan. I far Schultz asked which alternative was desired by the applicant. peggr Marsten said that the plan described as Exhibit A-3 of the Planner's Report dated 16 ~rch 1989 is their preference. , i Scott Sandell. 5345 Shady Hills Circle. asked if the current housejroposal is the same as originally proposed. and if the garage could be moved back or r .uced in size or eliminated? Peggy Marsten said yes it is the same and the length of the garage cannot be shortened if it is to meet building code. Planner Nielsen stated t~at the zoning . ordinance requires a site plan to show where a two car garage can bf located on the site. whether it is planned to be built or not. . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 21 March 1989 . Pat Malmsten. 5350 Shady Hills Circle. said that his original concern was having the house too close to the front. but now he is concerned about having he house too close to the wetlands. I Phil Marsten explained that there is 50 feet of neighboring property behind his lot before the wetlands even begin. Sandell questioned location of wetlands. Nielsen provided a topogr phy sketch of the Johnson property which is adjacent to Marsten's and which contains he wetlands in question. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:03 P.M. Robertson asked if the applicant had considered they looked at other designs with Councilmember they wanted. and needed to meet building code. best choice of the available designs. other house designs~ Watten. The propos~d He said Watten agretd Phil Marsten said design fit the size that it was the Robertson asked how the wetlands will be protected. Nielsen said t at erosion control is required between the building site and the wetlands during the buil ing process. Schultz noted the conflicting desires of the public as to whether t ey wanted to protect the front of the lot versus the rear of the lot. and said it won't e possible to please . everyone. Robertson said she didn't see the hardship as being completely Uniqte due to the fact that the adjacent lot has an obvious problem as well. Dexter Marstfn said the adjacent lot doesn't have the lack of depth as this one. and it is the combiration of hardship which makes this lot unique. I Benson moved. seconded by Robertson to recommend to Council approva} of a front yard setback variance of 5 feet and a rear yard setback variance of 13 ffet as shown in Exhibit A-3 of the Planner's report dated 16 March 1989. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 4 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 27 March 1989. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MARILYNWOOD 2ND ADDIT ON K & H Builders - South end of Riviera Lane Mr. Gerald Kelsch. representing K & H Builders and Developers is re uesting approval of a preliminary plat to divide approximately 4.98 acres of property loc ted at the south end of Riviera Lane into three single-family residential lots. The pro Dosed lots would exceed the R-1C district area requirements by 3 to 4 times in size. and also exceed the district's dimension requirements. Planner Nielsen reviewed his recommendations. and added one that City Engineer review drainage at the time of final plat approval . concern of a drainage problem which already exists at the end of Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:14 P.M. wo~ld require that the du~ to a neighborhood Riiriera Lane. , - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 21 March 1989 . Larry Hanson of Schoe1l and Madsen (project engineer) expressed conr. ern over the ability to maintain a less than 8% grade for the driveway on Lot 2. Planne Nielsen said the right house design would work on this grade. Hanson discussed poss.bilities with his clients, and said that although they don't know at this time what t pe of house will be built on that lot, building it at the front setback if necessary sh uld accommodate the grade. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:26 P.M. without co ent. Robertson moved, seconded by Benson to recommend to Council approval of the preliminary plat subject to the Planner's recommendations as set forth in his r~port dated l4 March 1989 including the added recommendation that the drainage be sUbjecf' to the City Engineer's review and approval. Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 27 March 1989. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO EXCEED 1000 SQ. FT. OF ACCESSOry SPACE Paul Bardine - 6085 Riviera Lane : Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:29 P.M. I Planner Nielsen explained that Mr. Bardine is seeking C.U.P. approv~l to construct accessory space in excess of 1000 square feet on his property. HiSlhouse is currently under construction and contains a triple garage facing Riviera Lane He would like to . include an additional tuck-under garage beneath the main garage and access the lower level from the opposite direction (south). The total area of acces ory space (1380 sq. ft.) does not exceed the "footprint" of the principal structure (15 6 sq. ft.), nor does it exceed 10% of the required lot size for the R-IA district (4000 ~q. ft.). , Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:34 P.M. without c~ment. , Benson moved, seconded by Robertson to recommend to Council approv1 of the C.U.P. Schultz asked the applicant his purpose for this amount of accesso space. Mr. Bardine said it is intended for storage of his boat and other recreational quipment. Motion carried unanimously. I Benson said he felt that requiring the C.U.P. process for this part~cular type of request seems totally unnecessary. The Commission discussed the various re ons for the C.U.P. provisions and decided it could be discussed as part of the Zoning rdinance study. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 27 March 1989. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - DUTCHER ADDITION Phil Dutcher - West side of Wedgewood Drive - 3 - i I ! i p~at approval to divide i~ currently zoned R-IC ~ceeds the zoning and tir- due to the .wee ! Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:46 P.M. Planner Nielsen explained that Mr. Dutcher would like preliminary . this site into four single-family residential lots. The property and contains approximately 2.66 acres. He said the plat meets or subdivision requirements. Sewer connections are limited at this moratorium. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 21 March 1989 . bl" . h . Pu 1C port10n of t e publ1c i hearing closed at 8:48 P.M. without co~ent. I Robertson moved. seconded by Bongaards to recommend to Council apprpval of the preliminary plat subject to the Planner's recommendations as set forth in his report dated 14 March 1989. Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 27 March 1989. , MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Schul tz asked about the reforestation "policy" which was brought up at the Joint Study session by Jan Haugen. and the potential for the City adopting such a policy. Stover said she will bring it up to the rest of the Council. REPORTS I Stover reported on items discussed by the Council at their last meeting: Beaver control; Dog Ordinance revisions; elderly housing sites; Amesbury ponding ar+a water request; garbage collection/recycling options. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved. seconded by Robertson to adjourn the meeting at 9:34 .M. Motion carried . unanimously. Submitted by: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant . - 4 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 4 APRIL 1989 . j::OUNCIL CHAMBERS ~ 755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD r:30 P.M. I MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Bongaards, Robertson, Spel man, and Benson; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assis ant Helgesen. Absent: Commissioners Mason and Leslie (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Robertson moved, seconded by Benson to approve the minutes of 21 Ma ch 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. A memo from Planner Nielsen to the Commission regarding criticism 0 the minutes of the joint meeting held on 17 January was discussed. Chair Schultz summ rized that it is the impression on the part of some members of the Planning Commission t at the City Council does not adhere as strictly as it might to the provisions of the Zo ing Ordinance. . No action was taken as to the manner in which the minutes are recor ed. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT AREA VARIANCE B-T Ventures (Rick Murray) - 23622/23622 Smithtown Road Mr. Rick Murray, representing B-T Ventures would like to divide thi property located in the R-2A zoning district and which contains a two-family dwelling, in half by means of zero lot line division. Due to the location of the existing structu e, the proposed easterly parcel would be 6090 sq. ft. less than the required 15,000 sq. ft. area per unit lot. The applicant is requesting a lot area variance. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. Mr. Murray said his company is marketing several two-family properttes and have not had any offers as is. They hope by dividing the units they will be abl to sell them separately. He said the Party Wall Agreement addresses shared util ties and access very well. He said he does not see why they must separate the sewer util ties. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:48 P.M. ! Spellman moved to recommend to Council approval of the simple SUbditiSion and lot area variance subject to the recommendations as set forth in the Planner s report dated 31 March 1989. Benson seconded for discussion. Planner Nielsen said that separate utilities are required for a vartety of reasons, for . instance, potential sewer problems or unpaid utility bills. Althou h he would need to research the exact reasons for the requirement. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 1989 . Schultz asked what disadvantages there would be to jogging the lot tine in order to gain the additional square footage required to avoid the variance. Nielsen said the westerly portion of the lot is covered by low, wet ground making much of itractically unusable. The usable space between the two proposed lots is about equal. Mr. Murray said the proposed lot line is a marketing concern as well. A lot line that gles too much one way or the other makes it hard to determine whose backyard is whose Nielsen suggested that perhaps the Ordinance needs some revision to make division of existing doubles less difficult. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. !his item will appear on the Council agenda of 24 April 1989 at the request of the applicant. RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE - FIRST DRAFT Planner Nielsen reviewed each section of the draft ordinance. He s$id the City Attorney has done some preliminary review and strongly advises against the Ctty doing any correction of problems itself. In the case of tenant eviction (fori safety purposes) the Attorney also advises against the City taking any responsibility to accommodate the tenant. If property must be vacated, it should be the responsibility of the landlord to see that the tenant has a place to live until the rental unit is safe to return to. .Nielsen said the definition for "Household" as written in the draft ordinance, should replace the definition for "Family" in the zoning ordinance. It is important that there be consistency between the two ordinances. Schultz asked if nonconforming rental units which have been grandfahered-in due to existence before 1965 would lose their grandfather rights should th~y fail to apply for a rental license. Also, do grandfather rights transfer with the sale ~f property? Nielsen said that would be a good provision to have in the ordinance and w11 check with the nttorney about it. Grandfather rights currently do transfer with ale, although some cities have provisions against it. I I Bongaards said she doesn't feel 5 days is enough time allowed to fife appeal. Spellman moved, seconded by Robertson to recommend to Council appro al of the first draft of the rental housing ordinance. I I Schultz said he would like more time to consider this draft and to hear the comments from the Attorney, Fire Marshall and Inspector. Nielsen suggested that f'hiS first draft is sufficient for concept, and he could bring back a second draft inco porating the staff and attorney's, as well as the Council's comments. Bongaards asked if the cost of enforcement of this ordinance will bf. that of the taxpayers? Nielsen said the fees would be designed to cover the co t of enforcement. Bongaards said this ordinance seems a little like government interf rence. . Motion carried - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Bongaards). I This item will appear on the Council agenda of 10 April 1989. - 2 - Minutes ~lanning Commission Meeting 4 April 1989 . PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - UTILITY SHEDS/CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS The Council has requested the Planning Commission to consider the r~quirement of building permits for utility sheds of any size, in contrast to the current r~quirement of permits for only those sheds that have a projected roof area of 120 square eet or more. Also needing consideration is the time allowed to complete construction f sheds as well as houses. Planner Nielsen explained that his department recently conducted a urvey of other communities as to what their requirements are. He said some cities require all buildings to meet full setbacks, others allow encroachments as does Shorewood. Cities had varying lengths of time allowed to complete construction. Many are adoptin stricter regulations, typically requiring completion within 1 year. Schultz suggested the idea of requiring permanent foundations for al,l building regardless of size as a determent. Nielsen said that would be difficult to de end and would be unpopular with residents. Bongaards moved to recommend to Council to not make any amendments ~o the ordinance because the current regulations are sufficient in regard to bui1din permit requirements. Motion died for lack of a second. Bongaards moved, seconded by Benson to recommend to Qounci1 to not .permits for tool and utility building under 120 square feet project carried unanimously. In regard to construction progress, the Planning Commission directe draft an ordinance which would require dwellings to have an exterio year and completely finished within 2 years. Also, to require acce completely finished within 1 year. SENIOR HOUSING DISCUSSION buil ding area. Motion Planner Nielsen to finished within 1 sory buildings to be This item was brought up as part of an ongoing effort to discuss se housing development in Shorewood. Planner Nielsen said the City is conside ing allowing senior housing by C.U.P., or perhaps P.U.D. in certain areas. He said the vity needs to decide if it considers 12 units per acre acceptable, as this is the minim a developer would need. He reminded the Commission that senior housing has less impa t per density. I Nielsen said the City rough Tax Increment Schultz asked what if the project fails and is sold as apartments? Attorney is looking into this. If the City would involve itself, t Financing for instance, it could retain more control. The Commissioners agreed that potential sites should be located in entra1 or east Shorewood near commercial and public services, bus lines, etc. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioners agreed to meet on 18 April to discuss the second draf of the rental .housing ordinance. - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 4 April 1989 . REPORTS Stover reported that the Council has postponed its annual work sess~on originally scheduled for 17 April 1989 until further notice. The Council does iplan to hold a special meeting with staff for goal-setting purposes. Jim Brimeyer of Sathe & Assoc. who recently led the search for the new administrator. will facilitate his meeting. He has said the meeting needs to be limited to eight people. Benson said e thinks "the Council is kis sing Brimeyer' sass". Also reported on was the meeting held for Glen Road/Co. Rd. 19 drai age discussion. The reforestation policy concept was discussed by Council with no actio taken. ADJOURNMENT Spellman moved. seconded by Robertson to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. I Submitted by: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant . . - 4 - . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 2 MAY 1989 q:OUNCIL CHAMBERS f55 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD I :30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Spellman called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Spellman; Commissioners Mason. Bongaards. Le lie and Benson; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assis ant Helgesen. Absent: Chair Schultz and Commissioner Robertson (both excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Benson moved. seconded by Bongaards to approve the minutes of 4 Aprtl 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. I I In regard to his comment at the 4 April meeting made as a response 0 the Council's decision to cancel the joint policy-setting session. Benson stated hat he is opposed to the use of a paid facilitator. He said he feels the Planning Commi sion is the grassroots of what happens in the City. and that their involvement on City policy is important. He would rather have seen the Planning and Park Commiss ons. Council and staff meet on their own as in the past. and not be limited by a fac"litator. He said he feels the Council made a mistake. 