1996 planning minutes
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, JANUARY 2, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:17 p.m.) Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula
and Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson (arrived at 7:06 p.m.) and Planning Director
Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Rosenberger.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded to approve the December 5, 1995 Commission
meeting minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 3 replace "would be
drown by the lake" with "may drown."; on Page 6, Paragraph 4, Line 4 insert a
period after "lake"; on Page 6, Paragraph 4, Line 5 remove "the lots all" and
replace with "many of the lots"; and on Page 7, Paragraph 4 replace "8:03" with
"9:10". Motion passed 3 ayes I 2 abstentions (Chair Borkon and Commissioner
Pisula abstained as they were not present at the December 5, 1995 meeting).
Council Liaison Benson arrived at 7:06 p.m.
.
1.
7:00 PUBLIC HEARING
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
Applicant:
Location:
Camp Coffee (Stephen Bauer)
19215 State Highway 7
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
Nielsen reported this was a request from Stephen Bauer to remodel the old Vine Hill Market store
at 19215 State Highway 7 into a coffee house called Camp Coffee. Based on the zoning
regulations, the plan which has been submitted will require a conditional use permit for a drive-up
window facility, a conditional use permit for off-site parking, a setback variance for the
ingress/egress drive on Vine Hill Road and a variance for the number of parking spaces. The
property is zoned C-3 General Commercial and contains 13,598 square feet of area. The existing
building contains 2061 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant proposes to add a 20' by 16'
deck which increases the floor area by 320 square feet. He also plans to narrow the "curb cut" on
Vine Hill Road down to 23 feet in width. The applicant's proposal does fit the restaurant
classification and is a permitted use. There are six parking spaces on the property and the intent is
to lease 12-14 parking spaces from the property owner to the west and south of the site. City Code
requires that 39 parking spaces be available.
Nielsen explained the applicant is proposing a drive-up window facility which requires a
conditional use permit. Several of the eleven conditions of the zoning ordinance are not met.
Nielsen noted the proposed improvements to the outside of the structure are merely cosmetic but
will clean-up the appearance of the building. The deck seems like a nice feature but will add floor
space which could be otherwise used to provide parking and the existing structure is already too
close to Vine Hill Road. The proposed site plan does not show lighting. Access along Vine Hill
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 2
Road has been narrowed to a 23 foot opening. This is an improvement but it encroaches into the
Highway 7 right-of-way. A setback variance is recommended relative to the distance from the
northeast property comer, as was approved for the previous owner, due to the unusual
configuration of the right-of-way. It is not recommended, however, that the driveway be allowed
to encroach into the right-of-way. The existing parking and circulation system encroaches into the
highway right-of-way. This needs to be corrected and should include a drainage plan to be
reviewed by the City Engineer. The proposed signage exceeds the number of signs allowed by
code. The code will allow a total of three signs, including one freestanding sign.
Nielsen explained the applicant is proposing off-site parking which also requires a conditional use
permit. The applicant is proposing to lease 12-14 parking spaces from the adjoining property
owner. That parking was approved prior to current City Code and does not meet codes in regard
to curbing, striping or setbacks. If the owner leases the parking to Camp Coffee, he will not have
sufficient parking to meet the required amount for his property. The ordinance requires 19 parking
spaces for the property as it is zoned office and the site plan only shows 20 parking spaces
currently. Parking could occur at a 90 degree angle along Vine Hill Road to allow for 24 parking
spaces but this would still not be enough spaces to be in conformity with the ordinance.
Customers of the coffee house using the parking lot on the adjoining property would not only have
to cross the drive-up lane but would have to walk along a narrow sidewalk next to the lane. This is
a poor design. City Code also requires that property used for off-site parking be under the same
ownership as the principal use.
Commissioner Foust arrived at 7: 17 p.m.
Nielsen explained the applicant is also requesting a parking variance. Without the parking spaces
in the adjoining lot, the plan only shows six parking spaces on the property, one of which
encroaches into the highway right-of-way and does not meet front setback requirements. The
applicant's floor plan shows spacious seating for 26 people. Five parking spaces is inadequate.
The applicant anticipates that most of his traffic will be pedestrians and bicyclists. There is no
evidence to support this. The ordinance requires that the applicant demonstrate a hardship exists
that will keep him from making reasonable use of his property. There are many uses listed in the
zoning code for the C-3 zoning district, most of which require less parking. A hardship has not
been demonstrated.
