Loading...
1992 pl mn he bottom of n the CIP rify it for CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY. JANUARY 7. 1992 4It M I NUT E S ~ CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ 4It ~ ROLL CALL Present: Planning Commission Chairman Benson, Commissi ners Hansen, Malam, Schultz, Rosenberger. Planner Nielsen and Council Liaison Stover Absent: Commissioners Leslie and Bongaards 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Plannin Commission Minutes - November 19, 19 1 Hansen moved. Malam seconded to approve the Planni g Commission Minutes of November 19. 1991. Motion carried - 5/ B. Plannin Commission Minutes - December 3, 199 A motion was made by Rosenberger. seconded by Bens n to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 3. 199 with the following corrections: Pg. 1 - Schultz said the conversation on Page 1 do s not indicate that the Planning Commission passed a resolution sating the Park Commission make a permanent warming house a t p priority in the Park CIP. Pg. 3 - Hansen wanted to clarify his statement at page 3. He said there is an error in the figures plan and he thought there should be a change to cl residents. Pg. 4 - Rosenberger asked for clarification of his statement on page 4. He said he questioned the various expendi ures to point out that the planning process ( Comprehensive Plan should have been done before the CIP. Motion carried - 5/0 2. STRUCTU E Applicant: Location: Richard Kowalsky 5740 Christmas Lake Point Chairman Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 1 I .M. 4It ~ ~ ~ 4It ~ P!tlnnl'j)J Cpmm/ss/()Y) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 7.1992 - PAGE 2 Planner Nielsen presented the Kowalsky request for1variance. He explained that the Kowalsky house is located en irely within the 75-foot setback from Christmas Lake. Consequently, any structural alteration to the home requires a variance. . The Kowalskys propose to lower the floor elevation of various rooms in the bottom level of the home so that the ooms comply with building code requirements. This work will all be done within the existing footprint of the home. Nielse said they will be adding additional bedrooms for their family. The applicant also proposes to enclose the area un on the north end of the house to be used as a two the deck garage. The Kowalskys' proposal is consistent with the Zon-ng Ordinance which provides that alterations may be made to onforming structures as long as the nonconformity is not eased. Nielsen recommended the applicants request be gran ed subject to the conditions stated in his memo of January 2. 19 2. Richard Kowalsky stated they have planted dogwood tiushes as a landscaping screen on the west side of the garage. I I Benson asked if anyone else wished to comment on t e variance. Curt Ostrom. Builder for the Kowalskys distributed pictures of the site and stated that all excavated material wi I be hauled away from the site. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Schultz thought the landscaping shoul be evergreen. a dense garage. Nielsen said dogwood is a good screen because it b bush. He said he is not looking for a barrier alo Schultz had no objection to the Variance. He indi ated there is no encroachment on the shoreline and no roofline c anges. However, he pointed out that the Variance is not g anted because of their growing family. Chairman Benson asked in which Zoning District Nielsen said the property is zoned R-1A and is lot is located. bstandard lot. Commissioner Hansen had no objection to the e request. Schultz moved. Malam seconded to recommend the Council to Expand a Nonconforming Structure/Setback Variance to Deborah Kowalsky. 5740 Christmas Lake Point subject to listed in the Planner's memo of January 2. 1992. rant a Variance Richard and he conditions 2 . . . . . . Plan!),./)+. etJmm;.s.s/~ REGULAR CI { eOUNCI~MINUTES JANUARY 7.1992 - PAGE 3 Motion carried - 5/0 the text of s. He listed single-family riate to allow to do so by Benson said the recommendation will be on the agenda at the January 13. 1992 Council meeting. Schultz commended the Kowalskys for recognizing the lim.tations of the property. I Richard Kowalsky said he has worked with Nielsen from t~e beginning on the project. 3. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMEND NT TO ALLOW SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE R-C DISTRICT Applicant: Location: Bill Norman 24590 Glen Road Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Mr. Norman did not attend the meeting. Nielsen pr sented his request. Norman's property. located at 24590 Glen Rd.. was ezoned from R-4. Multiple-Family Residential to R-C. Residenti,l/commercial in the 1980's. Nielsen said the R-C District is d signed to be a transitional district. A C.U.P. was issued to use the home as office space. I Mr. Norman subsequently purchased the property and~used it for his own business. He is moving to Arizona for three y ars after which he proposes to resume use of the building for offi e space. In the meantime. he wishes to rent the building out as si gle-family residential. I I Nielsen stated that the R-C District does not allo single-family residential dwellings. Mr. Norman is requesting a zoning text amendment to allow single-family residential. Nielsen informed the Commission that any change in the Ordinance will also apply to all other R-C sit the sites and said they are not all appropriate fo use. He said. if the Commission feels it is appro single-family homes in this district. it might wis C.U.P. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:03 P.M. Hansen asked Nielsen if the property is surrounded housing. There is commercial property north of th the east. multiple-family residential and a church and single-family residential to the west. Hansen then asked if the amendment would change th three years. Nielsen said no it would not. Howev ..::. by single-family site. NSP to to the south zoning for just r. an amendment . . . . . . fJ/a n n "n 9 eo /Y) m l'..s..s //Ii1..... ~ECULAR CI11' COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 7,1992 - PAGE 4 would allow single-family housing as a permitted u all R-C Districts. Hansen said, if the amendment is allowed, the prop rty could be sold and divided into single-family lots. Nielsen agreed with him. Malam asked if the amendment can be phrased to tak the fact that the house is already in the district converted. He said, in effect, they would be "re- the house back to residential use. Nielsen said that could be done and has been done efore. he does not like to design zoning for a specific site. into account and was randfathering" However, Benson asked if the house is considered an Historid Site. Nielsen said the house is listed on the National Register qf Historic places but is not necessarily ranked so that it ca1'not be structurally altered. I ion is searching convenience. s. He asked in this Schultz said the discussion sounds like the Commis for reasons to rezone the property for Mr. Norman' Nielsen said offices are acceptable in R-C Distric what would be wrong with single-familY residential transitional zone. Schultz said the City would lose the buffering of housing. He said the site is located on a busy ro to an industrial property and therefore, is not ap single-family housing. He reiterated the City should not accommodate the there was a good reason, on a City-wide planning b amendment he would approve it, but not on a tempor ultiple-family d and adjacent ropriate for pp 1 i cant. If sis, for this ry basis. Rosenberger agreed. He is uncomfortable with the O-yo affect of the request. Benson also agreed. He did not want to amend the rdinance for three years. Schultz moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend t e City Council deny the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment requested by Bill Norman because of insufficient cause. Motion carried - 5/0 4. Applicant: Location: Skip Jewett 4580 Enchanted Lane Nielsen informed the Commission that he intends to prop se a Zoning Amendment to correct the Lakeshore Setback Requirement n the L-R, Lakeshore - Recreational District. He said in 1983 the initial setback for this district was 75 feet, based on Watershed requi~ements which required 75 feet on nonsewered property. Since all of Shorewood is sewered, the setback was changed back to 50 feet. The etback 4 . . . . . . {J1d.nnl:2 (lbmn1l:.ssi~ REGULA CITY COLRTCIL MINUTES JANUARY 7.1992 - PAGE 5 requirements were changed for all districts except the this was an oversight and the City should hold a public change this district to a 50 foot setback. Nielsen sai Minnetonka Yacht Club should not have to pay for the am pursue the matter whether or not they build their clubh -R. Nielsen said hearing to the Upper Lake ndment. He will use. Schultz said a higher intensity use of a property shoul possibly have a 75 foot setback. Hansen asked why he felt that way. Schultz said there is intense use at Yacht Club propert es. Hansen said he would like to hear the other problems th y might have in building the clubhouse. Benson and Rosenberger said they tend to side with Schu tz's position. Nielsen said the surrounding residential properties are 50 foot setback. He said the L-R District was written Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Howard's Point Marina al If the setback is 75 feet, no one will apply for the L- Skip Jewett. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club explained that like to build a clubhouse on their property. The zonin also state they must have 30 parking spaces for the 30 allowed on the Lake. He said it will be easier to acco requirement if the shoreline setback is 50 feet rather 75 feet. Bob Hegstrom 27820 Island View Road said the Yacht CI' property since the mid sixties. There has been a shed and they would like to make some type of compromise to clubhouse and parking spaces to be built. Hansen said there is parking allover the property, at and said their plan will be an improvement. all built at the hen the Upper eady existed. designation the club would requirements oat slips odate this han the current b has owned the n the property llow the he current time ! and as members to time u e on Wednesday, Jewett said they could build less parking spaces carpool. Jewett said the property has only part Saturday and Sunday, in the summer. Hegstrom agreed the club could get by with less Nielsen said they have to plan for peak parking recommend reducing the number of parking spaces be too many boat slips for the property. parking times. but sug may Jewett said there would be 30 cars if the total members ip sailed on one day. Schultz suggested there could be more than 30 cars park property during a regatta. Jewett pointed out a discrepancy in the Ordinance defin'ng parking stalls. He asked if 300 sq. ft. is necessary or a 9' x 20' stall. Nielsen said a 9'x 20' stall is normal. The 300 sq. ft. includes aisle space. I Jewett said they are trying to improve the lot and their clubhouse. 5 . . . . . . f7ltl"n/~ &",ml:sS/h-. REGULA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 7.1992 - PAGE 6 ing whether or zoned single- the L-R Nielsen said the Club may not be able to fit in the par not the setback is changed. He said right now they are family residential and they are thinking of applying fo District. Nielsen said he advises applicants that the City is pro ective of the lakeshore and if a variance is needed it should be away from the lake. Malam said they are operating as a L-R District now. H sees no problem with granting a request to improve the use. Nielsen said no one has applied for the L-R District Ye~. a club and a marina. He said distinguishe from marinas. Marina will ay they are a Schultz said there is a difference between the City should define recreational use as Council Liaison Stover said Howard's Point club but have commercial ventures. Malam asked if anyone can launch a boat at Hegstrom said they cannot. the ULMYC. Hansen said he lives in the area and said the club has problem in the area. and Nielsen said he will address the setback change in Pebr Benson asked if the neighbors will be notified of the s change. Nielsen said they will not be separately notified. Benson said he would like input from the neighbors befo e he makes a decision. Stover asked Hegstrom if they will reduce the number of slips. Hegstrom said they have not had that many boats on the lake for the past 3 or 4 years. He said many members live on the lake. ey are looking for the long term growth of the club and will need the hirty slips. Schultz asked if they have ever used that many slips. Hegstrom said they have not used all the 30 slips in 8 0 10 years. Stover asked if they will have functions in which peopl would be driving to the clubhouse. Jewett said they will. Schultz asked if they have invitational regattas. Jewett said they have about one per year. Schultz said they could potentially have more than 30 c rs when they have social events. Jewett said they would not have mo e than 30. if that is all they can have. Schultz asked how they can control this. Rosenberger asked if there is alternative parking in ar Nielsen said the Zoning Ordinance provides for off site Nielsen pointed out there are other setbacks on the pro fitting the parking spaces very difficult. He said the indicate the kind of variance they may approve on the p Schultz said he would like to see the club design a pIa within the 75 and 50 foot setbacks. He said the City i formalizing the club's current use. 6 erty which make Commission can operty. that fits rea II y . . . . . . (J 1ft IJ I) In ~ t1tJYJ? /l?lJ-S I lit"! REGULAR Co 'IT COUNelL MINUTES JANUARY 7,1992 - PAGE 7 Schultz also stated the club's neighbors will probably the proposal to expand the dockage to 30 slips. if 30 slips been used in 8 to 10 years. Jewett explained that the club cannot afford to pay it' taxes at the current level of usage. Benson asked Jewett and Hegstrom to deal with neighbors before the return to the Planning Commission. Nielsen said he will pursue the setback change regardle s of the Yacht Club's proposal. Stover explained the L-R Zoning took into consideration the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and Howard's Point Marina and one other potential marina. at the time it was written. Hansen reiterated that the Club has many other problems to deal with than the question of parking spaces. Schultz said there could be valid reasons for maintaini g a 75 foot setback. Nielsen said the City can make want to apply for the zoning. controlling development except an Ordinance so tough th t no one will He said. in this way. th City is not as nonconforming uses. Hansen said there are already thirty boat slips on the roperty which he considers more of a problem than the land setback. Nielsen said there are two reasons for setbacks. 1. 2. Visual impact To limit the lot cover or how much of the site an "ndividual can use. Jewett indicated the club could sell off the property a single family lots. Stover asked if they planned to make a profit on the in reased membership of the club. I i Hegstrom said they hope to attract back their members who have been docking elsewhere. r Hegstrom and Jewett said they will work with Nielsen an return with another proposal. They agreed they have to discuss the proposal with the neighbors. 5. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR Benson asked if the Planning Commission should be lecting a new Chairman and Vice-Chairman. He also asked why thet, have not received City Council Minutes. Nielsen said the Council has not met since Decembe 9. 1991. ? . . . . . . P 1~l)n /1IJr. {!~>>; m /36 /nt- ~J\R TY COUKCI-b MINUTES JANUARY 7,1992 - PAGE 8 He also informed the Commission that there will be with the Council and Park Commission on the 4th Mo to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen asked identify issues they wished to discuss and submit February 14th. a joint meeting day of January he members to hem to him by Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to appoint Bruce Ben on, Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1992. Motion carried - 4/1 (Benson abstained) Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded t,o appoint Janet Les ie Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1992. Motion carried - 5/0 6 . REPORTS Nielsen asked the Commission if they would like to change their meeting time to 7:00 P. M. Schultz moved, Hansen seconded to hold the Planning Co ission meeting at 7:00 P.M. on the First and Third Tuesdays of the mon h. Motion carried - 5/0 7 . ADJOURNMENT i Schultz moved, Hansen seconded to adjourn the meeting a~ 9:47 P.M. Motion carried - 5/0 I RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Katie Snyder Recording Secretary 8 . . 1. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992 COUNCIL CH ERS 5755 COUNT Y CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER Chairman Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M ROLL CALL Present: Planning Commission Chairman Benson, Commissi ners Leslie, Hanson, Malam, Schultz, Rosenberger, Planner Nielsen and Councilmember Gagne. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Planning Commission Minutes - January 7, 1992 Schultz moved, Hanson seconded to approve the Planning ommission Minutes of January 7. 1992. Motion carried - 6/0 SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Location: Richard Johnson 5660 County Road 19 Planner Nielsen presented Mr. Johnson's request. Johnson proposes to open a retail carpet store at lhe 5660 County Rd. 19 (site of the old Tom Thumb). The site is z ned C-3, General Commercial. He will be remodeling the interior of the building and make site improvements. The parking lot is the biigest problem. Nielsen said Mr. Johnson will be making the follow ng improvements to the site: 1. The parking lot has no defined access on county Road 19. The applicant will remove approximately 70 Ft. of bituminous, reducing the curb cut to 30 feet at the north end of the parking lot. I 2. The parking lot will be repaved and striped t include 11 parking spaces. 3. Continuous poured concrete curbing will be in taIled around the perimeter of the parking lot. I I The County will require bituminous curbing fr~m the south side of the driveway to the southernmost corn~r of the lot. I 4. 1 Drainage will be conducted to a proposed catc basin on the north side of the new driveway and piped into the drainage ditch which crosses the north side of the sit PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4. 1992 - PAGE 2 . 5. 6. The area between the parking lot curb and the street curb will be sodded. The applicant will also provide an enclosed area for tr Benson asked if Mr. Johnson had any comments. Johnson Benson asked what kinds if signage would be on the site Nielsen said a signage plan was submitted and it confor requirements. The City Council approves signage reques Schultz said he thought the loading area was in the wro Nielsen said there will be no deliveries other than by comments. Schultz asked Johnson if he will be salvaging the black oP. Johnson indicated he will be resurfacing the parking area. Schultz inquired about the light pole in the parking 10!, . Nielsen said it will be used for signage subject to the Building Inspector's review. Johnson said he will be sodding the south side of the s te. Benson asked if a landscaping plan is required. Nielse said a carpet store is a permitted use and a landscape plan is not re uired. Benson said shrubbery might hold up better on that site Leslie inquired about lighting. Nielsen said it must b cannot stray off the property. Leslie asked Johnson if he has other stores. Johnson has been in the carpet business for 10 years but this store. controlled and id his brother II be his first Schultz moved, Hanson seconded to recommend the City ncil approve the Site Plan for a proposed Carpet Store at 5660 County Ro d 19 for Richard Johnson, subject to the recommendations in the Planner' staff report. Motion carried - 6/0 on a roll call vote. Leslie said the store will be a big improvement to the rea. . Benson told Johnson his plan will be on the Council agerda Monday night, ~ L . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4. 1992 - PAGE 3 DEVELOPMENT STAGE APPROVAL - GIDEON'S COVE P.U.D. Applicant: Location: Boyer Construction Lawtonka Drive Planner Nielsen reviewed the history of the project. Boyer Construction presented Concept Plans to the Plann and made revisions based on the Planning Commission req density. building setback from the street and setback b structures. In September. the Council approved 12 units or 6 twinho Cove. However. the Council held a separate hearing to d on the property and decided to assign the docks to the the development. ng Commission est for lower tween the Gideon's scuss the docks irst two lots in Nielsen said the Development Stage Plan has the request d 20 foot setback from the street and a minimum twenty foot dista ce between the last two lots in the development Nielsen said the site is heavily wooded and the Boyers make a tree inventory. They have done this and 50 tree preserved with another 15 trees transplanted. Nielsen trees be marked during construction. ere required to will be uggested the Nielsen said the Boyers are requesting that the dock ri hts be assigned to two of the more expensive units in the development irstead of the first two lots. He said the Boyers are proposing to reroute an existing sewer line which may require a hearing to vacate any previous underlying easements. Hanson asked Bob Boyer what he plans to do with the exi ting buildings on the peninsula. it was not clear in his two letters. Bob Boyer said he will leave the peninsula as is and th buildings will become the property of the association. Hanson asked if he will retain the privacy fence. Boyer said they will improve the fence. He said the pe insula will be owned and operated by the association. Boyer said the ity Planner has suggested no parking along Timber Lane between Lawtonka Dr. and Lot 9. Timber Lane Addition and they agree with this. Schultz asked what use the peninsula and buildings will be for residents without boats. Boyer said they could fish. picnic or play games on the peninsula. however. there will be no permanent structures. He sai the residents can store items such as life jackets and games in the b ildings. 3 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4. 1992 - PAGE 4 Schultz asked if there will be any shore storage of residents can have small craft on the peninsula for store them. Leslie asked how they will control this. Boyer said will control the peninsula use. Hanson asked if they will be improving the buildings. association will improve them, however, they are in goo boa s. Boyer said thejdaY but cannot th association I I oyer said the shape. Schultz asked about lighting. Boyer said there is no I ghting now and they do not propose to add any. Malam said the design is good and will be a plus to the City. He said the grading for lots 11 and 12 is a steep slope. I Boyer said he will defer to the City Engineer regarding that and Dresel has said he prefers a 3:1 slope. Schultz asked Nielsen when they can see the P.U.D. Cove ants. Nielsen said they are usually presented with the Final Ian to the City Council for approval. t Schultz, Rosenberger and Leslie thought the Planning Co ission should review the Covenants because they are such an integral art of the development. I Malam asked Boyer the price range of the units. Boyer ~aid they will range from $250,000 to $280,000. He said there is a di ference between these twinhomes and single family homes. They plan to arket these homes to the over 50 age bracket. Leslie moved. Malam seconded to recommend the City Coun il approve the Development Stage Plan for the Gideon's Cove P.U.D. sub'ect to the recommendations of the City Planner. Motion carried - 6/0 on a roll call vote. Benson said the item will be on the City Council's Mond y night agenda. Schultz and Benson asked to see the covenants for other P.U.D.s in the City. Schultz objected to the process of not reviewing said that is in the Ordinance. INFORMAL DISCUSSION - REVIEW PLANNING ISSUES FOR COMPR UPDATE Nielsen Nielsen asked the Planning Commission members to compil their ideas for Compo Plan revisions by February 14, 1992. The Council will be addressing this issue and will prioritize the issues. 4 ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 4. 1992 - PAGE 5 . Nielsen said one issue he would like to address is Coun y Road 19. He would like to see it dressed UP and an intersection wit stop light installed. He said the City will have to work with Ton a Bay and the County to achieve this. Leslie asked if their suggestions should lie within the topics established in the Compo Plan. Nielsen said that would make it more convenient. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor. REPORTS Gagne had no report. Planning Commission members discussed the process of re pplying for Planning Commission seats. Schultz thought it was a good idea to reapply. He said it made him think if he wanted to take the job again. . I Rosenberger asked if the Council will keep the neighbor ood designations. Benson and Leslie disagreed. Gagne said the Council decided to use neighborhoods as ne factor in the selection process. Benson and Leslie said the islands are one good reason 0 keep neighborhood qualification. Leslie reminded Nielsen that there were times when no 0 e applied for the Planning Commission positions. Schultz moved. Leslie seconded to adjourn the meeting a 8:10 P.M. Motion carried - 6/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED . Katie Snyder Recording Secretary ~ J . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 1992 COUN IL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNT CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to.order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Rosenberger, Hansen, Leslie an Schultz; Council Liaison Gagne; Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Malam. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Schultz moved, Leslie seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minut of 4 February 1992 as written. Motion carried - 5-0. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN THE LAKESHORE-RECREATIONAL -R DISTRICT . Planning Director Nielsen reviewed his report stating that in 1985 the City e tablished a 75- foot lakeshore setback requirement for Lake Minnetonka, consistent with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The MCWD later revised its requirement to 50 fi t, consistent with State shoreland management regulations, when it realized that Shorewo d was entirely served by city sewer. Subsequently, in 1986, the City revised its requireme t back to the 50- foot requirement. A recent inquiry by the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yach Club brought to the attention of the City that the lakeshore setback for the L-R, Lakeshore-R creational District wa,s never changed from 75 to 50 feet when the setback was chang for other zoning districts. It is suggested that the Code be amended at the City's own "nitiative. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:05 P.M. Skip Jewett of the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, was present to listen and made no comments. I I I Robert Rascop, Enchanted Point, said he is in favor of the 50-foot setback, ut does have concerns about the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club itself. Chair Benson said the issues discussed need to remain strictly on the L-R Di trict setback, and not stray to private development matters, such as the Yacht Club's indiv dually. . Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:12 P.M. . . . Planning Commission Minutes 18 February 1992 Hansen moved, seconded by Leslie to recommend to Council approval of red ction of the lakeshore setback in the L-R, Lakeshore-Recreational District to 50 feet. Schultz said he is concerned about the intensity of use by commercial faciliti s and does not want to see it increase by reducing the setback. Nielsen explained that parking can be located 50 feet from the lake, regardle s of the building setbacks, and if buildings are forced back to the 75-foot setback, p "ng tends to end up on the lakeshore side of the site. Allowing buildings at the 50-foot s tback may reverse this effect. I Gagne remarked that he believes the Howard's Point Marina has not taken st~ps to rezone and comply with zoning regulations because they don't want to spend money on required improvements. Benson said he feels lake access is desirable, and he doesn't object to the 50- oot setback. Rosenberger said he agrees with Schultz and does not feel the current 75-foo setback is a problem. Hansen feels the 75-foot setback is relative to on-site sewer systems, and tha the City should address the existing uses. I Motion carried - 3-2 (Rosenberger, Schultz - nay~) This item will appear on the Council agenda of 9 March 1992. INTRODUCTION OF PARK COMMISSION LIAISON - STEVEN DZUR K Steve Dzurak appeared to introduce himself as Park Commission liaison to t e Planning Commission. He said he intends to review Planning Commission agendas minutes and attend Planning Commission meetings on an as-needed basis. Benson and Schultz suggested that Mr. Dzurak remind the Park Commission that the Planning Commission has strongly recommended in favor of a permanent st cture at Manor Park for warming house purposes, and that they should budget for same. INFORMAL DISCUSSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISSUES Nielsen reviewed a list of issues prepared by the Planning Department in a emorandum dated 18 February 1992. The Commission suggested the following additiona issues be studied: - 2 - . . . Planning Commission Minutes 18 February 1992 Hanson suggested that the City review its policies regarding clearing trees on public property. Rosenberg suggests that senior housing is a significant issue to be addressed. The Commission agreed that a more active approach by the City may be necess Rosenberg feels that the City should consider increased control on garbage h ulers as a means to protecting streets. The Commission agreed that efforts should continue to share more services communities. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Patti Helgesen Planning/Zoning Dept. - 3 - ith surrounding I ~..- . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1992 COUNCI CHAMBERS 5755 C UNTY CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 M I NUT E S ~~bb_IQ_QBQ!;B Chairman Bruce Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BQbb_~~bb Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Schultz, Ros Malam, and Borkon. Also present were Co Stover, City Administrator Hurm, Plannin Nielsen and Engineer Dresel. Absent: Commissioner Lesl ie. ~~~BQ~~b_QE_~l~~I!;~ nberger, Hansen, ncil Liason Director It was moved by Rosenberger, seconded by Schultz 0 approve the Planning Commission Minutes of 18 February, 1992, as written. The Motion passed 6/0. 1. ZlQQ__~~~~_~~~bl~_~!;~Bl~~_=_~~~~~~_=_~~~!;~~QBY_~~ ~!;_l~_!;~~!;~~ QE_lfQQ_~g~_EI~ ~~~bl~MHl bQ~~IIQ~l Wi II iam Bernstein 5920 Afton Road Chair Benson opened the Publ ic Hearing at 7:03 p. . Planning Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Bern tein wished to add on to his home by converting his existing gar ge into a fami Iy room, and bui Iding a new attached garage on the s uth end of the home. He pointed out the site for the proposed s ructure, and the location of an existing pole barn. Nielsen recommended that the c.u.p. be granted to Mr. Bernstein for the following reasons: -The 1647 square feet of accessory space is ithin the 1652 square feet of the principal structure. -It does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot size for R-1A. -The addition plus the recommended landscapi g wi I I block the pole barn from view of the street. -The architecture is consistent throughout. Mr. Bernstein stated that the report stood on its said that the plan presented the best layout for he felt his request was reasonable. He thanked t and staff for their time. own merits. He he house, and e commissioners It was moved by Schultz, seconded by Hansen to gr nt the C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet to Mr. Wi II iam Bernstein, subject to staff recommend~tions. Motion passed 6/0. -1- . . . Q PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 2 The commissioners and staff covered several items in the five minutes before the next publ ic hearing: -Commissioner Doug Malam was appointed by co sensus as the Planning Commission Liason to the Park Commission. -The study session normally set for April 21 t was changed to April 14th. (The Regular April 7th Plan ing Commission meeting had previously been rescheduled for Apri I 21st, to accomodate the Apri 17th Primary Elections) -The joint City Council/Planning & Park Commissions meeting scheduled for March 23rd wi I I start at 7:30 p.m., and wi I I update the 1980 Goals and Objectives for th 1990s. -Commissioner Schultz thanked Patti Helgesen for doing the minutes from the February 18th meeting. -Schultz had a question regarding Si Iverwood and Manor Parks. Administrator Hurm briefly explained the di ferences in how the plans would proceed if the referendum p ssed, as opposed to the schedule if it did not pass. 2. Zll~_~~~~_~~~bl~_~!;~Bl~~_____~B!;bl~l~~BY_~b~I ~Q~bQ!;B_BIQ~!;_!;~I~I!;~ ~~~bl~~~Il bQ~~IIQ~l Ron Mi Iler, representing L & M Pro erties West end of Noble Road, south of E gewood Road Planning Director Nielsen explained that L & M Pr perties, Inc. proposed to subdivide the property into eleven si gle-family residential lots ranging in size from 40,000 to 1 8,000 square feet, with two lots substantially larger than req ired by the R-1A zoning due to their wet areas and questionable soils. He gave the following recap of the key issues: it when a house subdivided as a standard -Lot 6, Block 2 wi I I need a Right of Way per is built there, and the lot itself cannot b unti I Northgate Circle has been constructed cul-de-sac street. -Recognizing existing drainage problems for rea residents, the developer has proposed three 18-inch st rm sewer pipes to address the problem. This plan, in addi ion to the con- servation easments over designated wetlands; and al I the drainage, street, grading and uti I ities pia s ar~ subject to approval by the City Engineer. -The plat wi I I be referred to the Park Commi sion at the Apri 16th meeting, with the assumption that park dedication fees (along with sewer equilization charges), will be due and payable prior to release of the final plat. That final plat must contain up-to-date topography with elevations. Jim Parker representing Advance Surveying & Engineering was present to answer any questions. Kathy Thul in of 26390 Noble Road spoke regarding her concerns for the extra truck traffic down Noble Road, and her interest in what type of homes would be bui It in the development. Nei I Lewis, one of the developers was also present for questions. -2- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 3 rDresel's fety would be he plat." He poke to a very wned trees in no way that beyond that . Pete Boyer, a builder who lives at 19685 Excelsio Boulevard, expressed his opinion that the property was good, and that it contained a lot of wetlands. Dan Friedland of 26525 Edgewood Road stated that ot * 6 of the proposed development abutts his property. He que tioned City Planner Nielsen on soi I corrections for the drive ay, and was concerned that the wetlands be considered. Chair Benson closed the Publ ic portion of the hea ing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Borkon questioned the status of Nort gate Circle and whether there were any plans to vacate. Planner ielsen indicated there were none at this time. Commissioner Hansen, referencing a letter from Ci y Engineer Joel Dresel, asked who should consider extending North ate Circle and where it should go if extended. Planning Director Nielsen clarified that the sugg stion to change the route of Northgate Circle was made in the con ext of possibly sending the sewer out another way, and that it th n made sense for the road and the sewer to go in the same directio. Nielsen then stated that he had spoken with Engineer Dresel th t morning, and that an agreement had been reached whereby the se er could stay where it was if it were rearranged. . Hansen continued to explain that he was refering 0 concerns of residents who were worried about the traffic, and asked if there would be no access to Edgewood Road from any lot ther than * 6. City Administrator Hurm, again refering to Engine letter, read the following portion: "...public s enhanced by having alternate routes available to felt this statement was not an afterthought, but important publ i c safety issue. In the event of d the aftermath of a storm, Hurm said there would b public safety vehicles could access all the homes point in the cul-de-sac. Planning Director Nielsen concurred with Hurm tha the cul-de-sac was very long, and he indicated that he would als be interested in seeing an alternate route, except for the fact that the next plot over in the subdivision had a 50 foot strip left open, as did the one fol lowing that. Nielsen felt that it was not necessary to have three in that short a span. Chair Benson suggested that looping the next one the cul-de-sac shorter. Nielsen indicated that i small difference. ver could make could make a . Commissioner Malam asked for clarification of the plan to provide a positive outflow for water over the road. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 4 Engineer Parker explained that in creating a back p for the system it was important to plan for the overland outflow of water before it reached the level of the lowest basement. He tressed that the three pipes specified actually created a little e tra fai I safe. In response to Borkon's request, Nielsen then poi ted out for the Commission, exactly where the overflow would occu . . The group then discussed the extension ad, the need to be sensitive to setbacks and variances when build'ng in the new development, their interest in the City Engineer' opinion with regards to the runoff previously mentioned, and t eir concerns about the volume and speed of the potential traffic. Nielsen explained the City's past attempts to red ce speed in problem areas, and his experience that additional Police patrols and citations for excessive speed had been effective in curbing the problem in the past. It was moved by Schultz, seconded by Malam to app I iminary Plat for Boulder Ridge Estates, subject recommendations as specified in the attachments. passed 6/0. ove the Pre- o the staff The Motion 3. ~1~Eb~_~~~QIYI~IQ~L~Q~~I~eIIQ~_e~Q_EegIleb_~Ig~~I Ye~eIIQ~ . eEEbl~e~I~ bQ~eIIQ~~ Thomas Doherty 20375 Manor Road and a portion of ardendale Road Planning Director Nielsen gave a brief history of matter, explained the site plan and the pertainin and then recommended that the City approve the pi following items: the Doherty ordinances, n subject to the -A revised right-of-way of no less than 25 f et in width needs to be submitted by Mr. Doherty. -Mr. Doherty's counsel must clear up any ambiguities and pro- vide the City with clear title to the property. -The Dohertys were granted an extension due 0 the title questions, and now have 60 days to record t e vacation and subdivision/combination. -Mr. Doherty must submit an appl ication for r.o.w. permit prior to release of the resolution approvin his request. Mrs. Vogel, who owns property near the Beal property, spoke with regards to the lake. Council Liason Stover gave a recap of the Public earing that had been held at the last Counci I meeting. She explained that the property owners; the Doherty attorney, Mr. Zwak; and Mary Anne McDaniels, one of the parties who wish to purchase the Beal property, were the only people to speak. The Counci I had not taken any action at that time, pending a recommendation from the Planning Commission. . -4- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 5 his was part of ruction make ut and questions Planner Nielsen asked that the Commission table t e matter unti I after the next agenda item, so that Mr. Zwak coul be present for any discussion. . It was moved by Borkon, seconded by Rosenberger t table any other discussion unti I Mr. Zwak could be present. The m tion passed 6/0. 4. Eg~eEEbl~eIIQ~_EQg_e_~Q~Eg~~~~~IY~_Ebe~_e~~~Q~~~I =_~eI~gEQgQ_III eEEbl~e~I~ bQ~eIIQ~~ Ryan Construction 20095 State Highway 7 (Waterford II ) Chair Benson suggested an informal format, since a preappl ication process. He suggested Ryan Cons its presentation first, and then invited staff in from the Commission. Commissioner Rosenberger asked to make a statemen~ with respect to a matter he had previously discussed with both PI nner Nielsen and Chair Benson. He explained his past professional relationship with Ryan Construction, and told the Commission t at it had been more than one year since their last collaboration He offered to remove himself from the Commission for this matte if anyone was uncomfortable with his past relationship with Rya. In answer to Administrator Hurm's question about current finan ial dealings, he stated there was no current financial relationshi . Chair Benson asked that Commissioner Rosenberger tay, and the other Commissioners agreed. Bi I I McHale, a Vice-President with Ryan Construct locally based development company headquartered a Second in downtown M i nneapo lis, gave the Comm i ss i on Ryan and their past development projects (Targ Byerlys). He mentioned his initial interest in t and one half years ago, and his ongoing deal ings Director Nielsen. He felt Ryan understood the ne concerns, and he explained why they felt that Bye establishment well suited to the unique site at W proceeded to tel I the Commissioners why he felt t center in Eden Prairie, which wi I I house a 40,000 store, and the new Eden Prairie Cub, which is sla Apri I 21st, should mitigate some of their fears a pul I ing in traffic from outside the area. He cited the neighborhood concern about servicing center without using local streets as a short cut suggestions regarding this area have been forward Planner Nielsen. on, which is a 200 South n some history ts, Rainbows and e site over two ith Planning ghborhood Iys was a unique terford III. He e new shopping foot Festival ed to open on out Byerlys the shopping Some of Ryan's d to City . Finally, he explained why they bought the three 0 t lots, and why they were negotiable with regards to the area mar ed on the maps as a preservation area. McHale mentioned the pos ibi I ity of Ryan donating this land to the City for a park, or usi g the site for the construction of twin homes. -5- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 6 Commissioner Schultz asked what had happened to the previous proposals for the gas station, the convenience store, the twin homes, the bank and the daycare center. . Nielsen explained how that was a completely diffe ent proposal, and that the only portion of it which could be included in the current proposal was possibly one tier of twin ho es. Chair Benson asked that the Commissioners hold their comments unti I all the members of the publ ic who were atte ded the meeting had expressed their concerns. Pete Boyer of 19685 Old Excelsior Boulevard spoke to identify several concerns of area residents: -The initial desire to keep the area residen ial, and as equal to the community scale as possible. -Their uneasiness about having a two story b i Iding with a large sign on that site. -The concept of the additional lights and tr ffic involved with a store that is open 24 hours. -The previously mentioned concern about drawing additional people from outside the area, and its impac on traffic. -His idea that Shorewood Center on Highways 1 and 7 might be a better location for Byerlys. . Mr. McHale addressed each item in an attempt to mitigate any any concerns, but indicated that Shorewood Center was not an option for Byerlys. Mr. and Mrs. Vogel of 19797 Excelsior Boulevard s the site would have a berm to hide if from view 0 how large a sign the City would allow, and where drainage would go, since al I the water currently road to Hooper Lake. oke to ask if area residents, he oi I and extra oes under the Planner Nielsen and Mr. McHale explained the plan for a berm, the City ordinance I imiting signs to 10% of the t tal store area as seen from the street, and the plans to ad ress drainage. Dick Koppy , representing RLK Associates, Ltd. of 922 Mainstreet in Hopkins, spoke to briefly describe how any dra nage plan must tie up with the existing MNDOT plans for the inte section at that site. He felt al I the Vogel concerns would be ad ressed. Henry Petzel of 19625 Excelsior Boulevard spoke r garding his feelings that the City should stay with plans for a low level, commercial development with a more residential fe I to it. He felt that this was not the site for a Byerlys. Steve Dzurak of 19570 Vine Ridge Road, who is the Park Commission Liason to the Planning Commission, spoke to ident fy two items which relate to a memo from Planning Director Nei sen: the concern that the City not lose the park dedication fees f om this project, and the need to look at how the traffic would inc ease in front of Si lverwood Park. . -6- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 7 ithout using the cal plan or one of that size adius. Chair Benson closed the publ ic portion of the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and asked for direction from staff on how they wished to proceed. . Planner Nielsen suggested the Commissioners identify i~sues and ask questions without expecting answers at this time. The purpose was to let the developer know if the plan had any merit. Commissioner Borkon addressed the need to know where the traffic would be going; expressed her interest in a Byerlys, but wondered what would happen in 20 years if Byerlys closed a that site; and questioned how the tax revenue would be impacted if no townhomes were built at that site, as previously projected. Commissioner Hansen suggested reviewing the plan Byerlys name, and then deciding between a smal I I of a larger magnitude. He questioned that a stor could be sustained by drawing from a 1 to 3 mi Ie Chair Benson gave some history of how the multipl about, and expressed his concern that we not have let at that site. He went on to explain how the was much more than ever envisioned at the onset. indicating his interest in having a Byerlys, but with all the potential problems. . Commissioner Schultz suggested locating Byerlys i Center because of several reasons: there was a p between the residential area and an intense comme reduction of plans for twin homes was contrary to wanted to support, a 24 hour store was against th for the site, the architecture was not consistent and the traffic and associated noise was a major Commissioner Malam indicated he was fami I iar with that he would much prefer Byerlys to piecemeal sh and that Byerlys may really put Shorewood on the concerned about traffic and the tendency for peop back way through a residential area. He suggested and pointed out how wel I the florescent markings sign have worked to slow down traffic in other ar the plan to progress slowly. Commissioner Rosenberger asked about discussions residents, the current relationship with Trivesco would be paid if the project did not go through, liability, if any. He discussed how nice it woul Byerlys, but mentioned the problems of traffic re of the development, and the interest in retaining feel ing at Waterford. He felt he was open for fu . Counci I Liason Stover and Planning Director Niels the TIF would be impacted, and why the City was n development did not go through as planned. Niels for Mrs. Vogel where the traffic enters the site -7- plans had come a fast food out- olume of traffic He summarized by ot at this site the Shorewood or buffer cial area, the what the City past agreements wi th the area, roblem. Byerlys history, ps in a mall, ape He was e to enter the a traffic study, bove the 30 MPH as. He wanted ith neighborhood how the TIF nd the City's be to have a ated to the size a residential ther discussion. n explained how t liable if the n also explained rom the street. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE 8 Mr. McHale explained again why he would not consi er any other site for Byerlys. He attempted to address al I th previously identified concerns, and suggested the Commission rs and any concerned residents look at the Bye r I y S5 i t e in B r n s v i lie, which is 4 blocks West of 35W on Portland. He felt tha site should help everyone get a feel for what Ryan was propos'ng for the Waterford development. He thanked the Commission and the City for allowing him to present the Ryan proposal, and in icated his interest in working together in the future, shoul his project receive final approval. Chair Benson verified with Planning Director Niel en that the matter would be on the Apri I 13th City Counci I Ag nda. 3. iQQ~~BIY_~~~Ql~1~lQ~~~Q~~1~eIlQ~~~e~eIlQ~_f2n!lnY 41 Planning Director Nielsen gave a recap for Mr. Zw k. Mr. Zwak clarified how the title ambiguities had why the matter could be resolved within 60 days. staff was in favor of the proposal as a means to situation. He also stated that any areas of con McDaniels could be resolved. ome about, and He felt that the ndo a bad Ii ct with the After some discussion, in which Counci I liason St ver clarified for the Commission what had transpired at the Publ ic Hearing, Commissioner Schultz suggested the City try to ge a right-of-way whenever possible, in the event the City ever wis es to finish a road at a later date. Planner Nielsen concurred. Nielsen drew out the proposed changes and they we e explained to Mr. Doherty, who was present and made no objectio s. After much additional discussion, it was moved by seconded by Rosenberger to approve the Doherty re division/combination and partial street vacation; staff recommendations with regards to 50 feet of portion of Lot 1 (per Exhibit B1) as revised, and the driveway (as it enters fom Manor Road), be to parcel. The motion passed 6/0. -8- Schultz and uest for a sub- referencing the he Northeast stipulating that the West of the . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 1992 - PAGE~ 5. ~eII~B~_EBQ~_I~~_EbQQB Park, as per Steve Dzurak, Park Commission Liason to the Planning Commission, brought up several matters for consideration: -The need for a better first aid kit at Mano his attached letter. -His ongoing meetings with Brad Nielsen with types of appropriate structures for a warmi -His concern that the City preserve the park from Waterford III, because of the extended that wi I I be required to complete the warmi Park if the fees are not forthcoming. 6. B~EQBI~ regards to the g house. dedication fees amount of time g house at Manor A. Counci I Liason Stover gave a recap of the I st City Counci I meeting, highlighting the following: -The plans for Silverwood and Manor Parks, a d anticipated funds to complete the projects. -The plans for the Public Works building are moving ahead. -The current charges for Spring Cleanup as i entified in the upcoming newsletter. -The City Attorney, David Sellergren, has Ie t his present firm, and the Counci I is considering option on with whom to contract for legal services. B. Commissioner Hansen brought up the fact tha to be a split in the insulated sewer pipe that go connecting Enchanted Island to Shady Island. He that the Publ ic Works staff review it, and questi may prevent Minnegasco from putting gas in for th 7. eQ~Q~B~~~~I there appears s over te bridge as concerned ned whether it Island. It was moved by Schultz, seconded by Borkon to ad'ourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. The Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Debbie Grahek Recording Secretary .-9';" . (J~ ~1 ~ .:", 1'192- ~~~7 . j)~ 4A~ ) ~~. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 5 MAY 1992 co I CIL CHAMBERS 5755 CO=Y CLUB ROAD I 7:00 P.M. I MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Leslie, Borkon, Rosenberger, Hansen, Malam; Council Liaison Stover; Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: None. 7:00 P.M. PUBLI HEARING - C.U.P. T OF 100 CUBIC YARDS L IN EXCES . Planner Nielsen explaine4 that Mr. Joseph Peters proposes to build a new orne on his property at 20455 Manor Road. In order to access the site he needs to co struct a driveway which requires more than 100 cubic yards of fill. This work requires a co ditional use permit, the main purpose of which is to obtain engineering review of the p oject and assure that the work does not adversely impact adjoining properties. The City En ineer has reviewed the proposed grading plan and has submitted his recommendation in a report dated 16 January 1992. Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:07 P.M. Joseph Peters was present. He said he has no problem with paving the dri eway. Jack Meusey, 20445 Manor Road, is concerned about drainage and erosio , and wants the driveway to be unobtrusive. Mrs. Jack Meusey asked for clarification of the location and height of the showed the proposed grading plan. Nielsen Charles Babcock, 20465 Manor Road, is very concerned about drainage would like to see two culverts. He wondered why Gardendale Road is not being used fo access and sewer service. He objects to the amount of fill being proposed. Planner Nielsen said it is cost- prohibitive to extend sewer down and widen Gardendale Road for two ho es. Mr. Peters said he will use the least amount of fill necessary and the sewe will need to be pumped. . Public portion of the public hearing closed at 7:35 P.M. Leslie asked why not drop the elevation of the proposed house by 1 foot d alleviate the amount of fill necessary. Mr. Peters said the house may have flooding pr blems at a lower elevation. . . . . Minutes Planning Commission Meeting 5 May 1992 Borkon asked if Mr. Babcock would be willing to share a driveway. Mr. abcock responded that his driveway is low and he is concerned about flooding on his prope Hansen asked if the drainage problems can be solved and questioned whet r this request should be tabled until specific plans are available for review. Planner Niel en said the Engineer feels the drainage can be accommodated, and the plans will be su ~ect to his approval as part of the building permit application. I Leslie moved, seconded by Borkon to recommend approval of the C.U.P.f. bject to the.City Engineer's recommendations and that the driveway be paved and two culv s placed under the fill for drainage purposes. Motion carried 6-0. I I I I I ! SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION i Mr. David Hrdlicka plans to add on to his existing home located at 5280 ~.. Albans Bay Road. The house is situated at the rear of the lot, only 15 feet from the r . lot line. To correct this nonconformity and avoid the need for a variance request, Mr. rdlicka proposes to purchase approximately 38 feet of the property to the west. This results in his property having 33,850 square feet and allows him to add onto his existing home in I compliance with R-IA setback requirements. I I I Public portion of the public hearing opened at 7:48 P.M. and closed withott comment. Rosenberger moved, seconded by Hansen to recommend approval of the II. subdivision/ combination. Motion carried 6-0. I STUDY SESSION - TRANSPORTATION POLICY I The Planning Commission reviewed and revised the policy plans for trans1rtation from the curr~nt Comprehensive Plan. See attached draft which reflects the modifi tions made at this meeting. I I I I I MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, seconded by Leslie to adjourn the meeting at 10: 10 P .M. ~otion carried. Respectfully submitted, Patti Helgesen Planning/Zoning Dept. - 2 - . . . Transportation Policies General 1. Transportation facilities shall be pi ed and improved to function in a manner ompatible with adjacent land use; in those instanc s where the function of a transportation facilitylhas changed over time to become incompatible with djacent land use, a program to eliminate this incom atibility shall be established. I I 2. Land use controls shall promote cJmbined andlor concentrated types of activities in ~e high intensity use districts to reduce travel and p omote preferred modes of transportation. 3. All means of transportation and re ated facilities shall be considered as one system d therefore coordinated and related comprehe sively. 4. Transportation facilities shall be p ed and designed to conserve natural resou ces and minimize the total need for ongoing public . vestment. 5. The transportation system shall b~' developed to focus on activity centers of Shore ood and neighboring south shore communi es. I Transportation planning and implefne. ntation shall be coordinated with neighboring and pfected jurisdictions. I 6. 7. Special consideration and attentio shall be given to persons who must rely on means ther than the automobile for transportation. 8. Dependency upon automobile-one ted transportation shall be reduced where feasible, d where possible higher priorities shall be assigned 0 pedestrian/bicycle and mass transi travel. 9. The non-city highway system sh complement and facilitate local movements provid by local streets, bicycle trails and pedestrian facili es. A line of communication shall be maintain with county and state highway officials in order to lensure that planned improvements are consist~nt with the goals and objectives of the community. i 10. Early and continuing citizen invol ement shall be provided for and encouraged in tr sportation planning and implementation proj ts. . . . Streets 1. 2. 3. 4. Vehicular access onto all types of arterials shall be minimized and limi ed to points of adequate distances between intersections, with property signalization lor merging. 5. Street parking shall be prohibited or limited on arterial streets. I 6. Thro1:1gh. traffie is to be moved arotifld, rather than penetrate ar-eas of rtsidential and service eommereia:l 1:1se. I 7. All intersections require proper visibility, design, and control to prevJt """idenlS and violations. -1 8. Service roads paralleling major arterials shall be elimina:tcd andlor contolled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards and resulting accidents. i 9. Single-loaded frontage roads shall be proftibiIeEI discouraged in the: fn4e. 10. The amount and diversity of traffic signing shall be reduced and an upqated and an improved system is to be maintained. i 11. Relate and phase street improvement to area land development in orde~ to avoid interrupted or inadequate access. i 12. CHID ami gtiIIef .baIloot be eROOUmge8 iR siftgle famlIy rosi<ICfitilll + Curb and gutter ... 13. In those areas where incomplete street facilities exist, action shall be en to plan, design and develop a street system which reflects the highest standards and relates land use to transportation needs and policies. Action shall be taken immedi tely to reserve required rights-of-way to prevent redundant additional cost and difficul . es. 14. Where feasible and practical, include provisions for other transportatiot. modes, i.e. bicycles, sflo'.vmobiles, etc. in street and highway improvement plans. , 15. The amount of land devoted to streets and the number of street miles s~all be minimized through use of such techniques as planned unit development and clustefing of activities. I 16. The City shall consider organized waste collection in order to minimiz~ damage to city streets. . Parking . 1. No development or expansion of activities and uses shall be permitted u less adequate off-street parking is provided. 2. 3. 4. 5. The City should shall establish standards for parking lot landscaping. =!::=and~;::'~~~:==T::C:~ The City shall seek rednction in the demand and resulting space require rents for parking shall be red1:1ced through improved pedestrian and transit facili . s and land use development coordination. . Mass Transit . 6. 7. 1. The extent of service and use of mass transit is to be highly encourag]ed. by the City of Shorewood. Working in conjunction with the Metropolitan Transit Co mission, the City shall work toward creating markets and toward improving transit s rvice on both the Metropolitan and local scale and on both the immediate and long r . ge time framework. I 2. 3. Attempts shall be made to have transit service available with rider conv niences such as shelters, in a:ll portioas the activity centers of the community. to mutes sho1:1ld be minimized. 4. ceater3. 5. , , who have options for priyate vehic1:11ar tmycl. Striv who do not have other transportation alternatives. 6. ~=~"E?::2~~~~:=t~ I . . . i i I I i 7. Land use policies and development shall encourage transit ridership by boncentrating and consolidating high density residential as well as commercial and e ployment activities along established or potential transit routes. 8. 9. 10. Availability of transit service, notably during rush hours, to activity ar s sach as Ridgedale, the EdCft PrB::irie CCftter and ethef regional centers in other communities shall be encouraged. 11. 12. All potential means and methods of providing and improving transit se buses, taxis, etc.) shall be explored. Pedestrian/Bicycle I i 1. PcdestnaRs shall Be pW/ided separate rights of 'Nay. apart from an for~s of mo....ing trafflc ......here aeccssary. Where possible. a separated travelled surface Ishall be provided for pedestrians and cyclists. i I I 2. Special attention shall be directed and faciliites provided for pedestrian I movement and access in areas in and surrounding schools, churches, parks, and comjercial and service centers. . 3. Pedestrian street crossings on heavily traveled streets shall be clearly Lked and lighted. I 4. shwl Be pr<Yiided f-or cyclists. 5. All street improvement programs and projects shall include considerati n of facilities for pedestrians and bicydes. 6. Major streets in Shorewoo<l sball be designed to l'fCVCIlt Ullref;u1&Ied rand . bieyele erossiags and protect pedestrian and bicycle movement paralle ng traffic. i Activity "eaters shall be plaRfted aRe develeped to aUmet aRd pi'<Y/ide for pedestria:a and bkycle access aRd attempt to scpa:mte this facility from ',ehicalar tmfft 7. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1992 MINUTES CAll TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROll CAll i COUNCil CHAM~ERS 5755 COUNTRY flUB ROAD PAGE 1 Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Hansen, Leslie, Malaml, Rosenberger; Planner Nielsen, Council Liaison Stover. ' Absent: Commissioner Borkon. I I Chair Benson introduced Robert Bean, the newly appointed Member of tli1e Commission and Arlene Bergfalk, the new Recording Secretary. REPORTS Councilmember Stover reported on the Council's discussions at its May 18, 1992 Work Session on the 1993-1997 Capital Improvement Program with an emp~asis on streets and water system issues. Commissioner Rosenberger reported on the Senior Housing and Servi~es Task Force Meeting held May 19, 1992. Chair Benson noted the public hearing on a P.U.D. and Comprehensiv~ Plan for a new development scheduled for June 2, 1992 at the Minnewashta School. STUDY SESSION 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE a. Transportation Policies Mr. Nielsen directed the Commission's attention to the Transportation Pq cies submitted for its consideration and acceptance. He noted that the new policies inclL~de the changes requested by the Commission at a prior meeting. ' , Following a final review of the Transportation Policies, Mr. Nielsen ~as requested to prepare those Policies in final format with the revisions made at ithis meeting. 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1992 - PAGE 2 b. Community Facilities Policies Mr. Nielsen directed the Commission's attention to the Community Facil~ties Policies for its review and consideration. I Following review of the Parks and Open Space policy Leslie rr-oved, Malam seconded, the Commission's suggestion to the Park Commission I that it look at I whether the City wants trails for motorized vehicles. I , The motion passed unanimously. : During a detailed review of each of the Community Facilities Policies, t~e Commission made suggested changes to the provisions of these policies. ' The Commission requested Mr. Nielsen to incorporate its suggestions into are-write of the policies for appropriate review. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters presented from the floor at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10 22 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Northern Counties Secretarial Services 2 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992 MINNEWASHTA ELEME'~ARY SCHOOL 26350 SMITHTOWN RqAD 7:00 P.M. ! MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Le lie, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Administrator urm, Planner Nielsen, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane and Finance irector Rolek. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ! Leslie moved, Borkon seconded approval of the minutes of the Plannin~ Commission's meeting of May 19, 1992. . I I i Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SPRUCE HILL - PRELIMINARY PLAT! Aoolicant: Location: Paul Kelley 2511 0 Yellowstone Trail I Mr. Nielsen reviewed Mr. Kelley's proposal to divide 7.5 acres of~land at 25110 Yellowstone Trail into seven single family residential lots. The propert is zoned R-1 A, Single Family Residential, and is presently occupied by a home and thre out-buildings. Mr. Nielsen described the proposal's compliance with the City!'S zoning and subdivision requirements including those covering lot size; proposed ~treet; grading, drainage and utilities; and existing house. : The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to t~e following: i 1. The final plat must be submitted within six months of the Co~ncil's approval of the preliminary plat. An up-to-date title opinion must be s:bm.itted at that time for review by the City Attorney. 2. The final plat should include lot sizes and each lot should aver ge no less than 40,000 square feet in area. i I 3. The developer should consider shortening the street to increa~e the buildable depth of Lot 7. , I 1 i . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 2 4. i Plans and specifications for the street, grading, drainage and ~tilities shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. I Street plans should be designed with a maximum grade of Jix percent and intersect with Yellowstone Trail as near to 90 degrees as pos~ible. 5. 6. A detailed grading plan showing building pad elevations must b provided with the final plat and show the new driveway for the existing hou e. 7. The out-buildings must be removed or moved to Lot 1 t comply with applicable zoning requirements. , 8. Upon approval of a final plat, the developer must pay $4500 in ~ark dedication fees and $6000 in local sanitary sewer availability charges. i i I Upon receipt of the final plat, the staff shall prepare a standar~ development agreement for the project. Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. No comments were received from the public. Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7: 12 p.m. Leslie asked whether the Engineer has reviewed the proposal. Niels~n replied yes. i I In response to Borkon's question about the process, Nielsen revieweq the role of the Planning Commission in its review and approval of these types of prtposals. Hansen commented that according to the drawing, the proposed stre~t's intersection with Yellowstone Trail is already at its maximum. Nielsen replied that he staff agreed there was some opportunity to get closer to 90 degrees by swinging t e right-of-way. I Malam questioned the common driveway proposed for Lots 1 and 2. i Nielsen replied I that this was acceptable. i I Leslie moved, Malam seconded approval of the Spruce Hill - prelimi~ary Plat of Mr. Paul Kelly, at 25110 Yellowstone Trail, subject to the Planner's reco~~endations, for submission to the Council for its review and approval. I Motion passed 7/0. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - WATERFORD 111- PROPOSED CQMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND P.U.D. AMENDMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 3 . Apolicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 20095 State Highway 7 Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing for Waterford III-Proposed tomprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment at 7:15 p.m. He emphfsized that the Hearing will be conducted with decorum and explained that anyqne wishing to comment must sign up on the sheet provided and appear at the podiu when called. Comments should be limited to five minutes. Questions will be a dressed at the conclusion of the hearing. The order of business will be a presentatio by Mr. William McHale, Vice President, Retail Development, Ryan Construction Co pany, followed by the staff report and a review of the Traffic Survey. The public wil then be called upon for their comments. . I ! The meeting recessed until 7:28 p.m. to allow for sign up by the pu1lic. Rvan Construction Presentation I I , Mr. McHale introduced himself and thanked the Commission for the time allotted to him. He noted that Ryan Construction Company is interested in ~uilding only a Byerly's on this site as the anchor tenant. [ Mr. McHale noted that Ryan Construction Company (Developer) first ~ubmitted a pre- application for the development of the retail center in Shorewood 60 ~ays ago. Since that time, the City Council ordered that a Traffic Study be conducte~. I To provide an overview of the scope of the proposed project, Mr. Me Male narrated a series of slides of an existing site in Burnsville built by the Developer [in 1988 that is comparable to the site proposed for Shorewood. He suggested that I' anyone having any concerns should visit the Burnsville shopping center location. , The proposed retail development would be anchored by a 63,000 squa e foot upscale, high quality grocery store (Byerly's) and a 19,000 square foot drug tore (Snyder's) located at the southeast quadrant of Old Market Road and Minnesota State Highway 7. In addition, there are three lots (23.02 acres) for additional re ail/commercial development and one Outlot A (9.93 acres to be deeded to the City) for use as a permanent buffer between the commercial development and the resid~ntial properties in the Waterford Addition. This proposed amendment to the orig,nal "Trivesco" Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. approved by the City in 1984 slighftly enlarges an existing commercial district, reduces the number of medium density tpwnhomes and offers alternatives to the alignment of Old Market Road and Highvyay 7 Frontage Road. I . I The one-story building would be constructed of brick and masonry m~terials. All lots would be designed and developed with a consistent theme. Thel site would be accessed from the South Frontage Road. Landscaping would be corjnplementary to 3 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 4 the building's architecture. Mr. McHale reviewed the results of neighborhood meetings and a su~veY sponsored by the D.eveloper. He acknowledged that traffic was the primary con ern expressed by Shorewood residents. Another concern was the 24 hour operatio of the grocery store. (Current restrictions allow for 6 a.m. to 12 midnight operationsH According to Mr. McHale, the total number of trips on a typical evening from 12 mi1night to 8 a.m. over a 7 day period through a Byerly's store is 302. Byerly's is committed to providing 24 hour service for the convenience of its customers. Mr. McHale indicated that the Developer is aware of the community,~' long standing and emotional concern over traffic as evidenced by remarks made b the residents. He expressed the Developer's desire to fully cooperate for an accep able closure to overcome this c<?ncern for the overall benefit of Shorewood. I Staff Reoort Mr. Nielsen reviewed the history of approvals leading up to the c~rrent proposed amendment to Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. I I In 1984, a developer, Trivesco, received conceptual approval for ~ larger project which included single and multiple family residential construction ~nd commercial construction. Provisions to restrict the height of buildings, appropriate landscaping, restoration of the wetlands were included. The overall concept of tHe development was to be residential in nature. I In 1991, a developer, George Sherman, proposed a change to the Plar adding a strip neighborhood convenience mall to include a convenience store, gas Rumps, a family restaurant, an office building, bank building and a day care center. T~accommOdate the convenience mall, residential construction would be reduced. Agai ,the approved amended proposal maintained a low residential roof line with bri k and stucco construction, appropriate landscaping and limitations over operating ours. Mr. Nielsen indicated that the current Ryan Construction Company ptoposal reduces the previously approved residential construction to increase the co~mercial portion of the site to include the Byerly's grocery store/drug store retail com~lex, a fast food restaurant with drive up window, a drive in bank and a day-car~ center. The architectural character is of high quality, but not necessarily residential. The single story building is 26 feet tall, landscaping is consistent with the 1984 plan; signage is to be determined. Hours of operation requested are for 24 hours anq it appears that the multiple family housing will be eliminated to allow for a seven-a~re buffer zone. The plan provides for restoration of the pond on the site. ' Mr. ! Nielsen pointed out that the staff's review of the Developer'sl pre-application I 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 5 I shows the most significant issue was the need for a traffic study t~determine the potential impact of the proposal on area traffic and local circulation pat ems. The City hired the firm of Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to conduct this st dy. i Traffic Survey Review : i Mr. Mike Borman, Traffic Engineering Director for Barton-Aschman ~SSOCiates, Inc. introduced Mr. Pete Marshall, Associate of the firm, who conducted t e Waterford III Traffic Study-Old Market Road/Vine Hill Road/Covington Road Analy is. Mr. Marshall stated that the City commissioned the firm to conduct n independent study of the following specific objectives: . . . 1. Estimate base (non-site oriented) traffic volumes and circulati n changes on area roadways due to anticipated changes, primarily the ope ing of the Old Market RoadlTH 7 intersection. ! 