7 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT Minnetonka Portable Dredging - 500 West Lake Street I Bill Niccum. owner of Minnetonka Portable Dredging. is requesting ~tension of a 1964 Special Use Permit for the operation to continue at its current sit. The permit is due to expire at the end of this year. He is requesting that the Shor ood Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow the dredging operation as a conditional use wit in the C-4. Service Commercial District. and proposes the following as a description fo the dredging operation: "Operational facilities for commercial and residential lake and lakeshore dredging. excavation and related construction and other services and the torage of equipment. machinery. watercraft. materials and supplies ralating thereto." Once the text has been amended. the applicant's next step will be t. apply for a rezoning and conditional use permit. I I I Planner Nielsen reviewed his report and the schematic layout descr~ling existing conditions of the site as to uses. storage volume. equipment. etc.l~ Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. . Jim Robin. attorney for the applicant. said they exists. This is a need and emergency-fulfilling current Ordinance requirements will be difficult equipment on the site is used in the operation. neighbors since the operation began in 1964. are not proposing anything beyond what business. Some c nditions of the to meet due to em rgency requests. All They have not had any problems with the Minutes rlanning Commission Meeting 2 May 1989 'PUbliC portion of the I 510 foot lakeshore 1he res iden tial , I Spellman asked if the Noise Ordinance couldn't serve to regulate th~ hours of operation. Nielsen said that is possible. Niccum said they try to maintain re ular hours between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Some emergency calls require working outsi e those hours, but they have never had a complaint from a neighbor. Bongaards asked if any outside boats are docked at the site. Robins said only a large tour boat from Excelsior (Lady of the Lake), which is too large for any other marina on the lake to handle. They do not store boats other than that. , public hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. Planner Nielsen noted that some of the mobile uses work within the setback area. Screening is needed mostly on the east side against neighborhood. Mason asked what kind of screening from the lake could be provided.o Niccum said any type of landcaping or planting along the lake would obstruct the operati n. Bongaards asked what the frequency is of barges moving in and out of the site. Niccum said that varies - anywhere from every hour some days, to just twic a day on others. Leslie asked Mr. Niccum if he had any objections to the Planner's r commendations. He said no, they have been working hard to keep the site clean and ord rly on their own. ILeslie asked if there was any chance of working with the Yacht Club on upgrading the access to the site in order to reduce dust. Robins said they alrea have a contract agreement with the Yacht Club to share expenses in upgrading the ma"n portion of access to 9 ton and share maintenance costs. He did not know when the Yac t Club would be ready to implement the plan. Nielsen asked how many barges are owned by the operation. Niccum Slid 15 barges, which includes the smaller tugs, each one has its own purpose. The size f the property limits the number of possible barges on the site to run the operation. Benson said the LMCD should be approached for their input on this r quest. Nielsen reviewed the provisions of Section 1201.23 Subd. 4.b. of the dredging operation may comply: the Ordinance as to how "Such use does not constitute more than thirty percent (30%) of Ithe lot area and no more than the floor area of the first story of the principal st~cture": this can not apply to the operation. i "The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential uses or if abutting any R District": screening is needed on the east side of the site. "Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way": ,creening is needed on the south side of the site. I 14. "Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust": not pr1tical to comply. 1. 2. 3. - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission 2 May 1989 ~5. Meeting "Landscaping is provided in c'ompliance with Section 1201.01. subld. 2. g. of the Ordinance": same as number 2. ! 6. "All lighting shall be visible from the public light currently exists. hooded and so directed that the light s~rce shall not be right-of-way or from neighboring reside1ces": one vapor Should include lighting in the C.U.P. I 8. "Storage area does not take up parking space as required for CO~formity to this Ordinance": designated parking area should be required for per onnel. "Hours of Operation": should approve certain hours. even if ba ed on Noise Ordinance. I "Lake use": already regulated by LMCD. Should include referen1e in C.U.P. 10. "Limitation of boat docking to only watercraft used in the busi ess": need for this provision is questionable. 7. 9. 11. "Input from DNR": DNR will be notified. l2. "Drainage and erosion control": current grading drains away fr m the lake. 13. "Limitation of outdoor storage to only that which is related to the principal use": increased screening is needed more than limitation of storage. 114. "Storage of namable liquids": Fire Marshall should review. Leslie moved. seconded by Benson to recommend to Council approval o~ the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment to include the dredging operation in the C~4 district by conditional use permit subject to revised conditions. Actual text ,0 be reviewed/approved at the May 16 Planning Commission meeting. Motio carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMERCIAL C.U.P./SETBACK VARIANCE Frontier Industries - 19285 State Highway 7 and Lot 15 Dennis Clark of Frontier Industries is requesting approval of a C.UjP. to display a sample dock and boat lift on the rear of property where his office tS located. The property is located in the C-3. General Commercial zoning district. I He is leasing an area of land on an adjacent lot upon which the dock display would b~ located. The proximity to the lot lines requires approval of a setback variance rs well. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:36 P.M. Mr. Clark stated that no additional lighting is planned for the dis showing the display after regular business hours. and the display w summer months only. The dock lengths proposed measure 48 feet and design. He said the lease agreement will be on an annual renewal b lay. he will not be II be set up during 2 feet in an L-shape sis. 1 Spellman suggested that if the lease is annually renewable. so also should be the C.U.P. approval. Planner Nielsen agreed. - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 2 May 1989 IpUbliC portion of the public hearing closed at !8:59 P.M. , 1 Bongaards moved, seconded by Mason to recommen4 to Council approval lof the setback variance and C.U.P. subject to annual administ~ative review/renewal,' and subject to the Planner's recommendations as set forth in his ieport dated 26 April 1989. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 8 May 1989. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Scotty G. Asp - 21980 Brackett's Road Mr. Asp is requesting approval to divide off a portion of Brackett's Road and combine it with the south qa1f of the Street to create a new building site on Bracke~t's Road. exceed the zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements. i his prope1ty located at 21980 property ocated at 5950 Mill The lots eing created meet or Leslie moved, seconded by Bongaards to recomme~d to Council approva subdivision/combination subject to the P1annerls recommendations as report dated 25 April 1989. Motion carred una~imous1y by roll call I of the set forth in his vote - 5 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda ofl8 May 1989. ! SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION I Ipaul Swanson/Brian Mark/Ted Raby - 4670/4690 Lt<eway Terrace and 46~S Fatima Flace Paul Swanson, 4670 Lakeway Terrace, and Brian ~rk, 4690 Lakeway Te Irace propose to enlarge their respective lots by buying approx{mate1y 2478.5 squarelfeet of property from their neighbor to the west, Ted Raby, 4695 Fat~ma Place. From the 1478.5 sq. ft., Mr. Mark will add 1461.5 sq. ft. to his lot, and Mi' Swanson will add t~e remaining 1017 sq. ft. to his lot. Mr. Raby's lot area will be r duced to 23,221.5 sq. ft. All lots will remain in conformance with zoning requirements Mr. Swanson and Mr. Mark will now be able to add onto their homes without requestin variances. ! The Commission commended the efforts of Mr. Matk and Mr. Swanson f01 increasing the conformity of their lots and avoiding variance,. , ! Benson moved, seconded by Leslie to recommend 110 Council approval 01 the subdivision/combination subject to the Planner s recommendations as set forth in his report dated 28 April 1989. Motion carried un nimous1y by roll ca1 vote - 5 ayes. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 8 May 1989. ! DISCUSSION RE: MINUTES ! , Stover said that the Council discussed the P1a~ning Commission minu~es and wanted her to relay to the Commission that the minutes becom' a public record, so etimes used as a legal document in court hearings. Therefore i is important that t e minutes not contain inappropriate quotations. She said it is the irection of the City Council that the Ip1anning Commission minutes be taken in the ma ner they have always been in the past. - 4 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting ~ 2 May 1989 Also discussed was the productiveness of the goal/policy-setting me4tings held in the past, and the Council's desire to get more done in fewer, more conc.se sessions, which is what led to the recent meeting with Jim Brimeyer. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, seconded by Mason to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Submitted by: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant . ~ - 5 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 16 MAY 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. . MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Mason, Leslie, Benson and Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. ellman; Absent: Commissioner Bongaards (excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, seconded by Mason to approve the minutes of 2 May 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - CONTINUED Minnetonka Portable Dredging - 500 West Lake Street A second draft of the Zoning Ordinance text amendment as discussed a the 2 May Planning Commission meeting was presented. Planner Nielsen said that minor c anges between the first and second drafts pose no problems, and are consistent with r tine City I requirements. The minor changes were requested by the applicant's ttorney, Mr. Bruce Crist. I Schul tz asked why the City feels that the dredging operation is conslidered a better use for this site than residential. Benson noted that it exists as a grlandfathered use, and there is no other available location. Nielsen stated that in 1985 t~e City looked at the general area, including Crepeau Docks, and recognized the need for t~ese activities. Leslie noted that there is evidence that Mr. Niccum has made every r'ffort to be a "good neighbor". Benson concurred. Nielsen cited a section from a Compre ensive Plan amendment from 1982 which found the activities acceptable. I I Schultz said he would like to see the area improved. Nielsen said t~e site plan approved would be expected to meet current Ordinance requirements. However, same of the property that may seem to need improvement (such as the location of existing ill boards) is not owned by the Dredging Company. They only hold access easement over lit jointly with the Yacht Club, and do plan to pave the access at some time. Nielsen noited that placing a deadline requirement on paving the access could be incorporated int~ the C.U.P. Spellman said you cannot hold them responsible for property they do not own. I Spellman noted that the Eurasion Milfoil eradication program could ~ve an impact on hours of operation. Nielsen reminded the Commission that they rec~' ended hours of operation to be based on the PCA's noise ordinance. Leslie asked if the designated parking area would be paved and curb . Nielsen said yes, the Ordinance would require that as well as striping. . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting . 16 May 1989 Leslie said landscaping requirements need more control to ensure th.t a "screen" is really a screen. Nielsen said that a bond will be required for lan scape plantings for two full growing seasons. However, Ordinance requirements are mini 1 and need more strength. The Ordinance specs are inadequate. In any case, assura ce of maintenance of landscape requirements and review of same can be incorporated in th C.U.P. provisions. Benson questioned the change in text from "subject to approval" to approved by". Nielsen said approval is based on a specific plan which the applica t is committed to. This text will be subject to review by the City Attorney. Stover questioned why the Ordinance is allowing storage of one outs de boat. She felt it should be a C.U.P. provision rather than an Ordinance provision. Ntelsen said he doesn't feel the C.U.P. should be less restrictive than the Ordinance. He ~autioned the Commission that allowing storage of one outside boat must apply to ,ny boat, not just the Lady of the Lake excursion boat. i I Benson moved to recommend to Council that the text amendment be acc~Pted subject to the Council addressing Section 1. (6) regarding storage of one outside oat. Nielsen said the text amendment will not come back again for Planning Commission review once it is adopted by the Council. Benson withdrew his motion. I 'Spellman questioned the value of having the DNR review the C.U.P. *ielsen said that since the site is in the Shoreland District, the Ordinance requires their review. Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to recommend to Council adoption of the Ordinance text amendment as per the second draft subject to exclusion of the secon sentence in item 16 under Section 1 "Exception: One (1) boat, not owned by the owner of the property, may be stored on the site." i Leslie asked if it is appropriate to allow the boat storage in the i'U'P' Nielsen said the C.U.P. should be more restrictive than the Ordinance (by adding conditions, not omitting conditions). Commissioners discussed reasons for allowing versus omitting the prlvision in item 6 regarding boat storage. It was decided that the request is to allo~ a dredging I operation, not a boat storage business. i Motion carried by roll call vote - 4 ayes - 1 nay (Leslie). Leslie I said she didn't agree with eliminating the one boat storage. ' This item will appear on the Council agenda of 22 May 1989. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS - CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS - PROPOSED AMENDMENT This agenda item was deferred until a later date. . - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 16 May 1989 lMATTERS FROM '!HE FLOOR Schultz extended his compliments to Larry Whittaker as a great City Administrator. He has been working with him on the Comparable Worth. Schultz questioned the latest activities on the Mike Arvidson prope ty, who is renting boat storage space without any type of permit or license. Planner Nielsen said he will be presenting a status report on Crepe u Docks. REPORTS Stover said that since Robertson has resigned, the Commission of any candidates they may know to replace her area. I I I ,ast Stover reported on planning items approved by the Council at their discussion of the Eurasion Milfoil weed. Spellman reported that Chester Yanik of Enchanted Island is front of his property. tearing [up I I ADJOURNMENT should be thinking meeting, and the r. o. w . in Leslie moved, seconded by Benson to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 P.M~ Motion carried . unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Kristi Stover Patti Helgesen . - 3 - . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 6 JUNE 1989 ~UNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Spellman. Benson. Mason. Bongaards and Leslie; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Asst. Helgesen. Absent: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Spellman moved. seconded by Mason to approve the minutes of 16 May ~989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. I I 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - HEIGHTS CF ST. ALBANS BAY Gene Erickson - Southeast quadrant of St. Albans Bay Road and Manor Road .Mr. Gene Erickson is requesting approval of a rezoning and preliminary plat for approximately 6.5 acres of property located in the southerly quadrant of the intersection of St. Albans Bay Road and Manor Road. He asks that the City change the current R-1A (40.000 sq. ft. lots) zoning to R-1B (30.000 sq. ft. lots). Based en R-1B zoning he proposes a preliminary plat consisting of eight lots served by a shert cul-de-sac. The proposed density (1.2 units/acre) is under current Comp Plan proposed density (2-3 units/acre). All proposed lots meet or exceed the proposed R-1B zo1ing requirements. i The City Engineer's report does not find the proposed grade of the 1'oad (10%) or location acceptable. The location of a house under construction by the deve oper may prevent a better location and resulting grade of the road. Dan Blake. Sathre-Bergquist. said that without the rezoning seven b~ildingS could fit on the site. He said he agrees that the existing driveway which is ap roximately the location of the proposed street. is a hazard. He said he was at th site today and parked his car off St. Albans Bay Road into the bushes and measured up to 300 feet of sight distance. He proposed to improve the proposed road by moving it northwesterly approximately 30 feet. and snaking a curve into it and add a little ,length. He said this would result in an 8% grade with a landing at the top and bottom. ~e requested approval of the plat subj ect to the City Engineer's approval of the revision in the road. or to table the request to provide him more time to revise the road and w(rk with the City Engineer. He added that clearing some of the brush away from St. AJbans Bay Road will help improve the sight distance as well. . Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:46 P.M. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting .6 June 1989 Chair Schultz acknowledged letters of objection to the safety hazards due to the proposed road. Letters were Frank J. Stangel. 5225 St. Albans Bay Road Richard E. Gu1strand. 20635 Manor Road William Gu11ifer. 20655 Manor Road Michael Collins. 5215 St. A1bans Bay Road Alan and Mary Weingart. 5330 St. Albans Bay Road proposed den lity submitted by ~ and traffic I Jim Burkholder. 5290 St. Albans Bay Road. said he wasn't aware of t~e Comp Plan designation for this area. he thought it was for 40.000 sq. ft. 10t~. and he is against rezoning the density. He said the proposed access road is in an area of poor visibility. clearing brush may help. but traffic tends to speed and there have ~een many near accidents at the curve in St. Albans Bay Road in the winter. I i Richard Gu1strand. 