Nielsen reported the applicant feels that the ordinance does not address this type of facility. Staff
has recommended if this is the case, that Mr. Bauer apply for an ordinance amendment. Nielsen
indicated staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permits and parking variance.
Stephen Bauer stated that three months ago he bought the property with the intent of building a
coffee house. He acknowledged there was limited parking but did not feel it was out of line. He
noted this amount of parking had not caused a parking nuisance for the previous owner. He did
not feel it correct that a coffee house would require eight times more parking spaces than a
convenience store. He asked if staff had any evidence to support that most of the traffic would not
be by pedestrian or bicycle. He noted the area was mostly residential. He stated he had owned
coffee houses for eight years. A lot of the customers would use the drive-up window and this
would require less parking spaces. He stated the City Code was not friendly to coffee houses. He
feels unless the City worked together to solve this dilemma, the building would be boarded up and
left idle as no one will want to buy a property with only five parking spaces. He stated he did not
want to challenge the City Code but believed a variance was warranted for this exceptional
situation. He indicated he would be happy to operate with only five spaces if there was a problem
with obtaining the parking from the adjacent property owner. He acknowledged all the other stated
conditions and stated he would comply with all the requested improvements. He asked why the
adjacent property owner was not allowed to lease the parking if he owned it.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 3
Nielsen explained City Code stated that off-site parking, when used to make up for required
parking area, must be under the same ownership as the principal use. The lease agreement could
change if ownership of the adjacent building changed and then the coffee house would no longer
have sufficient parking. Staff has recommended the applicant provide a survey of the adjacent
parking area to determine exactly how much parking the site has and what it actually requires.
Mr. Bauer stated he had agreed to provide the survey. He stated he was trying to conform to the
City Code and asked what he could do. He indicated he felt his only choice was to bulldoze the
building and build a smaller building.
Chair Borkon outlined the Conditions for Granting a Variance.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
David Kolstad, 848-3rd Avenue, expressed his support for the coffee house. He noted he had
seen the Skipperette in operation and had never noted any overcrowding in the parking lot. He
stated he lived in Glenwood, Colorado and there were two coffee houses across the street from
one another with no parking nearby and they did fine. He noted the Excelsior Coffee Shop only
has six parking spaces and they operate well. He encouraged the Commission to support the
coffee house.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she liked the idea and felt it would be a good use of the property.
She asked why the coffee house was classified as a restaurant. She noted the small amount of
parking spaces at the Excelsior Coffee Shop.
Nielsen stated the Excelsior Coffee Shop was located in a fairly high pedestrian traffic area. Even
so, there were still times when there was no parking available. This is exactly the type of problem
the City Code is trying to avoid. Nielsen noted the only two choices in this zoning district were
restaurant or convenience food. The restaurant classification is more appropriate as the coffee
house intends to use real dishes. If the applicant feels a coffee house should be treated differently
than a restaurant, he has the opportunity to apply for an ordinance amendment. Nielsen noted the
building will seat 26 and it still appears that five parking spaces is inadequate. This is not a highly
residential area. He indicated the previous owner had attempted a site plan which would provide
eleven on-site parking spots and only required one variance but would diminish the size of the
building.
Commissioner Turgeon stated that she would support the coffee house if the applicant could revise
the plan to require only one variance. She suggested the applicant remove the proposed deck and
increase the parking to ten.
Commissioner Foust asked what amount of stacking was available for the drive-up facility.
Nielsen noted there was adequate stacking space.
Commissioner Foust asked if there was a market survey to attest to the amount of turnover Mr.
Bauer was expecting or any support for the estimates of the amount of pedestrian, bike or walk in
traffic.
Mr. Bauer stated these projections were based on past experience. He stated he owned a store in
Colorado which seated 16 people and served 300 to 600 per day. He noted the coffee house
would also serve ice cream and pre-packed sandwiches. No food would actually be prepared on
site. The facility would use ceramic plates as he felt styrofoam was environmentally unsound.
The coffee house would be a destination for residents on bike rides.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 4
Commissioner Foust noted the Planning Commission was bound by the ordinance. He stated he
found it difficult to see the hardship in this instance.