2. I Determine the potential for non-neighborhood oriented trafficl using the Old Market Road-Covington Road-Vine Hill Road-TH 101 route as a short-cut to CSAH 62. I 3. Conduct a trip generation analysis of both the previously ap~roved and the newly proposed developments. Calculate the expected peak Ihour and daily generated trips of each development scenario and present re,ults in tabular format. 4. , i Determine traffic volumes approaching the site from the south (via Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road) for both the approved plan and the ~an proposal. I I Determine the impacts of realigning Old Market Road as de~icted in Ryan Alternatives B through D in No.4 above. 5. The Conclusions contained in the Study are as follows: I "1 . The opening of the Old Market Road intersection with TH ~ will cause a redistribution of traffic between Vine Hill Road and Old Mar~t Road. Both roadways will be used as collector streets to access TH . Circa 1994 projected traffic volumes on both Old Market Road and Vine ill Road will be approximately 2,200 vehicles per day. i 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 6 i There is only a slight potential for eastbound TH 7 traffic to utilize Old Market Road as a shortcut to the new CSAH 62. We estimate app10ximately 200 vehicles per day may use this route. I 3. Trip generation analysis indicates that the previously approve~ development would generate approximately 520 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips fnd 7,400 daily trips. The proposed development would generate 950 P.M. pea hour trips and 12,050 daily trips. ! 2. 4. Under the previously approved site plan, potential traffic incrfse due to site traffic utilizing Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road are 475 an 190 vehicles per day, respectively. Due to the proposed development, the v lume increases would be 900 and 360 vehicles per day, respectively. Implementing Ryan alternative schemes "S" or "0" would hJve virtually no effect on the volume projections listed above. Implementing scheme "C" (wrapping Old Market Road around the back of the primary sit buildings) will have the effect of shifting approximately 750 daily backgrou d trips back to Vine Hill Road. This would have the potential, however, of in roducing "cut- through" traffic on Shady Hills Road. This potential would exist primarily in the interim until a new Vine Hill Road intersection is constructed, as northbound vehicles on Vine Hill Road attempt to avoid the Vine HiII/TH 7 in ersection. Site traffic projections would be unaffected by this scheme. 5. 6. i The primary reason for traffic increases on Old Market Road islthe fact that it will be opened to TH 7 and used as a collector street. This d~es not depend on the type of development under consideration for the prop~sed site. Site traffic would comprise approximately 18 percent of future 0* Market Road daily traffic under the approved development and 29 per ent under the proposed development. A more meaningful statistic shows t at total future daily traffic on Old Market Road would increase roughly 161 percent if the proposed grocery development were built in place of the already approved plan." i ! The Recommendations contained in the Study are as follows: ! i I "A collector roadway system is unarguably required in this area ~f Shorewood. Because of a lack of alterative routes, this need must be served by so~e combination of Vine Hill and Old Market Roads. Up to this point, this need has be n met primarily by Vine Hill Road. However, because of its awkward, indirect conne tion to TH 7 it has not functioned well in terms of efficiency and ease of access. I An additional collector connection to TH 7 would be highly des.irable. Previou~ planning has emphasized that Old Market Road be that additional collector. This i~ evident by its direct signalized connection to TH 7, its inclusion on the Shorewo d MSA street system, and its official designation as a collector street in the City's omprehensive i I , i 6 . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 7 Plan. Barton-Aschman recommends that it be allowed to functiont.' as a collector regardless of the development proposed for the site in question. To tr to discourage such use would be difficult to justify considering the significant inves ment made for intersection construction and installing a traffic signal at TH 7. , A collector that carries the range of that projected need not be overlY~ dsruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods. Proper design and operation (sidewal s, bike paths, appropriate speed limits, traffic control, sight distance, etc.) can pr mote safe and efficient operation. We recommend Old Market and Vine Hill Road b~ reconstructed as planned to allow the route to efficiently function as a collector str~et. If, however, the City deems it undesirable to promote thei use of Old Market/Covington as a collector route, the developer's scheme "q:" or a similar alignment could be implemented to reduce route continuity and disc~urage through traffic. Caution must be exercised, however, against: a) introducing "cut-through" traffic on other streets, and b) the loss of MSA funding or status for Old Market Road if it is realigned. The potential for MnDOT objections to Oldi Market Road modifications should be assessed early in the planning process." Comments from the Public . At 8:30 p.m., Chair Benson called for the following: Stephen Larsen, 20435 Radisson Road: Couple of comments. I've lived at 20435 Radisson Road for 20 years. I was part of the neighborhood discussion when a project was proposed in 1984. The project was presented to us to Iperpetuate the residential nature of the neighborhood and that services a~d commercial establishments put in would be small supportive types. Certainly at n~ time was this development proposed to have the extent of such square footage or ~n terms of this type of store. No reason why its any different now, its a project going since 1984 and no reason to change direction or deviate from what was given to ~s in 1984. As the original ordinance it was stated that Shorewood would be a reside~tial community and it was reaffirmed in the Comprehensive Plan that went through ~ome years ago in both spirit and in letter and no way do I see this project as having ianything to do with the residential nature of our community. I . , i Ann Christian, 19490 Muirfield Circle: I am also concerned about the residential area of our neighborhood changing with such a development going in. M~' irfield Circle is close to this development and I'm really concerned about the traffic nd I want the Commission to take that into consideration. This type of store wou d draw from a much larger area. ' Kris Thayer, 5345 Shady Hills: I'm from the Shady Hills neighborhoqd. We already have cut-through traffic which is fairly surprising because of no appareht destinations. If this proposed development goes through there will be a number of m~jor destination I I 7 . Dan Noonan, 21115 Radisson Road: Not to differ with previous spea ers, I do want to speak out for the Byerly's project. Looking at what Shorewood wo Id benefit from them coming in, last thing Shorewood needs is a strip mall. It deterior tes and wears down and can't keep tenants. Moreover sounds to me that a Byerly's ddition would be an adjunct for a variety of services we don't have. I share the co cerns as far as the traffic. Great deal of concern over traffic on Old Market.R oad theYfear the heavy brunt of that. Also concerned about traffic coming down frontage Ro d to west side of Market Road. Lots of traffic coming through to Radisson Road. Th re's a bend in that road that two bikes can barely get around let alone cars from eac direction. No matter what's going in there, as long as Frontage Road is left as is, ~e'lI see heavy flow of traffic through Radisson Road, Covington Road, and Christmas ~ake Road area and further west from there. But, I do think that Byerly's offers sqmething much more viable to Shorewood residents and hope it could be done in sUfh a fashion as to externalize itself from the neighborhoods. Certainly don't want tp impose it on anyone, but I think it has a lot of merit for the area. ~ Judy Candell, 20125 Sweetwater Circle: I would also like very m ch to have a Byerly's store but am also concerned about traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 8 . points and I'm very concerned about cut-through traffic through our~neighborhOOd' If there could be some way to control cut-throughs and the mess. A so understand there is an effort to buffer residential area to the South. Wondering a out residential area to the East which is Shady Hills. Wondering if there is also a buf er to the East. . Karen Vance, 5690 Ridge Road: I always wanted to live in a community with no curbs or gutters. I did not move to Shorewood to be convenienced. I ~hink having a gateway like Byerly's with a parking lot into a wonderful residential ar a like we have is absolutely ridiculous. I wonder how many on the Board have gone 0 Burnsville to take a look. Well I was down there and I was appalled at the size of he parking lot. I counted the spaces, it's almost like Cub Foods. I'm concerned abou the traffic and roads, would they be adequate for Byerly's? During 4-6 p.m. when pe pie are heading home I'm concerned about traffic patterns changing and goin through my neighborhood. Have you thought about trucks, deliveries, aesthetics appearance of the building, air conditioning units, colors, trash, truck loading dOCk,. Most of the time we have trees without leaves, nice to have a buffer zone but ~. hen leaves are gone the sound waves move. Concerned about lighting. Has DNR b en contacted? Concerned about pollution of restaurant smells, other pollution, cri e, cars driving around at 3 a.m., adequate fire truck movement. Concerned about t e example for our children. Do we really need another supermarket. Can't we mak do with what we have? I would suggest you reconsider this commercial zoning be ause once you increase it - you already have three people who want to go in. hat if Byerly's decides they really don't want to go in or within five years it would not be making money and sold or subleased to anything. I think we should survey all he houses and find out what they really want to have there, and have detailed site plans, what kind of landscaping, what kind of bricks they are going to use. After lights po in would like 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 9 I I I I I I I to see what the traffic flows will be and measure air pollution. I donlt want to have curbs and sidewalks in my neighborhood. I really hope you will recpnsider making that third edition of Waterford, Shorewood's Waterloo. Thank you. I I . Ross Mersinger, 19405 Muirfield Circle: If the board considers Byerly s also consider plan C to redirect the traffic. I think the traffic pattern is the thing t at has torn the neighborhood apart. Only option for Byerly's is plan C. . Brian Zins, 19580 Shady Hills Road: I'm from Shady Hills neighborhoo . Our concern is for buffer between Shady Hills and the store. We are already e periencing cut- through traffic. I live in a corner house. On the existing road, two ca s can't pass at the same time., What's the plan for that road? I think with reconstru ion of Vine Hill how will we enter and exit when that takes place? How much traffic actually after development and during construction? It will make it tough for us tol get in and out. Marty Snyder, 19855 Chartwell Hill: Couple of concerns. Address the issue of cut- through traffic. How did they arrive at those figures? Has MnDOT researched this? Wondering where the numbers came from. Cut-through traffic is a bf,9 concern. Go back and re-examine the traffic. People come up here and all are c ncerried about traffic. Would like to have people from the neighborhood get tog ther and work together to avoid traffic through our neighborhoods. Maybe there's.a way we can achieve this. If there is a way to get together rather than to work agar. nst each other. I would be willing to coordinate this or someone else. Just can't belie e we can't find a solution to this together. . . I Nancy Westman, 5240 Shady Lane: I support many of the comment~ already made. I've been here less than a year. I moved here from Chicago to be in a residential area. Do we really need development? Concerned about the need. Are thefe other options so we can maintain the natural surroundings and wild life? If we hfve to have the development, look at the roads and safety hazards. Basically, d we need the development? . John Moschor Maschoff, 19795 Muirfield Circle: Would like to expr~ss my feelings. I agree with many of the remarks of my fellow residents. Recognize ~hat commercial development is inevitable. Have to recognize why we selected Shor wood to live in as a residential low development low traffic community. I have live in other parts of Minneapolis area, Minnetonka, Bloomington. If you want to have n idea of what this will look like, drive down County Road 18 into Eden Prairie, Sh kopee and see what's happened there. I lived there ten years ago and wouldn't drea of being there now because of strip shopping malls and traffic problems. We need 0 do everything possible to control traffic in the area. If we are going to have the tr ffic, would like to see us encourage enforcement of safety and laws. We have speed rs up and down Vine Hill Road. Like the idea of the buffer of the current propo al. Scheme C eliminating the cut-through is to everyone's advantage. Also ask tha as we approve development, that the City Council monitor tenants. Day care brings ncreased traffic 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 10 . as parents are dropping off and picking up kids during peak hours. [APpreciate the opportunity to speak. . . Tad Shaw, 5580 Shore Road: With all the work that's going on now, I will be happy when the intersection opens because I'll be able to get home three m nutes early! ... What are the problems of Shorewood today? Same as 10 years ago. I thought this problem was absolutely resolved in 1984. A compromise was reach d after literally years of man hours spent in establishing a compromise involving ma y people. The result was that everybody was a little bit mad. ... Traffic Study ... S metimes some conclusions relate back to the desired answers. Some of the answer$ did not sound right in the back of the room. Interesting this hearing should be right now as in Rio de Janeiro they are having hearings about saving our environment. Ten years ago we had talked about this to keep Hwy 7 from being a strip junky hango~t. Sounds like I'm going to say Byerly's is the answer, but I don't think Byerly's islan appropriate I answer for our area. I think Byerly's is a nice place but I don't thinklthis location is a Byerly's location. I David Dean, 5690 Old Mark Road: Seems like once every other ~onth we have another hearing on this intersection or the development. Five years I and this is the sixth time at a hearing with a traffic study. I've seen no continuity on the traffic studies. I agree with Tad Shaw on the issue of taking the conclusio~s and working back ... First the traffic study said we're going to have 12000 vehi41es without an intersection, now remarkably we are going to have 12000 with a Byer~y's store. I live on Old Market Road in the last house. I should get into the car r~pair business. There's a collision corner. I have been against the intersection from ~ay one. All of . you are growing tired of hearing me with this position. I am tiredl, no more, we thought we had the problem solved. Intersection gO,ing in was suppos~d to be for the neighborhood. We all know now that the intersection, at least I in its present configuration, was put there for the development. If you needed an intersection to service the neighborhood, there were five other alternatives. T e reason this intersection was selected was to service the development. We resign d ourselves to that fact. Thought we had finished that. Here we are again with a ra ically different proposal. This has gone far enough. I like Byerly's. I would prefer to shop there when I have a chance. But do I want it in my front yard? Does1; t. is go with the original development plan? I had heard there was a plan to put a Tar et in that spot. It was roundly defeated. I submit that Byerly's will be wore. How m ny trips do you make to Target? How many for groceries? Anyway we need this wou~d healed. I am concerned about cut-through traffic. The only way I would support By rly's is if there was a radical change in the traffic level. Unless there can be omething like configuration C, I am absolutely categorically opposed to this. Every ody will suffer from increased traffic, not just residents of Old Market Road. Thank you. Louise Bonach, 19625 Sweetwater: (Read the last paragraph of the trtffic study.) As I understand it nobody had any intention for this intersection to do nything but to move traffic in or out of the neighborhoods. Seems already the Cit doesn't want I I 10 . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 11 scheme C to stop traffic from neighborhoods. Important that you 100 at cut-through problems. Look at all the neighborhoods; this issue affects the whole ity. If Byerly's is for the community, look at making necessary accompanying traffic hanges for the community. Jim Peterson, 5745 Christmas Lake Point: No axe to grind, had ot intended to speak, but would like to echo the remarks made that this was in nded to be a residential community. Seems to be the responsibility of the villag and planning board to approve that which would have the least impact on the quality of the neighborhood. I think Byerly's would be better than a strip mall. C ncerned about the daily operations. In the grocery business location is the key ingred ent. I think it's incredible that Byerly's would consider going in there - trying to shoe ~orn it in there. Important to any successful grocery operation is the parking area. WMatever minimal impact on the rest of us with minimal commercial development is in~umbent. Discussion/Questions/Answers Commenting on the Traffic Study, Mr. McHale said Old Market Roa~ is a collector street" He believes the Study shows the proposal will have minimal di ruptive effect. Further, he thought cut-throughs may be zero. Regarding a buffer to the east he indicated he had spoken directly to the two closest homeowners and tljley support the Byerly's proposal. The Ryan proposal according to McHale is the onl~ one that gives a buffer zone of 8 acres of trees. The people contacted by the Dev~loper all think I that the traffic situation and the development are not connected. He rOinted out that one person spoke against a strip mall on Hwy 7, however, that is w at is currently approved. This Developer is offering something most people prefer. . He noted that the intersection will be readily identifiable even without a Byerly's. rlr"cHale pointed out that something will be built in the Waterford III development sirlce it has been approved. McHale believes the Developer's proposal will not cau~e trouble with traffic, that it is a quality project and urged a vote for the project in t~e best interest of the City and its people. I I , Bob Morrison briefly commented on the Traffic Study indicating tha~ overall, traffic should not be a major problem. t' Chair Benson called for any further questions from the public. R sponses were provided by Messrs. McHale and Marshall. ! I In response to a question, Commissioner Rosenberger indicated that h has had some dealings with Ryan Construction Company; however, for the last 18 onths, he has not had any financial dealings with the Company. His association consisted of a waste/composting business in Truman, MN. . Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 9: 12 p.m. 11 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 12 Discussion - Planning Commission Hansen stated that his major philosophy continues to be that S!horewood is a residential community and notwithstanding that which has already beer approved, the current amendments to it do not fit into the City's Comprehensive IPlan. He said, "You can't change my vote." I I , Bean: Concerning esthetics, would the Developer consider limitations On the construction such as re-designing the roof facade or is the building de$ign a corporate standard? McHale responded: Ryan is working on a "new" style Byerly's and would work with the City in the building's design. Bean was concerned witr the impact on the community and questioned whether the City can select the other cc!>mmercial/retail tenant that would come into the development. McHale indicated he i~ only interested in building a Byerly's. Bean asked about information on what is con~idered a typical draw. McHale indicated that 83 percent of the draw is generally frci>m within three miles. Bean asked about the impact of MSA funding on any prop~sed roadwork. Nielsen said that question remains unanswered at this time. . I Borkon asked whether plans include a gas station. McHale respJnded no. She. pointed out, however, that the approved P.U.D. does include a gas $tation. Borkon suggested that Scheme C may not be acceptable because it merely Ire-routes traffic and changes the complexion of Old Market Road. She said Byerly'~ is probably not a good idea because of the increased traffic coming to the neigh~orhoods. She indicated there are a number of issues and matters to go over. ! Malam indicated that it must be recognized that something of a commbrcial nature will be in the development. He felt personally that a Byerly's would be preferred over a strip mall. He also had concerns about the traffic study, noise and frime generated by a project of this size. He indicated the need to resolve all the issu~s to achieve the best possible use of the property. I I I Rosenberger questioned the extent of lighting associated with th~ development. McHale indicated it would be at a "moonlight" level. Rosenberger qU1tioned whether the design of the intersection can handle the traffic and suggested t at it be studied further. He asked about the number of employees expected to b working in the development, questioned the adequacy of parking and where overflow parking would be provided. He also questioned the number of semi trailers and delivery trucks that would be coming into the complex on a regular basis. Furth~r, Rosenberger questioned the Developer's financing for the project and requested inl' ormation on the financial status of the existing approved developer (Springstod) and asked what the financial exposure to the City would be if the strip mall does not go in. He questioned the status of the current ownership of the property and asked who would be responsible for management of the complex including capital improyements. ! Leslie requested comparative tax base information for the current pl~n and the Ryan 12 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 13 proposal. She asked about the ownership of Outlot A and who is re~ponSible for its maintenance. Leslie referred to letters received by the Council and C mmission from concerned citizens. She expressed concern about the area with a narr w buffer zone. Leslie requested further study and information and documentation 0 the noise that would be generated by the proposed complex. ! It was noted that a decision on MSA funding for roads can't be obtain~d until a formal plan is provided to MNDOT for its review before making that decision. I The developer is also required to provide MNDOT with its preliminary plan for revier' Benson expressed his concern regarding the cut-through traffic and e~pressed doubt over the viability of Scheme C. He also stated that this proposal is a!long way from what was approved in 1984/1991 and not what he had in mind for thf development. Leslie referred to the issue of ponding as described in a letter from ROr R. and Dee L. Johnson. Nielsen noted that the City is in litigation over this matter.! ! Borkon supported the idea of neighborhood meetings for discustion, improved relationships and problem solving. i i Rosenberger thanked the residents for their participation and encOl,lraged them to state their positions supported by reasons in letters to the Planning qommission. ! i Action bv Commissi9n Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to TABLE action for two weeks on!the Waterford III-Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P .U.D. Amendmint to allow for further fact finding, information gathering and discussion by the Planni g Commission. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Benson suggested that those persons with continuing intere~t may wish to attend the next meeting and/or submit their concerns to the Planning Commission in writing. Mr. Nielsen suggested that residents watch for information about the location of the next meeting. i I 3. APPOINT LIAISON TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION FINANCIN~ TASK FORCE Council Liaison Stover briefly reviewed the Council's May 26 1992 action establishing a Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force. Its purpose is to investigate, make recommendations on, and prepare a draft policy a d ordinance to present to the City Council~ regarding fair and equitable finan ing of street reconstruction including sources from state aid funds, general reve7ue and special assessments. I , 13 . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 2, 1992 - PAGE 14 ! Stover indicated that the composition of the Task Force inclu~es a Planning Commissioner as a non-voting liaison member. Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to appoint Commissioner Ro~ert Bean to the position of non-voting liaison member representing the Planning Commission on the City's Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force. Motion passed 7/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR. None. 5. REPORTS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary I Note: Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the sUbsequen1 meeting appear as strikcouts (deletions) and underline (additions). I 14 /._ / I .- /]j _/ 1? -; .,.,. ,t..-- ". /:-- ! IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BE~OW ADDRESS REPRESENTING IV&({ f+.^-I ~--€l..f> '\ .. (.. IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BEL W ADDRESS '\ .. REPRESENTING 11 H 1~.-' .. IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW . =- -\t-17------ ii7J AI--"""'.... A ~ )t..Vr f7 yV'"""" ../ ADDRESS . r;74'5 Y M A--S "\ .. LlL Y+-. . - REPRESENTING ~.. L/ i I I I i ! I I ('" - . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992 MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTAR~ SCHOOL 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Administrator Hurm, ~Ianner Nielsen, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane and Finance Director Rol~k. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded approval of the minutes ofrthe Planning Commission's meeting of June 2, 1992, with the correction, on page ,of the name of John Maschoff, and the deletion, on page 12, paragraph 5, line 9 of the word (Springsted). Motion passed 7/0. 1. , I PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - WATERFORD III - RYAN CO~STRUCTION Applicant: Location: Ryan Construction Company 20095 State Highway 7 Chair Benson stated that at its June 2, 1992 meeting, the Commission t~bled action, for two weeks, on the Waterford 11I- Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amend~ent and P.U.D. Amendment to allow for further fact finding and information gathering and Ito provide time for staff and others to obtain answers to the questions posed by the Ipublic and the Commissioners at that meeting. Questions and Answers The questions raised at the June 2 meeting and the answers provided '/Vere presented as follows: 1. i How much buffer on the east side of project, adjoining Shady Hills1 (answered but needs clarification) Mr. Nielsen stated that the buffer area on the south side of the project is 210 feet deep (230 feet from the paved surface of the loading area to the back of the 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 2 . Muirfield Circle lots). The tree mass is reduced to 120 feet as a r~sult of grading behind the store. These dimensions would be reduced an addi~ional 70-80 feet if Old Market Road is wrapped behind the store. On the eas~ side adjoining Shady Hills, the buffer area is almost 300 feet, 50 feet of which h~s already been dedicated to the City for trail purposes. It is difficult to determine tre extent of tree cover on the east side, however, grading does not disrupt as ma~y trees there as on the south side. Again, if the Old Market Road alignment is changed, the buffer area is reduced by 70-80 feet. An inventory will be provided by the Developer to show all trees over five inches in diameter. If the project is I approved, this inventory should be reviewed and construction limits be determ ned before any grading is done. 2. How many trucks, deliveries? Mr. McHale of Ryan Construction Company stated that Byerly ~ would expect approximately 260-270 total truck trips per week with approximately 25-30 being semis. He pointed out that the store's manager would have control over the truck deliveries. ' 3. Aesthetics/appearance of building? What kind of bricks? . i McHale stated that construction would be primarily of brick. Bas~d on input from the Planning Commission, City Staff, Council and the neighbors, I Ryan is looking at adding elements and materials to give the center a more resid~ntial"old town" feeling. If the project is approved additional research and work w II be committed to this during the developmental stage. 4. Has DNR been contacted? Nielsen stated there is nothing in this project that requires DNR in~olvement. The concerns with the ponding area are under the jurisdiction of the ~innehaha Creek Watershed District. McHale stated the proposed site does notl contain a DNR protected or identified wetland. He further stated the Develqper intends to enhance the existing pond according to DNR and Watershe~ standards for sediment and erosion control. . 5. What if Byerly's decides not to go in, or leaves after 5 years? Mr. Keane stated that the City may require that the P.U.D. be ~ubject to being entered into by certain parties to the agreement. Specifically, the City may include Byerly's as a party to the P.U.D. agreement. If, however, in fivf! years Byerly's were to be acquired by another company or vacate its tenancy at ~his location, the City could not legally require that all future users be bound I to the Byerly's agreement as part of the P.U.D. i . 2 . 6. Plan for Shady Hills "alley"? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 3 Nielsen stated that when the Waterford P.U.D. was originall~ approved, it specifically precluded any direct connection to the Shady Hills neighborhood. The current "alley" is viewed primarily as a secondary ingress/egress to Shady Hills and there are no plans to upgrade it. If this project is approve~, the City may want to review those plans. 7. Can we monitor/control future tenants? Keane stated that the City may specify the types of tenants anp uses allowed within the P.U.D. However, there is no authority for the City to require a specific business as a user. 8. Peak hour traffic of day care operation? . Mr. Marshall, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., stated that the peak traffic generating hours of a day care operation correspond closely with the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the roadway network as parents drop their chil~ren off on their way to work and pick them up on their way home. A 5,000 squa~e foot day care facility will generate 78 total trips at the P.M. peak hour. I i Would the developer consider limitations on the construction, sucH as redesigning roof facade? 9. Refer to answer to question NO.3. 10. Market area of a Byerly's store? Nielsen and McHale stated that approximately 85% of Byerly's ~usiness comes from within a three mile radius. Nielsen stated that at the ShoretJood proposed location, the market area is limited by Lake Minnetonka on the north and extends to Highway 5 to the south. 11. Number of employees in proposed development? 12. McHale stated that 300-325 employees are anticipated for Byerlys with up to 1/3 of them being in the store during the peak hours. Financial feasibility of the approved development? Mr. Rolek stated that the results of his research indicate tha many lending institutions are not financing projects of this type. Those that ate still financing similar projects require the developer to be very financially Isound, have a minimum equity position in the project of 25-30%, and be liquid enough to have the ability to inject money into the project if it became necessary to do so. In . 3 . 13. Mr. Keane stated that the structure of the Tax Increment Financinb as set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement dated March 6, 1992, provides [that the City is protected from financial liability in the event that a development does not take place and the new tax increment capacity does not flow to the dIstrict. Who will own the project? Who will manage the property once d~veIOped? Who will be responsible for capital improvements? I McHale stated that Ryan Construction Company will own and ma age the project and be responsible for capital improvements. In addition, should t e maintenance of the center be unacceptable to Byerly's, Byerly's has the right t take over and maintain the common area up to its specifications and bill back he Landlord. 14. 15. How does the tax base of the proposed project compare with th tax base of the approved project? Rolek stated that the tax base of the two projects differs in th t the approved project is a mix of commercial and residential units while the pro osed project is purely commercial. Commercial development is subject to fiscal isparities under which 40% of the market value is shared with communities in t e seven-county area. The total estimated market value of the approved project is 13,027,500 and of the proposed project is $3,450,000. Total tax capacity of the a proved project is $279,585 and of the proposed project $158,700. The total tax s generated at 1992 rates are $348,500 for the approved project and $197,818 f r the proposed project. Based on Rolek's calculations, Shorewood's tax col ections on the approved project would be $56,457 and $32,047 for the prop sed project, a difference of $24,410, or 43.2%. 16. Capacity of the service road and the Old Market Road inter ection with the proposed development? Marshall stated that analysis (conducted by Barton-Aschman) of P.M. peak hour capacity and levels of service for the traffic signals at Old Marke Road and Vine Hill Road using projected future volumes for both the previ usly approved development and the proposed development and analysis of th frontage road intersection with Old Market Road for each case, shows that II intersections operate satisfactorily without significant congestion or delay. H noted that the frontage road and traffic signals have been designed to se e the volumes expected. 4 I I I Will not Increase me runoTT 10 me .Jonnson parcel. Mamer, U1~r~ ~III J,JrUUi::lUIY U~ a net decrease in runoff due to the change in the watershed bo~ndary. I Public Hearing - Continued Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. He complimen ed each person participating in the discussions of this issue and noted that it has be n a pleasure to work with everyone. He pointed out that at this continued Hearing, onl new questions or new issues not previously covered will be heard. Supplemental questions and/or remarks made by residents whose name and addresses were not recorded are as follows: - 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 8 Remarks supporting individual viewpoints were made by the Corpmissioners as follows: Rosenberger stated he supports denial for the following reasons: 1) major traffic concerns, 2) major concerns about the operations at the Shorewood ~enter and 3) an obligation to honor the P.U.D. developed through a compromise sevaral years ago. Leslie complimented the work of Mr. McHale and the staff in conn$ction with this proposal. She stated that a Byerly's was basically against the philosQphy of living in Shorewood. Residents that contacted her, for the most part, support the community's profile remaining low commercial and primarily residential. She found the development to be too large, very commercial, and threatening t~ the standards of living in Shorewood. Leslie defended the decision made for thel current P.U.D. noting that approval was based on data that was available: at the time. Acknowledging that times change, she supported the Ryan proposal ~s being a good location for a Byerly's store and that getting past the conceptual st~ge will provide opportunity for studying and working out the traffic problems. She reported that residents 'living on Smithto'.'m Road uniformly in the Smithtown JRoad area who contacted her would like to have a Byerly's in the proposed location Malam acknowledged the views of residents who contacted him regalding the traffic issue and acknowledged the matter of ethics as pointed out previousl . However, he pointed out that what has been approved previously doesn't necessa ily make it right for now as things change. He indicated that residents living south f the proposed project have said that they know something will go in there and believe that Byerly's would be a good neighbor, a class operation and probably the best that could be gotten. He expressed his appreciation for the input received from re~idents to assist in the decision- making process. ! I Hansen pointed out that few comments have been received from Iresidents living outside the perimeter of the immediate area surrounding the project. HIe reiterated his concern that a decision be made to benefit gll the residents of ShorE!wood. Benson stated that the project is too large, it will generate too much traffic and is too far a stretch from the current approved P.U.D. He agreed that Ryan qoes a good job, but stated that a Byerly's is not what is wanted in the neighborhooq. Motion passed 5/2. Leslie and Malam voted nay. The Commission's action to deny approval of the Ryan Construction Company Waterford III proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for its fi~al action. 