20635 Manor Road. said he doesn't understand how iseven lots could be developed under the current R-1A zoning. and he doesn't believe the proposed road could be safe. Dan Plowman. Realtor for site. said that the existing hou e on the corner (grossly substandard lot) would create the seventh building on the ite. Charles Thompson. former owner of portion of site. said he has neve had a problem coming up his driveway (where the proposed road would be located). i I William Gul1ifer. 20655 Manor Road. concurs with concerns over traf1ic hazards. he said ~he saw a car go right off the road once. He said he is not opposed to buildings at the ~current R-1A zoning. I plans to build and reside on proposed Lot 6. an~ also has small the answer to traffic speeding and hazards is i4creased patrol by the Dan Plowman said he children. He feels local police. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. I Spellman moved to recommend to Council denial of the rezoning reque1t and preliminary plat. Benson seconded for discussion. Spellman said his motion to ,deny is based on the fact that the engineer is not going to accept the proposed road. ! Dan Blake said they are hoping the added length in the road will saiiSfY the engineer as an alternative. They cannot comply with the engineer's recommended road due to R-1B minimum lot size requirements and the fact that a house is already nder construction on proposed Lot 5. I I Leslie said she visited the site tonight and encountered a hazardou~ situation at that time (car speeding around curve). Mason wanted more information regarding the zoning issue. Planner Plan density was based on existing surrounding density and also to redevelopment of Carmichael's junk yard. Mason said she would pref remain. perhaps that would allow for improvements in the proposed r . that traffic is hazardous in that area. ie1sen said the Comp ncourage r to see R-1A zoning ad. and she agrees - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 1989 . Motion to deny failed unanimously by roll call vote - 6 nays. Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to table the request up to 60 da~ pending rev~s~on of plan subject to the City Planner's and City Engineer's review. MotiF, n carried unanimously by roll call vote - 6 ayes. I 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES James Pyle (Skipperette Store) - 19215 State Highway 7 Mr. James Robin, attorney for Mr. Pyle, has requested a conditional ~se permit and variances to add motor fuel sales to the Skipperette convenience gr4eery store. As detailed in the Planner's staff report dated 31 May 1989, seven var"ances are idenfified as requiring approval for the proposed use of this site. , , Planner Nielsen reviewed his report highlighting the nonconformitiesl within the proposal. There is some question as to the actual location of the property 1ige versus the Vine Hill Road r.o.w. The applicant's site plan shows the property boun~ry to the centerline of Vine Hill Road. The site is grossly substandard for parking lot Isetbacks. The one-way system would create traffic circulation and parking prob1eq. There is no adequate room for snow storage. The City Engineer's preliminary r iew of grading and drainage finds the proposal unacceptable. The Fire Marshall also h s some serious concerns regarding runoff. .PUb1iC portion of the public hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. James Robin said the property description clearly goes Road. Mr. Pyle has maintained the grassed area of the closed down the video arcade to please the neighbors. the site to also please the neighbors. to the cente:1ine of Highway r.o. . for 3 He would 1ik to add Vine Hill years and he fuel pumps to Mike Eicher, Pump and Meter Service, said with the current amount o~ business the Skipperette does, it doesn't need 13 parking stalls (as required by IOrdinance). He does agree this is a difficult site to place fuel pumps on. i I Schultz suggested to the applicant that he consider revising the p1,n. James Favre, 5152 Va11eyview Road, Minnetonka, said he has lived nedr the site for 26 years and feels the intersection at Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 is ve~ dangerous and adding gas pumps to the Skipperette will add to the existing traffic prob1~ms. Marty Scroggins, 5210 Shady Lane, does not want a gas station at th~s site. He is concerned about ground water contamination and pollution, as well a~ increased traffic haza rds . Tom Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, said any increase in traffic in this a~ea would be murder. Chair Schultz acknowledged a letter submitted by Douglas Brown of tge adjacent commercial office building who feels there is a "big need for gas on the south,ide of Highway 7." . Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9 :00 P.M. - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 1989 . Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to recommend to Council denial 0 permit and variances for this site. Motion carried unanimously by ayes. the conditional use 011 call vote - 6 This item will appear on the Council agenda of 12 June 1989. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE AND SETBACK V RIANCE Lee LaBore - 4445 Enchanted Point Mr. LaBore is in the process of replacing an old cabin on the site ith a new house and attached garage. He would like to keep and remodel an existing gar ge located on the north end of the property. Combined, the two garages exceed 1000 s uare feet in area for which he needs a C.U.P. The existing garage is only 20 feet from a existing public r.o.w. (requiring a 35 foot setback) and to remain in its current 1 cation requires setback variance approval. The total accessory space will not exce d the footprint size of the new house, nor will it exceed 10% of the minimum lot size re~uirement, therefore the request complies with the Zoning Ordinance criteria for C.U.P. fPprova1. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 9:10 P.M. Mr. LaBore said that the new siding and roofing on the existing garlge will match that of the new house. He will also be removing an old septic system on th~ site and connecting to the City sanitary sewer. . Peter Zucca, of neighboring lot, spoke in favor Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9:17 P.M. of Mr. LaBore's pro~osa1. i I Spellman moved, seconded by Bongaards to recommend to Council appro+a1 of the C.U.P. and setback variance for the existing garage. Motion carried unanimous~y. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 12 June 1989. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE David Maley - 4365 Enchanted Drive Planner Nielsen reviewed his report. Mr. Maley proposes to build a deck measuring 12' x 71', spanning the rear width of the house, approximately 33 feet fru the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka (a variance of 17 feet). It also wra s around the northwest side of the house, requiring a side yard setback variance of six feet. He also intends to screen in a porch underneath the deck. Several neighbor ng properties have existing decks closer to the lake than 50 feet, and the Ordinance r,cognizes this factor as justification of a variance. However, the extent of the varianc~ is considered somewhat questionable. Some reduction in size has been recommendedt I I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Maley (applicant's father) said he agrees with the Planner's refommendations. . Benson asked why the screened-in area underneath should be e1iminatid. Nielsen said that screening-in would allow the livable area of the lower level to exp.nd. I - 4 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 6 June 1989 . Dale Johnson. 4425 Highland Circle (neighbor adjacent on east side). house to conform to the 75 foot setback at that time. He would 1ik corner on his side modified by cutting an angle off of the northeas He said that the neighbor on the adjacent west side of Maley's prop convey to the City that he is opposed to a side yard setback varian the deck which wraps around the house. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. said he built his to see the deck corner of the deck. rty asked him to e for the portion of Spellman moved. seconded by Mason to recommend to Council approval f the 1akeshore setback variance subject to cutting the corner off of the northeast side of the deck. as well as the modifications as recommended in the Planner's report as follows: The deck should be reduced in width to 10 feet. maintaining a s1tback of at least 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark. No portion of the deck. including stairs. should extend past th1 northwest side of the house. I 1. 2. 3. The screened-in area should be eliminated. 4. The 15 feet given on the lake side of the lot should be made Specifically. instead of 35 feet on the street side. 50 feet . the setback area. Motion carried 5 ayes - 1 nay (Benson). This item will appear on the Council agenda of 12 June 1989. up Ion the street side. sh1u1d be maintained as I MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS I I Stover reported that the Council discussed recycling. the audit replrt. and Highway 7 intersection alternatives at their last meeting. She said the P1anJing Commission will need to hold public hearing on the Old Market Road intersection pro~osa1 probably in August of this year. l I I ADJOURNMENT I Leslie moved. seconded by Spellman to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 unanimously. Respectfully submitted: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant . - 5 - t.M. I Motion carried . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. 18 JULY 1989 I I ~OUNCIL CHAMBERS 755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD :30 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. Present: I I Chair Schultz; Commissioners Leslie. Spellman. Benson, iason. Bongaards; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Asst. Helgesen. None. I I ROLL CALL Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Nicholas Dennis - 5360 Howard's Point Road Jun~ I Leslie moved, seconded by Bongaards to approve th~ minutes of 6 Motion carried unanimously. 1989 as written. .Mr. Dennis recently completed a new home at 5360 Howard's Point hoa , where a concrete patio on the rear side of the house was mistakenly constructed five feet too close to the lake. Mr. Dennis is requesting approval of a setback variance whic would allow him to leave the patio in its current location. He has ~een required to s bmit an escrow deposit to ensure compliance with the setback should he fail to rec ive approval. Planner Nielsen explained that the patio edge is 45.3 feet from theiordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. Homes adjacent on both sides of the Denni property have decks as close as the lakeshore itself. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:38 P.M. I I Mr. Dennis said he has talked to all of his neigh~ors, and they hav~ submitted letters of support of the request. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:41 P.M. I I Spellman moved, seconded by Bongaards to recommend to Council approTal of variance and refund of the escrow deposit. Motion carried unanimourly. Schultz asked how the patio ended up in the setback. Mr. Dennis sa d the extra material left over and was instructed to use it up without ad quate the approved plan. the se tback con tractor had attention to This item will be on the Council agenda of 24 July 1989. . Minutes .Planning Commission 18 July 1989 Meeting 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - KORDONOWY ADDITION Thomas Kordonowy - 6100 Apple Road Mr. Kordonowy is requesting preliminary plat approval to divide his~property into four lots. His property is located in the R-1C zoning district and cons sts of 11.98 acres, approximately 3.57 acres of which is designated wetland. He is pro osing one large lot for his present home to be accessed from Apple Road, and three rema~ning lots to abut Brackett's Road. All proposed lots meet or exceed the zoning and s4bdivision requirements even after the designated wetland has been deducted frr the square footage. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:48 P.M. Nielsen said the wetland area can be platted as an Outlot or covere by a conservation easement, at the developer's choice. The easement option should re uire a 40 foot setback from the easement. He said that for practical purposes, Ci y staff would prefer the Outlot option, if the choice was available. An Outlot would be deeded over to the City. Mr. Kordonowy said he will choose to place an easement over the wet and rather than dedicate any land to the City. He said that he is selling his prop rty and moving out of Shorewood due to excessive taxes. He said he hopes the City will m4ke some attempt at 4ItredUCing property taxes. He stated that he has no disagreement Wit~. any of the other Planner's recommendations. I I Don Huntington, 21990 Brackett's Road, said he is concerned about d~ainage being able to get to and from the wetland area once the lots are developed. He s1es a potential flooding problem. I I , Nielsen said this issue will be addressed by the City Engineer and ~Uilding pad elevations will be determined. Schultz suggested that the Engineer specifically look at the drainage pattern of the area and potential flooding as part of is review. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:12 P.M. i Leslie moved, seconded by Spellman to recommend to Council approval~of the preliminary plat subject to the Planner's recommendations, with the additional equirement that the wetlands be platted as an Outlot and deeded to the City. I , i Mr. Kordonowy objected to the additional requirement, especially sitce he has already closed the sale of the property with a certain amount of acres (inc uding wetlands). Deeding the outlot to the City would reduce the amount of acres. I I Schultz said that would be an economic consideration and the ordinaf,ce prohibits that from being a valid issue on its own for hardship. Kordonowy said he doesn't see how the City is benefitted any better by Outlot than easement anyway. 4It - 2 - Minutes . Planning Commission 18 July 1989 7. . Meeting Leslie amended the motion to recommend to Council approval of the p~'eliminary plat subject to the requirement of a conservation easement over the desi nated wetlands with a 40 foot setback from same, and also subject to the Planner's recomm ndations: 1. The lot line between Lots 1 and 2 should be realigned as shown An Exhibit C of the Planner's report dated 2 July 1989. 1 i 2. The final plat should provide additional r.o.w. for Brackett's ~oad. Drainage and utility easements should be provided on the final tlat. The City Engineer should determine whether soil tests should be required for Lots 1-3. As part of the final plat a detailed grading plan, showin,. building pad elevations, should be reviewed by the City Engineer. The Engin er should also review site and area drainage as it affects Lots 1-3. A final plat must be submitted within six months of preliminaryt' plat approval. Up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinions must be submitted fo both parcels at the time the final plat is submitted. I When a final plat is submitted the applicant must advise the City Clerk as to how he wants sewer equalization charges spread against the lots. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Park dedication fees for this plat total $1500 (credit is allow,d for the lot with the existing house). i I Schultz said he would prefer to require an Outlot over the wetlandslif the City has the option. I Motion carried by roll call vote - 5 ayes - 1 nay (Schultz). This item will appear on the Council agenda of 24 July 1989. DISCUSSION OF SENIOR HOUSING Planner Nielsen said Mr. Mike Wiley was scheduled to appear to disc~ss a plan for senior housing, but was unable to attend tonight's meeting. He will appear on 1 August. I MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS i Nielsen said he is planning to schedule a public hearing for the waferford 3rd Phase (with intersection) proposal before the Planning Commission on 22 A gust 1989. The . meeting will be held at the Minnewashta School gymnasium due to the anticipated number of people. Planning Commissioners said they had no conflict with that date. i I I - 3 - Minutes .Planning Commission 18 July 1989 Meeting Reports, continued: I I I Council Liaison Stover said that at their 10 July meeting, the Coun9il heard comment opinion from the Waterford residents regarding the proposed Waterfo~d 3rd phase and intersection. I Stover also reported on other action taken at that meeting. I and ADJOURNMENT ! P.!M. I I Motion carried Leslie moved, seconded by Spellman to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Patti Helgesen Planning Assist. . . - 4 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 1989 ! I I fUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. Absent: Dave Pitney (excused). Chair Schultz; Commiasioners Leslie, Spellman, Benson, ~son, Bongaardsl Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Asst.1:elgeSen. I I I I ROLL CALL Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES I Spellman moved. seconded by Mason to approve the minutes of 18 July 11989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE/VARIANCE TO INCREASE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE William Waples - 5685 Echo Road NONCONFORMITY OF A I , Mr. Waples would like to add a second story to his existing home Wh~Ch is only 6.4 feet . from the north side lot line. He proposes to extend the structure traight up from the existing walls which will increase the nonconformity. He is reques ing a 3.6 foot setback variance and variance to increase the nonconformity of a no~conforming structure. Planner Nielsen explained that due to the fact that there is ample ~uildable area on the lot south of the existing house. the variance does not meet the hardship test of the ordinance. Mr. Waples said that he does not feel a 44" encroaChmen~ is unreasonable. and he would lose two mature trees on the south side if he built the ad ition on that side. He added that the property slopes down on the south side as well. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. i Sue Tolschner. 5780 Echo Road. said she is concerned about the unke~'t condition of the property. There are six cars parked in the driveway and one on the street. Mr. Waples said he is aware of the "shabby" appearance of the property and he ishes to make improvements to it now. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:39 P.M. Spellman moved. seconded by Bongaards to recommend to Council deni~ of the setback variance and variance to increase the nonconformity. I Leslie asked Mr. Waples how he feels about "alternative G" of the p1annerlS report. He said it does not create enough floor space for their needs. Leslie said she is hesitant to see the nonconformity increased and a precedent set. ~ Schultz said the loss of two trees doesn't constitute hardship. I I Motion carried unanimously. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 15 August 1989 .7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE/VARIANCE TO INCREASE TH NONCONFORMITY OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Siegfried Weissner - 26780 Smithtown Road I Mr. Weissner proposes to add a second story to his home. The existIng house does not comply with the front yard setback, and since he is proposing to bu 1d directly over the existing structure, he has requested a setback variance and varianc to increase the nonconformity of a nonconforming structure. , Lhe Planner's report notes that a 28.5 x 42 foot second story addit~on could be built without a variance (starting approx. 12 feet back from the front of I the building), and there is also buildable area behind the house. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Weissner said that two years ago he was told that the City cou14 issue him a building permit for an addition if he jogged it back just 4 to 5 feet from t~e front of the house. He also said that the building inspector suggested that he apply fo~ a setback variance so he could build upon the existing walls. Mr. Weissner submitted , petition of signatures from his area neighbors supporting his proposal. ! 1 Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. ! Leslie asked how much space is gained by the alternative sUggestion:exhibited in the Planner's report. Planner Nielsen said that nearly 1200 sq. ft. co 1d be built as a ~ second story without a variance, plus there is room behind the hous, to add 400 sq. ft. to the first level or 800 sq. ft. as a two level addition, for a 16qO to 2000 sq. ft. additional living space potential. Commissioners noted that this w~uld be more space than is being proposed by the applicant. Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to recommend denial of the setba1k variance to increase the nonconformity. Motion carried unanimously This item will be on the Council agenda of 28 August 1989. variance and HEIGHTS OF ST. ALBANS BAY - REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT (tabled f om 6 June 1989) Gene Erickson - S.E. quadrant of St. Albans Bay Road and Manor Road This proposal was tabled at the 6 June Planning Commission meeting ~n order to allow the developer time to address the proposed road design. The developer ~as modified his original design and submitted a traffic engineering analysis dated f9 June 1989 prepared by Benshoof and Assoc. Also received was additional public respons opposing the proposal which became attachments to the staff report. These respo ses were from: Richard Gu1strand, 20635 Manor Road, Jim and Trudy Burkholder, 5290 St. Albans Bay Rd, and John E. Sayer,S Channel Drive (Greenwood). Planner Nielsen reviewed his report. The main focus has been on thl proposed road due to its location and proposed grade of 8% (originally proposed to be 10 ), where the ordinance requires 6%. Nielsen said the question is: is a varianc to the street grade . requirements of the ordinance appropriate due to the applicant's 10 ation of the house under construction on existing Lot 47 - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 15 August 1989 ~RiCk Sathre. Sathre and Bergquist Engineering. presented a graph wh"ch illustrated the difference between a 6, 8 and 10 percent slope compared to the exis ing grade (approx. 13%) at the site of the proposed location of the road. He said all wing a greater slope would cause less site disturbance, however, a 6 percent slope can b achieved by filling up to 10 feet. He said the 2% slope landing at the top of the road is proposed to begin at the center of the existing paved portion of St. Albans Bay Road, and remain at 2% for a distance of 25 feet. He also added that he feels the proposed R- B zoning would be in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Leslie and Benson asked for clarification of the 2% slope landing, whether or not that landing is within the public r.o.w. Mr. Sathre said yes it is WithJ1n the r.o.w., and if a car were stopped at the intersection of the proposed road and St. Albans Bay Road, the car would be entirely within the City r.o.w. Mr. Sathre agree with the City Engineer in that it would be better if the landing were longer, but what that w u1d do to the land is not desirable. Spellman said the developer is asking the City to compromise the sa~ety standards. Sathre said he doesn't agree. I Schultz asked what effect would lengthening the proposed road. ' suchias the City Engineer has suggested, have on the house under construction? Nielsen said he house could become a nonconforming structure. , Walter Bean, 5285 St. Albans Bay Road, pointed out that "Lot 5" doeJ not exist until the .rezoning/pre1iminary plat is approved. The existing house under co~struction was issued a building permit based on the current property known as Lots 3 and 14. Mr. Schultz said it seems to him that the developer is trying to squeez~ too much out of this property, and the problem is compounded by the fact that the app1ic~nt is already building a house on the property. He doesn't see why the City shou~d compromise any of its standards in order to accommodate the subdivision of this prope~ty. Topography is a limiting factor for this site. I 1 ! Jeff Schultz, 5330 Manor Road, said this seems like a good opportun~ty to get rid of the eyesore (the old white house) which currently sits on the corner. ~f the issue of the street grade could be overcome, the area could be improved. Chair iChu1tz said if they hadn't started building the new house in the middle of it, it could have been a nice plan. Walter Bean said he is opposed to the rezoning and feels the Compre~ensive Plan is flawed. The area has been butchered up enough over the years throu~,h platting, it shouldn't necessarily continue. I Dan Plowman, (applicant), said platting this property now as proposJd will avoid a piecemeal subdivision over time in the future. The property will e~d up with a safer road now than with the possibilities in the future. ! Benson said if the road has to be in a different location than prop~sed in order to safely achieve the 6% grade and that causes the loss of one lot, th t is an economic .prob1em of the developer. The problem was really caused by the 10c tion of the house under construction by the developer. - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 15 August 1989 ~Dan Blake (developer's engineer), asked if the street grade were not an issue. access is too important an issue. how the Commission would fe 1 about the rezoning Schultz said the issue of r zoning is moot, Mike Collins, 5215 St. Albans Bay Road, said his driveway is locate right across from the proposed road. The hazard caused by a steep grade will disable I drivers from stopping and end up in his yard where his children might be. Rich Gulstrand, among other things expressed concern over what the ~rade of the individual private driveways will have to be. and who will maintain!site distance after the initial clearing of the vegetation along St. Albans Bay Road. ! Spellman moved, seconded by Benson to recommend to Council denial preliminary plat. of the rezoning and I Schultz said he is disappointed that the concerns expressed by the ~ommission at the June meeting were not adequately addressed by the developer. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 6 ayes. This item will be on the Council agenda of 28 August 1989. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Peter Holmberg - 5955 Cajed Lane/27055 Smithtown Road ~Mr. Peter Holmberg of 5955 Cajed Lane and Ms. Barbara Nygaard of 27t55 Smithtown Road request approval of a subdivision and combination to straighten out the lot line between their properties. The sites are located in the R-1A zoning distric. Holmberg's lot contains 39,682 sq. ft. and the Nygaard lot contains 21,290 sq. ft.l They propose to swap equal-sized triangles of 1886 sq. ft. each. Since both lots are sUfstandand in size for their zoning district. there is no opportunity to bring either into~onformity. The purpose of the division/combination is to straighten the common lin between the two so that the rear yard of the Nygaard lot will no longer jut into what s technically the front yard of the Holmberg property. and so the Holmberg property wIno longer cut off the front of the Nygaard property. I Leslie moved, seconded by Mason to recommend to Council approval ofl the subdivision/combination subject to the Planner's recommendations: I 1. The applicants must provide up-to-date (within 30 days) title of in ions for their respective lots. I 2. The applicants must provide drainage and utility easements 10 ffet on each side of each side and rear lot line, except for the southerly 175 feet f Mr. Holmberg's easterly lot line. 3. The above-mentioned items must be completed within 30 days of tte Council's approval of the request. I . 4. Once the applicants have received the resolution approving the ~ivision/combination, they must record it within 30 days. I Motion carried unanimously. - 4 - Minutes 'Planning Commission 15 August 1989 Meeting MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Haugen was present and expressed her gratitude to the hard work. ltEPORTS Planning ! Commission for their Council Liaison Stover announced that the Council has appointed a n~ Planning Commissioner. His name is Dave Pitney, he lives in the Near Mountailn development and has an educational background in urban planning. I ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, seconded by Spellman to adj ourn the meeting at 9 :48 P .IM. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted: Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant ~ . - 5 - M I NUT E S GOUNCIL CHAMBERS 3755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 1:30 P.M. I CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . TUESDAY, 5 SEPTEMBER 1989 CALL TO ORDER Acting-Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting-Chair Benson; Commissioners Mason, Bongaards, anq Pitney; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Asst. IHelgesen. Absen t : Chair Schultz; Commissioners Leslie and Spellman (all ~cused). I APPROVAL OF MINUTES I Mason moved, seconded by Bongaards to approve the minutes of 15 Aug~st 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. I 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE Robert Whelan - 5910 Cathcart Drive Mr. Whelan recently replaced an 80 foot portion of fence in his frolt yard area without a permit. The fence is six feet high and extends beyond the front of his house to the . street r.o.w., and the Ordinance restricts fence height to four fee within front yards. He is requesting a variance to maintain the height at six feet, as as the height of the previous fence he replaced. , I i Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. Mr. Whelan explained that the new fence is in the identical same post holes were even used. The previous fence existed for 21 neighbor to the south, whose house faces Afton Road could put a six rear of his house and its location would be the same of Whelan's fe clarified that the neighbor's lot has the same frontage as Whelan's in spite of the fact that he chose to orient the house toward Afton lot would be subject to the same zoning restrictions as Whelan's. of the previous, the ears. He said his foot fence at the ceo Planner Nielsen by zoning definition Road. The neighbor's I I Mrs. Whelan said the following hardships exist: their bedroom windiws face south, picking up headlight glare from the street, and the fence screens t at out. The fence had originally been placed due to a neighborhood dispute. Tearing t down would be an economic hardship. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. I Mason asked what is the difference between repair and replacement? t'Nielsen said that boards within sections may be replaced in order to repair, but enti e sections between posts being replaced would have to comply with zoning regulations. Posts must remain intact. . Bongaards asked if any plantings exist which would lend privacy and! screening to the yard. Mrs. Whelan said the few that exist are old and dying. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 1989 -Mason suggested that the fence height regulation ahould begin at the face of the bouse. rather that 50% the depth of the structure. Nielsen said that is ce tainly something that is worthy of discussion during the Ordinance study sessions. in luding the possibility of the change beginning at the building setback. I Mason moved. seconded by Bongaards to table decision on this item fO~ 45 to 60 days maximum to allow time for the Planning Commission to study the Zonin Ordinance and consider amending the fence height regulations. Motion carried unanOmously. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Stanley and Delores Theis - 21055 Forest Drive I I Mr. and Mrs. Theis are requesting a setback variance in order to addl a porch and deck to the southeast side of their home. The house does not meet current s~tback requirements and is a nonconforming structure. The addition as proposed would re;uire a 28 foot variance and would extend to within two feet of the r.o.w. of Wooden Place. The Planner's recommendation is to locate the addition on the northwest ide of the house. thereby minimizing the variance to three feet. I Mr. Theis said that building on the northwest side of the house is a! problem due to the fact that the only access to a newer portion of their basement is located in that area. as well as the fact that drainage flows through that area. I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:10 P.M. J ~ublic portion of the public hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. without co ,ent. Bongaards moved to recommend to Council that the 28-foot setback var~ance as requested be denied. but that the three foot setback variance along the northwest side of the house as recommended in the Planner's report dated 30 August 1989 be approved if the applicants so desire. Mason seconded for discussion. Mason said that if the basement access were relocated the variance c+uld be greatly minimized and encouraged the Theis' to work with an architect to achfeve same. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be on the Council agenda of 11 September 1989. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SHORELAND ALTERATION VARIANCE R.D. Nelson - 5230 Howards Point Road Mr. J.D. MacRae. architect for Mr. Nelson. was present to explain th shoreland alteration variance. He said that the home recently const walkout facing west and due to the topography near the shoreline of view of the lake as well as drainage to the lake is obstructed by th topography. He said that there is a low area north of the proposed location does not accommodate the view or drainage plan they would 1 wish to relocate the low area on the site. He cited drainage obstru He also added that the cut in the topography necessary to create the .eet rather than the 7.5 feet noted in the Planner's report. Planne that 5.5 feet is correct. ir request for a cted was built as a ake Minnetonka. a existing rading site. but its ke to achieve. They tion as a hardship. swath is only 5.5 Nielsen confirmed - 2 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 1989 ... ~':~i~ :::~i~ :~ ~ ;~~i~ ::::i:: ~~:::: :~ ::~g :::: without c~ent. Bongaards moved. seconded by Mason to recommend to Council that thel'shore1and alteration variance be denied. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - ,4 ayes. This item will be on the Council agenda of 11 September 1989. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - MANOR PARK TEMPCRARY WARMING HOUSE City of Shorewood - N.E. quadrant of Manor Rd. and Suburban Dr. (Mar or Park) The Shorewood Park Commission would like to locate a temporary warm~ng house at Manor Park for three months out of the year (winter season). They proposE to rent an 8' x 32' mobile building. They intend to monitor use of the temporary shelt r to determine if a permanent building is warranted for this park. Planner Nielsen sail that precedent setting is a concern. that this proposal should be viewed the same ~ private development. He said he does not have detailed analysis at this tile as to how the facility complies with building code for egress and safety requiremEnts. i I i I One area resident said that a woman who lives across from the parkJo1d her that she believes the park would get used a lot more if a shelter were inst led. I ~ Bob Boyer. Suburban Drive. said he agrees.. The Park needs shelter r' d lighting. and asked if it would be staffed during the skating season. i Gordon Lindstrom. Park Commissioner. said lighting could be placed tn one side of the building to light the skating pond. and the shelter would be staffer. Bob Gagne. Council Liaison to Park Commission. noted that the Park;ommission has reviewed this proposal extensively. A lot of work and thought has )een put into this project. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:40 P.M. Gordy Christianson. Park Commissioner. said many young children in he area need this sh~lter. The kids now have to sit in snow banks to change their sk tes in the winter. Benson read aloud a letter submitted by Thomas and Charlotte Smith. 20540 Manor Road. who oppose any structure being placed in Manor Park. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:51 P.M. Mason said she is disappointed that the Park COlllmission didn't purs~. e construction of a permanent structure two years ago. Mr. Lindstrom said the City cou dn't afford it at that time. Using a temporary shelter will establish the extent of he need for a permanent. more expensive shelter in this Park. Mason said if ther is any need at all. a more attractive structure should be designed. I Mason moved to recommend to Council that the C.U.P. request be denitd. Motion died for ~ lack of a second. i - 3 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 1989 ~BOngaardS moved, seconded by one (1) winter season during Benson to recommend to Council approva which time the amount of use be monito the C.U.P. for Benson commented that he feels the Park Commission is spending a 10 of money that would be better spent toward a better, permanent building. Motion carried - 2 ayes (Bongaards, Benson) - 1 nay (Mason) - 1 abs (Pitney). This item will be on the Council agenda of 11 September 1989. i Benson moved, seconded by Bongaards. to recommend that the Planning Jnd Park Commissions and City Council hold a study session to determine a means of addre~sing park shelter buildings, due to the strong need by the community for shelters at f. 1 parks. Motion carried unanimously. ! 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT AREA VARIANCE James Miller - 5860 Hillendale Road Mr. Miller is requesting a lot area variance to build a single-fami y dwelling on this property located in the R-1A zoning district. The lot contains 25, 00 square feet of area which is substandard for the R-1A district. The variance is r quired because the lot does not contain at least 70 percent of the minimum required. he variance required amounts to 2500 square feet. I ~ Public portion of the public hearing c>pened at 9: 13 P.M. ! I Will Johnson, owner of adjacent lot, said he has concern about fill,'that was placed on this lot two years ago which apparently was contaminated from the g s station site it came from. He is also concerned about which direction the drainage will flow off of the lot. Will Kahl, owner of adjacent lot, said he supports the variance, alhough he also has concerns about contaminated soil. Planner Nielsen said that due to any fill having been placed on the lot, the soil will be subject to testing and, if contaminated, will be subject to removal. The lot being lower than the street, the drainage will be subject to the City Engineer' approval. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9:24 P.M. Pitney asked if the driveway access is a concern due to the easement! access on this lot. Nielsen said it may be a concern, the driveway plan will be require4 for the building permit application. I Mason moved, seconded by Pitney to recommend to Council approval of I'the lot area variance. Motion carried unanimously. i I This item will be on the Council agenda of 11 September 1989. I ~ - 4 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 September 1989 . SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/LOT COMBINATION Jim Deanovic - 28005. 28015 and 28025 Boulder Bridge Drive Mr. Deanovic would like to divide Lot 5. Block 4 of Boulder Bridge the resulting halves with adjacent Lots 4 and 6. The result is cre out of three existing lots for the purpose of more building space. will exceed all zoning and subdivision requirements. ddition and combine ting two larger lots The resulting lots Mason moved. seconded by Bongaards to recommend to Council approval of the subdivision/combination subject to the Planner's recommendations: 2. The applicant must record the division/combination within 30 the Council resolution approving the request. i n1 surveys showing the I I dafs of his receipt of 1. Within 30 days of Council approval the applicant must submit proposed change in lot lines and new legal descriptions. Motion carried unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 11 September 1989. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR nexJ tha~ I Planning Commission Permit. Mr. Deanovic said that he has a C.U.P. request coming up on the . agenda. Nielsen explained the conditions which must be met for REPORTS Council Liaison Stover reported on the Council's actions regarding Commission's recommendation of their last meeting. lhe Planning ADJOURNMENT f'M' I Motion carried Bongaards moved. seconded by Benson to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 unanimously. Respectfully submitted. Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant . - 5 - ~ ~ ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 1989 MINNEW HTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26350 S ITHTOWN ROAD 7:30 P. . M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Leslie, Mason, Bongaards, Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning Assi Administrator Whittaker; Engineers Norton and Morast, Finance Director Rolek. Pitney and Benson; t. Helgesen. ttorney Froberg; Absent: Commissioner Spellman (excused). 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - WATERFORD 3RD PHASE P.U.D. - DEVELOPMEN Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc. - 20095 State Highway 7 STAGE APPROVAL I Chair Schultz acknowledged the attendance of City Council members ~d explained that they were present to observe and hear public comment first hand. I George Sherman of Sherman-Boosalis Interests, Inc. explained his p oposal. He said Schoell and Madsen, Inc. is the project engineer, and Mr. Jens Bec the architect of the residential portion. In 1984-85 the original PUD proposal included a 3rd (final) phase f development to be completed at a later date. The final phase consisted of multi-fam"ly dwellings and commercial use, subject to Highway 7 access. He said that the pro osal tonight meets or exceeds the requirements of that PUD approval. He pointed out key outlots and explained their purposes (buffer area and road alignment). This proposal co tains the same property size as the original. The multi-family dwellings would co sist of twin-homes valued from $225,000 and up and represents less than half the dens"ty of the original proposal. I The commercial portion is proposed to consist of a convenience gas and grocery store designed with residential features; 22,000 square foot retail cent r (dry cleaning, convenience stores, professional users); a one-story drive-up bank facility; and a day care center. Mr. Sherman stated that the proposed intersection meets MNDOT guid lines. Brad Nielsen, City Planner, reviewed his staff reported in regard to land use issues, design, and park dedication. He said that the or"ginal plan, given concept approval in 1984, contained 144 multiple-family units on a proximately 22 acres of land with low-intensity commercial development along Highway 7. Due to the lack of detail presented at the time of the original proposal, the City Co ncil had agreed to hold another public hearing when development stage plans were sub "tted. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting .12 September 1989 . Planner Nielsen said that the Design Framework Manual originally ap~roved has been followed with certain revisions, such as parking/loading areas for fommercial, and increased landscaping. He said park dedication fees will be the safe as originally required, $78,500, despite the reduced density. Robert Morast of O.S.M. Engineering reviewed his report which evalu tes traffic circulation and volume. In his report, Mr. Morast states that decr ases in proposed housing units, as well as upgrade of the Vine Hill intersection by OT have been taken into consideration. His evaluation determines that the Vine Hill i tersection will not operate at an acceptable level of service once the area is fully de eloped. The proposed level of development was originally forecasted to generate 8,265 tr"ps per day. Despite some reduction in density which has occurred there needs to be a co lector street to accommodate these traffic volumes. Steep grades, restricted right- f-way and the number of driveways directly onto Vine Hill Road prohibits reconstruction 0 State Aid Collector Road Standards. A collector road through the area was planned to c nnect Vine Hill Road with T.H.7 at Old Market Road. Mr. Morast said his traffic forecas ing was based on Met Council socioeconomic data. Mr. Morast's report also provided response to written concerns subm"tted by the Waterford and Covington Vine Ridge Homeowner's Associations. He stated that rn regard to the concern about Old Market Road being used as a short cut from T.H.7 0 the Crosstown extension, County and State statistics do not forecast this to be a problem. Most traffic currently using Hwy 101 does not have a westerly destinatio~. . Jim Norton, City Engineer, O.S.M. Engineering, provided preliminary review of grading, drainage, erosion control, storm sewer, residential street layout, anitary sewer and watermain plans. He said the grading, drainage and erosion control plans will also be subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review and approval. MNDOT has reviewed the preliminary layout of the streets, service road and the new int rsection of Old Market Road and T.H.7. They have approved these preliminary plans. All plans will be subject to final review and approval. Glenn Froberg, City Attorney, addressed the City's obligation to th~ development, and the question of notifiying buyers of future plans. ! In his report to Council dated August 25, 1989, Mr. Froberg states City's orig~nal approval of the concept plan showing the intersecti execution of the Development Agreement specifying the intersection, the City has entered into a legally binding contract with the Devel of an intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7.11 He also states that a memorandum to Development Agreement was inCl~'ed as an attachment to the City's Resolution #29-85 approving the first final plat of terford, and was recorded in the office of the County Recorder on September 24, 1985. Minnesota Title Company has informed him that the existence of a recorded developm t agreement is normally brought to the attention of the lot purchaser. I , hat IIbased upon the n, and its subsequent it is my opinion that per for the location . Larry Whittaker, City Administrator, addressed the various optionS4vailable for financing the intersection construction. He said the developer wo ld prefer to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF). Alternatives include MNDOT participati ; assessment; State Aid and General Fund. He said the best option appears to be TIF, . wever, no decision has yet been reached regarding the form of financing. ' - 2 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 12 September 1989 Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:42 P.M. I Jay Hare, Waterford resident, representing the Waterford Homewownet's Association, Covington Vine Ridge, and Sweetwater Additions, said he, six other I residents, and their attorney will comment on the development aspects of Waterford 3rd t,hase as well as the intersection. Mr. Hare said that the proposed gas station is residential area due to potential ground water lighting and signage. not compatible with I the adjacent pollution, increase~ traffic, noise, I ! He said in regard to the proposed intersection and collector statu!' of Old Market Road, the residents don't want it. They would prefer a compromise desig , of which he presented an illustration, showing Old Market Road intersecting wi h the service road only, with no direct access to the Highway. He said the residents I feel the proposed intersection is unnecessary in spite of the traffic study figures. Additional stop lights on Highway 7 are undesirable and unnecessary. The spacing ~f the stop lights between Old Market Road and the Vine Hill intersection is unacceptfble. 97% of area residents are opposed to the proposed intersection (207 signatures I representing Waterford, Covington Vine Ridge and Sweetwater Additions). , I Gary Gandrud of Faegre and Benson law firm, representing waterfordtHomeowner'SASSOC., said he questions the obligation of the City to the development. he memorandum referenced in title opinions is difficult to understand. The Carr dor Study does not recommend this intersection. He would like to see a detailed cost study of the proposal. David Dean, 5690 Old Market Road, asked if the Comprehensive Plan tddresses the intersection? Did the residents have knowledge of the proposed in ersection? He said that two out of four title opinions made no mention of the develoPfent agreement, and he was informed by the former City Administrator that Old Market Road would end at the existing service road, not a highway intersection. ! He referenced that the staff report stated that the Comprehensive ~lan suggests that a collector stre e,t be designated (relieving Vine Hill Road) to go th~U9h lIundeveloped land to the westll. That land is now developed and he urged the City to listen to the residents who live on that land, and not feel they must ridgedly a ere to previously approved plans. . Stuart Finney, 19710 Chartwell Hill, agreed that the title opinion~ do not tell about the intersection development. He said the residents don't feel trappe~ in their neighborhood or feel any need for further access out. The traffic count would probably exceed 15,000 cars per day if the intersection goes through. ' I I Harold Ness, Covington Vine Ridge, said that if TIF doesn't work, ~hen general property taxes will pay for this development. He questioned the market fori commercial development of this property and noted that taxes will pay for it if the marke~ fails. He said the residents do not want the intersection and it will place a burden pn those same residents. i I I Christine Rice, Chartwell Hill, is concerned about the safety of cltildren using Silverwood Park due to the danger imposed by the intersection and ~ncreased traffic. She said that she was not told of the proposed intersection by either per realtor or builder. - 3 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 12 September 1989 Bob Snyder, Waterford, stated that the original purpose of Old Mar The residents have been misinformed by the developers. The establ need the City's support. He suggested that the City let an arbitr obligation the City has to the developer. He also suggested that of financing the development up for referendum vote. He said comp the proposed insection include the Vine Hill intersection; an on/o Old Market Road and separate it from the intersection. et Road has been met. shed neighborhoods tor decide what he City put the means omise alternatives to f ramp; or dead-end i I Dennis Clark, 20880 Radisson Road, representing Radisson Road area~residents, said that Radisson Road cannot handle any more traffic. The 1985 meetings d scussed all the intersections along Highway 7 corridor and it was determined that any residents would benefit by the proposed intersection. I Tad Shaw 5580 Shore Road, said that he was on the City Council in 1984-85 when the ' original proposal was made. The solution to the traffic density ptesented at that time was determined to be the intersection. The plans for the area aretthe result of numerous and lengthy discussions between the City and developer. He doesn' feel that Radisson Road should take on the traffic being generated by the development in the southeast area. Larry Buesgen, 20090 Excelsior Blvd., said that the residents on t~e north side of Highway 7 were opposed to the development in 1984-85. Drainage is I carried under the Highway via culvert and drains onto a portion of his property knowt as Footprint Lake. He is concerned about pollutants from the proposed gas station flo ing into that drainage system. I Dennis Martin, 20185 Excelsior Blvd., said that he doesn't think tfe Highway 7 Corridor meeting mentioned the proposed intersection. If the intersection s built, backup from it will be sitting on an uphill grade which will be hazardous in t e winter. Barbara Martin, 20185 Excelsior Blvd., is concerned about the nois, which would be generated from traffic at the intersection. She also opposes a ga* station at that site. i Betty Abelson, 19915 Muirfield Circle, was told that Old Market Rot'd is a residential street and only for area residents. She doesn't think current res dents of the area would have bought into it if they knew about the proposed developmfnt and resultant traffic count. I I Simon Oosterman, 19365 waterford Place, said he bought his propertt on the promise that there would be an intersection which would relieve the Vine Hill R?ad traffic. He said he supports the development of the intersection. ' Break 9:45 P.M. to 9:55 P.M. Todd Hendries, 20050 Excelsior Blvd., is concerned about Townline oad traffic impacting the north side of Highway 7 if access is extended to the north sid of the highway. He also questioned benefit of the commercial development and stated c ncern that commercial development will spread over to the north side. - 4 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting .12 September 1989 Les Anderson, 5385 Shady Hills Circle, said he agrees with Tad Shaw~ He said he doesn't blame local residents for being concerned about traffic counts, how ver, Shady Hills residents do not want the traffic through their neighborhood any mo e than the new residents want it through theirs. I Gary Swanson, 19535 Vine Ridge Road, said he was not told by anyone I about future development in the area and wouldn't have moved there if they had tfld him. He said Radisson Road residents will see more traffic through their neighbofhood if the slip is closed due to the intersection. I Carol Buesgen, 20090 Excelsior Blvd., opposes commercial developmen. Feels that the project could be developed strictly as residential. the ramp Don Berglund, 19895 Waterford Place, said that in the Spring of 198 City staff told him of future access to the Highway of an undefined form. He is concer ed about the safety of neighborhood children. I the area where t~e Vine Hill about there beint a buffer between it Tom Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, his house is close to intersection upgrading will occur and is concerned and his house. Garrett Hegel, 19685 Waterford Place, wondered if taxes generated b would be able to benefit the school system and general fund if fina . asked if the city is prepared to answer all the concerns before mak Steven Dzurak, 19570 Vine Ridge Road, urged the City to reject the making Old Market Road and Covington Road collector streets will fo Highway 7 and the Crosstown extension. He suggested that the inter be built later rather than making an irreversible mistake now. He trapped in their neighborhoods by making their streets collector st Highway 7. the development cing is byTIF, .and ng its decision. ntersection. He said a short cut between ection could always aid children will be eets as busy as Steve Michals, 19890 Chartwell Hill, concerned about TIF jeopardiz ng taxes. district and County will not benefit during the TIF term. The school I I I Jim Slaughter, 5570 Old Market Road, said he would