Commissioner Lizee stated she was not comfortable with the small amount of parking spaces
available. She noted there was a lot of traffic in that area. She asked if additional parking could be
made available by utilizing the area by the curb cut on Vine Hill Road. She suggested the applicant
exclude the proposed deck from the plan. Mr. Bauer noted a 15 foot setback was required from
the curb cut.
Commissioner Pisula stated he liked the idea of the coffee house if more parking spaces could be
provided and he thought the project would do well. He noted however, that he felt the coffee
house would generate more traffic than the applicant was suggesting. He stated he would rather
see this issue resolved through an ordinance amendment than a variance.
Chair Borkon stated she liked the proposal and noted the Planning Commission would like to work
with the applicant to see this issue resolved. She suggested the property was unique and in this
sense it did provide a hardship. She asked how many other properties exist in Shorewood with a
potential parking space problem.
Nielsen noted there was a possibility of problems at the old Video Update. He also cited an office
building which had been the source of some complaints regarding on-street parking. He noted
however, that issue seems to have resolved itself in the past year.
Chair Borkon asked if there was a possibility of the deck being located on the roof and questioned
the danger of increased bike traffic in this area. Nielsen stated the deck could be placed on the roof
but it would still increase the gross floor area. He noted he would check to determine if a bike trail
was planned for Vine Hill Road or to the high school.
Chair Borkon asked what material would be used for the facade of the building. Mr. Bauer
indicated the building will be painted, brought into compliance with City Code and beautified.
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to table the request for a parking variance for
Camp Coffee (Stephen Bauer), 19215 State Highway 7 until the February 20,
1996 Planning Commission meeting subject to staff recommendations being met
and limiting to the one variance approved for the previous owner regarding the
setback for the driveway. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION AND C.U.P
FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING
Applicant:
Location:
Jeffrey Christian
24700 Wiltsey Lane
This item was postponed.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCENARIANCE TO EXPAND A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE (Tabled at the December 5, 1995 Meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Karla Peterson
21095 Forest Drive
Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 5
Nielsen explained the applicant has requested a variance to build a covered wheelchair ramp from
the addition on the back of the existing home to the existing garage located in the rear yard setback.
This will involve an additional encroachment of the rear yard setback. Nielsen reported this
proposal had been tabled pending receipt of a landscape plan to soften the visual impact of the
ramp-way on the surrounding properties. The applicant has since submitted a landscape plan
which relies heavily on the existing trees with the addition of evergreen trees and foundation
plantings. Nielsen stated this was a good start. He noted however, nothing had been proposed for
the east side of the structure. The applicant believes the existing shed will screen the structure.
Staff is recommending landscape be added on the east side to break up the mass of the structure.
Staff is recommending approval of the setback variance subject to a Landscape Architect adding
two evergreen trees on the east side of the property; all evergreens to be a minimum of six feet
high, other material to meet zoning requirements; Landscape Architect to sign plan and include
registration number; and a letter of credit or cash escrow of 150% of the cost to guarantee
completion by June 1, 1996 plus two growing seasons. Nielsen noted the applicant intends to
begin work on the ramp itself prior to obtaining approval of the variance. This is within City Code
as only the wall and roof require a variance.
Bill Strong, Sawhorse Designers / Builders, stated he was the Architect and Designer representing
Karla Peterson and Susan. He stated the house was built in 1900 and had been in the Karla
Peterson family for over 70 years. The possibility of moving the garage had been investigated but
it was determined that considerable architectural damage to the ornamentation of the garage could
occur and more trees would be lost. He reported the applicants had sold the house they are
currently living in. They close on January 30th and plan to move into 21095 Forest Drive on
January 29th. They cannot move in the home without the wheelchair ramp. They had not
anticipated a problem because the garage was an existing structure. He questioned the required
letter of credit.
Nielsen explained in granting a variance, the City has authority to impose certain conditions. The
Planning Commission has agreed that landscaping should be provided to soften the view, if not
screen the proposed structure. Since the construction will occur before a reasonable planting
season, City Code provides for an escrow to guarantee the landscaping will be completed.
Mr. Strong stated the applicant is proposing to plant three white pines and one balsam tree at the
cost of $1,200.00. She would be willing to sign the contract as proof and the trees would be
guaranteed by the landscape company. He hoped this contract along with a letter of credit at the
bank would be sufficient.