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 9 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 3. REPORTS - None. 4. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Hansen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Note: Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequen~ meeting appear as strikeouts (deletions) and underline (additions). 9 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. Administrator Hurm attended a portion of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Borkon moved, Hansen seconded to approve the minutes of the mJeting of May 5, 1992. ! Motion passed 6/0. Bean abstained. Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to acknowledge the comprehen,ive and timely minutes provided by the Recording Secretary and to approve the iminutes of the meeting of June 16, 1992, with a correction on page 8, third paragnllph, last line to read: "She reported that residents living in the Smithtown Road areal who contacted her would like to have a Byerly's in the proposed location." Motion passed 7/0. 1. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION - LONDO/KINGHORN' Ao 0 Ii cant: Location: Tom and Karen Londo/Bob and Kathy Kinghorn 22695/22785 Murray Street Nielsen reviewed the background to the applicants' request for a simple subdivision/combination to resolve encroachment problems. The Londo$ discovered that their driveway and a "recreation area" developed by them on the west ,side of their lot, were actually on the Kinghorn lot. Options for the Londos to resolve thi$ include moving the driveway to their own property, obtaining an easement from the Kinghorns, or purchasing the approximately .23 acres from the Kinghorns. The Londlos have chosen to purchase that parcel of property. . Nielsen noted that ordinarily there would be concern over the resulting zig-zagged lot 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 2 line. However, that portion to be purchased by the Londos is not b~ildable due to drainage, topography and width; thus alleviating that concern. In addition, this lot line realignment will bring the Londo property into conformance with the! R-1 C set-back requirements. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the! conditions that any further subdivision of either of the two parcels be done by formal platting and that the resolution approving this request be recorded within 30 days of its icertification. Leslie moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council approval of the Londo/Kinghorn simple subdivision/combination at 22695/22785 Murray Street, subject to the conditions that the resolution approving this reque$t be recorded within 30 days of certification thereof and that any further subdi~ision of either parcel be accomplished by formal platting. . Motion passed 7/0. 2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A~D SETBACK VARIANCES - MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Apolicant: Minnetonka School District Location: 26350 Smithtown Road Nielsen reviewed the application for a conditional use permit and se~back variances received from Cuningham Architects, P.A., representing the MinnetonkalSchool District, to build a 19,892 square foot addition at the rear of the Minnewashta Elementary School, 26350 Smithtown Road. . The School District owns 21.37 acres. The school is located on the ea$terly 6.4 acres of the site. Nielsen pointed out that the school as it currently exists is not 'n conformance with zoning requirements. The building is only 14 feet from the east property line where the Ordinance requires a 20 foot setback; parking is located within two Ifeet of the west lot line, where 10 feet is required; and parking in front of the school is ohly 13 feet from the front property line where 50 feet is required. . Nielsen indicated the proposal would maintain the 14 foot front yard setback on the new addition due to hardship. Moving the addition 6 feet to the west could r~sult in less than ideal sized classrooms. Leaving classrooms the recommended siz~ but jogging a corridor 6 feet prevents proper supervision and visual control of the conridors. Parking would be added at the rear of the building and recreational facilities would be moved to the north requiring a 6 foot setback variance. The parking design in the front would be re-configured moving the paved surface closer to the property line. ' Staff recommends that if the northeast corner variance is granted considerable landscaping be included to screen the easterly side of the addition and the existing building. Staff recommends that in the front yard, the setback non-conformance not be increased but by re-Iocating 7 southern-most parking spaces to the rear p>arking lot, non- conformance would be decreased. This would also allow for expanding the southerly 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 3 aisle to at least 13 feet. Landscaping in the front of the building to so~en the effect of parking, but not decrease visibility, is also recommended. Signage to iclearly indicate additional parking availability at the rear of the building is recommended. Drainage problems are also a significant issue on both the east and west sides Of the site. The City Engineer recommends utilization of a pond located northwest of: the school for drainage which would also allow for treatment and discharge int<i> the wetland. Investigation of a storm sewer system routed through the pond is recommended. Nielsen noted that the plan does not include provision for trash facilitie~. In summary, Nielsen recommended that based on staff analysis, i action on the application be tabled and the architect directed to submit a revised pla~ to include the recommendations as described. I Mr. John Quiter, Vice President, AlA, and Mr. John Rahrman, AlA, cuningham Architects PA, addressed the Commission. Quiter noted the urgency in receiving lapproval of the application in that the school is scheduled to open in the Fall of 1993 a~d construction is scheduled to begin this September. He requested direction from the Commission so that when a revised proposal is presented it will be acceptable for ~pproval by the Commission. The front parking area was discussed and it was noted ~. at the intent is to maintain the current setback. It was pointed out that the rear parking area is a dead- end lot and the traffic flow is not very efficient. Therefore, it would be pr . ferable to keep the 7 parking spaces in the front. Some slight additional drainage may ~ccur, however, according to the Architects, all hard surface and roof water will continllJe to follow the same contours. Regarding landscaping on the Smithtown frontage, it was pointed out that a hardship for snow removal would be created and trees would not survive there. The architects expressed concern regarding required bus turn-around! space and the safety of children. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. The following residents described the current drainage problems, expressed concern regarding additional potential drainage problems affecting their respective properties and discussed landscaping/screening needs: Ed Boltman, 5710 Grant Lorenz Tom and Denise Douglass-White, 26410 Smithtown Road Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown Road Mrs. E. Schnider, 26640 Smithtown Road Mr. Thomas Berge, Director of Business Services, Minnetonka Public SOhools, reported that a temporary access road is being considered to avoid any ifltermingling of construction traffic and the children's use of playground facilities during construction. He noted the School District has no plans to purchase additional landl along the west side of the site. Mr. Rahrman clarified that new curbing will be installed on the west side tb control run-off 3 Mr. Eugene George, Supervisor-Buildings and Grounds, Minnetonka School District, commented on the natural run-off creating a long-standing drainage problem toward Grant Lorenz. He felt that the School ought not to be considered th~ source of the problem and suggested further study of the ground water run-off issue!. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 4 . to the north. He noted that the bituminous surface will be replaced with asphalt and indicated the architects will work with the City Engineer to develop I an acceptable drainage plan. Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Borkon expressed concern about fire truck accessibility. It was noted that the entire building will be equipped with a sprinkler system. Borkon questioned' whether some parking could be eliminated and requested more specific plans for drainage. . Hansen questioned the status of the District's negotiations for additional land acquisition and inquired whether acquisition of additional land would change its current plans for the addition to Minnewashta School. He suggested that perhaps additiqnal land could alleviate the parking/traffic concerns. I Leslie expressed concern about the number of variances required, the prpposed parking situation and the drainage problems and asked that more workable so'utions to these issues be developed. In response to Malam's question regarding the plastic drain tiling, it was. noted that they will be removed and asphalt will be applied. Malam expressed concern regarding the proposed parking configuration and asked that additional work be don~ to improve the plan. . Bean questioned whether it was possible to further pursue the watersh~d issue on the east side of the site. He indicated that it appears that further study is ~eeded to solve the drainage problems. . Rosenberger expressed concern about the parking situation as it relates particularly to the safety of children. He indicated it was important to satisfy the qoncerns of the School's neighbors regarding drainage problems. He suggested that adpitional work be done to alleviate these concerns. Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to table action on the Application for Conditional Use Permit and Set-Back Variances-Minnewashta Elementary School until the Commission's July 21, 1992 meeting and directed the Applicl:ant to develop and provide detailed drainage plans developed in conjunction i with the City Engineer; a detailed landscape plan; trash handling facilities; tra"ic signage; a reconfiguration of the parking lots and parking spaces with set-back~ and perimeter . curbing consistent with Code zoning requirements. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 5 . Motion passed 7/0. Chair Benson recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:~5 p.m. 3. TRANSPORTATION POLICY DISCUSSION - METRO MOBI~ITY - JERRY HAYES Mr. Jerry Hayes, 5560 Shore Road, made an informational presentatipn regarding a problem facing Shorewood and other surrounding communities due tol Metro Mobility, a door to door transportation service for disabled persons, eliminating it~ services in all locations west of 494 because of lack of funds. He requested the City'~ assistance to develop alternative transportation sources in conjunction with the I other affected communities. . During discussion, the Commission unanimously acknowledged the i~portance and critical nature of this issue and agreed to work toward restoring this service. The Commission agreed that a representative from the Southwest Metro Traf1sit be invited to the July 21 meeting to discuss possible extension of its service to' this area and requested additional information on the 1I0pt outll option available tp communities. Nielsen indicated that this issue will be included in developmen~ of the City's Transportation Policy. i . 4. DISCUSS ORONO ORDINANCE PROHIBITING STYROFOAM POCKS Following discussion, Hansen moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the Council that the matter of an Ordinance prohibiting styrofoam doc~ be filed until such time that action may be deemed necessary and/or appropriate. Motion passed 7/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Rosenberger suggested that the Commission reiterate to the City Co~ncil its actions taken at the June 16, 1992 meeting in connection with the Waterford III - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment presented to the City by Ryan Construction Company. ! Following discussion, the Planning Commission took the following actions. Bean moved, Rosenberger seconded to clarify the Commission's r~asons it voted 7/0 at its June 16, 1992 meeting to recommend to the City Coun~i1 to leave Old Market Road as is and not change it to any of the Options present~d in the Ryan Construction Company Waterford III proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. and in particular not to change it to Scheme C: . . 1. Scheme C reduces the buffer at least the width of the road right-of-way and 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7,1992 - PAGE 6 grading. 2. Without completion of the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 inters~ction, Scheme C will have an adverse impact on the cut-through traffic pro~lem on Shady Hills Road. 3. , Scheme C is not consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Study and Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. . Scheme C creates a potential adverse impact on MNDOT funding of the Highway 7 and Old Market Road intersection and Old Marlet Road MSA status. 4. 5. Adoption of Scheme C will have impact on more homes that have direct access on Vine Hill Road than would have been impacted ~n Old Market Road. Motion passed 7/0. Bean moved, Borkon seconded to clarify to the City Council the ~ain issues the Commission took into consideration at its June 16, 1992 meeting wlien it voted 5/2 to recommend to the City Council that it deny approval of the Rya~ Construction I Company Waterford III proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D: 1. Traffic considerations. 2. Economics of development. 3. Neighborhood input. 4. Community needs. 5. Pertinence to Comprehensive Plan. 6. Land use evaluation. 7. History of developer, Ryan Construction Company. 8. History of proposed anchor tenant, Byerly's. Motion passed 7/0. In addition, Leslie agreed to make arrangements for Planning Commission representation on the agenda of the Council's July 13, 1992 meeting. 6. REPORTS - None. 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 1992 - PAGE 7 7. ADJOURNMENT Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11 :15 Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 7 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1992 COUNCIL CHAJBERS 5755 COUNTRyl CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Malam. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the me~ting of July 7, 1992. . Motion passed 6/0. . 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCES - IVIINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL . Apolicant: Location: Minnetonka School District 26350 Smithtown Road Nielsen reviewed the status of the School District's application for a onditional Use Permit and Setback Variances for Minnewashta School. He noted t at action was tabled at the Commission's July 7 meeting so the School Distric could provide additional information requested by the Commission. Nielsen stated hat, according to information provided by the District, adequate drainage of the prperty - at least for the north and west sides - is apparently feasible through use pf an old pond located in the northwest corner of the property. He described thel proposed plan noting that it must also be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. Nielsen reviewed comments and recommendations prepared by Engineer Dres~1 regarding the drainage plan. A number of concerns remain; but because the plan is incomplete in detail, more specific information is required from the School District. Nlelsen reviewed and commented on the District's revised plans for setbacks and la~. dscaping. He pointed out that parking located in the right-of-way of Smith own Road is unacceptable. Nielsen suggested action on this application be table. until adequate information and drawings are received from the School District and its architects. I 1 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 21, 1992 - PAGE 2 . Mr. Thomas Berge, Director of Business Services, Minnetonka P~blic Schools, reiterated the District's desire to remain a "good neighbor" in S~orewood. He acknowledged the continuing concern regarding drainage of the prop~rty and stated that meeting Code requirements for setbacks is difficult while try,ng to provide adequate parking. Mr. John Quiter, Vice President, Cuningham Architects PA, stated Ithat adequate space for bus turnaround in the front is necessary and the need will b~ compounded by the addition of three buses to accommodate increased enrollment. ~e commented on the Staff's landscaping recommendations pointing out that it is desir~ble that visual access through the windows be accommodated. During discussion lof the parking plan, it was pointed out that it is important to provide adequate outd10r recreational space including a ball diamond for the students. ' Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Tom Douglas-White, 26410 Smithtown Road, asked for a clarification pf the drainage plans. r Len Twetan, 26300 Smithtown 'Road, stated that, in his opinion, ade uate drainage on the east side of the property will continue to be a problem. ! ! . i I I ! The Commissioners discussed the parking, set-back variances, and dr~inage aspects of the Application and the plans developed by the School District. The 4:ommissioners considered whether it would be appropriate and/or feasible to appro~e the building addition construction portion of the Application and delay action on the other issues to a later date. Nielsen pointed out, however, that by doing so, controll over the entire Application may be compromised. The Commissioners generally agre~d that they are unable to discuss and address the feasibility of this Application at t~e present time because of the lack of required information from the Applicant and an cj>verall site plan prepared by the Applicant. . I Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to table action on the AJplication for a Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variances-Minnewashta Elemen~ry School until the Commission's August 4, 1992 meeting, and directed the Applica~t to provide an up-to-date overall site plan, documentation and information as request~d and detailed at the Commission's July 7, 1992 meeting and to address in writin~ the concerns outlined by the Staff. . Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion passed 4/2. Bean and Leslie voted nay. . The Applicant was requested to provide the documentation requested tp the City Staff by July 30 for review and distribution to the Planning Commission prior to the August 4 meeting. . 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 21, 1992 - PAGE 3 . 2. MEET WITH DIANE HARBERTS. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSITI COMMISSION -DISCUSS MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES I Mr. Jerry Hayes, 5560 Shore Road, introduced Diane Harberts, Transit Administrator for the Southwest Metro Transit System. Ms. Harberts presente~ a history of Southwest Metro, described its financing and administration and provi~ed information on its current operations and ridership. Commissioner Hansen volunt~ered to gather additional information on mass and para-transit for the Commission's fu~ure discussion on the City's Transportation Policy. Chair Benson thanked Ms. Harberts and Mr. Hayes for attending the meeting and sharing information about So~thwest Metro Transit. 3. STUDY SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TRANSPORTATI~ Hansen moved, Leslie seconded that the Planning Commission not spend any more time on the Comprehensive Plan until the Commission has a meeting with the City Council to discuss their relationship. . Motion passed 6/0. . 4. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR , Stover thanked the Commissioners for attending the Public Hearing cJducted by the City Council on July 13, 1992 regarding the Waterford III compreh~~sive Plan and P.U.D. amendments proposed by Ryan Construction Company. Sh~ informed the Commissioners about a problem with the negotiation of the Joint Pow~ns contract for police protection and service. At the Commissioners' request, Nielsen reviewed the proposed amendments drafted by the Staff to the Comprehensive Plan and P.lI.D. for the Waterfor~ complex. The Commissioners participated in a general discussion about the propose~ amendments. Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to reiterate their recommenda~ion to the City Council that the proposals for Waterford III be separated into ~o issues: 1) transportation and 2) Byerly's; and be discussed and acted upon ~eparately with transportation being considered first. Motion passed 6/0. Hansen referred to an error in the minutes of the City Council's meetirlg held on June 22, 1992. Bean referred to his July 14, 1992 letter addressed to the Mayor and City Council. The Commissioners participated in a discussion regarding cpmmunications among the City Staff, the Planning Commission and the City CounciH . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 21, 1992 - PAGE 4 . 5. REPORTS On behalf of the Planning Commission, Rosenberger thanked Commis~ioner Leslie for her presentation regarding the Waterford III proposals at the July 1 ~ City Council meeting. Rosenberger reported on the July 21 meeting of the Senio~ Services Task Force. A preliminary discussion on options for senior housing in S~orewood was conducted at th~ meeting. Members of the Task Force include s~ven residents, Planning Commission liaison Rosenberger and Council liaison Gagne. I RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 6. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. . Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services . 4 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 COUNCIL CHAalBERS 5755 COUNTR~ CLUB ROAD PAGE 1 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Borkon, Hansen, Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Bean. APPROVAL OF MINUTES i i JeSlie, Malam, Borkon moved, Hansen seconded to approve the minutes of the ~uly 21, 1992 meeting. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANIp LOT WIDTH VARIANCE Applicant: Location: Michael Schaub 5185 Shady Island Road Nielsen reviewed the background to the applicant's request. In applyirllg for a building permit to reconstruct a dwelling which burned, the applicant discov~red that the lot does not meet the requirements for a buildable lot in the R-1 B,I Single-Farmily Residential zoning district. Therefore the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to build on a substandard lakeshore lot and variances to the loti width and area requirements of the R-1 B district at 5185 Shady Island Road. ! Niel~en reviewed th~ provisions of the Ci~y Code to which th~ reque~t is su.bject and outlined the conformity and necessary variances for each reqUlrement.1 He pOinted out, however, that under an R-1C, Single Family Residential zoning, the ~pplicant would not need any variances. He noted that in 1985, the staff suggested ttlat Shady Island should be zoned R-1 C, but that residents petitioned for R-1 B zoning b$sed on concern at that time that a certain site could possibly be divided into three lotsl instead of two. Nielsen noted that currently there is interest among the residents in ha~ing the current zoning changed to R-1 C. i i I Staff considers the applicant's request to be justified and recomr1l1ends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) no part of the proposed structure, including the deck, should be closer than 20 feet from the west side of the lot or 10 feet from the 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 - PAGE 2 . east side of the lot.; 2) prior to any construction, contruction limits iand an erosion control barrier should be erected at the 50 foot setback line and spe$ial precautions should be taken to protect the large oak tree located to the south qf the proposed house; 3) any variance granted is good for one year. Mr. Schaub, the applicant, agreed with the information presented by! Nielsen. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing and called for comments. Trlere were none. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing. I . The Commissioners discussed the request noting that approving the v~riances will not set any significant precedence since the majority of the lots are prec!luded from any changes. 1 Borkon moved, Hansen seconded to recommend to the Council that1 the application of Mike Schaub, 5185 Shady Island Road, for a conditional use permit and variances for nonconforming shoreland lot be approved subject to the condition$ recommended by the staff. i I I Motion passed 6/0. 1 , I Borkon moved, Leslie seconded to accept the Shady Island Associ~tion Petition to Rezone Shady Island from R1-B to R1-C signed by 15 out of 2~ Shady Island residents presented by Commissioner Hansen and directed the staff to Iset a date, time and location for a Public Hearing. Motion passed 6/0. 2. 7: 15 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FOR PRIVATE ROAD Applicant: Location: Summit Creek Homes, Inc. 5375, 5371, and 5365 Shady Hills Circle Nielsen reviewed the proposal from Summit Creek homes to serve thtee existing lots in Shady Hills with a private road. Although the City Code allows tvro lots to share a common driveway, a private road serving three lots requires a vari~nce. Lots 5,6 and 7 are characterized by severe topography and were pla~ted in the mid- 50s. Nielsen indicated that the proposed private road is consideredi to be the best solution for providing access to the three lots. The alternative would ~e two or three . individual driveways which would result in considerably greater sit~ alteration and worse driveways than constructing the single road. Most of th+ grading for a driveway for lots 6 and 7 has been already completed. . Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the following colnditions: 1) The north end of the road be widened to 20 feet to comply with Uni~orm Fire Code 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 - PAGE 3 requirements; 2) An adequate turn-around for emergency vehicles at the south end of the road be included in the revised plan; 3) Grading and drainagj3 plan must be approved by the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed pistrict; 4) The applicant must obtain a letter from the Watershed District stating ttiat the low wet area on the property is not protected by the Wetland Conservation 4ct of 1991; 5) graded slopes must not exceed 3: 1 and the east side of the south~rly end of the driveway which exceeds this slightly should be corrected or a landscaRe plan prepared by a registered landscape architect be provided to protect the disturb$d slope; and 6) the City Attorney must approve the easement/maintenance agreementF for the private ro~. I I I Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing and called for comments. ! Mr. Gary Carlson, President, Summit Creek Homes, indicated that no problems exist with complying with the requirements imposed in granting the variance. Chair Benson closed the public hearing. Nielsen indicated that the City Engineer has reviewed the request and ~'grees with the recommendations, but has not submitted a written response due to be~ng on vacation. , , The Commissioners noted the concerns raised in a letter received from! residents living adjacent to the subject properties regarding winter driving and par~ing and water accummulation. The Commissioners noted that grading on the road ~as begun prior to receiving a permit to do so and noted that the Applicant did pay ~ double permit fee for this infraction. The Commissioners noted that in view of the n~mber of rather significant conditions placed on the request if approved, it would be prudent to have more information and documentation on the outstanding question~ and the City I Engineer's report. . I i Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to table action, for two ~eeks until the Commission's meeting on August 18, on the request of Summit Cre~k Homses for a variance for a private road. Motion passed 5/1. Hansen voted nay. The Commission recessed at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.n1. 3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO ALLOW ACCESSORY SPA~E EXCEEDING 1 200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Location: John Sjovall 5935 Galpin Lake Road Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a C.U.P. to construct a 3-car detached garage on his property at 5935 Galpin Lake Road. The garage, combined with existing 3 . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 - PAGE 4 accessory space, exceeds 1200 square feet. I I Nielsen reviewed how the applicant's request complies with zoni~g requirements noting that the proposed garage complies with all setback requirem~nts. He noted that two decks have been constructed without a building permit. St~ff recommends granting of the conditional use permit subject to the requirement t~at a steel, pole structure located on the south side of the existing garage be rem' ved within six months of issuance of a building permit for the new garage and hat decks built without permits be brought into conformance. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing and called for comments. Mr. Sjovall indicated that the upper deck constructed on his house will be completely removed and the lower one will be brought into conformance by lopping off the nonconforming portion. Chair Benson closed the public hearing. i i Hansen moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the co~ncil that John Sjovall's request for a conditional use permit to construct a 3 car arage at 5935 Galpin Lake Road be approved subject to the staff's recommendatio, s. . Motion passed 6/0. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCES - rfllNNEW ASHT A ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (Tabled from 21 July meeting) . Applicant: Location: Minnetonka School District 26350 Smithtown Road Nielsen commented on the very good job done by the School Distric and Architects in addressing the concerns raised previously in connection with this application and have submitted a Site and Landscaping Plan (revised); a Comprehensi e Site Plan, and Agreement letter dated July 27, 1992. In addition the School Engineers have submitted more detail relative to how the stormwater will be han led via the old sewage treatment lagoon located on the north half of the site. He re, iewed how the revised plans will comply with previous staff recommendations 1-8 in ithe 1 July 1992 staff report. Granting of the conditional use permit and set back variances shoulld be subject to items a.-c. in the 30 July 1992 staff report. Rosenberger moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the Council th* the conditional use permit and setback variances for Minnewashta Elementary Sc~ool be granted subject to a.) grading, drainage and erosion control plans are! subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and Watershed District; b.) 'andscaping and 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 - PAGE 5 . site improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of the sch~ol addition; c.) construction hours are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m~ weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. . Motion passed 6/0 . 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR The Commissioners discussed the agenda for their joint meeting with the Council on August 18. Suggestions are to be sent to Chair Benson no later than Friday, August 14. 6. REPORTS Hansen reported that he me:I: sDoke with Mr. Bentley regarding transportation. Stover reported on the agreement reached for police protection. Rosenberger reported on the Senior Housing meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT . Hansen moved, Leslie seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services Note: Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequent Imeeting appear as stril<couts (deletions) and underline (additions). : . 5 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1992 COUNCIL CHAJBERS 5755COUNT~CLUBROAD PAGE 1 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Hansen, Leslie, Malam, and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen an~ Administrator Hurm. Absent: Commissioner Borkon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hansen requested a correction on page 5: 6. REPORTS, first line to read: "Hansen reported that he spoke with Mr. Bentley regarding transportation." Hansen moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the 4ugust 4, 1992 meeting as corrected. . Motion passed 6/0. 1 . VARIANCE FOR PRIVATE ROAD (Tabled from August 4 Meet/119.l ADDlicant: Location: Summit Creek Homes, Inc. 5375, 5371 and 5365 Shady Hills Circle ! Nielsen reviewed two revised plans received from the Applicant! addressing the concerns outlined at the August 4 meeting. He noted that althOUllJh the revisions submitted are adequate, the Applicant has not satisfactorily addresse~ the emergency vehicle turn-around recommended at the bottom of the road. Nielsen ~tated a concept to accomplish this has been developed by staff and that plan or an adequate alternative should be included in the Applicant's final constructipn plans. The Engineer recommends the use of corrugated metal pipe culverts anp that the main driveway have a 1-2% cross slope to allow for proper drainage. Tille Attorney has reviewed the Declaration of Easements and Restrictions and finds! them in order. Nielsen noted that the Applicant submitted information on the wetlan~s issue and the wetland edge situated between the driveways of lots 5 and~ has b~en staked off. 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1992 - PAGE 2 Nielsen recommended granting the Applicant's request for a variance for a private road subject to the Engineer's recommendations; incorporation of an I adequate turn- around into the final plan and subject to the recommendations, ! if any, of the Watershed District. Mr. Ron Walsh, Attorney, representing Summit Creek Homes, Inc~, informed the Commission that the Applicant has agreed to comply with the con~tions imposed. He noted that appropriate grading and clean-up will be completed to make the area more aesthetically pleasing and an adequate emergency vehicle tur -around will be implemented. I Rosenberger asked whether construction has yet begun. Nielsen reported that clearing of the building pads and some grading has been done. He also stated ~hat the road is better than expected. Hansen questioned whether the turn-around suggested by the staff is f~asible. Nielsen reported that part of the turn-around is stubbed in, but needs to be expanded to make a 50 foot radius for a turn-around. Walsh indicated the Applican~ will adopt the suggestion made by the staff or a similar one that will provide for ~ 50 foot turn- around radius. It was noted that adequate space for snow renJoval has been provided. Leslie moved, Hansen seconded to recommend to the Council tha~ it approve the request for a variance for a private road for Summit Creek Homes, In~., 5375, 5371 and 5365 Shady Hills Road, subject to inclusion of the Engineer's reejommendations; provision of an adequate emergency vehicle turn-around; and any re~ommendations of the Watershed District. Motion passed 6/0. 2. JOINT MEETIN WITH ITY COUNCIL - DISCU COMMISSION RELATIONSHIP The Commissioners and Council Liaison Stover were joined by Mator Brancel and Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, and Lewis. . I The Commissioners and Councilmembers participated in a discussion regarding communications, the current and future relationship between the two! bodies, and the role of the Planning Commission in City government. In ad4ition, Planning Commission appointments and terms of office were discussed. It was generally agreed that future appointments to the Commission should reflect all geographic areas of Shorewood when possible; that a Planning Commission Liaison will report directly to the Council; that coordination between the two bodies with a view to the overall benefit to Shorewood was appropriate; and that an orientation session for Council, Planning and Park Commission members would be desirable. 