not have bought liS lot in Waterford if he had known about the traffic potential. His title search didn t occur until after he had made a purchase commitment on the lot. Walter Jones, 5520 Covington Road, said that traffic problems need to be corrected at the highway level, not routed into another residential area. i I Jerry Steiner, Attorney for Trivesco,said that the City is dealingtWith a very responsible and capable developer who delivered to the City per agr ements down to the letter. He asked the City to do the same in return. He noted that the City staff is recommending in favor of the intersection. The City made a specifi commitment to the developer per the development agreement in 1985. I I I .RandY Travalia, Robert Mason Homes (one~third of Trivesco partnersh~p), said that the focus during the original proposal was water and the intersection. [Purchase agreements on lots in Waterford contain riders stating that future developmentiof multi-family dwellings and commercial development was approved, and sales brochu es illustrated the intersection. He said Trivesco would like the City to honor its ag eement with the developer. - 5 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 12 September 1989 Public portion of the public hearing closed at 10:45 P.M. Al Rolek, Finance Director, explained that Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a vehicle of financing where current property value is established and frozen. The taxation on any increased value of the property resulting from development is capt red to retire the debt issued to make the improvements on the property. He said taxes cu rently being collected on the property will continue to benefit the general fund. Financ.ng has not yet been decided for the project, and available options require more invest.gation. I Bob Morast, O.S.M. Engineering, said the Highway 7 Corridor Study 4id not specifically recommend this proposed intersection, but suggested the need for a~ intersection within this vicinity. Based upon overall funding and the possibility of he construction of the intersection, MNDOT determined that this intersection was appropri te and compatible with the Corridor Study results. Also, he said that the traffic counts used by residents have been under-estimated. Actual figures are based on 10 trips per da~ per household. I I Glenn Froberg, City Attorney, said that the purpose of a public he4ring is to present information and hear areas of concern to determine if those areas 1f concern can be resolved between the residents and the City within the framework o~ those contracts and agreements that are already in place between the parties. I Benson moved, seconded by Mason to continue discussion of waterfor4 3rd Phase to 26 September 1989 at 7:30 P.M. at the Minnewashta Elementary SChoo~ gymnasium. Motion carried unanimously. I I those present that the public portion of the publ~c hearing was closed, comment may be submitted between now and next Tue~day, 19 September, and and considered by the Planning Commission. I I I Benson moved, seconded by Leslie to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 PiM. Motion carried unanimously. I [ i I I Schultz informed however, written will be received Respectfully submitted, Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant - 6 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ TUESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 1989 I COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7: 30 P. M. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair SChultz called the meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Bongaards, Spellman, Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Planning I I I I i Bensbn and Mason; Asstl. Helgesen. I I I I I ROLL CALL Absent: Commissioners Leslie and Pitney (both excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Bongaards moved, seconded by Mason to approve the minutes of 5 sep~ember 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. Mason moved, seconded by Bongaards to approve the minutes of 12 seLtember 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. f . 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - HEIGHTS OF ST. ALBANS BAY Gene Erickson - Southeast quadrant of st. Albans Bay Road and Mano Road Planner Nielsen showed the plat which was presented in August for pproval and subsequently recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. T e applicant withdrew his request prior to any decision being made by the Council, and s mitted a new application for rezoning and preliminary plat (second revision) to the Planning Commission. However, the applicant brought to the meeting a third revision of the plat which contained a street which meets the 6% grade and similar in d sign as originally recommended by the City Engineer. The applicant requested that th Commission base their recommendation on this third revision as presented. Nielsen said hat the rezoning to R-1B would be appropriate based on the Comprehensive Plan, and the plat proposed meets or exceeds the requirements of the R-1B zoning district. Rick Sathre, project Engineer, said that they had resisted this in hopes of saving mature trees on the site. I st~eet design previously i i I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. Walter Bean, 5285 st. Albans Bay Rd., asked if proposed Lots which are planned to access st. Albans Bay Road. Mr. Sathre is opposed to the rezoning because he feels the Comp Plan is larger lots surrounding the site. , 7 and~8 are the only lots said es. Mr. Bean said he flawe - and that there are ! . I Mike COllins., 5215 st. Albans Bay Rd., reminded the Commission th~ st. Albans Bay Road is a very fast-travelled road. He said he would like more time tOj review the third revision plat, the pond shown on it is new. I I Rick Sathre said the pond is a depressed area of land which would bollect run-off in order to slow it down. I I Minutes Planning Commi sion Meeting 3 October 1989 . Public portion of the public hearing cloSE:ld at 7:56 P.M. Schultz asked hat the angle of the proposed street is at its acce s point to st. Albans Bay Road. Nie sen said there would be room for one car at a perpe dicular angle to st. Albans Bay Roa , any subsequent cars would stack at an angle aroun the curve. Schultz asked report dated 2 recommended fo r. Erickson if he agreed with the Planner's recomme dations stated in his September 1989. Mr. Erickson said yes he did, exc pt that the garage removal will now comply with the setbacks on the t ird revision plat. . Spellman asked what will happen to storm water as it runs down thel steep grade toward Manor Road. M. Sathre said he will work with the City Engineer ard provide detailed plans for eros'on control on the final plat. : i Schultz asked r. Erickson if he is planning to comply with the lo~ line adjustments as recommended by the Planner. Mr. Erickson said they are considerinG it. , Spellman moved, seconded by Mason to recommend to Council approval I of the rezoning to R-1B and the p eliminary plat (third revision), subject to the Plafner,s recommendations including that the lot lines for Lots 5 - 8 be made more perpendic lar with st. Albans Bay Road and t at the City Engineer consider requiring storm sewer for drainage/erosion control on the grade toward Manor Road. Motion carried unanimousl by roll call vote - 5 ayes. I I 7:45 P.M. PUBL C HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I Minnesota Cell lar Telephone Company - 5500 Old Market Road I I I bile Telephone Company is requesting approval of a bonditional use permit o construct a 12' x 28' equipment shelter, enclosedlby security fencing theast area water tower, and to place six antennaepn the tower itself. plan shows six-foot evergreen trees around thefenFe and building to m the south. I epresenting Cellular One, said the company has 26 er. isting sites. He phs of their standard type shelters and antennae. e said the signal type have never had a complaint of signal interference. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:36 P.M. I Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:36 P.M. without cfmment. , , Mason asked if the fence is absolutely necessary. Mr. Rogers sai contain a lot of expensive equipment. Schultz said he objects to believes additional landscaping is necessary. He suggested that t peaked roof and cedar shakes, and that the fence and building be c year-round evergreen landscape. Benson said he would recommend a shingles, but require higher evergreen trees so that it is complet This item will be on the Council agenda of 9 October 1989. Cellular One M to allow them next to the so Their lands cap screen them fr Bryan Rogers, showed photogr is FM, and the the shelter will hain link fencing and e building have a mpletely surrounded by ower roof with regular ly hidden from view. . Benson moved, seconded by Spellman to recommend to Council approvaR of the C.U.P. subject to the Planner's recommendations. Motion carried unanimously by Rfv - 5 ayes. This item will be on the Council agenda of 9 October 1989. - 2 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 1989 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE VARIANCE TO EXPAND A N NCONFORMING USE Herbert Maso~. - 27010 Edgewood Road I Last month i was discovered that a 12' x 12' gazebo was being bU~' t on this property without a bu Olding permit. In making application to comply with. rmit requirements, it was further iscovered that the gazebo in its current location doe. not meet the side yard setback, nor the does property conform with the single-famil~ zoning district r. equirements~ecause it contains two dwelling units. Mr. Mason iSr' requesting a setback variance to e side yard setback. and a variance to expand a nonc nforming use due to the nonconfo ity of his property use. ! Public portion of the public hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. i Schultz acknowledged letters of support submitted by neighbors whiph were included in the Planner's report. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9:01 P.M. Mr. Mason said he feels 17 feet is an adequate setback from the si~e yard (lake shore side yard setback requires 20 feet on that side). He said thehO*' es on the lot were built as they are before he bought the property. He said he has ded more land to his property in the recent past in an attempt to make it more conformi g. Schultz said the size of the lot is not the problem here, it is the number of dwel Ong units that is creating the nonconforming use, as well as their location. i I Council deni~l of the setback Motion carri~d unanimously by roll Spellman moved, seconded by Bongaards to recommend to variance and variance to expand a nonconforming use. call vote - 5 ayes. This item will be on the Council agenda of 9 October 1989. Mr. Christian said he is concerned about the potential use of the easements being required by the City in conjunction with this div' along the north side lot line. He said he has several trees alon wants to protect from utility companies. Planner Nielsen said the unlikely to need use of that eas~ment, and the easement along tha specifically as "drainage and 'p\1lblic' utility" easement to proho semi-public utilities (phone, el$ctric, gas, etc.). rainag$/utility ion which would run that lot line which he City is highly line could be worded it use by the Spellman moved, seconded by Bong~ards to recommend approval of the! subdivision/combination subject to the Planner's recommendations: - 3 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 3 October 1989 1. The applicant must submit up-to-date (within 30 days) title op~nions for her lot and the Brentridge lot. : I The applicant must provide drainage and utility easements 10 fret along .the southerly boundary of her existing parcel and lCl feet along the northerl boundary of the newly configured parcel. 2. 3. These items must be submitted to the City within 30 days of ti Council's approval of the divifion. , vacationiof the existing easement will be contingent upon the ~PPlicant providing the easementt described in 2. above. ' i i 4. 5. i , Since nolnew lots are being created, park dedication fees are rot Once the I applicant has received the Council resolution apprOvi~9 divisionYcombination she must record it within 30 days. required. 6. the Motion carri$d unanimously. This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 October 1989. STUDY SESSION Fence height requirements. This item was deferred to the 7 NOV~. er Planning Commission meetlrg. PlannerNielsen would like to make a slide presenta~ion of examples of fences in ~her communities. A public hearing for Ordinance amendm~nt consideration will be schedpled. i , I MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Schultz complimented the City on th~. work done on the trail. sYste~! and said he hopes snowmobiles and horses can be limit~d or banned from its use beca e of the destruction they incur. He sai~ some form of p~eservation system needs to be eveloped. i REPORTS I i stover reminded the Commission that!a meeting date needs to be det~rmined for the Park and Planning Commissions to meet anq! discuss the park shelter iSs*. Benson suggested discussing schedul after the Watetford meetings are over. I secon~ by Eongaards 10 adjourn the meeting at ADJOURNMENT Mason.moved, unanimously. 10: 121 P.M. , Motion carried Respectfully submitted, Patti Helgesen Planning Assistant - 4 - CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ TUESDAY, 24 OC~BER 1989 . . M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to iorder at 7:35 P.M. I ROLL CALL Present: Ch~ir Schultz; Commissi~ners Benson; Leslie CoU!ncil Liaison Stover; IPlanner Nielsen; PI Adrr\inistrator Whittaker;1 Engineers Norton a Finance Director Rolek. I Absent: i Commissioner Mason (exc~sed). i I APPROVAL OF MINuTES MINNEWASHTA ELEM SCHOOL 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD 7:30 P.M. Spellman; Bongaards; Pitney; nning Asst. Helgesen; d Morast; ttorney Froberg; , Leslie moved, s:econded by Bongaards !to approve the minu es of 3 Motion carried unanimously. 1989 as written. : i WATERFORD 3RD ~HASE P. U . D. - DEVELO MENT Sherman-Boosal~s Interests, Inc. - ~0095 STAGE APPROVAL State Highway FROM 12 SEPTEMBER 1989 !. i Chair Schultz ~eminded those presen~ that the public po been closed at Ithe meeting of 12 se~tember, and the pu the hearing is ifor Planning Commiss~on discussion. He subject areas as outlined in the Pl~nner's Report dated are land use; sitreets and traffic c~rculation; general i I Land Use: i Planner Nielsen said there are two ~rimary land use iss es: the store proposal;' and the design of tli-e commercial strip. He said t whether these ~ssues reflect the in~ent of the original concept ap regarding the dommercial developmen~ is whether parking should be or buildings c~oser to the highway ~ith the parking beh nd them. closer to the ~ighway then more lan~scaping should be a ded to buf north side of the highway. I ~ He said a thir~... issue is the reduct. ~o n in the residenti 1 units pr posed. The original concept plan proposed 144 units. T~ecurrent plan pro ses 54 res'dential units. However, the d~veloper will still pay the full amount of assessmen s and park dedication fees based on the original figures. I 1 Leslie said sh~ is surprised to see la gas station propo al in ligh of the original intent to keep the co~ercial portion low-~ntensity. Spellman agreed tha a gas station is not low-intensity aind such a use would 1raw non-local traff c to the s'te. i George Sherman I(developer) said thati a gas station was uses in 1984. IRe said he feels the Igas station/conveni 2-3 mile area neighborhood. It can~be designed to refl s~rrounding ne~.g~r~ood. He has t ree int:reste~ tena dJ..scuss the res!trJ..ctJ..ons necessary 0 make J..t strJ..ctly ! I tion of th"s public hearing had ose of thi continued portion of aid they w'll discuss the four 23 August 989. Those subjects esign; and park dedication. i i ot among t nce store ct the cha ts, two of eighborhoo station/convenience e focus should be on rovals. One concern loser to the highway, f parking is placed er the view from the e list of excluded land ill serve the immediate acter of the which are willing to convenience. ~ . . Minutes Planning Commis,sion Meeting 24 October 1989 Leslie asked how much interest they Ihave had in the retail space. ," Mr. Sherman said about 60% so far - thi..ree. inquiries on the day care operation ( letters Of... intent), and they have a letter of in-qent for the back fac~lity. G.T. Mork (developer's ealtor), said that there is ident~fied interest on about 15,000 square feet of the re ail space so far, and approximately a,OOO square feet WOU~d he signed today if term. s wer, nailed down. Schultz referr~d to problems with ttie most recent gas station buil in Shorewood, and said typical c~ncerns .are usually l~ghtingand signage. Sherman s id that a corporate user would be ~etter than an indiviqual owner or franchise with l' ited finances. He further stated ithat gas stations ca~ fit in with residential commu ities if controlled in regard to arch~tecture, lighting, s~gnage and hours of operation. He said the gas station allows ithem to build lower 4ensity in the residential port"on of their proposal. Les.l ie question,.,..ed the amount of gree..,....,.n space bei. n g proposed as. view..I.....d from the highway. Sherman explai~ed the commercial layout and pointed out that no va. iances to setbacks are being requeste~. He said that they iare exceeding the parking requ'rements and also allowing for f~ture expansion of Highway 7. They are proposing de per setbacks for the parking area w~th a berm between th4 service road and the highway. I Pitney asked hgw many gas pumps are iproposed. Sherman said two p pumps per isla~d. islands with two Mr. Sherman saiJd the twinhomes will ihave the capacity for 2-1/2 to 31 stall garages and excess off-str~et parking space. H~ said the Homeowner's covenant and restrictions can limit addition~l storage space per init, including outdoor stora.gel... Spellman moved ito recommend to Counqil approval of the land use Port'ion of the P. U . D. as proposed. Motion died for lack of ~ second. I Leslie moved, sieconded by Spellman ~o recommend to Council approvan,. bf the land use portion of the IP.U.D. excluding the !gas station. r I Benson said ho~rs of operation should be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 1f:OO the commercial operations. Signs s~ould be no higher than buildin s. Schultz said t~ere need to be restrictions on accessory buildings nd boats, etc. fo~ the residential are~. 