Karla Peterson, 21095 Forest Drive, stated this home has been in her family for four generations
and she is very excited to move in. She noted their situation is clearly unique as Susan is confined
to the wheelchair and in the winter months it is very hard to negotiate in the snow and ice. She
stated their intent to perform the landscaping and to do a lot of work to the house as it has fallen
into disrepair.
Chair Borkon opened and closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. since no one appeared to address
the Commission.
Commissioner Lizee stated she felt this was a great restoration project. She was glad to see the
landscape plan and agreed with staff recommendations.
Pi suI a moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
setback variance/variance to expand a non-conforming structure for Karla
Peterson, 21095 Forest Drive subject to staff recommendations and the additional
four conditions which were added today with regard to the landscape plan.
Motion passed 6/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 6
The Council will consider the recommendation at its January 22, 1996 meeting.
4. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCES FOR SIGNAGE
Applicant:
Location:
First State Bank of Excelsior
19765 State Highway 7
Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
Nielsen reported First State Bank of Excelsior, which is under construction at 19765 State
Highway 7, has applied for a variance to erect two signs in excess of the size limitations of the sign
regulations of the zoning ordinance. In December 1995, the applicant received approval for their
permanent monument sign, pylon sign and two directional signs. The applicant is requesting two
information/directional signs along the west side of their property. Sign 1 measures 4' by 4' and
contains 16 feet in area. Sign 2 measures 2.5' by 6' and contains 15 square feet of area. As
informational signs are limited to three square feet in area, sign 1 would require a variance of 13
square feet and sign 2 would require a variance of 12 square feet. To grant the variance a hardship
must be demonstrated and staff has found nothing unique to this situation. Shorewood sign size
regulations appear to be consistent with other communities. Nielsen indicated staff is
recommending denial of the variance for signage.
Chair Borkon entered letters received from Mr. and Mrs. Dwight Post, 19435 Muirfield Circle;
James B. Hare, 5670 Old Market Road; Richard and Evelyn Thomson, 5925 Ridge Road; and Les
and Carol Anderson, 5385 Shady Hills Circle into record.
Chair Borkon outlined the Conditions for Granting a Variance.
Bob Weiss, representing First State Bank of Excelsior, stated the Bank has been sensitive to the
desires ofthe neighborhood and the conditions of the P.D.D. It was not until the actual building
was erected that it was determined that the site line from the front of the property to the back is 240
feet. He stated the proposed signs are directional and informational, not advertisement. Their
intent is for people to flow through the property more comfortably. He explained on sign 1, the
"open/close" portion would be neon, the "auto bank, instant cash and open 24 hours" would be
back lit and the "customer parking" would be vinyl tape. Sign 2 would be vinyl tape only. He
stated he felt most of the banks had larger signs than Shorewood's ordinance would allow.
Randy Herman, Sign Source, explained informational/directional signs have to be read from a long
distance by someone traveling in a vehicle. The required size of a sign is determined by looking at
the distance the text needs to be read and the height it requires to be read and designing a sign to fit.
The bank has given direction to keep the sign simple, tie it in with the architecture and keep the
color low. The signs are not advertisement but are meant to show people where to go so as to
avoid traffic problems.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
Karen Vance, 5690 Ridge Road, stated she had been a resident of Shorewood for ten years and
had been involved with this P.D.D. since the beginning. She expressed her surprise at the size of
the bank building, the size of the berm and the lighting. She stated she felt people who would be
going to the bank would know where to go after they had been there one time. She recommended
the Planning Commissioner deny the variance and maintain City Code.
Ann Lovin, 5570 Covington Road, stated she was also involved in the original P.D.D. and was
surprised by the size of the bank building. She didn't feel the sign variance was necessary. Also
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 . PAGE 7
the sign stated the bank was open 24 hours. She didn't think anything in the P.D.D. was open 24
hours and questioned what type of lighting would be utilized if it was open 24 hours.
Ernie Jones, 19620 Waterford Court, expressed his concern with the variance. He felt there were
too many signs already. He felt the standard size sign allowed should be plenty to accomplish the
intended purpose. He felt once a person had been to the bank they should know where to go. He
stated he was against the variance.
Roger Bailey, 19660 Waterford Court, stated he understood the area was going to be kept
residential. He was surprised to see a bank of this size erected. This bank cannot be compared to
other banks as it is located in a residential area. He felt the signs allowed by City Code were
adequate and recommended denial of the variance.