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1992 - PAGE 3 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 4. REPORTS Bean briefly reviewed the recommendations to be presented to the I Council by the Street Reconstruction Financing Task Force which include proposeq definitions for classification of Shorewood's streets and proposed funding and asses~ment methods. The Commissioners acknowledged Nielsen's August 17,. 1992 memorandum recommending that matters referred by the Planning Commission to t e City Council will be placed on the agenda of the Council's second meetin~follOWing the Commission's meeting. This scheduling change, effective immediat Iy, is designed to improve communications between the Council and the Com ission as the Commission will have had an opportunity to review and approve its . inutes and the Council will receive the applicable minutes in their meeting packets. 5. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 3 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 COUNCIL CHA.JBERS 5755 COUNTR~1 CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansell, Malam, and Rosenberger; Planner Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Leslie. APPROVAL OF MINUTES i I minutes of the Autust 18, 1992 Malam moved, Bean seconded to approve the meeting. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1C TO L-R/VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA. BOAT SLIPS. AND SETBAC~ S Applicant: Location: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (Skip Jewett) 4580 Enchanted Point Nielsen reviewed the background to the Applicant's application for rtoning from R- 1 C, Single-family Residential to L-R, Lakeshore Recreational District, riginally made to the Planning Commission in April 1992. At that time, becaus of numerous variances required if the rezoning was approved, the Plannin Commission recommended denial of the request for rezoning. Subsequently, the City Council directed the staff to pre pare a findings of fact resolution to deny the a~Plication. The Applicants then requested the opportunity to respond to the findings of fact and attempt to resolve the issues raised therein. The Council agreed to r fer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and another pubic hearing. Nielsen indicated that the Applicant has submitted a substantial almount of new information and a petition from the membership has been received Isupporting the merits of the yacht club. Nielsen reviewed the issues which need to b, resolved. The question of whether the property is occupied by an Indian burial rround remains unresolved. According to the City Attorney, since the legisl~tion requiring investigation of alleged burial grounds does not specify any deadlinesJ it is difficult to determine when the State Archeologist l1Jay conduct the investigation~ An alternative 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 2. for expediting an investigation is for the Applicant and/or the City to hilre an approved independent archeologist to prepare the study for review by the Stat, Archeologist. Nielsen stated that any rezoning approval must be subject to resoluti9n of this issue. Nielsen stated that the Applicant's revised site plan does not sho\Jv ponding and landscaping. Other issues not resolved by the new site plan include: ~arking located 15 feet from the right of way, requiring a 35 foot variance; 2) lot Idoes not have 60000 square feet requiring a 12,200 square foot variance; 3) redu~ed number of slips - 30 to 25 - requires a variance of 6 slips; 4) proposed widenin of the road to 24 feet with Class V surface; however, Class V (gravel) does not co stitute a dust- free road surface. It would take application of sealcoating for 3-5 yea to harden the surface and eliminate the dust. Nielsen pointed out that some of the issues cannot be resolved such !as the lot area because there is not 12000 square feet of land to be added to the site. The number of slips issue can be complied with by reducing the number of slips to ~ 9, the number allowed by the Code which also reduce the parking space and avoid ne variance. If the City feels the proposal has merit the parking variance could e mitigated by substantial landscaping. If so, a detailed landscaping plan that would screen parking and the view from the lake effectively would be required. In add ion an overall grading plan would be required. In terms of width of the road, Nielsen tated the City should acquire a 10-15 feet easement for snow storage. A number of t1esidents raised concerns at the first public hearing regarding allowable activities unde1. the L-R zoning such as cooking and liquor sales. Nielsen noted that in discussing hese concerns with the City Attorney and whether or not the City can get more rest ictive than the L-R zoning sets forth, it appears difficult and probably inapprop~iate to attach conditions to the rezoning. However, statutes do provide that reasonable conditions can be attached in the granting of variances. A protective covenant [could set forth those restrictions. Nielsen pointed out however that the zoning and co enants remain with the property. Based on all of this, Nielsen stated that the Planni g Commission and the Council must decide if this is a suitable use for this site. Skip Jewett, 3546 Ivy Place, Orono, Commodore of the Lake Minneto ka Yacht Club, addressed the Commission giving a history of the yacht club. organred in 1964, it is a private non-profit organization that offers Shorewood an amenit to those who don't live on or have access to Lake Minnetonka. A primary function . f the club is to conduct a sailing school for youngsters in a safe, professional environr),ent and a club house would enhance this function. According to Jewett, the club ma~ntains a "good neighbor" policy, is crime-free, and has involved the neighborhood ~esidents when changes are considered. Jewett pointed out that as this issue has een before the Commission and Council over the years, this is the first occasion t at the alleged Indian burial mound has been brought forth and the club would also I ke to know its status as soon as possible. Jewett pointed out that the club was as essed a sewer access fee which of course, they don't use. Jewett noted that ove the years, the club has been considered a suitable use as far as Shorewood was Iconcerned and nothing has occurred to change that. The club is now asking apJl>roval to put a 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 3 . structure on the land to conform with the l-R District zoning. S~me issues are impossible to resolve, and Jewett asked the Commissioners to kee~ that in mind during their consideration of the application and reminded them that! it is to have a safe environment for a family oriented activity for lake Minnetonka ~nd Shorewood residents. Owen Nelson, the Attorney for the Yacht Club, provided additionall history of the club's property and stated that the recreational asset to the comtnunity will be enhanced by a club house. He believes appropriate buffering is provid~d. He pointed out that 25 slips would be the minimum the club could live with. Duri~g regattas, the club has parked cars at other locations such as Howard's Point and ~huttled people to the area by pontoon. He indicated that the club will widen the road! to 24 feet and snow storage should be no problem since the site is not used during ~he winter and plowing could be limited to a minimum 12 feet. In regard to the frolnt parking set- back, Nelson indicated that 15 feet is the best they can do given the amount of land. He indicated he has attempted to contact another archeologist regar<~ing the alleged Indian mound and pointed out that this issue was not raised when ~he sewer lines were trenched in. The club prefers to avoid paying an outside arch10l09ist for the research on this issue. Nelson stated that the club has no financial interest in the Spring Park area at the present time. , Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. He noted a thr~e-minute limit . for each speaker and suggested that repetitive views/statements be rvoided. larry McCormick, 26020 Birch Bluff Road, showed a video tape o~ sailing school activities and emphasized the main motivation to have a club house lis to provide a safe shelter for the students during inclement weather and to enhance training programs. I Robert Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point, stated that the road width ir.an issue. He stated that in some places the road is only 9 feet wide and emerge cy equipment such as fire trucks moving down the road are a concern when there re parked cars on the road. The road is not a collector street and is not designed tol accommodate the yacht club. He pointed out the road will have to be plowed to its 24 foot width I to accommodate mail delivery. He felt there will be a great increas~ in activity if a building is built. This is a residential area with private homes, anihe expressed concern about what happens when 25-30 extra cars drive into the ar . He reported that his son has been hit twice already. He indicated the site is too S. all, the water level is too low, and suggested that another location for the yacht club building might be a better option. He expressed concern about the possibility of a co~mercial marina in ~he location. He indicated he was against rezoning to allow a cltb house to be bUilt. ! Don Ulrick, Mound, MN, feels that the Club provides a valuable Iservice to the . community. 3 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 4 . Mark Christensen, 2645 Casco Point Rd., Mound, said he was a studert of the Yacht Club, and is now on a U.S. Sailing Team, and he has instructed at thr Club. Bruce Kobs, 28000 Woodside Road, showed slides of the property apd sailing. Scott Colesworthy, 5480 Howards Point Road, is a member of the Yacht Club and said he feels the property does not get used "that much". Thomas Walsh, 5770 Bartlett Blvd, Mound, member of Yacht Club, saikj that past use was about 10-15 boats on weekends. ' Sarah Kobs, 28000 Woodside Road, student of Yacht Club sailing sc~ool, described her sailing experience. ' John McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point, complained about amount al1ld speed of car traffic going to the Club. Dee McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point, objects to widening of the ro~d and said that her rock garden goes out to the road. . Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point, Orono, member of Yacht Club, ~eels the Club provides a community value at no expense to the taxpayers. . Jeff Tronsor, 4365 Enchanted Point, said the Yacht Club never nqtified them of neighborhood meetings. The Club property does not meet the L-R ~tandards, and feels the City knew the Yacht Club did not have 60,000 square feet when the L-R District was created. Mark Johnson, 4385 Enchanted Point, requests that the Ordinance be upheld and enforced. Dale Pixler, 4325 Enchanted Point, said he was never contacted by the Club regarding neighborhood meetings. Their large regattas create parking and trash problems, and is concerned about increase in activity with a clubhouse and a decre/3se in property values. I Jerry Grewe, 4560 Enchanted Point, is concerned about covenants ~eing broken in the future. He said the Mound Fire Chief is concerned about safet~ on Enchanted Point. Jim Thibault, 4565 Enchanted Point, highlighted the variances being ~equested, said that the proposed building is too large. He has submitted three writ~en reports (an original and two addendums) opposing the request. I . Duffy Abramson, Crane Island, Minnetrista, is a member of Yacht Club, and is concerned about the quality and safety of the existing facilities. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 5 John W. Dennis, 5665 Echo Road, a student of the Club sailing sjchool, said' he compares the use to residential and feels the Club has been a good 'leighbor. John P. Dennis, Sr., 3055 Casco Point Road, Orono, member of Yacht Club, said the building would be an improvement to the site. He said he owns "The IYacht Club" in Spring Park, and the U.L.M.Y.C. has no financial interest in it. . David Jagerson, 3016 Highland Blvd., Mound, member of Yacht ClUb! feels the Club is an amenity for the area. He said that few existing clubs comp y with zoning requirements. ! i Kathy Pechacek, 5025 Shady Island Road, is concerned about traffiq, feels the site is too small for a building, and that there is ample opportunity for inlapd residents to get on the lake. Jay Zolle, (address unknown), student of sailing school, feels the exi~ting facility is inadequate. I Leslie Dennis, said she has taught at the sailing school, and feets the existing residents knew the Yacht Club was there, and does not feel the buildi g will increase the activities. Keith Moracle, member of Yacht Club, said they have to clean up reSidfnt's brush and yard waste. The building would allow them to take better care of th ir property. Bob Hegstrom, Island View Road, said he promises to resolve the India Burial Mound I issue. The Mound Fire Chief has indicated no concerns. They are cQncerned about the safety of sailing school students. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m. and called for discussion by the Commissioners. Hansen asked what exactly is the legal responsibility regarding thel alleged Indian burial mound. He noted that the club has been there for 30 years ~nd no one has raised this question be. fore. Nielsen indicated State law requires inve~igation 0 f this matter. Hansen requested additional information on the size of th building and whether it falls in the L-R classification. Hansen asked where the roa space comes from that is necessary for widening. He expressed concern about sa ty of the road and asked why the City has not taken action to improve this narroW road. Nielsen explained that City owned property would be used to widen the road a~d that a formal petition for upgrading of the road has not been received to date. : Borkon asked if the social activities of the club would occur in the building. The club responded probably once or twice a year. Borkon asked whether schblarships are available for children. Club response indicated none are available at th~ present time. Borkon asked if classes are posted through community education. Club responded 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 6 yes. Borkon asked whether this request impacted on the C.I.P. Borkon [asked whether any action can be taken without an answer on the Indian mound. Ni~lsen indicated that nothing physically could be done at the site. Borkon asked about $pecifics of the I protective covenants. Nielsen indicated the City Attorney would ha\(e to comment on the details of the covenants. Borkon asked about garbage pickup fOf the club. Club indicated an individual does the clean-up and a dumpster has been prqvided. Borkon commented on fire department access and safety for children in the Ineighborhood. Borkon indicated concern over the number of issues and questio s that remain unresolved at the present time. Bean asked for clarification on the zoning history of the area. Malam sked whether a precedent would be set if approval were given for a club house and he l-R zoning. Nielsen stated that while parts of the allowed variances could set prec. dents, he was unsure how it would affect the other clubs since such requests /Ilave not been received from them. Hansen asked if it was the city's desire to get all three areas into t!he l-R zoning. Nielsen indicated that may have been the intent of the Ordinance. Rosrnberger asked for clarification of the tests for variances. Bean asked for clarification f the definition of hardships. I I Borkon moved, Bean seconded to table action on this request for [two weeks to I September 22, with a positive approach to working in the directionff the request with specific plans laid forth in regard to the road, its reconstruction, ho pays, how it impacts neighbors, costs, protective covenants and their guideline , utilization of the road including by the fire department, promote privacy and security for the neighbors, consideration of a smaller building and clarification of tHe ordinance in terms of the specifications of the building and its use. Motion passed 4/2. Hansen and Rosenberger voted nay. The meeting recessed at 9: 15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPA~E EXCEEDING 1200 SQUARE FEET AND SET BACK VARIANCE I Aoolicant: John Dolan [ location: 26305 Edgewood Road Nielsen reviewed the request of John Dolan for a permit to build acc~ssory space in excess of 1200 square feet and to locate a home further to the wes~ side of the lot than Ordinance allows at 26305 Edgewood Road. I Because of the soils and a stand of trees along the east side of the ~roperty, Dolan proposes shifting the building requiring a 25-1/2 foot set back variance. Nielsen detailed how the request complies with the zoning code criteria for alloWing accessory 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 7 space over 1200 square feet of area. He indicated that a set back vari$nce is justified given the soil and drainage problems existing on the site, but reCf'mmended the variance be minimized to 15 feet on the west side and 6.25 feet on he north side. In addition, the Applicant acknowledges that the requested space will ot be used for business purposes. Mr. Dolan commented briefly on the soil correction and the over-sizing [of the base for the pad of the house indicating the shifting of the house is to preserv the trees. He stated that his request for a 25.5 foot variance was to assure that t e root system of a large tree would not be disturbed. He asked about the City' responsibility regarding the street infringing into his property line. Nielsen indicat d the question would have to be deferred to the City Attorney for determination. Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Dan Freland (SP?), 2625 Edgewood Road, stated he had no problem with the I application and thought the neighborhood would not object. I Chair Benson closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and called for discussion by the Commissioners. Bean asked for clarification of the description of the accessory s~ace. Hansen expressed concern about minimizing the variance in view of the posls' . Ie disturbance of the tree root system. Nielsen indicated that while the staff was s nsitive to that possibility, the staff's concern was in setting precedent and recom nds following the specifics of the Ordinance. . Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Coiuncil that the application of John Dolan, 26305 Edgewood Road, for a C.U.P. for accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet and for a set-back variance be approve1 subject to the staff's recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. . 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLI R-1B TO R1-C Apolicant: Location: Shady Island Residents Shady Island I Commissioner Hansen clarified that he will participate in this di~cussion as a commissioner notwithstanding the fact that he is vice president of tHe Shady Island Association. He indicated the rezoning issue came to the City with the[ recent Michael Schaub variance request in connection with rebuilding a destroyed resi~ence. Hansen noted that subsequently the Association presented a petition for rezoning to the Commission. Hansen emphasized that the petition did not imply his eridorsement and 7 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 8 that he remains neutral in his opinion on rezoning. Nielsen reviewed the background to the application. In 1985, the Cif conducted a lot-size analysis in connection with a new zoning ordinance designed t classify areas to reflect existing development rather than how they were zoned. At t at time based on the analysis, it was recommended that Shady Island be zoned R-1 C, Single Family Residential, to bring them into conformity with the classification. Hqwever, zoning was changed to R1-B based largely on a petition submitted. SUbseqi' ently, another petition was submitted requesting removal of certain residents' name together with another petition requesting R1-C zoning. Nielsen stated that proper oning is in the best interests of residents to protect property values and to avoi. variances to ordinances. Nielsen recommended that Shady Island be rezoned to R-1 C Single Family I Residential to bring it into conformity. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. Gerald Goodlund, 5305 Shady Island Road, said he favors the rezonil[lg proposal. Amy Kvalseth, 4980 Shady Island Circle, said she does not feel Hans~n should vote on this issue. She opposes the rezoning because it does not fit the R-l purpose, and only 8 lots would not make the 70% area and width requirement. , Pat Pechacek, 5025 Shady Island Road, said his lot is currently nonronforming and the rezoning would provide him with the flexibility to improve his pro erty. Bonnie Kennedy, 4995 Shady Island Road, said she is concerned aboutadditionallots, and does not want the Ordinance changed for a few. Mary Goodlund, 5305 Shady Island Road, said she favors the rezonitg. Kathy Pechacek, 5025 Shady Island Road, said she is not concerned ahout the center of the Island being divided. r Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 10: 10 p.m. and called for di1. cussion by the Commissioners. Hansen indicated he would abstain from voting on this proposal. Rostnberger asked for clarification of the area referred to as the "center of the Island" and asked for information regarding the Association's government. Borkon asked fo I clarification of the number of lots that could be subdivided for re-sale and asked apout lake front access requirements and easements. Bean asked if the "center 01 the island" is buildable and whether there is any provision for disaster recov~ry under the Ordinances to replace exactly what might be lost. He supported ~he idea of the lowest density zoning. Benson indicated that it is appropriate thatl zoning should . reflect development. 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 9 Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council thft Shady Island be rezoned from R-1B to R-1C. I I Motion passed 4/1. Bean voted nay. Hansen abstained. 4. DISCUSS SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER MEETING SCHEDULES Meeting dates were set: September 22, 1992 - Study Session; Octo~er 13, 1992 - Regular Meeting; October 20, 1992 - Study Session. I 5. DISCUSS SEPTEMBER STUDY SESSION ! I Nielsen briefly reviewed the topics to be considered by the Commissior[l: Comp Plan- Transportation and Zoning Ordinance - Shoreland Management Requlirements. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Borkon commented on neighborhood relationships indicating neighborh!oodsshould be encouraged to work together. Borkon also asked about noise polluti~n ordinances. Rosenberger acknowledged a letter from a resident regarding Waterf~rd III. I I 7. REPORTS - None. 8. ADJOURNMENT I ! Bean moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.! Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 9 1--, ) w/ 9,j... f&: fAtr~~ ~~ &..w-- IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BEL W ADDRESS REPRESENTING ,,2 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 I COUNCIL CHAJBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners, Bean, Borkon, Leslie, Malam, and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; and Planner Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Hansen. , APPROVAL OF MINUTES l' Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to approve the minutes of th Commission's September 1, 1992 meeting. I . Motion passed 6/0. 1 . PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1 C TO L-RN ARIANCES FOR LQT AREA. BOAT SLIPS. AND FRONT YARD SETBACK (Tabled from Septemberl1 meeting) . Applicant: Location: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (Skip Jewett) 4580 Enchanted Point Chair Benson noted that this matter was tabled by the Commission a~ its September 1 meeting with an extensive specific motion. Nielsen read the motion: "Borkon moved, Bean seconded to tablel action on this request for two weeks to September 22, with a positive approach tq working in the direction of the request with specific plans laid forth in regard tp the road, its reconstruction, who pays, how it impacts neighbors, costs, protective covenants and their guidelines, utilization of the road including by the fire department, promote privacy and security for the neighbors, consideration of a smallEj!r building and clarification of the ordinance in terms of the specifications of the buildilng and its use." Nielsen stated that in working in the direction of the request, or)e of the ideas discussed was trying to make it more compatible with its residential s~rroundings and incorporate more restrictive requirements into the application than what the L-R zoning currently allows. The City has the authority to do so primarily due tp the variances requested, the premise being there is a distinction between a commercial operation 1 . . . 'i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 2 and a sailing club/school. Under that distinction, Nielsen stated the~ are a number of items proposed to be more restrictive than the L-R District allows1 Nielsen stated that the L-R District has a number of specific reqlJirements. He reviewed restrictions that would be in addition to, or in place of, the L-~ requirements: 1) Harboring of boats shall be limited to sailboats with the exception of one power boat used by the Club. 2) A detailed landscaping plan including site li~hting prepared by a registered landscape architect must be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Substantial landscaping and screening on the resi~ential and lake side have been recommended. 3) The club house can be no larger th$n 1500 square feet in area on the first floor. L-R District altows two stories; club proposes 2154 square feet which includes 504 square feet of storage. Code suggests separate buildings for club house and storage; however, if the City allows the space to be. combined, the storage area should be designed to accommodate lawn care equipment and supplies. 4) Prohibit retail sales or limit sale of sail boating items: to members of the club only. 5) prohibit the dispensing of gas. 6) Prohibit rental of f~shing boats. 7) Prohibit a launching ramp. 8) Limit outdoor storage including dry stOf:ge of boats to seasonal storage of dock sections, boat lifts and sail boats owned y the club and used for the sailing school. 9) With the exception of limited social gath rings restricted to club members, serving of food on the premises shall be limited to that dispensed from a vending machine. 10) Parking lot must be paved, curbed, a'nd ~triped pursuant to the City Code. Applicant has agreed to widen Encbanted Point tol24 feet with a Class V surface. Seal coating (oil-treatment) for 3-5 years would res~lt in a dust-free surface. Estimated cost of the road improvements: $5400 for Cla$s V surfacing; $1100 per year for seal coating. 11) Applicants sign plan must be a!pproved by the City Council. 12) All halyards must be secured to prevent noise. 1~) Grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City Engineer and Mi~nehaha Creek Watershed District. 14) No work of any kind may commence until such time as the State Archeologist has determined that the site is not an Indian buri,1 ground. ! Nielsen stated that a communication from the individual who wa~ scheduled to conduct the investigation on September 16 or 17 indicated th* due to time constraints is unable to do so and suggested that the yacht cl~b contact the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council for advice on how to handle th~ investigation. Although the State Archeologist has a back-log of investigation reques~s and currently is not accepting additional requests, it is advised that any archeologiqal investigation must be handled by the State Archeologist or an approved appointee. Nielsen clarified the law with regard to the Indian mound investigation stating that aqcording to City Attorney Keane, neither the City nor the developer has a "duty'j to make that investigation in terms of the law. However, if a developer goes in find does some work and it turns out to be a burial ground, it is a felony punishable under that category of law. Ramifications of this are that if it turns out it is not ~ burial ground, they are "home free," however, if it is and they have been warned t~at it may be a burial ground, it would be difficult to defend a felony charge. 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 3 At the last meeting it was suggested that the additional restrictions ~mposed on the applicant could be incorporated into protective covenants and recor1ed against the property. Nielsen stated that after review of the City Code with the City Attorney, it is considered that licensing requirements in the Code are adequate, ,nd it is perhaps preferable to incorporate the restrictions into the license. . Nielsen stated that after review of the Applicant's plan and recommenqed restrictions, the Mound Fire Marshall suggests: a) consideration of an easement Oithe yacht club parking area to enable emergen. cy vehicles to turn-around and that the turning radii on the driveways should accommodate it's longest truck, and b) smoke etectors in the building would be required tQ be wired to a monitoring station. The Fire Marshall indicated that with these improvements and the widening of Encharted Point, the proposal would be "a benefit to the residents" as well. Nielsen pointed out that the issue of the number of slips allowed remains unresolved. If the City is willing to allow more slips than authorized by the Code" it is suggested that this be accomplished by an amendment to the Code which would allow sailing/yacht clubs to have a different slip to land ratio; e.g. one slip pr' r 2000 square feet of land area. Chair Benson asked for a response from the yacht club. I I Owen Nelson, Attorney for the club, stated that regarding the Indiam burial ground, , he has contacted a number of individuals to accomplish this. He is waiting for a response regarding the availability of a Duluth archeologist to conduct the investigation. He stated that the club needs at least 25 slips. He said that when the ordinance was drafted, it may have been done with speed boats in mind, however, there is no noise from the sail boats leaving the slips. Therefore, he pointed out the actual use is substantially different than what the ordinance was t1esigned for (a marina). Nelson said if there were 19 motor boats firing up, it woultl be a different ball game entirely. Regarding the club house situation, Nelson belielved the club is within the parameters. He stated it's better to have one building with s~orage facilities and that the club is under the 2154 square feet with one building with storage right in the building itself. As far as the rest of the aspects of it, Nelson s~id the club will do everything to make a decent road in there. The club wants to 1 work with the Council. Nelson said it seems that this is something the neigh~ors should be participating in to seal coat the road. He said seal coating will be to their benefit for 12 months of the year whereas the club uses it for only 3 months. I~'s not a whole lot to ask, Nelson continued, the club will widen it, put a gravel base on it and seal coat it' for a $1000 a year. Nelson felt all should participate in that! Basically, the club can live with the restrictions. Nelson expressed appreciation fqr the efforts of everyone. The yacht club has the need for 25 slips to make it viabla and to provide the school and the educational programs; the club needs a base numijer to pay taxes and to maintain the structure and parking. 3 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 4 Chair Benson called for comments from the public at 7:20 p.m. Hel requested that only those with new information, knowledge or questions present rem~rks and identify themselves before speaking. ! Jerry Grewe, 4560 Enchanted Point, said that the only thing that sloV\Js anyone down on that road is the washboard effect. If we pay to seal coat the roadJ this will speed up people driving on that road. We cringe when the grader comes t<(> smooth it out because we know what's going to happen. To have the road oiled it not a benefit; cars, garages, homes and white carpets will be full of oil. Grewe also noted the concerns of the Fire and Safety Departments in reaching the residen. s and even the yacht club particularly if cars are parked on the road. i Lee Labore, 4445 Enchanted Point, stated he did not attend the previolJs meeting, but received a copy of the ordinance. Labore read a portion of the ordinance regarding "infringement upon the health, welfare and safety of others." Hel stated that to accommodate a 24 foot roadway, in excess of 100 trees would have ~o be removed. That cost would be staggering and in addition some condemnation pr<!>cedures would be required. He noted that according to a long time resident, ~t the time the ordinance was passed, the yacht club assured the Planning comI'SSion and the Council that there would never be a building on that site if they could et a conditional use permit for sailing purposes. He did not know if this was true or ot or what the records would show. He expressed concern that once you rezone com ercial, you can put conditions on a property, but someone else could come along an~ say they want to rent boats, etc. and put in all the things the ordinance allows. H~ spoke further about the "promise" made to Shorewood when the ordinance was passed and stated that the main concern should be of the homeowners and residents. He commented on the variances required if the application would be approved including drainage problems. Bob Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point, expressed concern over the c~st of the road improvement and stated that if there ever was an assessment to t1e residents for improving or maintaining the road, the residents would fight it on the grounds that it lowers their property values. Regarding the storage of boats, he stat d that it would be a grievous expansion of the winter time ambience of that propert~. Brent Nelson, 12585-12th Ave. No., Plymouth, stated he was confJsed in that the club is attempting to conform to the requirements and now the resid~nts are saying they don't want a wider road. Also, he pointed out the people in the yacht club are a strong part of the community and the club's contribution is a rejal asset to the neighborhood. Owen Nelson filed with the Commission a copy of a plat showing a ~4 foot road. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 5 . Leslie asked for clarification regarding the authorized persons to corjduct the burial ground investigation. Bean raised questions regarding the variances and restrictions incluqing that of the size of the building and preferred that it be smaller than proposed pecause of the impact it would create on the site. He acknowledged the value of having a building on the site. . Rosenberger asked what precedents would be set if the application were approved with the restrictions on the building imposed. Nielsen pointed out tha:the distinction is that of being a sailing club vs. a commercial marina vs. a resid ntial property. Rosenberger expressed concern over the rationale and how it would affect another application. . Leslie noted that the Zoning o.rdinance sets the guidelines. Beah asked if the restrictions can be tied to the annual renewal of licensing contingent upon violations of the restrictions. Nielsen stated that violations would have a bearin~ on the annual re-licensing. Borkon expressed concern about attaching that to the Iicfnsing approval and said this would be different from protective covenants. Nielsetstated that in some aspects, licensing is easier legally and administratively than prote tive covenants and that licensing restrictions are applied to other instances. He said iolations must be documentable and quantifiable. Borkon expressed concern aboutl the policing of such violations and suggested looking at the status of the violations to!the restrictions attached to the approval, if any, every five years. Bean requested clarification of whether there is a full 24 foot right+of-way for the road. Nielsen said it appears to be adequate and noted that the narrowest portion of Enchanted Point is 24 feet according to available information. Bean requested verification of the conditions attached at the time 1he C.U.P. was approved. Nielsen reviewed the C.U.P and noted that the C.U.P. does not allow construction or use of a building on the site. Bean asked if the ordina~ce provided for recourse that would lead to revocation of the C.U.P. Nielsen stated t~at a C.U.P. can be revoked. In response to Bean's question regarding inclusion of a drainage plan~ Nielsen stated that a plan submitted earlier did include such a plan and indicated that all plans need to be combined into a final detailed site plan that woulo include pondi~g, storm water treatment etc. . Bean asked what the City was prepared to deal with in regard to the Indian burial grounds. Rosenberger expressed mixed feelings noting that this is t~e first time the burial ground issue has arisen desoite substantial develooment in the ajrea, that he has a respect for cultures and although no action is required legally, there is a moral obligation to follow through to see its status verified and resolved. The Commission members agreed that because there are approved individuals that can accomplish this 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 6 . verification, the issue should be resolved. The cost will be approxilmately $2000. Owen Nelson of the club agreed that the issue should be resolved. Malam expressed concern about the conditions attached to the variance. He supported amending the Code to specifically address yacht and sailing clubs vs. tommercial use and noted that enforcement would be easier under an amended Cod~. In regard to the size of the building, Malam stated if the site size is a certain Ipercent of the required 60,000 square feet, then the building size should reflect a $imilar percent. This provision could be included in revision of the Code. Malam indicated that the L-R district is perhaps too broad in scope and should be refined to m*e distinctions between what activities are allowed under commercial and yacht/saili g club. Nielsen stated that Howards Point has had problems with the L-R in attempti g to do things they have wanted to do at their site, however the L-R zoning was de$igned with the various settings in mind. . Leslie said there should be more "carte blanc" in the ordinance. Benson commented on the history of the zoning and agreed that there should be two sepa~ate distinctions given the number of restrictions that would be attached to this application and an amended ordinance would separate commercial vs yacht/sailing more ~Iearly. Benson stated this would lock down the use and it would not be transferabl~ and preferred to see this accomplished within an ordinance. Nielsen stated that Iicersing is a major part of the L-R district and that the restrictions imposed on this application are all based on the distinction between a commercial vs. a sailing club. Nielsen stated he was not sure what amending the ordinance would Igain over what attaching restrictions to the license does. Borkon asked how amending the ordinance would impact the yacht club. Nielsen responded they would have to Iwait to see the results of that process. Benson asked for clarification on the parking to slips ratio. Nielsen stated that does not require a variance since that is a requirement the club can comply with even I though the club says it can't. He indicated that an amended Cod~ could include allowing a sailing club to have a different ratio of slips to land area. However, Nielsen expressed discomfort in amending tho Code granting a variance for thi$. Leslie agreed that having a separate ordinance for a sailing club is not necessary SInce the control remains with the City in the annual licensing renewal process. I Rosenberger questioned the logistics of addressing a revision to thel Code. Nielsen stated a Public Hearing would be held in November and it would go to the Council probably at its first meeting in December. . Rosenberger asked for clarification on the tests for getting a variance.1 Nielsen stated according to the Code, the applicant has to demonstrate that some Ihardship exists and it prevents them from making reasonable use of their property. The hardship cannot be financial, cannot be something brought upon the applican~ by themselves and cannot be something that changes the essential character of the area. 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 7 Rosenberger asked for clarification of the restriction of 19 slips. Niel$en stated that there is no physical characteristic of the site that prevents them from ~aving 19 slips and that their need for 25 slips is financial, whereas the physical size ahd shape of the site precludes them from meeting the parking requirement. Nielsen st~ted that if it is reasonable to allow a lesser slip to land area ratio because of the sailling club then it would be appropriate to amend the ordinance since the current ordin~nce addresses all boats not just sail boats. Bean stated that modifying the ordinance relative to different types of activity would eliminate the need for variances. He was inclined to continue the aqtivity if control can be retained to meet their needs and the needs of the City. Nielsenl stated that the restrictions being considered as part of the variance do what we want Ithem to do and he wouldn't recommend amending the Code to accommodate the parking set back variance. Nielsen said the variances in this Application are: parking,! the number of slips, and lot size. Bean reviewed the restrictions that appear to be attached to thi$ application if approved. Bean expressed concern over the terms of the original C.~.P. noting that the site would be in non-compliance with this application. Borkon indlicated she was not sure that it was necessary to amend the ordinance and did not .~gree with the licensing and it's related policing yet did not want to deny the club its r quest. Nielsen pointed out that the Club has accepted the restrictions and have been ensitive to the neighbors concerns. He noted also that if the property were sold, !the restrictions would remain intact. Borkon stated she disagreed with the approach ~f amending the Code. Rosenberger stated that it appears necessary to revise the code and to get the neighbors "on board". The Commissioners agreed that all issues sholuld be resolved before action is taken on this Application. Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Counqil that a public hearing be held to consider an amendment to the City Code that w~uld change the slip to land ratio. . Motion passed 4/1. Bean voted nay. Borkon abstained. Bean moved, Leslie seconded to table action on this matter to November 17 pending resolution of the Ordinance. Motion passed 5/0. Borkon abstained. The Commission meeting recessed at 8:40 pm. Chair Benson reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. 2. STUDY SESSION - Zoning Ordinance - Shoreland Management Requirements 7 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 8 Nielsen explained that the City is required to adopt shoreland managentlent regulations that are consistent with the DNR's shoreland management regula~ions which are generally designed to preserve shoreland as natural as possible. The cities of Lake Minnetonka combined to develop such regulations for Lake Minnetonka several years ago so they could request flexibility from DNR on some of their requirements. Shorewood was requested several years ago to develop such regul~tions which in most cases are considerably more restrictive than those of the st~te. He stated, however, that there are some technical amendments required, som~ clarification of the Ordinance and some issues that impact development of shorel~nd property in Shorewood. Nielsen reviewed the areas to be addressed for amendment inclu~ing: 1) update definitions, 2) bluff/steep slope protection, 3) height requirements, 4) allowable encroachments, 5), clarify shoreland alteration requirements, i.e. gfading and tree cutting, and 7) lot coverage requirements - 30% currently, 25 % proposed. Nielsen indicated that the proposed changes will apply to all Of the lakes in Shorewood so that all regulations will be consistent, with the exceptioln of lot size and set back requirements which are separate for each classification of tpe of lake. Nielsen reviewed the various lake classifications and the applicable re$trictions which have to do with the character of the lake and the type of develo~ment desirable surrounding the particular lake and explained Shorewood's compliarce with those restrictions. Nielsen reviewed the regulations, explained the applicability to Shorjewood and the necessary revisions proposed to bring the City's Ordinance into compliance with the state and L.M.C.D. regulations. The Commissioners discussed the proposed amendments and agree with Nielsen's recommendations to bring Shorewood's shoreland management egulations into compliance with the prescribed regulations. Nielsen noted that a prop sed Ordinance will be brought to the Planning Commission and a public hearing will be scheduled. The amended ordinance must be adopted by December 10, 1992. - Comp Plan - Transportation - rescheduled to another meetin~. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 4. REPORTS Stover reported on actions taken by the City Council at it's September 14 meeting including: approved re-zoning of Shady Island from R-1 B to R-1 C; app~oved C.U.P and variances for John Dolan; approved assessment of delinquent utility bills and City and property clean-up charges; approved a preliminary tax levy; discus$ed avenues of recourse against the 40% increase in the service charge assessed td Shorewood by 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 22, 1992 - PAGE 9 the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. It was noted that an Open House is scheduled at the new Public WGlrks building on October 19. I 4. ADJOURNMENT Bean moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services Note: Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequent meeting appear as stril<couts (deletions) and underline (additions). 9 I I II CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 13, 1992 COUNCIL CHA.J.BERS 5755 COUNTR~' CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL , i ! Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam, and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; and Planner Nielseh. Present for a portion of the meeting were Administrator Hurm and El1gineer Dresel. Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded to approve the minutes of th Commission's September 22, 1992 minutes with corrections requested by Rosenb rger on page 5, 2nd and 8th paragraphs and on page 6, 4th paragraph. Motion passed 7/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SEASON'S p.U.D. Apolicant: Location: Pete Boyer Construction Inc. 20095 Excelsior Boulevard I Nielsen reviewed the Applicant's request for approval of the concepti stage plan of a planned unit development consisting of a 24 unit elderly housing proj~ct to be located at 20095 Excelsior Boulevard. The 4.2 acre property is zoned R-2A, $ingle and Two- Family Residential. The projeEt consists of 12 two-family buildings, $ix of which are accessed from Excelsior Boulevard and six accessed from the north Iservice road of Highway 7. The internal circulation system is proposed to be privately owned and maintained. · Nielsen reviewed the elderly housing requirements of the City Codle and how the proposed P.U.D. complies with the Code. He pointed out that ttl1e Code allows density increases beyond the zoning allowances for projects limited ~o residents 62 years of age or older. Nielsen reported that the Senior Housil1g Task Force recommends that the Code be amended to allow medical assistants r~gardless of age in the project. In general the proposed project meets or exc~eds the Code requirements. 1 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 2 Nielsen reviewed the issues and recommendations related to the site apd design of the proposed development including: 1) Building separation and setbackr. floor plans for units 1-2, 3-4 and 19-20 should provide space for future decks an lor patios and additional spacing be provided between buildings. 2) Circulation an . parking: guest parking be provided and 20 feet of space be provided in front qf each garage, driveways should be at least 22 feet wide and emergency vehicle ac~ess be subject to recommendations of the Engineer and Fire Marshall. 3) Landscajping/screening: Department of Transportation approval required for construction of t~e 10 foot high earth berm proposed along the south side of the site. Submission of a detailed landscaping plan. 4) Drainage: Replacement of a deteriorated storm s~' wer traversing the site from south to north should be addressed by the Enginee and proposed relocation and capacity of the ponding area must be subject to the pproval of the Watershed District (and other agencies if necessary) and the En ineer. 5) Park dedication fees: The City should consider negotiating a lower fee to encourage senior housing. 6) Local sanitary sewer access charges. The City should consIder negotiation of LSSAC charges. 7) City water available to the site. The developer may request installation of City water and sewer and assess the costs to the projrct. Nielsen stated the project is consistent with the zoning reqUiremlnts for elderly housing and appears to fulfil part of the City's goal for implemen ation of senior housing. He recommended approval of the proposed concept stage plan submitted subject to the recommendations and considerations described above. Mr. Pete Boyer, the Applicant/Developer, presented the background, reviewed his research for the development relating to appropriate senior housing in Shorewood and described his concept plan. Mr. Jim Robin, Landscape Architect, detailed the two 12- unit clusters organized around loop driveways. He pointed out ithat the plans presented are a general preliminary design and acknowledged that the recommendations presented by staff are acceptable and helpful for inct;orporation into the development stage plans. Mr. Boyer reviewed discussions regar~ing St. Albans Road and Excelsior Boulevard street access. I Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. I i Mr. Larry Buesgens, 20090 Excelsior Boulevard, stated that he attended a neighborhood informational meeting conducted by Mr. Boyer. He expressed concern regarding the street access on the north side of the project. He liked ithe proposal of a two cul-de-sac idea, but expressed the possible need for a through s~reet which may add extra traffic to the neighborhood and encouraged the Planning !Commission to consider that concern. He stated that the proposal for'the berm on ttlle south side of the project closing the access to the church would add traffic to Excelsior Boulevard. Since the recent closure of a slip ramp on Highway 7 the neighbor~'lOod is already experiencing increased traffic on residential streets. Closing access t~ the church on the north side would increase traffic. Buesgens stated drivers don't drive 30 miles per hour, particularly during the summer the speed is 50 miles per hour. He indicated that serious consideration must be given to reducing the traffic spe~d on Excelsior 2 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 3 i Boulevard. Regarding the landscaping on the north side, Buesgens ~elt that leaving the existing landscaping was a favorable move. Since the roof line bf the buildings is not known at the present time and trend being toward steep rfOfS, Buesgens encouraged a more flat roof line. Buesgens indicated he has spoke with the City Engineer regarding drainage and noted that his property is on the receiving end of the drainage system. His property has sustained considerable dama e already and Buesgens suggested that this problem should be addressed in conjupction with this project. He encouraged returning the south side of Excelsior Bouleva d to R 1 zoning so that residents don't have to worry about future development on t e south side of, Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 7. The water hook up is a concern in that because he lives in the neighborhood, he may be asked to hook up to the City ystem and that is currently not his wish. Buesgens expressed concern regarding t e 33% density expansion with a potential of adding 48 cars and 72 dogs to the neighborhood. Street lights are a concern in that currently they are at a low level and Buesgens indicated he would not be in favor of additional lighting particularly during the night hours. Buesgens expressed concern regarding the length of the Jl>roject and the related construction noise, dust and the general appearance of the neighborhood. He requested that construction hours be limited to 8 am-5 pm Monday thrpugh Friday and that the streets be kept clean. He indicated that with the 4-5 const uction projects in the neighborhood the City should consider re-opening the slip ra p west of the project so that construction traffic would have additional access t the area from Highway 7 to ease the traffic on Excelsior Boulevard. Dean Reison, 20030 Excelsior Boulevard, stated that he lives north of the project across the street. He reiterated the previous comments on traffio and safety of children in the neighborhood and expressed the hope that a bad traffic situation in the neighborhood is not made worse by construction of the proposed pr ject. Jim Dahl, 20115 Excelsior Boulevard, stated that he lives directly djacent to the proposed project. He had two major concerns. He indicated at th present time, funding for commercial projects is hard at best and did not want to see the project started and not completed and become an eye-sore and eventually all back on the taxpayers of Shorewood. He requested assurance that the pr~ect would be completed. He stated he was not particularly th rilled with the idea of having a house immediately next to the right-of-way.. He said he has nothing agains senior housing but expressed concern that the project not become something subsidi ed by the City. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Dresel noted that the working hours in the City are limited to 7 ~.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and that the City currently does not have mandatory requirements for City water hookup. He ~tated that the problems with the storm water issues are a concern of the City and ~dditional work should be done in this area. He pointed out that MNDot has take'l1 a very strong position in its intent to close more and more of the slip ramps off Highway 7 and is not likely to open any of those already closed. Nielsen said that alth~ugh the City is 3 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 4 not committed to opening the fourth leg of the Old Market Road inter$ection, MNDot would probably push to do so. I Hansen asked whether the drainage issue is the developer's respon~ibility. Nielsen stated that the developer is responsible for the portion within his project, but that further problems are the responsibility of the City and possibly the St~te since much of the run-off is from the highway system. Hansen encouraged resi~ents to pursue their concern with regard to re-zoning of the area with City staff ind~pendent of this particular P.U.D. request. [ I In response to Rosenberger's question, Boyer indicated that the selling price of a unit is $120,000-$130,000, based on market data. Rosenberger asked h~w much of the wetland is natural and what is artificial ponding. Dresel stated that he would work with the developer and his engineer to resolve wetland and drainage[ issues. Bean indicated that perhaps this would be called a low area that colllects water and asked if this is protected. Nielsen indicated that a very small portion iof the area has been designated a wetland by the City of Shorewood, but that und~r the Wetlands Act of 1991 a larger portion may be recognized as a wetland basi" on additional concerns. Rosenberger added that the City should be supportive of he developer's efforts with regard to the drainage issue. Rosenberger stated that he hoped the City would address the traffic!: issue and the speed on Excelsior Boulevard regardless of whether this project movels ahead or not. Malam stated that overall the proposed project is great and thanke Mr. Boyer for bringing his proposal to the Commission. He stated that he would like to see the Code modified so that at least one in each unit has to be 62 years old. Nielsen stated that this matter will be further discussed. Malam supported negotia ion of the Park dedication fees, but did not support negotiation of LSSAC fees. In eneral, Malam supported the proposal. Bean expressed concern about the traffic issues and described a nurpber of specific dangerous areas on Excelsior Boulevard and St. Albans Road. He as~ed what could be done in conjunction with this project to address these problems ~y widening the road, creating some pedestrian ways, and/or striping lanes to allevi,te the existing hazardous conditions. Nielsen indicated that striping would be the [easiest way to alleviate some conditions and stated that further study of the appropriate placement of the driveway into the project will be conducted. In regard to other problems related to Excelsior Boulevard, Nielsen stated that other possible improvements will be addressed during discussion of the Transportation section of the ComRrehensive Plan. Bean noted that in general he is opposed to striping on residential stre~ts, but striping specific sections could alleviate some traffic problems. Borkon stated that traffic is a major concern. She suggested a connection thoroughfare be added between the two clusters to provide for emergency equipment 4 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 5 and for safety for the residents. She supported the negotiation of re!ductions in the park dedication and sewer fees. I I The Commissioners discussed the various traffic concerns and gener~lIy agreed that this is a problem to be separated from the developer's proposal. they supported striping of appropriate sections of Excelsior Boulevard and St. Alba~s Road in the interests of safety and asked the staff to study the matter and take ap@ropriate action as soon as possible. The Commissioners discussed the possible negotiation of park andl sewer access charges. Nielsen described the current regulations and calculations of those charges and indicated there is room for consideration of negotiation of reducti(ms in the fees. In general, the Commissioners agreed that negotiation to reduce parkldedication and sewer access fees was appropriate to provide an incentive for the developer. Specific details of the project will be considered by the Commission in the developer's developmental stage/preliminary plat of the Season's plan. Rosenberger moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the concept stage plan of the Season's P.U.D. subject to the recommendations of the staff . Motion passed 7/0. Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to direct the staff to prepare ani amendment to the City Code to allow occupancy of care-givers under age 62 in Shor~wood's senior housing. Motion passed 7/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ~ SETBACK VARIANCE Aoolicant: Location: John Leebens 23825 Smithtown Road Nielsen reviewed the Applicant's request for a setback variance at 23825 Smithtown Road. Mr. Leebens proposes to move the old existing home to a diffe~ent position on the lot, restore it, and build a new detached garage on the west Side of the lot. Although the house would be relocated to comply with current setback requirements, the Applicant requests a 25-foot setback variance from Minnetonka Drive for the proposed garage (10 feet instead of 35 feet). Mr. Leebens cites the preservation of a stand of walnut trees located in the center of the lot as the primar~ reason for his variance request. Nielsen reviewed the criteria for consideration of variance requests. I He stated that the basic test for a variance is: Can the property be put to reasonable ljJse without the variance? According to Nielsen, the lot is large enough (nearly an acre) to locate the 5 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 6 garage to comply with setback requirements without having to move ~he house from its proposed location. Thus no hardship exists on the property i preventing its reasonable use. Nielsen pointed out that Leebens does not want to rtlove the house any further into the walnut tree stand. Nielsen described alternatives Which illustrate that the garage can be located on the lot without a variance. Nielsen indicated that there is a discrepancy between the Applicant's legal description and the platted location of Minnetonka Drive which results in a 7-8 foot gap betweenl the lot and the street right-of-way. Nielsen noted that other houses are closer to the I street than the city setback requires but that the Ordinance provides for a reduction in! setback where the adjacent structure is closer. Nielsen recommended that the variance be denied and that the Applicant build the garage within the buildable portion of the lot recognizing Minneton~a Drive as the point for determining the setback. Mr. Leebens stated that there is only one street to come in to his prqperty from and traffic people have informed him that Smithtown Road is not feasible ~or his use. He is requesting a variance from the 35 foot setback to a 10 foot setba~k in order that he can place the garage on the Minnetonka Drive side of the house, b~ck to the south lot line set back situated parallel to the house. He stated that mo~ing the house further east on the lot to comply with the 35 foot setback would result in removal or endangering several 1 00 year old walnut trees. He noted that the proj~ct involves the restoration of an 1870 homestead and the intention is to preserv~ the lot in it's original format. He indicated that alternatives presented by the staff erode the visual and aesthetic appeal of the lot. He does not want to end up with 50 feet of greenway before building of the structure. He pointed out that other houses are closer to the street than he is proposing. Mrs. Shirley Leebens pointed out that the slope of the lot precludes moving the house to another location becalilse the porches would be hung in the air making construction difficult. Nielsen pointed out that neither of the alternatives proposed by staff linvolve moving the Applicant's proposed location of the house. Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 9: 1 0 p.m. there being no comments from the public. He acknowledged receipt of a letter frorjn Mr. and Mrs. Brown regarding this request. The Commissioners discussed the various issues of the request, suggested other configurations for the lot and encouraged and commended the Applicant for the admirable nature of the project. However, based on the criteria for approving variances based on hardship, they found it imprudent to approve thel request. Nielsen pointed out that it is not the intent of the staff to tell the All>plicant how to develop his property, but the alternatives suggested by staff are only to show that reasonable use of the property can be made under existing Code reglulations. 6 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 7 Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend denial the request ofl John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road, for a setback variance. Motion passed 7/0. The meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1~00 Sa.FT. i Aoolicant: Location: Allan Larson 4320 Dellwood Lane Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request stating that Mr. Larson proposes to construct a detached garage on his property at 4320 Dellwood Lane. Since the total area of the accessory space on the property will exceed 1200 square feet, he Has requested a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code. Nielsen reviewed hcj)w the request complies with the Code's requirements. He noted that an existing ~eed restriction precludes Mr. Larson from building on the lot for 17 years. Larson has obtained approval of one of the parties holding interest and intends to buyout Ithe other party by paying off an existing contract for deed. Nielsen pointed out that ~Ithough this is a private matter between Mr. Larson and the parties who have lintere~t in the property, it should be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit Ifor the garage. Nielsen stated that the proposal is consistent with zoning requirements and recommends approval of the request subject to the staff recommendations. Mr. Larson clarified the deed restriction noting that it was intended tOlhelp the owner sell the other house. Larson stated it was done with the provision that it is at the discretion of the owner of Lot #1 and that this is a private issue. Th~ neighbor gave Larson approval and an amendment to the restrictions was written. 4irson indicated his concern is that this is not even a legal issue and that he wquld like to get underway with his project as rapidly as possible - by the end of Octqber. Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. ~here being no comments from the public. I In response to Borkon's question regarding a building permit, Nielsenlstated that the City does not enforce protective covenants unless it is a party to the covenants. Therefore a~permit and C.U.P. can be issued with a notice giver1 to Albitz, the declarant of the restriction, of the City's approval. Leslie moved, Hansen seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the request by Allan Larson, 4320 Dellwood Lane for a C.U.P. for acces$ory space over 1200 sq. ft. subject to: a) reduction of the building height to 15 feet and b) resolution of the existing deed restriction on the property including notification by certified letter to the Declarant of the City's action, prior to issuance of a building pe~mit for the new garage. 7 , I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 8 Motion passed 7/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION AND LOT AREA VARIANCE Aoolicant: Location: Joseph O'Connor 20345-47 Excelsior Boulevard Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a subdivision and lot arer.variance. Mr. O'Connor is the owner of property located at 20345-47 Excelsior Boul vard which he proposes to subdivide in order that each side of the twin home can be old separately. The City Code provides for this and is intended to encourage individu~1 ownership of such dwellings. However, Nielsen pointed out that, because of locatipn of the home on the property, the minimum unit area requirement of the R-2A zonill9 district is not achievable on Parcel B. Therefore Mr. O'Connor is requesting a lot a~ea variance for this Parcel. Nielsen reviewed how the request complies with the Code requirements. He noted that there is not adequate area for further subdivision. Nielsen recomm nded approval of the subdivision and lot area variance subject to: 1) submission of an up-to-date title opinion within 30 days for review by the City attorney, 2) provision of a conservation easement over the wetland area and drainage and utility easem nts along the southwesterly lot line and the easterly lot line,' 3) recording of the resol tion approving the subdivision along with easement/maintenance agreement, wetland conservation easement and drainage and utility easements within 30 days. Nielsen hoted that park dedication and sewer access charges are not required since no new lots are being created. Mr. O'Connor briefly commented on his request noting that he hasco~plie.d with the requests of the City and that he has a buyer for the single twin hom~. , I Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.!here being no comments from the public. Nielsen noted that there is precedence for approval of this request. I Bean moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the City Council tha1 it approve the request of Joseph O'Connor, 20345-47 Excelsior Boulevard, for a su~division and lot area variance, subject to the staff recommendations. ! Motion passed 7/0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1100 sa.FT. Aoolicant: Location: Dana George 25925 Smithtown Road 8 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 9 Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Mr. George proposes to build a deta~hed, three-car garage on his property located at 25925 Smithtown Road, and $ince the total accessory space on the property exceeds 1200 square feet in area h~ has requested a conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code. Nielsen revi~wed how the applicant's request complies with the Code requirements. He stated that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Code, is considered to be an improvement to the site, and recommended approval of the C.~.P. subject to the removal of the five existing structures by July 1, 1993. I I Mr. George stated that he intends to remove five of the existing sevin buildings on his property and construct a new garage since none of the existing buifdings are large enough to store a boat or camper. The remaining two buildings willlbe resided and used for storage. The property has been in the family for 100 years anid has historical value to the family. Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. there being no comments from the public. Bean asked whether escrow funds are required to assure removal o~' the buildings. Nielsen indicated that although this is a valid concern, he did no feel this was necessary in this case since the buildings are rather small in size, t e applicant is improving the property beyond requirements and is willing to remov the buildings. Borkon asked whether there was a "rule of thumb" to decide when esbrow funds are requested. Nielsen stated that the requirement of escrow funds is qenerally at the discretion of the City Council. I Hansen moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the City Council thalt it approve the request of Dana George, 25925 Smithtown Road, for a C.U.P. for a~cessory space over 1200 square feet without escrow subject to the staff recomme~dation that the five existing structures be removed by July 1, 1993. I Motion passed 7/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE S. SHOREL~ND DISTRICT REaUIREMENTS OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE Re-scheduled to the October 27, 1992 meeting. I i 7. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR TEMPORARY PARK SHELTER ~UILDING Apolicant: Location: City of Shorewood Manor Park I Nielsen briefly reviewed the City's request to locate a temporary shelter in the form of a house trailer for three months at Manor Park. ' 9 I I t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 10 Hurm stated that it is significant that the Council has accepted the r ~comm endation of the Planning Commission to place a priority on building a perman nt structure at Manor Park. He indicated that the warming house/picnic shelter is s heduled to be constructed in 1993 under the Park Capital Improvement Program. If a park referendum is not successful, an alternate plan has been adopte~ whereby the construction would take place in 1994. However, if park fund ba~ances meet or exceed conservative projections, Hurm stated that the building I could still be constructed in 1993. In addition, he indicated that other funding sourc~s may become available to assure that it is built in 1993. . Hurm noted that a review of the five year Capital Improvement prograr including the Park CIP is scheduled in October with the Planning Commission. ! Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m. there being no comments from the public. Hansen moved, Malam seconded to approve the C.U.P. to allow Manor Park a warming house trailer. Leslie asked why Silverwood Park gets priority over Manor Park in the ~Ians submitted for Parks in 1993. Hurm stated this was the Park Commission's priqrity: Hansen withdrew his motion. The Commissioners expressed frustration over the lack of building a permanent shelter at Manor Park in that several years in succession, the Commission has been asked to approve the temporary shelter at that location and that it appears that the construction delay continues. The Commissioners acknowledged, how~ver, that users of the park deserve a warming house. Steve Druzak of the Park Commission stated that substantial funds will be spent to complete the Silverwood Park b~fore funds will be provided at Manor Park. Hurm indicated that he was optimistic abQut the passage i of the park referendum based on a recent telephone survey. . Borkon moved, Benson seconded to recommend to the City Councillhat it approve a C.U.P. for a temporary park shelter at Manor Park for a one-year p~~riod only. Motion failed 3/4. Rosenberger, Hansen, Bean and Leslie voted nay., 8. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Aoolicant: Location: Dave Nelson 21780 Lilac Lane Nielsen reviewed the Applicant's request for a simple subdivision of ptoperty located at 21780 Lilac Lane into three lots, one of which is entirely occupie~ by designated wetland area. Nielsen noted that the lots meet or exceed the requirements of the Code and drainage and utility easements are in compliance with Code requirements. 10 I I I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 11 Nielsen stated that Shorewood's Wetland Ordinance requires that de icated wetland areas must be deeded to the City or the City must be granted conservation easement over the wetland area. If the applicant proposes to deed L t 3 to the City, an easement is not necessary. If he proposes to grant an easement, . ot 3 should be combined with one or both of the other lots. Nielsen indicated that apcording to Mr. Nelson he intends to deed Lot 3 to the City. The proposed division spllits the existing U-shaped driveway in two. If this driveway is to remain, the applicarjlt must provide an easement and maintenance agreement providing for shared use o~ the driveway. Neither of the two lots is wide enough to have two driveway FJccesses, it is recommended that the driveway be corrected to serve only Lot 1. I , Nielsen recommended that the subdivision request be approved !subject to: 1) provision of an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for revieiw by the City Attorney, 2) deeding of Lot 3 to the City as designated wetland, or cdmbining it with one or both of the other lots and if so done, a conservation eas~ment must be dedicated to the City, 3) decision on the sharing of the U-shaped [driveway with provision of a maintenance and easement agreement recorded against the property if it remains as is or if corrected to serve only Lot 1, escrow a suffic,ent amount to ensure that it wHl be corrected in 90 days, 4) payment of $750 in parkidedication fees and $1000 in local sanitary sewer accessary charges prior to receiving the resolution approving the division, and 5) recording the division within 30 days qf the Council's approval. Mr. Nelson stated that he would like to eliminate the east half of th$ driveway and add a new driveway to Lot 2. He would also like to think about ard decide later whether he will deed Lot 3 to the City. Mr. Tom Heiber, prospective buyer of Lot 2, stated that he wa~ interested in purchasing the vacant parcel of the property. He asked if the Ci~y secures the wetland area is there any park-walkway system tied into the propertY.I Nielsen stated that in some instances trail systems are added to wetland areas. Hei~er commented further on the topography of the lot stating that a number of var,ances may be required for building on the property. ' Rosenberger indicated that it is difficult for the Commission to commelnt on variances without a specific plan before them and recommended that a forljnal request be submitted to the City. Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the City ICouncil that it approve the request of Dave Nelson, 21780 Lilac Lane, for a simple subdivision subject to the staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. 9. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 11 I I ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 12 10. REPORTS I Stover reported on actions taken by the City Council at its octoJer 1 2 meeting including: discussion and approval of residents' requests for stop s'gns and street lights installation and speed control; discussion and action taken regar~ing City sewer charges by Metropolitan Waste Control Commission; denied additional fee payment to consultant; withdrawal of C.U.P. request by Skipperette; and South Lake Police speed control suggestion. Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to continue the Public Hearing - Amendment to the S. Shoreland District Requirements of the Shorewood City Codd to October 27, 1992. Motion passed 7/0. After discussion, future meeting dates of the Planning Commission for the remainder of 1992 were scheduled as follows: October 27; November 17; and November. 24- study session; and December 1. Commissioner Hansen agreed to attend the Council's October 26 meet!ng to represent the Planning Commission. 11. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11 :00 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1992 CONFERENCE ~OOM 5755 COUNTR"Y CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. . MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7: 15 p.m. ROLL CALL I . I Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger (entered the meeting at 7:55 p.m.); Council Liaison Stover and Planner Nielsen. Administrator Hurm attended al portion of the meeting. Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commilssion's October 13, 1992 minutes as amended on page 6 to move the sixth full par<<!Jgraph between full paragraphs 3 and 4. . Motion passed 6/0. REPORTS Hansen reported on actions taken by the City Council at its meeting ion October 12, 1992. The Commissioners informally discussed various issues relatetJ to parks, trails and bike and pedestrian ways, and senior citizen housing. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO THE S. SHOREL~ND DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE (continuijd from October 13, 1992) Shorewood is required to modify its shoreland management regulations to be consistent with State rules and the L.M.C.D. Management Plan for L~ke Minnetonka. For the most part, Shorewood's current requirements are already more restrictive than those of the Department of Natural Resources. Consequently, ShQrewood's Code requires far less substantive changes than most communities. Nevertheless, there are several areas of the Code which need to be amended. . Nielsen reviewed the three sections of the City Code affected bV the proposed changes: - Section 1201.02 - Definitions - Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.-Regulations Applicable to Shorelline Property - Section 1201.26 S, Shoreland District 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 2 . Nielsen reviewed each of the proposed amendments as detailed in h~s memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council dated Octobe~ 10, 1992, RE: Revised Shoreland Management Regulations. Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ithere being no comments from the public. Chair Benson recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The CommissionerS! joined the Park Commissioners for an informal gathering. Chair Benson reconvene4 the meeting at 8:15p.m. i The Commissioners discussed and considered each proposed amendment to the City's shoreland management regulations. Changes to Section 1201.26 S, Shoreland District were agreed upon to provide for consistent terminology and inclusion of a statement regarding the requirement of a building permit. Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the City Council th,t it approve the proposed Shoreland Management Regulations amendments to the City Code with changes to Section 1201.26 S, Shoreland District to include consist~nt terminology and a statement regarding the requirement of a building permit. . Motion passed 7/0. 2. STUDY SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: TRANSPORTAT,ON PLAN This item was re-scheduled to the Commission's November 24, 1992 meeting. 3. STUDY SESSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Hurm reviewed the Capital Improvement Program as contained in a <ltocument dated November 1992 (DRAFT) consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan an~ a Finance Plan for the Years 1993-1997 for the City of Shorewood. He highlighted the items in each section including: I. Introduction; II. Capital Improvement - A. Capit$llmprovement: Water, Streets, Stormwater Management, Sanitary Sewer, Public Facilities and Office Equipment, Equipment, Parks, Unscheduled Potential Projects; B. Prqject Schedules; C. Capital Improvement Funding by Source; III. Capital Finance PI$n - A. Funding Source Summary, B. Capital Improvement Budget; and IV. Appendi~. Hurm asked the Commission for its input on policy issues and objectives. . The Commission took no action on the proposed Plan and agreed to review it at its November 24 meeting. Nielsen stated that he will provide a report on the Plan for the Commissioner's consideration at that meeting. 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 27, 1992 - PAGE 3 . 4. MA TIERS FROM THE FLOOR Rosenberger suggested that the City address the issue of a maint$nance code for commercial property/facilities. Nielsen agreed to review this matter. Borkon suggested that the Commission re-address the senior housing incentives - specifically park dedication and sewer fees. 5. REPORTS - None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Bean seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 3 . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 ! ! COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Planner Nielsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Leslie seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's October 27, 1992 meeting. Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - GID~ON'S WOODS P.U.D. Aoplicant: Location: Katter Development Corporation 24590 Glen Road Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit for a proposed 18 unit, twin home (9 two family dwellings) development called ~ideon's Woods. The project is proposed for the 4.5 acre site located at 24590 Glen !Road. Since the homes are clustered on a private road system, the developer h~s requested a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. The property is zoned R-C, Residential/Commercial and is occupied by a single-family residence which has been used as office space since the early 1980s. Nielsen described the layout of the property stating that the road comes in from Glen Road with a 60' diameter turnaround in the center and a second driveway located on the north, side of the site. The floor plan of a typical unit has 1395 square feet on the main level plus a walkout lower level and a two-car garage. Nielsen stated there are a number of issues to be addressed as part' of this request. Katter Development Corporation has requested concept and development stage approval for the P.U.D. Nielsen reviewed the three stages of approval: concept, development and final. He recommended that approval be limited to cpncept approval only since additional information must be submitted and a number of issues need to be resolved. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 2 . Nielsen reviewed the proposed P.U.D. noting that it is consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan which recommends town houses for the subject ~rea at a density of 3-6 units per 40,000 square feet of area. Gideon's Wood is at thei low end of that range with 3.5 units per 40,000 square feet. ' With respect to zoning, Nielsen pointed out that the developer's plahs submitted to date are insufficient for development stage approval. Additional information is needed on landscaping and drainage. Nielsen stated that two-family dwellin$s are permitted uses in the R-C district. He indicated that some confusion about the Izoning arose at a neighborhood meeting held by the developer. The property was re-zoned from multiple family R-4 in 1980 and at that time the City Attorney stater that once the re-zoning was established it would remain and that only conditionall uses would be brought before the City for review. Nielsen indicated that an existing billboard in the northeast corner of the site is a nonconforming use of the property and must be removed. The proposed buildings comply with setback requirements at the periphery of the site. Nielsen stated, however, there does not appear to be iadequate room within the unit lots to accommodate decks, patios and screenl porches. He recommended that the unit lots be platted 10 feet deeper so that thlese features do not encroach into the common area and this would also allow for a~equate parking in front of the garages. Nielsen indicated this can be accompli~hed while still maintaining a 40-foot setback along the westerly boundary of the ~ite. Separation between buildings complies with the Zoning Code. . . Grading, drainage and utilities have been addressed by the City Engineer (Joel Dresel's letter dated November 13, 1992). Nielsen stated that the developelr's grading plan proposes significant site alteration which results in the removal of rllany trees from the property. Consideration should be given to reducing the am~unt of grading particularly in the northwest corner of the site by possibly changing tl19 building types on units 5-8 from. walkouts to full basements. Handling of site drai~age is a critical issue to area residents. Most of the drainage is conducted to a porilding area to be , constructed in the northeast corner of the site. From there drainagq is piped to the Hennepin County right-of-way trail and ultimately taken west to a Wetland area and then north to City of Tonka Bay. Detailed stormwater runoff c:alculations are necessary to ensure that the pond is adequately sized. Other drainag~ on the property runs to a ditch along Glen Road and ultimately to a wetland area. Nielsen stated that the developer has asked that City water be extended to his property. Currently, water from Shorewood is not available to the property. Nielsen indicated that the City Engineer needs to prepare a feasibility report for extension of water ~o the property; the developer should be required to escrow the estimated cost of the study in the event the project is not done, and an assessment process must be c~mpleted for the properties on the west side of County Road 19 between Smithtowri Road and Glen Road. Nielsen indicated that the feasibility report will address the possible connection of water for the property by Tonka Bay rather than Shorewood. Nielsen stated that since the road is proposed to be privately owned and maintained, it i$ suggested that the utilities within the project also be privately owned and maintained. 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 3 Nielsen stated the developer has not submitted a landscape plan fqr the property. Given the amount of site alteration shown on the developer's gr~ding plan, it is recommended that a detailed tree inventory be prepared to be use~ in determining which trees can be preserved. The landscape plan should concentrate on providing an effective buffer between the proposed development and the existing development to the west and from County Road 19. Parking and circulation, according to Nielsen, needs further considerat~on. The project is served by a private road. The fire marshall has been asked to revieW the circulation pattern to ensure that adequate space exists for emergency vehicl~s to maneuver. Although a 60 foot diameter turn-around is provided in the centerlof the project, circulation at the north end of the project is considered tight. It aRpears that cars cannot back out of units 7 and 8 without backing into the driveway$ of units 9 and 10 and vice versa. It is suggested that these buildings be separated as far as setbacks will allow to create additional space in a common area for cars to back out. It is further suggested that the additional space be used to create a pedestrian walkway for residents of the development to access the trail system dn the north side of the property. Parking spaces should be provided in front of each garage. Nielsen stated that local sanitary sewer access charges of $1,000 pelr unit and $ 750 per unit for park dedication fees will be assessed to the developer. Nielsen stated that based on analysis, it is recommended that approval be limited to the concept plan subject to the satisfactory resolution of the issues Ipresented. Fred Katter, Katter Development Corporation, introduced his partn~rs Tom Katter, Bruce Newton, and Frank Reese, Architect. Katter reviewed his corporation's experience in developing properties throughout 15-20 states over a 120 year period. Their objectives are to work with the neighborhoods in a manner ~onsistent with ordinances and to ultimately improve the community's infrastructWre as part of a development project. In developing the subject site, the propos~d plan for the wooded parcel is to retain 73 Y:z percent of the green space. Their intent is to preserve the woods as much as possible and keep the largest trees, those 9" lin diameter and 6' tall including maples, ash and oaks. Katter commended the staff r~port noting that the suggestions contained in the report enhance the project and he $upported those recommendations. Katter responded to the issues raised in the staff report. He indicated that the billboard on the property will be removed at the end of its 3-year lease. Katter endorsed the concept of a 10 foot extension at the rea~ of each lot and the minimum 40 foot setback. With respect to the grading on the westerly border of the area, Katter indicated that no grading is proposed in a 15' x 2qO' area and the market will be allowed to determine the type of unit to be built there. If walk out units are built there, a retaining wall will be constructed no closer th~n 40 feet from the site boundary to reduce the area to be graded so that a larger ~ndisturbed area can be preserved. Katter stated that the Corporation is not fully quallified to address the question of the storm water storage within the site. A preliminary review of the calculations indicated that it is necessary to double the size of the pond to 2100 3 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 4 square feet in area, 30' x 70'. To the degree it is beneficial to the neIghborhood, the Corporation will cooperate and work with the City to determine hQw much storm water should be stored and then develop the pond to meet that need. I<atter indicated he would like to have a pipe extended from the pond to the east side bf County Road 19. The association will maintain the pond. Katter described his axperience with managing similar ponds in other developments. Katter requested the extension of water to the site on the southerly side. With Shorewood's permission, Katter indicated that the City of Tonka Bay will be asked to extend water tp the site as an alternative from the east side of County Road 19. In the long range, Katter indicated it would be beneficial to bring water from Tonka Bay into the area ~s an additional alternative for water for fire protection and he would be willing to create that connection for a future loop into the area. Katter proposed a private noad and private utilities for the development, however, he indicated that the association will contract with the City for the maintenance of the utilities. The association! would be fully responsible for any repairs. With respect to the survey of trees, ~atter stated he would ask for the City's guidance in determining a "good" tree. Planting would be dedicated to the front of the units and to the west for protection of the privacy of the neighborhood. Landscaping plans will be available in the next 2-3 weeks. With respect to parking and circulation, Katter proposes to create a turn-around as a solution rather than taking out more of the trees to further separate ~he buildings. A pathway between the buildings of wood chips to discourage bicycles will be constructed to the trail. School children could still cut through usingl the path to the bus stop. Katter discussed the traffic study conducted to detetmine projected additional traffic that may result from this development. In general, Katter stated that it does not appear that a significant change in traffic or deterioration I of safety in the neighborhood will result from this development. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at .7:45 p.m. George Harrison, 24710 Amlee Road: My property abuts this projeQt. Mr. Harrison read the contents of plaques regarding the history of the subject property and pointed out that it is considered a historical site. Harrison asked that the <City look at this project with great care to save this piece of history for the ctllildren and the community. I believe that construction of this high density project onlthis small piece of property is not appropriate for the City of Shorewood. On Katter's drawing my backyard is labeled a wetland. Part of my property is low ground and there have been times it has not been flooded during dry seasons and also has been flooded during times like the super-storm and other previous times. The wetland I did not always handle the run-off, but it is a nice area for ducks and should be kept pretty much the way it is. It is an infiltration system for the lake and lets water rl.ln off the entire property. You have to go into the property to see what the current drainage is. There is a basic ridge running about where they have the proposed driveway and just about everything slopes down to my backyard and to the swamp and ()ther residents' backyards. These are not the final plans of the project. Changing the units as sold, the units will get larger and larger with decks, etc. I believe it will go over 30% of green space that is mandated within 1000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. to handle all the 4 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 5 runoff from these buildings during storms it will be necessary to exca~ate a very large part of the property to contain the water. The hard-cover surface d es not include sod and we all know during a rain storm sod does not hold water. T ere is more of a water problem than is being disclosed. I feel the density is way to~ high and he is taking advantage of the community at this point. I have had problems with flooding and don't want to have more problems just because someone wants to make money. I don't think this development is appropriate for this property. David Laura Turgeon, 24670 Amlee Road: There is an environmental a~sessment work sheet that needs to be filed for this project. This opens it up to th~ public and the Historical Society. How much of this information will be used to ba~e your decision on this development? Are Corp permits required in connection witH the wetlands? I know it is zoned for the development. During the neighborhodd meeting, the developer made the comment that he would economically discrlminate in this development and have it for people 55 years and older. Is the develqper going to do this and if so is he going to follow the Minnesota statutes for this. If 1 developed that way, it is an inappropriate structure for the area as we don't have many people 55 years and older. We have young children and families. I don't believe it's a well-mixed project. I wouldn't want anybody backing into my driveway every d~y. Don't know how he can say they will not mind. How much will the association! be able to rule what's going on in this project? Answers to these questions would be appreciated. Nielsen stated that this project does not meet the thresholds for a mandatory EA W. The developer has submitted a proposed environmental assessment yvork sheet, but the number of units proposed does not warrant an EAW. There is a process whereby if 25 people petition for it, the City can be requested to require such a work sheet. Katter stated that in light of the historical aspect of the property, an EA W was prepared and presented to the City. It is the intent of the developer !to preserve the Wealthy Apple plaque. Appropriate notification has been made to! the Minnesota Historical Society, however, there is no official approval requiremerjlt by the State. Plans are to move the plaque to the entrance to the development and enhanced by a stone monument. With respect to the home on the site, it is intende~ to either move or demolish it. Katter stated that the possibility of purchasing propert~ nearby for the purpose of moving the house has been pursued, however, detailed ndgotiations have not been completed. Katter stated that the home will be used as ~ marketing and sales office by the developer. Katter stated that the marketing progrClm will focus on individuals 55 years and older, however, there will not be any discrimination of potential occupants of the twin homes. However, the practice of economic discrimination will be used to assure that the residents are qualified in4ividuals. Katter reviewed the intentions to over-size the pond to alleviate and conta n any potential flooding problems in the neighborhood. , Nielsen stated that the State Historical Society has been contacted with regard to the significance of the property being on the national register and he will ascertain whether the property's historical significance requires an EAW. He noted that a 5 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 6 designated wetland is not located on this property. Sandy Van DerVeer, 24645 Glen Road: We are talking about 18 ~nits, that's 40 people going in and out. We have the apartment complex, I've had ~ prowler in my woods, a person stalking me. Who knows who is moving into th~ 18 units right across the street from my house. When I pull out of my driveway, I don't want to see 18 houses, I don't want to wait to get on to 19, I don't want 18 people living there or 40 or 50. I think you should take a look at what the neighbors tl1ink not just the developer. We moved here for the privacy and the character of the Imarker and the neighborhood and to get away from people. Robert Gagne, 24850 Amlee Road: A survey conducted by the City ihdicates a need for 600 senior housing units of different types such as care facilities !to single family housing in the 5-city area. We would like to see some of this i" our area and neighborhoods. With regard to water and drainage the system needs ~o be looked at. This is in the City's plan for 1993-94. Things change and the City moves on, I endorse the project. Dave Littlefield, 24775 Glen Road: I would like to emphasize the water situation. I would argue that past Planning Commissions and Councils have failed Ito deal with the problem. I have dealt with them for 15 years. It is inconceivable to put another pond in another development without a Comprehensive Plan. I want a plan for the area. My land is under some attachment for future use, I want it resolved. Don't know if a plan is coming. The other issue is 18 neighbors living on 1/4 acre lots or less. This is not consistent with what we want our neighborhood to be. If it's consistent with the zoning, then okay, but if it is not I have some questions aboult that as it is a conditional use. Water issue is a fundamental problem and this will compound the problem. There must be a plan. Nielsen reviewed the City's Capital Improvement plan scheduled for 1!995 in the Glen Road area. He noted that he was not completely aware of the problems described by Mr. Harrison, but noted that the City's intent is not to compound ~he problem but where possible try to mitigate the problems. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m. Benson commented on the City's Comprehensive Plan addressing stol1m water issues. Borkon asked whether the stormwater problem is separate from consideration of this development. Nielsen indicated the stormwater problem is up-stream from the development and the City's plan addresses that area. He noted that o/Ver-sizingofthe pond in this development will alleviate some of that problem. Borkon questioned the property's status relative to the historical registry. Nielsen indicated !that a response to the City's inquiry to the State has not been received but available information places no restrictions on this development based on its historical classification. Borkon asked for further information on the requested drain pipe ou~ of the pond on the property. Nielsen stated that the City has no plans at this tim$ to accomplish 6 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 7 that. From the Watershed District's point of view, Nielsen indicated Ithey would like the water to take as long as possible to reach Lake Minnetonka. Bor~on asked what problems arise if ponds are not maintained properly. Nielsen indicated ~nder brush and sediment would affect the flow and capacity of the pond.. Nielseln reviewed the recommended landscaping in response to Borkon's question for clari~ication. Borkon asked for the City's response to the traffic study described by Katter; Nielsen stated it has been referred to the City Engineer for review. Borkon expfressed concern regarding the space problems surrounding Units 7-12 on the propo~ed plan. Leslie indicated it appears there is space for expansion for exit and entry. ~eslie asked for clarification regarding the supplying of water to the development. K$tter stated that City water is not currently available to the development and he would like to see the City deliver water to the site. The developer would be willing to pat' more than the assessment to accelerate the City's plan to do so, but absent hat water, the developer will petition Tonka Bay to bring water to the site. The pri. ate well on the property will be used for lawn watering if possible or it will be I capped. Katter explained the need for the availability of water from both sides of ithe site for fire protection purposes. Leslie commented on the assessment costs of the other properties if Shorewood were to extend water to the site and aske~ whether they would have a choice. Katter indicated those properties woul~ pay a lesser assessment because of the developer's incentive payment for that extension. Stover noted that if 51 % of property owners petition for water, the City must provide it, and that commercial property owners can be required to hook up to City water under current policy. Leslie expressed concern regarding the parking and circulation within the development. Nielsen described the suggestions to alleviate some Of the problems which include the developer's plan for a turn-around. Bean asked folr clarification of how much green space will be removed for the turn-around. Katt~r described the turn-around which would take an additional 200 square feet of greerl space. Nielsen stated that information from the City Engineer and Fire Marshall is n~eded regarding this part of the plan. . Rosenberger asked whether litigation affected this plan and whether the storm water plan has been approved by the Watershed District. Nielsen stated he was not aware of any litigation and that the plan would be subject to the District's review and approval. He described the process whereby water would be exterided to the site. Rosenberger asked for clarification of the developer's marketing plan. Nielsen stated that this proposal was not presented as a senior housing development. In response to Rosenberger's question, Nielsen described the effect of concept st~ge approval and pointed out that such approval assures the developer that if all issue$ are adequately addressed, the 18 unit development is approved. Nielsen described tre development and final stage approval processes. Nielsen responded to Malam's request for clarification of the removal of the billboard and on the zoning of the property. In response to Bean's request, Nielsen described the zoning process. Hansen requested clarification of the historical status of the 7 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 8 property as it relates to concept stage approval of the development. Nielsen stated that issue would need to be resolved and could be attached as la condition for approval. Hansen indicated some documentation from the State sh<l>uld be required along with a description of the regulations and the developer's! response and procedure with regard to the historical aspect of the site. It was suggested that the City Attorney review and verify the historical status of the property., Bean asked for clarification of the contract between the City and Ithe association regarding maintenance of utilities and suggested that if the associa~ion is unable to comply with the contract, the development would be assessed for tne costs. Bean asked about right-of-way issues regarding County Road 19. Hansen moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the concept plan request for a Conditional Use Permit for Katter Development Corporation, Gideon's Woods, 24590 Glen Road, subject to the Planner's recommendations including a tree inventory and landscape plan; specific drainage plans with pond measurements and drainage details; approval of the fire marshall with tegard to access to the area, turn-around and internal roadways; a water resourc~ plan including payment of the cost of the related feasibility study; a completed g~ading plan; and subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney of appropriat~ clearance from the historical society. Borkon stated that since the zoning of the property permits this type G>f development, the developer should be encouraged to work with the neighborhood to provide for mutual benefits. Motion passed 7/0. The meeting at recessed at 9:10 p.m. and re-convened at 9:15 p.m~ 2. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE L-R~ LAKESHORE- RECREATIONAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHOREW<j>OD CITY CODE Nielsen stated that in September, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club for re-zoning from R-1 C plus $horeland to L-R District. They also requested variances for setbacks and proposed to build a club house facility on the property. At the last discussion, the club attem~ted to minimize the number of variances requested to the extent possible. Staff suggested that the matter of the number of slips not be addressed as a variance but as an amendment to the ordinance. The Planning Commission directed the staff to prep~re an ordinance to that effect. Nielsen stated that the proposed ordinance reduces 1he ratio of slips for sailing yacht clubs to one slip per 1900 square feet of lot area ofl the site and for all other facilities the current limitation of one slip per 2500 square f~et of lot area of the site would remain. Nielsen noted that the other matters werel tabled pending review of this. The yacht club has submitted information relative to Ithe amendment which describes out how sailing yacht clubs differ from other multiple dock facilities. 8 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 9 Chair Benson opened the public hearing at 9: 18 p.m. Bob Hegstrom, 27820 Island View Road: I am a member of the ~LMYC building committee. We appreciate the time spent on this. I think the ordinan~e and the letter we sent truly addresses the issues of how a yacht club is different froim a commercial marina. An important issue not addressed here is that the yacht club is available to all the citizens not only for those living on the lake thus making it ne~essary to have as many slips as possible for the benefit of the surrounding cOr11munities. This proposed amendment would be less dense for the area than our exi*ing conditional use permit. We appreciate your consideration. Jan Haugen, 4780 Lakeway Terrace: This issue came up twice durihg the 16 years I served on Council. The first time this came before the City, Steve 1 Fraser was the mayor. People were upset because the yacht club wanted to build ~ facility. I will be generous with my assessment with what may have occurred between then and now and say that Mr. Nelson either forgot his promise to the Councilor did not apprise the members of his promise. There was a discussion of the inumber of slips and at that time the Council compromised and allowed them to have: more slips than allowed before with the understanding that they would never return !to ask for more slips or ask for a club house. This was sometime between 1975 and ~ 977. The next time in the late '80s, they were reminded of their promise of not teturning to the Council. Twice the Councils have felt it was not appropriate to put a facility in. Originally there were no buoys or docking on the lake shore and we thought we had been generous in compromising the number of slips given the amount of land. We thought it was being used properly for the Lake Minnetonka area tesidents. Two Councils in their wisdom decided not to allow a facility to be built. I: strongly advise you to reject this change from the ordinance and strongly advise no ra-zoning and no allowance for a facility on that land. I personally think, along with a! lot of people in Shorewood, this is not appropriate use of the land. Martin Brady: I recently purchased property on Enchanted Point for quilding a house. I was told by your Planner of the fire marshall's opinion for protection of a structure that might be built there. According to the information, the road ~uld have to be widened to accommodate fire equipment. If the road is paved and widened, I would like to be assured that I won't have to pay for the cost of doing thisJ I don't believe it is proper for the yacht club to cause the removal of all my trees td get a fire truck in there. These are legitimate points for you to consider in whatever decision you make. Robert Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point: The ordinance was written primarily to fulfill some obligations related to the comprehensive plan addressing lake !access on Lake Minnetonka. Shorewood has no lake access. This ordinance was! drafted to fulfil some of those criticisms of the City to permit people to have acces$ to the lake. It was written in such a manner to be basically impossible for the yacht club to expand or have a building. Restrictions were written to not allow the Club to expand. Howards Point people assisted in the ordinance. We did not have. a definition of a 9 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 10 I yacht club and we lost a law suit related to this. The ordinance alloXed Shorewood to put the definition of a yacht club in the Code. I speak again t changing the ordinance because it was written for specific reasons to not allow the club to expand. Jim Thibault, 4565 Enchanted Point: This is a residential area. We ~re not trying to get rid of the yacht club and want them to operate as they have for the past 20 years. The problem is trying to change the zoning. No hardship has been proven to allow the variances. I think this is a round-about way to get a building there and it does not get rid of the variances. I appreciate the opportunity to comment arid want you to consider that this a residential area. We don't want it rezoned to L~R which makes it commercial. . Dee McMasters, 4530 Enchanted Point: I would like clarification; is i. true that if this rezoning were to pass does this mean it would remain and it would ndt be conditional just on this, but they could sell it as a rezoned commercial property. Nielsen stated that once it's zoned, the zoning carries with the property even though the ownership may change. Zoning does, however, carry a licensing ~equirement and any restrictions placed on it. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 9:35 p.m. Hansen stated that this ordinance is drafted for a specific interest" He expressed concern about the other two sites that could be affected by this ordinance. Hansen indicated that if the zoning ordinance is changed, various interpretations could result. Leslie stated that there are many restrictions in the L-R zoning that Howard's Point and Shorewood could not possibly comply with. Hansen indicated the change in the ordinance deals only with the slips ratio. Bean indicated there are tWo distinctions, a commercial marina and a sailing club. Hansen stated that perhaps th~ L-R zoning has been written incorrectly if the object was to bring all the sites ipto conformity. Hansen expressed concern that the ordinance has been expre$sly written to accommodate one club and does not affect the other clubs. Bor~on agreed with Hansen's concerns and asked for clarification on the implications and impact of the proposed ordinance to eliminate a variance. Nielsen noted th~t the Planning Commission recognized the need for making a distinction between a sailing yacht club and a marina. Hansen expressed additional concern about the future need to make similar accommodations for the other clubs. Benson indicated that historically there has been no limitations on what private clubs in residential di~tricts can do. Commission members discussed how each of the clubs mayor may ~ot comply with the restrictions under the L-R district. Bean reviewed the previous discussions of the Commission regarding ~his request. The alternatives were to grant the variance or to change the ordinance. B~rkon expressed concern about "spot" zoning and indicated this should be reviewecli as part of the Comp Plan. Hansen indicated that all the problems cannot be corrected by changing an ordinance. Leslie stated that this issue has been discussed serveral times and 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 11 . expressed the view that this type of ordinance goes with the zoning. Rosenberger stated that the point was to get people to comply with the zoning land provide for control over the facilities and use of the land. ! Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the City CouncU that it approve the Ordinance amending Chapter 1201 of the Shorewood City Code relating to Zoning Regulations reading in part: "At maximum .one slip per 1900 square I feet of lot area of the site for sailing yacht clubs. For all other facilities one slip per 2~OO square feet of lot area of the site." Motion passed 4/3. Hansen, Bean and Borkon voted nay. 3. PROPOSED REZONING FROM R-1CTO L-R/VARIANCES FOR L<\)T AREA, BOAT SLIPS, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK (Tabled from Septembe~ 22 meeting) Aoolicant: Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (Skip Jewett) Location: 4580 Enchanted Point Chair Benson opened a Public Hearing at 10 p.m. for any new information not heard at the public hearing held in September 1992. He noted that a number of phone calls and communications have been received regarding this issue. . A gentleman stated that the suggested oiling of the roads could be an environmental problem relative to wells in the area. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 10:03 p.m. . Bean asked whether the yacht club was willing to down-size the prQposed building. He indicated his concern about saving as many trees as possible ~nd limiting the impact of construction of a building. Nelson stated that to provide at!equate parking it was necessary to remove some trees. Hegstrom indicated the club was willing to work with the City and comply with the L-R district zoning, howevet he was unable to address the issue of down-sizing at this time. Nielsen explained that this issue could be dealt within the variances and restrictions. Bean asked fan clarification on upgrading and widening of the road. Nielsen reviewed the plans and commented on the fire marshall's recommendation for providing adequate access! for emergency equipment. Hansen expressed concern about the impact on I the residential neighborhood of paving and striping a parking lot and widening of ~he road. Leslie noted, however, that the'se are requirements of the zoning ordinande. Bean stated that nevertheless those requirements are a detriment to the neighb~rhood. Nielsen stated that appropriate landscaping could mitigate the effects of ~he parking lot. Leslie expressed concern about setting a precedent in terms of t~e other clubs. Rosenberger asked for clarification about the "promise" made notingl that he has not seen any documentation regarding this. Stover indicated that at tha1 time there was not a pro"fessional staff that would have documented the agreement. 11 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 12 Hansen moved, Bean seconded to recommend to the City Council 1hat it deny the rezoning from R-1C to L-R and variances for lot area, boat slips and fr~nt yard setback at 4580 Enchanted Point requested by the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, due to the inability of the Club to comply with the requirements. Motion failed 3/4. Malam, Benson, Leslie and Rosenberger voted na~. Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the rezoning from R-1 C to L-R and variances for lot area, boat slips and front yard setback at 4580 Enchanted Point requested by the Upper Lake Mil!'metonka Yacht Club, subject to the Planner's recommendations including: the building would be limited proportionately by the lot size under the L-R district, boat slips be restricted to one per 1900 square feet, storage space be part of the main building to accommodate lawn care equipment and supplies, prohibit retail sales entirely, harboring of boats limited to sail boats except for one motorized boat I to be used only by the club, detailed landscaping plan including site lighting prepared by a registered architect, prohibit dispensing of gas, prohibit rental of fishing boats, pr~hibit launching ramps, limit outdoor storage to seasonal items used by the sailing qlub and school, limit social gatherings to that of club members, limit the dispensing! of food to that from a vending machine, parking lot must be paved, curbed and striPled according to Code, applicant will widen Enchanted Point Road to 24' with Class 5 $urface to result in a dust-free surface, sign plan must be approved by the City Council, all halyards must be secured to prevent noise, grading and drainage plans must be approved ~y the City Engineer and the Minnetonka Water Shed District, operating !hours limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. April through October with no winter usage, no work of any kind may be commenced until the state archeologist has determined the site is not an Indian burial ground, and that these restrictions be included in the resolution approving the variances and with the license for the facilities. Bean stated he would like the club to have a facility that makes sen~e for the nature of the neighborhood and asked whether there was any way to work j:iround the road widening and paving of the parking lot. Nielsen stated that the City faces liabilities of violation of fire codes. Hansen stated he could see no undue hardship for these variances. Motion passed 4/3. Hansen, Bea'n and Borkon voted nay. 4. 8:00 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A, CHURCH IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND DEPOSIT OF FILL IN EXCESS Of 100 CU. YDS. i I Apolicant: Minnewashta Church (Vanman Construction~ Location: 26715 West 62nd Street i Nielsen reviewed the background to the applicant's request for a Iconditional use permit for a church in a residential district and fill in excess of 160 cubic yards. Vanman Construction, representing the Minnewashta Church, has submitted plans to 12 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 13 replace its existing church at 26710 West 62nd Street with a new building. The church itself is a conditional use in a residential district and is zoneld R-1 D, single- family residential and contains just over two acres of area. The ~xisting church building contains approximately 4338 square feet of floor area. It is Inonconforming with respect to the front yard setback - 18 feet rather than 30 feet. Existing parking consists of a gravel lot on the east side of the building. The new church will contain 9191 square feet of area with seating for 256 people. In addition, 1hey propose to use an engineering technique called surcharging to compact the soil Ion the building pad. The amount of fill required for this process exceeds 100 cubic yards which also requires a conditional use permit. The surcharge method of soil correction consists of stockpiling dirt, 10 feet high, in an area measuring 100' x 170' where the new church will be built. The pile remains on the site for approximately eight months compacting the soil beneath it. Alternatives to this would be piling$ or dredging in dirt. Nielsen stated that the Code contains specific conditions for churches in residential districts. He reviewed the issues to be addressed in the consideration of this request. The site plan and parking lot conform to setback requirements. Although the site plan identifies existing trees to be saved, plans for screening and landsqaping have not been proposed. A detailed landscape plan prepared by a registered landscape architect providing an adequate buffer between the proposed pal1king areas and adjoining residential property must be submitted. The landscape plal1l should include a cost estimate from which a letter of credit for 150 percent of the cost must be provided and must extend for two full growing seasons. Parking, parking stall dimensions and aisle widths shown on the site plan comply with Code requirements. The proposed circulation design and the limited weekday use provide adequate opportunity for off-street loading. Building elevations meet requirements. Plans for the 24' x 24' garage located at the rear of the building must be Provid~' d. Discussions with church representatives suggest that the existing church will re ain in use until the new one is completed. Nielsen indicated this creates a prob em in that the required parking cannot be completed until the existing building is demolished. He suggested that the church use an alternate location for services (:turing the time between the demolition of the existing building and occupancy of tne new building. The conditional use permit should clearly state that no occupancy of tthe new building, except possibly minimal office use, will be allowed until all required site improvements have been completed. Nielsen stated that the general site design will require no variancesk but that some minor issues must be.addressed. Information on site lighting should I:)e included with the detailed landscaping plan and provision for trash facilities must be Imade. Grading, drainage and erosion control, addressed by the City Engineer, requires detailed plans and stormwater run-off calculations. Nielsen noted that drainage is e~tremely critical in the vicinity of the church property. Nielsen reviewed the issues in connection with the request for a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards detailed on page 4, items 1 through 7, of his memorandum dated November 12, 1992, File No. 405 (92.27). Nie!lsen stated that 13 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 14 I I I ' in view of the information which must still be submitted by the Churctjl/Contractor for both conditional use permits as detailed on pages 5 and 6, items a. thlrough p., of his memorandum dated November 12, 1992, he recommends tabling I action on this request until the Commission's meeting on December 1, 1992. . 8afFy Carey Lyons, representing Vanman Construction, provided add iti(i)nal information on the proposed plans. In general, he stated that each of the issues ra,sed in the staff report will be addr'essed and the requested conforming information provided to the City. He explained the church's plans for parking to allow use of the existing building during the con~truction period. Actual work on the surcharge will begin in February, however, hay bales will be laid in the surcharging area as soon a, the project is approved to prevent the ground from frost. . Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 11: 1 0 p.m. A resident commented on the drainage and landscaping of the proje{J:t. Rosenberger suggested that the contractor/church may wish to considler meeting with the neighbors to inform them of the plans and to address their conc.rns. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 11: 12 p.m. Bean suggested that perhaps temporary screening in the form of stllrubs, etc. may mitigate the surcharge area. Tom Huffman, a member of the congregation in charge of the surcharge process, pointed out that 8' wells will be drilleq to hasten the surcharging process to relieve the hydrostatic pressure. Leslie questipned the timing of the surcharge process and suggested that safety of users of Cathca!rt Park be taken into consideration. Rosenberger expressed concern regarding the possible adverse limpact on the residents' wells from the surcharging process. Leslie indicated it was important to have a detailed adequate drainage plan including the ponding area given the problems in the area. Borkon requested that proposed safety measures be lincluded in the additional information to be provided. Rosenberger suggested that attention be paid to the additional heavy traffic that will occur in the area and that re$idents be given prior notice regarding this. Bean suggested that the Watershed! District and/or Hennepin County be contacted regarding the proposed removal of the berm. Borkon moved, Hansen seconded to table action until December 1, 1992 on the application of Minnewashta Church (Vanman Construction) for a C.U.P. for construction of a church in a residential district and the deposit of fill ifl excess of 100 cubic yards located at 26715 West 62nd Street. Motion passed 7/0. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 15 . 5. 8:15 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FOR SECONDA~Y DOCK ON RESIDENTIAL LAKESHORE PROPERTY I Applicant: Location: James Kesler, rep. Dorothy Smith 27940 and 27944 Smithtown Road Nielsen stated that Mr. Kesler has applied on behalf of his mother-in-law, Dorothy Smith, for a variance to allow a second dock on the property Iodated at 27940 Smithtown Road. Ms. Smith owns the lot to the east of that property and has a 20' easement down to the lake. The applicant's primary argument for the ~econdary dock is that the nonriparian property is less valuable without dock rights ~han with them. The property is zoned R-1 A, Single-Family Residential and is also subject to S, Shoreland District requirements. Both lots are occupied by homes. I . Nielsen stated that easements between property owners are private matters not regulated by the City, however the number and location of structure$ and the use of property are regulated through the Zoning Code. The Code restricts the number of docks per parcel to one and further states that the dock may only Ibe used by the residents of the property on which the dock is located. Although th~ Code provides for exceptions by 4/5 vote of the City Council, the City's policy in recent years has been to deny such requests. Nielsen stated that the policy toward I dock rights for nonriparian property has been consistently upheld and in fact the Planning Commission has recommended that the 4/5 exception be eliminated from the ICode. Nielsen reviewed the criteria for the granting of variances. He stated that thel request fails to meet any of the criteria and indicated that the request is primarily fin$ncial in nature. He noted that while the property owner previously controlled both of the subject properties the dock rights were not secured when the parcel on the lake was sold in 1976. Based on these considerations, Nielsen recommended that Ithe applicant's request for a variance be denied. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 11 :35 p.m. James Kesler: I would like to address the issues Brad went through. I In one respect, I agree with his comments. However, I think a lot of it is just weak excuses. It was the intent of the owner to subdivide the property and sell the propertyl with lake shore easements. It was the intent to resell at some time and have dockirng rights on the lake. Each case should be looked at on a case by case basis, different circumstances are involved in each case. Part of the easement that was drawn up that gives you right to walk down to the lake; another part of that is clear view easement which prevents the Alsips from expanding their home. They definitely wan~ed to be able to walk to the lake. Dorothy was always counting on the lake rights. IMarket price of the home with dock in the water is $280,000 vs.$200,000 witho~t a dock in the water. . Leonard Juster stated he was an observer. 15 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 16 Bill Pye, 27968 Smithtown Road: I don't know what their situatio~ is, but I think approving this would set a precedent. On one side of me, there's 4-~ back-lots and I would end up with several docks. This would create alleys betweeln residences to the back lots. ' Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 11 :45 p.m. Bean asked whether there was a way to draw a lot line to make a conforming lot. It appears that this was not possible. Borkon asked for clarification o~ the location of the existing docks and the easements. Rosenberger expressed toncern that a precedent would be set if this request was approved. Rosenberger moved, Hansen seconded to recommend to the City Co~ncil that it deny the request for a variance for a secondary dock on residentiallakeshor~ property made by James Kesler, representing Dorothy Smith at 27940 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 7/0. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Aoolicant: Reifenberger/Morford Location: 6130/6150 Church Road and Lot 11, Minrllewashta Nielsen reviewed the background to the applicants' request. He noted that the owners of 6130 and 6150 Church Road purchased a tax-forfeited lot between their properties. The current owners, Mark Morford and Tom Reifenberge~, are requesting approval to divide the 50-foot lot in two and combine the halves of tlhe lot with their respective homesites. Nielsen stated the division and combination arelconsistent with Shorewood's zoning requirements and will correct two non-conformities. Nielsen noted that field inspection of the site revealed significant violation ofi on-site parking and outdoor storage requirements. Vehicles and recreational equipment are scattered on both properties; these must be removed. Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 11 :55 p.m. Mark Morford stated that the vehicles and equipment will be remov~d. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 11 :58 p.m. Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the City I Council that it approve the simple subdivision/combination for Reifenberger/Morfor~, at 6130/6150 Church Road and Lot 11, Minnewashta, subject to the Planner's recommendations to be completed within 30 days including correction of the vehicle and recreational equipment violations, provision of a 10 foot drainage and utility ea$ement on each side of the new lot line, provision of an up-to-date title opinion for the shared parcel and relocation of the metal shed encroaching onto the west of the property. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 17 . Motion passed 7/0. 7. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Aoolicant: Douglas Shoutz Location: 6130 Cathcart Drive The applicant proposes to split the property located at 6130 CathcartiDrive into two, two-acre lots. With the exception of the currently nonconformin~ use due to a detached garage converted in the past to a second dwelling, the sub~ivision request is quite simple. It is recommended that the division be approve<!J subject to 1) provision of deeds for the 10 foot drainage and utility easements from all parties having an interest in the property, 2) payment of one park dedication fee and one local sanitary sewer access charge prior to release of the resolution, 3)i the converted garage must be converted back to an accessory building so that only one dwelling remains on the site or the building can be removed from the sit~ entirely; this correction must occur within six months, 4) existing shed on the prqposed property line must be removed, 5) an existing storage building on Parcel A puttilng the property in excess of 1200 square feet of accessory space be removed, 6) 60 <!lays be granted for recording the division due to the time required to make the necessary corrections, and 7) language stating the City's policy on private roads and back lot development be contained in the resolution to put future owners on notice that futther division of . the large lots require participation by other adjoining landowners. Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the simple subdivision for Douglas Shoutz at 6130 Cathcart Drive, subject Ito the Planner's recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. 8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 9. REPORTS Stover noted that Commissioner Leslie's last meeting will be on December 1 as she has submitted her resignation from the Planning Commission. Malam briefly reviewed discussions at the Park Commission meeting regarding light rail corridors. Malam will represent the Planning Commission at the Council's November 30 meeting. . 17 .. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING . - NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - PAGE 18 10. ADJOURNMENT Malam moved, Rosenberger seconded to adjourn the meeting Wednesday, November 18, 1992. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 12:10 a.m, Note: The Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequent meeting appear as strikeouts (deletions) and italics (additions). 18 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24,1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY !CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners, Bean, Borken, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger (in 7:35 'p.m.); Planner Nielsen and Engineer Dresel. Administrator Hurm attended a portion of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None. STUDY SESSION 1. REVIEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (C.I.P.l . Hurm commented briefly on the proposed City of Shorewood Capital Improvement Program, consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan and a Finance PI8!n for the Years 1993-1997, dated November 1992. He reviewed the additions and updates made since the Commissioner's previous review of the document. Nielsen indicated that after this review, the Commission is requested to recommend its acceptance to the Council as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the Capital Improvement Programs proposed for Water, Streets, Stormwater Management, Sanitary Sewer, Public Facilities and Office Equipment, and Equipment. The Commission noted' that the Park Commission is responsible for review of the Parks section of the Prpgram. Hurm, Nielsen and Dresel provided additional information as requested during Idiscussion and answered the Commissioners' questions. Bean moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the Co~ncil that the proposed Capital Improvement Program consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan and Finance Plan for the years 1993-1997 be approved as presented as it appears to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 7/0. . 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: TRANSPORTATION PLAN (continued from October 27, 1992) 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 24,1992 - PAGE 2 Nielsen indicated that the Policy Plan portion of the Transportation Plan will be available for the Commission's December 1 meeting. He referred to the material provided to the Commissioner's regarding the Municipal State Aid Road System including a summary sheet containing a proposed State Aid Road System for Shorewood sl1lowing existing and proposed street widths, estimated traffic volumes, existing and proposed roads on the system, and whether or not right of way acquisition is anticipated. Dresel described the Municipal State Aid System (MSA) set up by the I~gislature which provides financial assistance, currently 20%, for repair, re-construction and/or construction of the roadway system for cities that have a population of 5,000 or more. Shorewood reached that level two years ago. Dresel reviewed the MSA designation and eligibility rules. He reviewed Shorewood's roads currently under the System and the suggested candidates for removal and/or addition. Using visuals, Dresel described various roadway widths. Dresel pointed out that the majority of the CitYis roads are 20 years old and suggested that a systematic plan be developed to avoid having all the roads deteriorate at the same time. He stated that Cities are allowed to designate which streets are MSA as long as the System's criteria are followed. . The Commissioners discussed the staff's proposed changes and priorities to the City's MSA designated roadway system. Dresel and Nielsen responded to questions from the Commissioners. Nielsen indicated that other issues to be addressed by the Commission in addition to approving the MSA route plan include determining the design standards for non-MSA streets and determining which City streets are sub-standard. These items will be integrated into the Transportation Plan. He referred to the Attorney's, memorandum explaining that the City is exposing itself to certain liabilities by building yity Streets less in width than what the Uniform Fire Code requires. He reviewed the proposed policy prepared by the City's Street Reconstruction Task Force. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 4. REPORTS - None. 5. ADJOURNMENT Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services 2 . . .' CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1992 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRyl CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Lesli~, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover and Planner Nielsen Administrator Hurm attended a portion of the meeting. Absent: Commissioner Hansen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's meeting of November 17, 1992 with an addition on page 2, paragraph 3, 10th line: Citv of Tonka Bay.; a correction on page 5: Laura Turgeon; and a cor.ection on page 14: Carey Lyons. Motion passed 6/0. Bean and Borkon reiterated their reasons for voting against the approval of rezoning and variances requested by the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club, Agenda Item 3, of the November 17, 1992 Commission meeting. Bean stated that his concerns include the apparent adverse impact on the neighborhood of wideni~g the road and paving and striping of the proposed parking lot area as well as thelliability issues related to fire codes regulating the road and the yacht club area. Bprkon basically agreed with Bean's concerns and stated further that it represent$ a "band-aid" solution and reflected "spot-zoning" and that the matter should be ~onsidered in a broader context related to City ordinances. Leslie moved, Bean seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's meeting of November 24, 1992. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CU. YDS. Applicant: Location: Robert Balgard 26100 Smithtown Road 1 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 2 Nielsen reviewed the background of the request by Mr. Balgard for a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards on his property at 26100 Srllithtown Road. Mr. Balgard accepted fill from the Minnewashta School project not realizing that a previous grading permit he had received from the City several years a~o had expired. He has received approximately 800 cubic yards to date and would like to place an additional 200-400 yards more to correct drainage problems around tilis house. The area is somewhat sensitive in that there is a drainage pattern to t~e west of his property and a drainage problem on the east side as well. After inspection of the site, the Engineer recommends that the fill placed in the northeast area of the garage and driveway must be removed and graded and the previous drainage pattern must be restored to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The grading in the areal cannot have a slope exceeding 3: 1 and the finished grading must be approved by tlie Engineer. In addition the disturbed areas must be re-seeded next spring. Robert Balgard stated he needs additional fill to put up against his ~ouse which is located on a hill and this will not change the way the water is draining. When the house was built, the basement was 2-3 feet higher than Smithtown Rbad because of the water problems. Balgard circulated photographs of his home and parage site and described placement of the fill. Chair Benson opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. there being no comments from the public. Leslie asked for clarification of drainage where the fill is being pl~ced. Nielsen explained that Balgard does not want to diminish the capacity of the ad~acent low land and when appropriate grading is completed, drainage will be con~istent with its pattern. Rosenberger asked for clarification regarding escrow covering the fu~ure re-seeding on the property. Nielsen stated that requirement of escrow could b~ applied if the Commission felt it necessary. Balgard stated that he has purchased t~e seeds for the project. Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Robert Balgard, 26100 S~ithtown Road, subject to the Planner's and Engineer's recommendations. I Motion passed 6/0. Bean moved, Rosenberger seconded to request the staff to draft an informal policy to provide guidelines for consistent application of the escrow requirel)nent under the Ordinance. Motion passed 6/0. 2 . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 3 2. C.U.P. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND DEPOSIT OF FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CU. YDS. (Tabled froml November 17 meeting) . Applicant: Location: Minnewashta Church (Vanman Construction) 26715 West 62nd Street Nielsen stated that as requested the Applicant has submitted a revised site plan including location and design of trash dumpster and revised pond gradir]lg, a landscape plan including fencing and signage, lighting plan and specificationls, and garage elevations. In addition, the Applicant has provided the' City Engin~er with a soil report, a revised grading, drainage and erosion control plan and storm water run-off calculations. Nielsen reported that the Engineer stated that the revis~d grading plan is consistent with his discussion with the Applicant's engineer and in fact the site requires .22 feet of storage, they are providing .9. The Engineer suggested that the depth of the pond be increased if possible. Nielsen reviewed the details of the revised information provided by! the Applicant noting that each item is in compliance with Code requirements and qonsistent with the design and architecture of the buildings. Nielsen indicated tha~ the Church is allowed one sign and it will need to determine the contents of the sign land suggested that the signage be removed from any approval at this time since ~igns require a separate permit. Nielsen stated that the staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1) approval of the grading, drainage and erosion control plan by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 2) construction limits and erosion control barriers must be in place prior to any work starting, 3) specification of a direct route from Highway 7 for trucks hauling fill material, 4) limit hours of hauling to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Mordays through Saturdays, 5) limit the duration of hauling to 2-3 weeks, 6) applicant is responsible for cleaning the street during ~onstruction. l' Bean asked for clarification of the landscaping plan regarding the remo al of the berm on the site. Nielsen indicated that Hennepin County approval of t~e grading plan should be included as a condition for approval of the C.U.P. I Malam asked for clarification of the expected time frame for cofl1\pletion of the surcharging process. Nielsen indicated the Applicant could request ex~ensions to the permit if necessary. Chair Benson re-opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Harvey Parker stated: In regard to the signage, if consistent with the C!>rdinances, the church would like to have a message board and another larger sign that identifies the church by name. Benson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. 3 . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 4 Nielsen stated that the Code allows for only one sign and recommende~ incorporating the desired signage into one sign. ! , Leslie asked for clarification on the fencing as it relates to safelty around the construction site. Nielsen stated that the required fencing will provide construction limits, some degree of safety and erosion control. Leslie encouraged the Applicant to advise the neighborhood of the I!>lans including those for truck hauling and clean-up of the streets. The Commissioners discussed their concerns regarding the rather unsightly appearance of the pile of dirt required for the surcharging proc,ess ahd of potential dust problems caused by drying of the dirt. Nielsen suggeste~ that if dust accumulation becomes a problem the applicant be prepared to alleviat~ the condition. I Leslie moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it adprove a C.U.P. for construction of a church in a residential district and deposit of fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Minnewashta Church, Vanman Construction, 26715 West 62nd Street, subject to the staff recommendations including requiring He~nepin County \ approval of the landscaping/grading plan and that if surcharge is not r~moved by May 1, rye grass be planted on the site. . Motion passed 6/0. 3. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - LOT WIDTH VARIANCE . Benson moved, Malam seconded to continue, due to a publication error, to January 5, 1993, the Public Hearing for a Lot Width Variance requested by ~ance DeTrude, 26620 West 62nd Street. Motion passed 6/0. 4. Nielsen reviewed the current Ordinance restrictions for elderly housirjlg which limits residency to two adults 62 years of age or older or two adults no yqunger than 55 years of age wherein the project itself provides services exclusive to ~he elderly age group. During consideration of a proposed elderly housing de~elopment, the Commissioners noted that the Ordinance does not allow for live-in me~ical assistants younger than 62 years of age or 55 where exclusive services are pr9vided. It was generally agreed that this type of provision would be desirable yet not1be excessively complicated. Nielsen read the proposed amendment: "Exception. The occupancy limitations stated 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1992 - PAGE 5 t- above shall not apply to one (1) adult live-in care-provider serving th needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that if such care~provider resides on t e premises for more than thirty (30) days, notice must be given to the Zoning Ad inistrator." If approved this would be in effect upon publication. Nielsen stated t at in terms of enforcement, this amendment provides a complaint basis for any resident of a development who feels an abuse of the regulations exists. Chair Benson opened and closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. here being no comments from the public. In response to Leslie's question, Nielsen noted that the Senior Housin Task Force is concerned with this deficiency in the existing Code and would likely g nerally accept the proposed amendment. Borkon questioned the 30-day notification requirement and expr ssed concern regarding over regulation for elderly residents. Benson stated that this amendment will support and strengthen the covenants of the housing developments ovenants and provides for a complaint process for the residents if abuses are eviden . Rosenberger and Bean asked for clarification of the enforcement process. Nielsen tated that the covenants of the association generally would apply and provide for leg I remedies and the Code also provides for penalties for violations. t, Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the Council hat it approve an amendment to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the Shorewood City ode relating to Zoning Regulations, providing for a live~in care-provider in elderly housing. Motion passed 6/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Danser, 5840 Christmas Lake Road, presented information to t e Commission related to subdivision of her property. Nielsen outlined the proc dure and the necessary information required for consideration of her request. Be son agreed to assist Ms. Danser in preparing an appropriate application for consi eration by the Planning Commission. 6. REPORTS Benson noted that he will respond to a letter received from a residen regarding the Gideon's Woods application. Rosenberger noted that he has spoken t the individual also. The Commissioners discussed its general procedures for public hearing and its timing of action on controversial issues. ~ Borkon brought the Commission's attention to the need to require a permit for a 5