1 P.M. for any of outdoor storage of Leslie amended Motion carried Iher motion to includ~ above conditions. ~nanimously by roll dall vote - 6 ayes. i Spellman i s[conded 1 amendment. Streets and Traffic Circulation: i Planner Nielseri said the Police Chi~f and Fire Marshall were both sked to render their I ! comments regarding the intersectionlas proposed as well as the alt rnatives suggested. !! Rick Young, S.~.M.P.S.D. Chief, comn\ented that he is concerned abo t, additional traffic being added to iCovington and Radissqn Roads. Emergency service wi 11 be slowed somewhat using any of t~e alternatives. He ~elt the original design was we 1 thought out and works better than any of the alternatives. - 2 - Minutes Planning Corrnnission Meeting 24 October 1989 . Joe Wallin, Fi~e Marshall, prefers the proposed intersection. It I a controlled iritersection and a geo~etric design is better for man be concerned ~out response time wi~h the alternative plans - even "tremendous" an\ount of time to lose~ s safer to go through uverability. He would three minutes is a Planner Nielse~ said MNDOT has plan~ to upgrade the intersections t Vine Hill and Christmas Lake!Roads by 1992. The qity Council is withholding the"r consent of the Vine Hill Road inte:t1section improvement *evision until Old Market Road "s decided. Bob Morast of O.S.M. Engi*eers said the purpos~ for upgrading these intersect"ons is for safety, not capacity. He said with the reductiqn in residential density for t e area taken into' account, the updated traffic count ~igure is approximately 5,200 t ips per day. This figure still r~quires the intersect~on and collector street for th area. I , Schultz asked ~f existing slip ramp~ would be eliminated. Nielsen said MNDOT's intent is to eliminate a~l slip ramps in the ~icinity if the intersection is developed. If the intersection dqes not get built, th~re will probably be no changes , Bongaards askeq if there is Old Market Roa~ potential. no traffic couqts available any exi~ting street in Shorewood that Morast ~aid Smithtown Road is a collec for comparison. ould compare to the or street, but he has Morast pointed lout that the state Cdrrnnissioner of Highways determi es speed limits for all public str~ets. Cities may onl~ request speed studies by the tate. Nielsen said that the speed !limit for Old Market 'Road would be posted at the st ndard for all residential stteets - 30 M.P.H. . Benson said he !has seen an increase in traffic coming from the eas an extremely pqor route. along Radisson Road, Pitney asked hqw t~e intersection wquld be financed. Administrato Whittaker said that financing is n9t n1~ally di~cussedlatthis phase of develo~ment,. owever, internal improvements a:t1e t~~cally f~nanced !by developer. Extraord~nary , rovements or improvements o~tsi~e the project carl be financed with T.r.F. Feas"ility studies must be done first. Cqsts !are not known atlthis time, but the developer f els T.I.F. is the most appropriate. ~f TJI.F. turns out tq be inadequate, alternative me hods such as special ! I . ! assessment, St9te ~id, or general f~nd would be explored. ;. I i . I Spellman moved,! se~onded by Leslie to recorrnnend to Council of the street use portion of the !proposal. ' I ! ! I I Bongaards said!she!would like to se~ the intersection approval into financial feasibility of Is am,. Schultz explai~ed that he felt this lis such a difficult decision d e to all of its complexities. iHe ~as received numertous letters from residents bot pro and con. The current propos~l has been planned f~r a long time. He said traffi must be accepted as a fact of life, dnd transportation af~ects more than just one neighb rhood within the corrnnuni ty . I I : i I Bongaards saidiherlheart and her hedd are in two different places n this issue. She said she feels !badifor those who did buy their homes without previ us knowledge of the plans for the ~rea~ ! ! Motion carried unaJimously by roll , dall I , , I I I , - 3 - vote - 6 ayes. . . . Minutes !I Planning Commi~sio~ Meeting 24 October 198~ 'I i General Design :11 I I Spellman moved,1 se~onded by Bongaa,rqs to recommend to Council appr design portion 'of the proposal. ~o~ion carried unanimously by rol val of the general call vote - 6 ayes. Park Dedicatio . I Benson moved, ~econded by spellmaJ Jo recommend to Council approva of the park dedication fee~ as originally proBo~ed - $78,500. Motion carried nanimously by roll call vote - 6 1yes. , ! These items wi~l be on the counci~ ~genda of 13 November 1989. Th t Council meeting is planned to be ~eld at the Minnewash~a Elementary School. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None REPORTS Council Liaison Stover reported oq ~he action taken by the Council on Planning Commission items from their meeting of 3 Octqb~r 1989. I . . ! ADJOURNMENT i : ! ! , , I i Pitney moved, ~econded by Bongaards ito adjourn the meeting at 9:43 P.M. unanimously. Respectfully submitted: Patti Helgesen Planning - 4 - Motion carried . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 7 NOVF;MBER 1989 COUNCI CHAMBERS 5755 C UNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. I Present: Ch~ir Schultz; commis~[ilners Bongaards, Spellman, Les ie, Pitney; Cmtncil Liaison S-tovet; Planner Nielsen; Recording Se retary Mackey. , i , I Co~issioners Mason arid!Benson. , , i ' I I , ! Spellman moved, seconded by Bonga4~ds to approve the Minutes of 7 November 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimouilt. 7:30 P.M. PUBLC HEARING - CONDIT O~AL USE PERMIT - SPECIAL HOME CCUPATION Carol Lindberg - 21045 Ivy Lane I i i' i ! ! al~ow her to open a small barber s op within her home. " I ch~~f and a sink and Ms. Lindberg ould be the only . I I i I . Public portion !of the public hearin$ opened at 7:32 P.M. Public portion of the public hearinf closed at 7:32 P.M. without Spellman moved~ seconded by Bongaar1s, to grant the conditional u recommendation by Schultz that perml't renewals be required annual Motion carried unanimously. This item will be on the Council ag nda of 20 November 1989. M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz clalled the meeting ~o order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Lindberg made a request to This shop would consist of one employee. including the 7 : 40 P. M. PUBLltC HEARING - C. U . P . EXCEED 1000 S . FT. OF ACCES ORY SPACE Scott Meyer - 28025 Boulder Bridge' ~rive I Mr. Meyer requested a conditionalu~e permit to allow him to exce d 1000 square feet of accessory spac~. Due to the size of his home, he has purchased h If of the lot to the south of his home. This permit wi~i allow Mr. Meyer to build a 1 I X 16' storage room which is not accessible from the hoise. The accessory space brin s the total to 1150 square feet. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 1989 . Public portion of the public hearin1 opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Meyer's builder commented on thJ fact that Eden Prairie had they currently '."dO n..ot adhere to. ~an ner Nielsen felt that the modification and proposed to increa e the threshold to a higher will be compiled and an ordinanceendment will be drafted. Public portion ,of the public hearinJ closed at 7:43 P.M. i , Spellman moved" seconded by Leslie, I to grant the conditional use square feet in excess of 1000 squarr feet. I I I This item will 'be on the Council ag$nda of 20 November 1989. I I 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. T@ EXCEED 1000 S . FT. OF ACCES Robert Weiss - 617$ Lake Virginia Dive a similar ordinance which c rrent Ordinance needs 1 el. Previous requests ermit for accessory Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Weiss requested a conditional u~e permit to allow him to exce accessory space. He would like to!'xpand his existing garage to existing pool ~quipment building br ngs the total accessory space I I Public portion of tihe public hearin$ opened at 7:50 P.M. Public portion ,of the public hearin$ closed at 7:50 P.M. without d 1000 square feet of 000 square feet. An to 1155 square feet. Planner Nielsen reported that this tequest was identical to the p Spellman moved~ seconded by Bongaar~s, to grant the conditional u I Motion carried unanimously. : I I This item will be on the Council agjnda of 20 November 1989. 8:00 P.M. PUBLltC HEARING - SETBACK YARIANCE Minnesota MinilStorage - 19545 Stat, Highway 7 Minnesota Mini-Stonage has requeste~ a setback variance which is technicality. A recent sale of thelproperty showed that there wa regarding the w...est ....boUndary line of I.. Parcel 2. This results in th buildings on the facility not complting with the setback requirem originally granted a l5 foot varian~e on the west side in exchang additional setback :on' the east side~ If the legal description is may be 16.5 feet closer to the lot ~ine than what was approved. . argely considered a an error in the survey location of one of the n~. The project was for 15 feet of correct, the building , Public portion of the public hearin4 opened at 8:02 P.M. i . I Carter DeLaittne, Att~rney for Minn$sota Mini-Storage, reported t at the property had been sold to True s Ptoperties. I I Public portion :of the public hearin~ closed at 8:10 P.M. : I 2 ! -- Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 1989 . Chair Schultz questioned the effect this had on adjoining propertO s. Planner Nielsen said the property adjoining Minnesota Mini-Storage was public roa right-of-way and that the building still had a 18.5 foot setback. Spellman moved" seconded by Pitney to approve the setback varianc as requested. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be On the Council agenda of 20 November 1989. ~:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT WIDTH VARI Phyllis Lovrien - 21095 Edgewood Road ith her home on it ls 12.65 acres, a sto split off a 40-,000 ould have 50 feet of Ms. Phyllis Lovrien requested approval to separate a one acre lot from the remai~ing 11.1 acres of her property. Her total lot tot portion of which is classified as designated wetland. She square foot lot along Edgewood Road. The rear undeveloped frontage, which would be used as a future street access. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:10 P.M. Frank Kelly, attorney for Ms. Lovrien, said that they would fully conditions as stated in a letter from Planner Nielsen dated 1 Nov the nine . Dana Marcelius" owner of the adjacent lot to the east, said he was made by Ms. Lovrien until one day prior to this public hearing. his house was Located only 20 feet from the property line and did run next to his home. He was extremely concerned about what this property value .of his home. unaware of the request was concerned that t want a street to ould do to the Kelly said that they would be willing to move the road over five f walkway on the easterly parcel. The public road would give Mr. M rear portion of his lot. Kelly said the reason that Mr. Lovrien was so she coulq eventually sell her home and develop the propert were being made lat this point in time. Marceliu,s was d".,,'~ncerned about her future develoP,ment plans for th that the curren size OF his lot was less than one acre. He was road running n8 t to his house. et and provide a celius access to the s making this request ,although no plans He noted about a Ms. Lovrien sa~ the future development of the property would not also noted that in the past Mr. Marcelius would have been glad to the rear of his lot. extensive. She access road to . Carol Regan, adjacent owner, commented about the future homes on t e property (which have not been planns at this point) having lake access, which would be within 20 feet of her home. Ms. Lovr"en said t~re would be no lake rights with any of he new homes. Public portion '1f the PnbYc hearing closed at 8,28 P.M. I I I I I - 3 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission ~eeting 7 November 1989 Chair Schultz review~d the "ghost plat" which demonstrates how the be developed in the future. Schultz suggested tabling the varianc neighbors a chance to talk among themselves and see if they could concerns about the f~ture development plan Ms. Lovrien has for the remaining property can request to give the esolve some of their property. Spellman moved to re~ommend approval of the subdivision request. a second. otion died for lack of Chair Schultz asked for clarification of Ms. Lovrien's request. N"elsen reported that the current ordinance requires all lots be 120 feet wide at the bu"lding line. Leslie wondered about future property development of adjoining par els and if all new owners would come together to get the lots platted. SPellman assu ed her that would not happen. Leslie looked for alternatives to give access to the prop rty to be developed. None were found. Schultz questioned if there was a conveyance of land on the proper y to the east, could the nonconf0rmity be avoided. Nielsen said a one foot strip would technically eliminate any nonconformity. Schultz asked how much the road would have to e moved to the west to avoid nonconformity. Nielsen said a 30 foot strip would be neede. Schultz recommended to Ms. Lovrien that they come to an agreement with the adjoining p operty owners to keep the City from creatipg a nonconformity. Kelly said the ordinbnce was too s rict and that they should not issue with the neig~ors. Planner Nielsen sugg~sted planting The outlot being cre~ted would nee would the~ need to b~ granted an e that Ms. Uovrien wou[d then be giv even be required to pay the taxes Pitney moved to reco~end that the their differences an~ come to a co ve to negotiate the Schultz was concernel:l that Ms. Lov ien did not want the road locat but was asking Mr. Mbrcelius to ap rove her request to locate the Kelly said locating ~he road next 0 Ms. Lovrien's property would nonconforming. arcelius' property. parcel. Marcelius commented on the fact Marcelius would not trees between the road and Mr. ito be legally tied to the bac I $ement over the strip. Spellm '. g up this five feet of land a * the property. I i I issue be tabled until the *romise. Motion died for i ~r continuance $ split up. could resolve second. Pitney moved, Bongaa~ds seconded, involved decide how ~he land will let the parties ag~nda of 21 Novembe 1989. Motion carried unan~usly. This item will be onl the Planning - 4 - Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 1989 . 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONIN Minnetonka Portable Dredging Comp AND <f,:ONDITI NAL USE PERMIT Y - 500 WestLake street I ~he City to ~ezone their proper y from R-1A to C-4 and Ito allow th~ to continue thei lake dredging Minnetonka Portable Dredging grant them a conditional use permi business at 500 West Lake street. Public portion of the public heari ~ opened at ~:12 P.M. Jim Robin, attorney for the dredgi g company, said they were willi g to comply with the eight requirements listed on the ltlter from Pl~ner Nielsen dated 30 October 1989, noting two excePtion..s.. Thef.irst e~!cePtion WOU~d b.epaVingthepa k.ing lot (as. note. d in item #6 on the Planner's recommenda~ion list). Robin said the pav"ng would inhibit storage and it would also be an inconvenience f r the Shorewood Ya ht Club, which also ! . .. I uses an area of the iparking lot to ~anuver boat. The second exce tion would be to paving the access rqad to County R04d 19. This ,was considered imp ssible because the dredging company on~Y has access tolthe road and they do not have he right to pave it. The Hennepin County IRegional Railro4d Au horitylcurrently owns tha area and they would not agree to the pa~ing requirement.l At orney ~obin also question dthe requirement to extend the six-foot Ifence on the ea~t pr perty line to the southea t corner of the site. He said the adjoinirig property owne~s cu rentlYluse and maintain a portion of the area that would be fenced. I ' ! I steve Bubb, owner of property to thEi eas , questioned where the fe ce would be located. I I i . Nielsen said the fence would run al~ng t e eastipropertyline (and in about 5 feet). The would would stay 50 feet from the ldke. I Bubb said there was more exposure td the dredgi~g than before and e wondered about any changes the dredging company Was pldnnin afterithe rezoning was g anted. I I Attorney Robin assured Bubb that th~ corn permit be renewed, which was requir1,d an in their current operations. I Public portion of the public hearin~ clo i I Leslie questioned Attorney Robin aslto w ether ~e had discussed th parking lot issue with the Yacht Club. Robin said th~t th Y had. I Schultz asked Rob"n if he had spoken to the County. Robin said he had not. I Leslie suggested moving the parking I area to the I north side of the that they would interfere with norrn~l op ration$. I I I Spellman questioned Attorney Robin4bout the issue of parking. Spellman sai4 he upgraded. Robin said that they hadlnot ! Woody Love, owner of the Shorewood iacht drive at this time and suggested th~t it Club was not in a position right no~ to I I I I I only requesting at the conditional use The company was n t planning any changes 9:35 P.M. Robin said the memo dated 26 April 1 houghtthat the property nticip,ted doing this. 89, which addressed as going to be . Club, ~aid they did wait u~til sometime o thatJ t to pave the access future. The Yacht - 5 - . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 1989 Nielsen asked Love to provide proof of ownershi:E> of the 32 fe,et wh re the paving was requested. Leslie moved, seconded by Spellman, to table th$ request in order 0 obtain additional information. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be on the Planning Commission ag,nda of 5 December 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AME DMENT - FENCE REGU A recent variance request by Robert Whelan, at $910 Cathcart Drive, Commission to study Shorewood's current regulations on fence heigh Whelan recently replaced an 80 foot portion of fence, part of whic area, without a permit. The fence is six feet ligh and extends be house to the street r.o.w. The current Ordinanc1:e restricts the fe within front yar~s. His prior request for a vatiance was to maint feet, which was the height of the previous fence he had replaced. Several alternatives were discussed which would I relax the Ordinanc from Planner Nielsen dated 1 November 1989. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 10:00 P.M. 989. TIONS prompted the Planning and location. Mr. is in his front yard ond the front of his ce height to four feet in the height at six as stated in the memo Mr. Whelan discussed the alternatives. He felt!alternative #1 wou d still create a proble.m with nonconforming hO. meso Alternative #2 was considered a problem because at the required setback (the point at which the fence $ust drop from six 0 four feet) many houses would still be nonconforming. He felt aiternative #3 was e tirely too liberal. Mr. Whelan presented another alternative which ~e felt would allow the City to still have control over fences. His alternative would all~w six-foot fences n side/rear lot lines to extend to the street r.o.w.subject to approtal of the building inspector. Approval would be based on specific factors such as: acc.ssibility of emery net vehicles, no obstruction of vision, aesthetic .value, etc. . wtitten consent of a jo ning neighbors would be submitted by homeowner, if necessary. ! Public portion of the public hearing closed at iO:10 P.M. I Commission discussed several ways in which the ~urrent Ordinance ( hith has been in effect since 1985} could be rel.axed and still htve the City maintaOn $ome control over the fences in Shorewood. Schultz felt that Whe an's alternative, hi~h basically left the decision in the hands of the building inspe~tor, was not a pos ib~lity. The building inspector must follow the guidelines that the city has put into pI i Leslie moved, seconded by Pitney, to direct Pla~ner Nielsen wording whiGh would allow the current fence ordinance to be continued until 21 November 1989. Motion carried unanimously. - 6 - the necessary This issue will be . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 1989 MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Whelan questioned the tabling of his fence tequest. He reques ed that the variance be considered. Planner Nielsen informed Mr. Whelan that his vafiance request was ot on the agenda for this meeting, but could be scheduled for 21 Nov,mber 1989. REPORTS Council Liaison Stover reported on the Council'. meeting that was The meeting was a study session on the new tax taws. I ADJOURNMENT eld on 6 November. Motion carried unanimously. Spellman moved, seconded by Bongaards to adjourIll the meeting at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Anita Mackey Recording Secretary - 7 - . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 1989 M I N U ~ E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7: 7 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Spellmcn, Leslie, Benson, Pitney; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Recording ~ecretary Mackey Absent: Commissioner Mason and Bongaards APPROVAL OF MINUTES Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to approve tie Minutes of 7 Nov~mber 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE - CON~ INUTED FROM 7 NOVEiffiER 1989 Phyllis Lovrien - 27095 Edgewood Road Mrs. Phyllis Lovrien had previously asked to di'ide off her homest~ad from the balance of her 11.7 acres, which required a simple subdivifion and a lot widtl variance. The issue was tabled from November 7th, to let the partief involved discuss :l possible compromise regarding the subdivision. Dana Marcelius, adjacent property owner to the East, said that he :lnd Mrs. Lovrien had not talked until recently about the proposed develolment of her proper y. Marcelius offered to purchase the lot, which Mrs. Lovrien rejectec. The previous prJposal presented by Mrs. Lovrien was unsatisfactory to Marcelius. William Kelly, Attorney for Lovrien, presented ( which Mrs. Lovrien proposed to use the parcel 0 location for the subdivision entrance sign and proposed potential subdivision. He also noted sell or give property to her neighbor. proposal, dated 13 ~ovember 1989, in land (approx,imate y 17 feet wide) as a or landscapin g the entrance to the hat Mrs. Lovtlien was not in a position to In a letter dated 22 November 1989, Marcelius Si id when he finally was able to contact Mr. Kelly he found out that a revised "ghost plat" I ad been submitted by Mrs. Lovrien, which provided a buffer between his lot line and the I roposed roadway. Marcelius felt that this revision was the minimum necessary to keep his lome within the 50 ~eet set back requirement. Marcelius met with Mrs. Lovrien again and propoled an extension to the buffer zone to bring the road 30-40 feet south to conform with the natural contou~ of the land. Marcelius objects to the request for subdivisio' of Lovrien's property and variance, based on the possibility of her proposal diminishing he value to his land, he was also opposed to the idea of her "economic gain at his expenSI ". Mrs. Lovrien told Marcelius that she would think about his proposal. - 1- i . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES c?l TUESDAY, NOVEMBER" 1989 Chair Schultz suggested platting the lot in order to avoid the neec tor a variance. Attorney Kelly said that they were not willing to plat the lot at his point, but it would be considered in the future. Nielsen noted if an outlot was created as part of the approval, the condition of the approval should state that the outlet would not be considered buildable and could not be sold separately. Leslie queftioned if the City would be creating a problem for Marcelius in the future if he deciced to add on to his home, which would create another noncomformity. Schultz said that his expansion request could be granted based on a "hardship condition". Schultz also no ed that the variance would not be necessary and could be avoided by platting the whole I arcel now. Leslie felt that based on the information we have available, (takiIg out the neighbors feelings) the City could not approve the variance. Nielsen explaiIed that creation of the outlot did not increase the noncomformity of the Marcelius res dence. In the future he can expand his home to within 10 feet of his existing west lot ine. Schultz moved, seconded by Benson, that this issue be recommended 0 the Council granting the variance, subject to the outlot being conveyed to the associat on and that the properties would be formally platted in the future. Motion carried unanimously. This item will be on the Council agenda of 4 December 1989. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FENCE REGULATIONS - CONTINUED FROM 7 l OV. 1989 Planner Nielsen was under the direction of the Commission to draft the necessary wording which would allow the current fence ordinance to be amended. This text had not been completed in time to present to the Commission. Nielsen said he wculd like the amended ordinance to be stated more clearly so the community could better lnderstand it. Pitney requested that the Planning Commission review the amended 0 dinance before it is presented to the Council. This item will be on the Planning Commission agenda of 5 December 989. FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE - CONTINUED FROM 5 september 1989 Robert Whelan - 5910 Cathcart Drive Mr. Whelan previously requested a variance to maintain the height (f six feet on an 80 foot section of fence that he had replaced. This fence extends be ond the front of his house to the street r.o.w. Several alternatives were discussed at the meeting on November 7, to direct Planner Nielsen to draft the necessary wording which wou fence ordinance to be amended. This will be presented at the next pointed out that the amendmeqt proposed by the Planning Commission variance because his house is nonconforming relative to front yard -2- 989 and it was decided d allow the current meeting. Whelan does not eliminate his setback. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ I TUESDAY, NOVEMBER'\, 1989 Spellman moved, seconded by Benson, to deny the Whelan's request b sed upon the current ordinance, which does not allow six-foot fences beyond the middle f the house. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 5 ayes. This item will be on the Council agenda of 4 December 1989. Benson moved, seconded by Spellman, that the fence be removed by Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Whelan questioned the commission's decision to deny their re est for the fence height variance. She stated several reasons for her concerns. Th Whelan's also said that they will attend the Council meeting of 5 December 1989 and p ead their request once again. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS Stover reported on the Christmas Party which is scheduled for 22 D cember 1989 at 12:00 P.M. to be held at the American Legion. Formal invitations will b sent. She also updated the Commission regarding the Council meeting that was held on 13 November 1989 pertaining to the Waterford Development proposal. It was also sug estedthat the Planning Commission meet with the City Council in Japuary to begin review of the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, seconded by Pitney to adjourn the meet~ng at 9:20 P. . Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Anita Mackey Recording Secretary - 3 - . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1989 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chair Schultz called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. Present: Chair Schultz; Commissioners Spellman, Leslie, Benson, Pitney, Mason, Bongaards; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen; Re rding Secretary Mackey Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, seconded by Benson to approve the Minutes of 21 Nove er 1989 as written. Motion carried unanimously. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Robert Brown - 20680 Garden Road Mr. Robert Brown requests a rear yard s~tback variance to construc his property. He proposes to locate the garage approximately 36 f line of his property. Mr. Brown receivJd a variance in 1983 to bu This variance request was originally foJ 25 feet, but the house wa feet from the rear lot line. Brown proposes to build the newgara along the same setback line. a detached garage on et from the rear lot Id his existing house. ultimately built 36 e west of the house Public portion of the public hearing oPe1ned at 7:34 P.M. Public portion of the public hearing cldsed at 7:34 P.M. without c mment. Chair Schultz questioned if it w~s a hardship variance request. N large enough to allow the variance and enable Brown to build the g questioned as to how far the hou!se was set back from the wetlands. the original 25 feet variance th~t was granted, the Brown's used 0 determined the wetlands area was located 70 feet from the rear lot 20 feet between the Brown's homestead arid the wetland area. Niels poor soil conditions, the garage could not be located any further of the topography, the house is ,set lower on the lot and anything sit much higher. Spellman moved, seconded by Bongaards to grant the setback elsen said the lot was rage. Leslie Nielsen stated that of ly 14 feet. Nielsen line, which would leave n noted that due to the orward. Also, because uilt behind it would request. Motion carried - 6 ayes (Spellman, PitneY, Benson, Leslie, Bongaar s, Mason) - 1 nay (Schultz,). This item will be on the Council. agenda of 11 December 1989. - 1 - . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1989 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO EXCEED 1000 SQ. FT. OF ACCESS(RY SPACE Harley Feldman - 5635 Christmas Lake Point Mr. Feldman was not present for the public hearing. 8: 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C. U. P~ AND VARIANCE TO BUILD ON A SUBST1.NDARD LAKESHORE LOT/SETBACK VARIANCE Jeffrey Tronsor - 4365 Enchanted Point Mr. Jeff Tronsor proposes to replace the existing dwelling. The l(t is substandard in both width and area. Tronsor requests a side yard setback variancE, a conditional use permit and variance to build a house on the substandard lot. The Existing house was originally built as a seasonal cabin and was substandard from a zOIing perspective as well as structurally. The applicant proposes side yard setbacks 0 approximately 15 feet on the east side and 13 feet on the west side. Since the Zoning 0 dinance requires a total side yard setback of 30 feet, Tronsor requests a variance of two feet. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. Mr. Pixler, neighbor to Mr. Tronsor, was present claiming to repre~ent the neighborhood. He stated that the neighbors would like to see a nice house built (n the lot. He also said they had all helped Tronsor plan the proposed house and unanliously supported his request. He also passed around a petition that had been signed by everyone in the neighborhood. Tom Turner, neighbor, said the 30 feet width was neEded to keep conformity with the neighborhood. The existing house actually uses 12 more fEet than the proposed home would be using. David Moorse, builder for Tronsor, said the ouse could not be set back any further because of the topography. The proposed house wOlld have to be a 2 story home if set back further in order to see the lake. Moorse s1id they needed the 30 feet width in order to keep the house from looking like a mobile h(me. He also said they had planned the home to maximize lake views. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 8:Q8 P.M. Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to grant the C.U.P. and variancE to build on a substandard lake shore lot, subject to the three recommendations as noted by Planner Nielsen. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Construction on the site should comply with the shoreland impa<t plan. 2. Site work must comply with Section 1201.26 Subd. 7 of the Zoni g Ordinance. 3. Any future construction should maintain a 13-foot setback on t e west side and a 17-foot setback on the east side. Motion carried - 4 ayes (Spellman, Bongaards, MaSOn, Leslie) - 3 n ys (Schultz, Benson, Pitney) . This item will be on the Council agenda 11 December 1989. - 2 - . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1989 REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT'" CONTINUED FROM 7 NOVEMBER 19f 9 Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company - 500 West Lake Street ! Last month Minnetonka Portable Dredging requested a conditional usJ permit and rezoning. The issue was tabled pending resolution of several issues. The is,ues were addressed in Planner Nielsen I s memo dated 29 November 1989. j Schultz questioned as to how far from the south lot line would the proposed planting of the trees be placed. He also questioned if a double row of treesould be necessary because the trees the dredging company planned to plant are consid,red seasonal trees. He also felt that some type of greenery should be placed at the so th side because the trail was located near the dredging property. Mr. Robin, Attorney for Minnetonka Portable Dredging, said the areJ was already shielded I from the road because of the railroad property. ' Schultz also wondered if the drainage should be dire.cted away from J'the lak .e. Planner Nielsen suggested that the City Engineeer look into the possibilit . of some type of oil trap. Clifford Reep said he had already proposed this to the Wate shed District. i Nielsen suggested that the pavement design be such that it can han1le the heavy equipment that would be driving over it. i Mason wondered if soil tes.tlOng would be necessary to determine if~'Pillage was entering the lake. Nielsen said the Fire Marshall had looked into the dred ing operation and determined that the company was handling their petroleum products ell and no problems were apparent which would warrant further investigation. : I Leslie moved, seconded by Benson to grant the rezoning and condit if,. al use permit subject to the conditions listed in Planner Nielsen1s report dated 29 Nove er 1989, plus those listed in the 30 October staff report. In addition to these condi ions, 5 additional conditions were included in the motion. These conditions are as fqllows: ! 1. Review after one year and no less than every three years thete4fter to review maintenance of the parking lot and use of the property. I 2. The Engineer and the Watershed District will agree on control ~f drainage from the parking lot. ! 3. One year deadline for paving driveway to County Road 19. 4. Fence posts linked together by cable will be no more than six 4eet apart plus the cable will be four feet above grade. I 5. Landscaping at the south end of the property will consist of 14 spruce trees, no less than six feet in height, interspersed with buckthorn and spacej 10 feet apart. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote - 7 ayes. i i This item will be on the Council agenda of 11 December 1989. - 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1989 . 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO EXCEED 1000 SO. FT. OF ACCESS(RY SPACE Harley Feldman - 5635 Christmas Lake Point ~ Public portion of the public hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. Public portion of the public hearing closed at 9:03 P.M. without cmment. Benson moved, seconded by Mason to continue this issue to 2 Jartuar1 1990. Motion carried unanimously. I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - FENCE REGULATIONS - CONTINUED FROM 21 NOVEMBER 1989 Council Liason Stover said the City Council had fence height variarce for Robert Whelan. Stover said there was considerable discussion regarding the wordin< "repairingfl or "replacingfl. Council felt the current ordinance deserves further ftudy and possibly it should either be relaxed or broadened. I After a lengthy discussion, it was suggested that the Commission w~it until Planner Nielsen drafts the appropriate wording setting forth their recomme1dation to the Council. i Schultz moved, seconded by Benson to continue the amendment recommtndation until the next meeting. I I Motion carried et This item will unanimously. be on the Planning Commission agenda of 2 January 1~90. DISCUSSION - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SYSTEMS STATEMENT FOR SHOREWOOD I i ! Systems Informatio~ Statement dated 10 being prepared. stover reported that I I I I Planner Nielsen discussed the 1988 Metropolitan April 1989. He said that a response letter was Mayor Haugen was very involved in this issue. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None REPORTS Stover reported on the compost plan. She stated that this issue She also noted that the Lovrien request was granted by Council. there will be no Planning Commission on December 19, 1989. w~s currently on It was mentioned I ! I ! hold. that ADJOURNMENT Spellman moved, seconded by Leslie to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 t.M. Motion carried unanimously. ~ Respectfully submitted, Anita Mackey Recording Secretary - 4 -