Hardy Reynold, 19827 Waterford Court, stated he was concerned that apparently the architectural
structure and landscape plan produced nothing to identify there was a problem until after the
building was up. He also questioned when Mr. Herman had performed his survey of bank signs.
He expressed concern that if a variance was granted to the bank it would set a precedent for the
other rental properties to the west.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
Nielsen noted the bank site plan did reflect an instant cash machine. These are standard at most
banks. Lighting has to be kept to a minimum and has to shine downward. He would anticipate a
small spotlight. The limitation on hours of operation was specific to the Waterford Shopping
Center including the gas operation, convenience store and what was to be a family restaurant. It
did not extend to other properties.
Mr. Weiss noted the automatic teller machine would be located at the first line in the drive through.
It would be accessible to anyone who needed cash 24 hours per day. He stated he had not realized
these directional signs would be an issue and had not realized their importance until everything was
laid out. It then became apparent there would be confusion with the location of the drive-through
and the automatic teller machine. When this was determined, Sign Source became involved.
Mr. Herman noted he had worked with other cities who allowed larger signs. He stated a three
foot directional sign struck him immediately as being very small. Most cities allow a certain
amount of signage based on the square footage and use of the site.
Nielsen indicated he had not done an exhaustive search of signs at other bank buildings. He stated
this would be performed if the applicant applied for an amendment to the City Code. He again
stated he did not see a hardship in this case which would justify a variance. Nielsen verified the
height of the bank building and shopping center, the size of the berm and the lighting in the
complex were all in compliance with the P.D.D. He noted the City does have control through the
P.D.D. process as to the amount of directional signs as part of the site plan approval.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she was concerned that granting a variance would set a precedent for
the rest of the buildings yet to be developed. If the ordinance is that much more restrictive than
other cities then it needs to be re-examined.
Commissioner Kolstad agreed that granting a variance could set a precedent. She stated she was
not convinced it was necessary for the signs to be any larger and was not certain a hardship had
been established.
Commissioner Lizee agreed. She questioned the size of the monument sign on the northwest
comer of the frontage road and asked if it was in conformity with the sign regulations.
.
.
.
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 2, 1996 - PAGE 8
Mr. Herman confirmed the monument sign was smaller than the maximum allowed and was not a
directional sign but was considered the main identification sign for the banle
Commissioner Pisula suggested if the ordinance is that restrictive it should be investigated but felt
that the information presented was not conclusive to that.
Chair Borkon stated she was concerned with the precedent that could be set by granting a variance.
Not just for the undeveloped property but also for the existing developments in the mall area. She
stated she felt the signs allowed by the ordinance were adequate but if the bank felt it necessary the
Planning Commission would re-examine the ordinance. She did not feel this qualified as a
hardship.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny the
signage variance request for First State Bank of Excelsior, 19765 State Highway
7. Motion passed 6/0.
This item will be considered by the City Council at its January 22, 1996 meeting.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:29 p.m. and reconvened at 9:37 p.m.
5. NOMINA TIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to nominate Debra Deborah Borkon as Chair 0 f
the Planning Commission for 1996 and Jim Pisula as Vice-Chair of the Planning
Commission for 1996. Motion passed 4/0.
5.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad indicated she would present a full report of the activities of the Snowmobile
Task Force at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Lizee agreed to serve as the Planning Commission Liaison to the Park Commission.
Commissioner Turgeon agreed to serve as the Planning Commission Liaison to the City Council
with Commissioner Pisula as the alternate.
There was direction to staff to provide all Planning Commission members with the Park
Commission agenda and minutes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lorri L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger and
Turgeon; Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, Malam (arrived at 7:37 p.m.),
McCarty (arrived at 7: 12 p.m.), and Stover; City Engineer Brown, City
Administrator Hurm, Planning Director Nielsen, and Finance Director Rolek.
None.
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve January 2, 1996 Commission
meeting minutes as amended on page 3, Paragraph 5, Line 3 after "Glenwood"
insert ", Colorado" and on Page 8, Paragraph 8, Line 1 replace "Debra" with
"Deborah". Motion passed 6 ayes I 1 abstention (Commissioner Rosenberger
abstained as he was not present at the January 2, 1996 meeting).
1. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL
.
A. 20 Year City Water Plan
City Engineer Brown outlined the three phases of the lO-year water plan of the Comprehensive
Plan. He noted that although the Implementation Plan for Water Distribution System
Improvements was a 20 year plan, it is consistent with the objectives and phases of the
Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the water plan is to install the key areas in the first 10 years
and incorporate the remainder in the next 10 years. The first phase of implementation begins in
1996. The primary goal of this phase is to provide interconnections between the Boulder Bridge
and Badger Field systems.
Councilmember McCarty arrived at 7: 12 p.m.
Chair Borkon asked the amount of the water assessment. Planning Director Nielsen stated a water
assessment of $5,000.00 would be charged as water becomes available. City Administrator Hurm
noted this amount may change due to an inflation adjustment as noted in the ordinance. He
indicated the cost analysis provided does not account for inflation. Chair Borkon suggested that
fact be noted with an asterisk at the bottom of the analysis.
Chair Borkon noted the Implementation Plan for Water Distribution System Improvements was
very consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and thanked the City staff and City Council for all
their efforts.
.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concerns that residents would have to pay for water
assessments and street assessments. Hurm noted there are no special street assessments included
in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Brown noted the Water Plan will be a fluid and dynamic document. It may be adjusted after
evaluating street conditions, as a result of failing wells, or due to residents response.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 16, 1996 - PAGE 2
. Councilmember Malam arrived at 7:37 p.m.
Commissioner Rosenberger congratulated City Council and City staff for their efforts on the Water
Plan.
B . Capital Improvements Plan
Hurm explained the Street section of the Capital Improvement Plan, noting there would be no
special street assessments. He noted the tax revenues returned to the City upon the end of the
Shorewood Tax Increment Finance District should be, at least partially, designated for the street
reconstruction fund.
Brown explained the MSA street reconstruction needs of the next five years and how they would
be funded. He explained the two local projects included in the Local Streets section that would be
performed in 1996 were reconstruction of a portion of Strawberry Lane and replacement of the
Shady Island Bridge.
.
Brown explained the two projects included in the Stormwater Management section included Glen
Road and Grant-Lorenz. Brown noted that the City staff routinely receives complaints from areas
which never seem to be resolved. The residents would like the City to have a pro-active plan. The
City has developed a fund to resolve some of these high priority problems within the next few
years as part of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Mayor Bean noted it would be helpful to include a list in this packet which qualifies the recurring
problems and their priority.
Hurm stated he was on a Technical Advisory Committee which was established by a Task Force of
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The Committee recommended the
MCES offer a grant/incentive program to help cities reduce the amount of inflow and infiltration
(1&1) in the sanitary sewer system and also that the MCES work with cities to help them identify
their problems, derive a plan and implement constructive ways to reduce the 1&1. It appears the
MCES looked favorably upon this.
Brown explained the Badger Well Building was included in the Public Facilities and Office
Equipment section. With the implementation of the connection the Boulder Bridge and Badger
Field systems, a smaller building can be utilized. Staff is looking to dispose of a good portion of
the existing building.
Hurm noted the Southshore Senior/Community Center and the relocation of the hockey rink were
also included in this section. A typographic error was noted in the chart on page 26. Amount in
the Purchases/Expenditures and Interest Income lines need to be reversed.
It was noted a narrative should be included on page 25 addressing the efforts to improve the video
and audio system in the Council Chambers.
Hurm explained the Park Project Schedule section, noting this was the recommendation of the Park
Commission. He explained the code (L) designated a loan would be made by the City to sports
organizations to make these improvements. This would be paid back over 5 to 7 years and the
funds would be returned to the Park Fund. It was agreed the code (L) should be denoted below
the chart.
.
Hurm reported his attendance at a meeting with the Youth Hockey Association. They are
requesting to build a six month, covered, refrigerated ice sheet at Freeman Park.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 16, 1996 - PAGE 3
Hurm noted that Shorewood has an active Park Foundation. He also noted the Trail section of the
Capital Improvement Plan.
Hurm noted the Unscheduled, Potential Projects section. These projects have been discussed but
are not funded and not included in the Capital Improvement Plan. There was consensus to move
item #2, affordable senior housing to the Public Facilities section of the plan.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend City Council adoption 0 f
the Capital Improvement Program and Capital Improvement Budget for the year 0 f
1996 with the previous discussed changes. Motion passed 7/0.
Hurm noted there was a conflict with the second City Council meeting in February. There is a
possibility it may be moved to February 20, 1996. However, there is a public hearing scheduled
for that meeting. City staff will notify all involved parties when this issue is resolved.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Turgeon noted the State Legislature is talking of changing the laws protecting
wetlands. Nielsen stated he did not feel this would affect the manner in which Shorewood is
handling the wetland issue.
Commissioner Turgeon asked for clarification of the City Council's desire for the senior housing
ordinance. Councilmember Stover explained the Council would like to see the ordinance more
clearly defined to achieve the goals originally desired. There may even be a different set of
guidelines for senior housing for persons age 62 years and older and senior housing for persons
55-62 years. This could also address the issue of how much the City is willing to contribute or
subsidize to help the developers provide affordable senior housing.
3. REPORTS - None.
Chair Borkon acknowledged the persons present in the audience. She stated she hoped they had
received answers to any questions they might have had. She urged them to contact the
Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners or City staff if they had any further questions.
Chair Borkon thanked City staff and Councilmembers for attending the meeting and for their
helpful input.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Rosenberger seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lorri L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Rosenberger (arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
and Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Pisula.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the January 16, 1996 Commission
meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Borkon welcomed and addressed the members of the audience.
.
Doug Miller, 25525 Orchard Circle, stated residents in his neighborhood had formed a
neighborhood association and they were present tonight to voice their opposition to rezoning of the
property across from Orchard Circle. He inquired as to the process involved to protect their rights.
He stated his concern that the owner had been a member of the Planning Commission when the
decision had been made to rezone the property.
Chair Borkon stated she was glad the residents were in attendance tonight and excited they had
formed a neighborhood association. She explained that when there is a proposed development, all
property owners within 500 feet of the property are notified and a notice is published in the
newspaper.
Judy Englund, 25555 Orchard Circle, stated the neighbors were concerned that the property would
be developed at a higher density than they feel it can support.
Planning Director Nielsen explained rezoning of the aforementioned property was an item included
in the comprehensive plan. He noted, however, that the owner has submitted an application to
develop and rezone the property. That application will be considered by the Planning Commission
in March of 1996, which will be sooner than it will be able to be considered as a part of the
comprehensive plan.
.
Mr. Miller asked when he would be able to view the application. Nielsen explained the application
is public record and anyone can come to City Hall and view the application.
Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, stated he would like the Planning Commission to be aware of
the resident's concern about rezoning the property. He stated the neighbors object to rezoning and
would like to know if and why it is necessary. He also asked when this issue will be addressed.
Nielsen explained if the submitted application is complete, a public hearing will be held. Any
property owner within 500 feet of the proposed development will be notified and a legal notice will
be published in the newspaper.
Borkon explained rezoning and development of this property has been a long-time goal of the City
of Shorewood. She noted this had been discussed at the comprehensive plan neighborhood
meetings held last year. Many residents had attended and a lot of positive feedback was received.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 6, 1996 - PAGE 2
.
Council Liaison Benson noted the property owner did serve on the Planning Commission and was
appointed to the City Council to fill a vacancy but he had no influence on this portion of the
comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated the property owner had no input as to the rezoning of the
property being included in the comprehensive plan. He suggested the residents attend the public
hearing and provide good logical explanations for their concerns.
Mr. Miller stated his comment regarding a possible conflict of interest was still in the exploratory
stage.
Council Liaison Benson explained the comprehensive plan is a living document subject to changes.
He encouraged the residents to come to meetings and ask questions.
Mr. Miller asked if the comprehensive plan was a living document, subject to change, who the
residents would approach to request such changes. Nielsen explained an application for a
comprehensive plan amendment would have to be submitted and a public hearing would be held to
consider the request. He noted an application could be picked up at City Hall during business
hours.
.
Mr. Miller noted the neighbors did not want to stop the development but wanted to see it done
aesthetically and in a way to protect the land.
Commissioner Turgeon noted this is also a goal of the Planning Commission. This goal is the
basis of the development of the tree reforestation policy, wetland ordinance and new wetland
setback restrictions.
1. STUDY SESSION
A. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Plan
Nielsen distributed a list of tasks which were included in the comprehensive plan implementation.
He noted which items have been completed and explained each item in detail. He then asked the
Commissioners to study the items and determine how they feel the tasks should be prioritized. It
was noted the list will also be distributed to the City Council for their input as to the prioritization
of the tasks. The list will then be collected and staff will tabulate and compile the results and begin
to prepare a work schedule to complete the tasks. A joint session between the Planning
Commission and City Council will then be held to consider the results.
Commissioner Turgeon noted she would like the City to work with the LMCD regarding
education/regulation of use of chemical fertilizers and mosquito spraying.
Nielsen noted the housing plan and subdivision ordinance were two very important items of the
comprehensive plan implementation.
Chair Borkon relinquished the chair to Commissioner Turgeon at 7:45 p.m. and excused herself
from the meeting.
B. Senior Housing Discussion
.
Nielsen distributed a conceptual preliminary sketch for senior housing at the property west of
Eureka Road and north of Highway 7, which has been received from John Blumentritt
representing Presbyterian Homes. He explained the proposal would include a three-story
apartment style building with assisted care. It would also include 13 single-story cottage-type
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 6, 1996 - PAGE 3
buildings with five units per building and a community building to serve the project. The project
would require a higher density than is allowed in the R-IC district. The developer is indicating
they would require this increased density to recover project costs. Nielsen suggested the Planning
Commission consider what could be done to encourage a lower density for the project, ie. tax
increment financing or tax exempt bonds.
Nielsen noted the City Council has given staff and the Planning Commission direction to revisit the
zoning regulations pertaining to senior housing. One suggestion has been to tie in incentives such
as density and reduced fees to affordability and services. Nielsen suggested a means be developed
to negotiate incentives given, where the closer the development is to meeting the goals of the City
for affordable senior housing, the more incentives the developer would receive.
Council Liaison Benson stated he felt it was important for the City to be pro-active and work with
the developer to address the density and possibly help with the financing.
Mr. Miller asked if a stoplight would be installed at Highway 7 and Eureka Road. Nielsen
indicated this area would be monitored to determine if a stoplight was warranted.
There was Planning Commission consensus to discuss the senior citizen housing issue at the joint
meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission.
Nielsen noted the March 5, 1996 Planning Commission meeting would have to be rescheduled due
to the political caucuses. There was Planning Commission consensus to reschedule the March 5,
1996 Planning Commission meeting to March 4,1996 at 7:00 p.m.
There was Planning Commission consensus to reschedule the February 20, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting to begin at 6:30 p.m. rather than 7:00 p.m.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported the Snowmobile Task Force was in the information gathering
stage. They have identified 19 policy change areas which include safety, curfew violation, etc.
Information is being gathered within each of these 19 areas to make a recommendation of the extent
of a problem if one exists. A list of questions has been sent to various persons such as the City
Attorney, City Planner, etc. A survey is being assembled which will be sent to all residents in
March of 1996. A pilot test of this survey will be distributed this month. The consultant will
review the survey to ensure the questions are all presented in a neutral manner.
Chair Borkon returned to the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and Commissioner Turgeon relinquished the
chair to Chair Borkon.
Commissioner Kolstad reported members of the task force are also taking trail walks to view if any
violations are occurring. In April and May of 1996, the information gathered will be studied and a
recommendation will be made. She reported the task force is progressing well.
Council Liaison Benson reported on the actions taken at the January 22, 1996 City Council
meeting.
Chair Borkon reported her attendance at a recent Park Commission meeting. She stated the
Minnetonka Youth Hockey Association gave a presentation regarding a covered facility for the
proposed hockey rink at Freeman Park. This issue will be presented to the City Council and then
to the Planning Commission.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 6, 1996 - PAGE 4
4.
ADJOURNMENT
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lorri L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1996
MINUTES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger and
Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the February 6, 1996
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 1, Paragraph 8, after "Borkon"
insert "welcomed and" and on Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 2 replace "that" with
"than". Motion passed 5 ayes I 2 abstentions (Commissioners Foust and Pisula
abstained as they were not present at the February 6, 1996 meeting).
1. 6:30 PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE (Tabled from the January 2, 1996 meeting.)
Applicant:
Location:
Camp Coffee (Stephen Bauer)
19215 State Highway 7
Chair Borkon announced the case.
Nielsen reported this request for a conditional use permit and variance had been tabled at the
January 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant had originally requested a
conditional use permit for a drive-up facility and a variance for parking requirements for a
restaurant use of the property. The earlier site plan proposed joint use of parking which was not
under the applicant's control. It was questionable if the site proposed for joint use had enough
parking spots to share and the applicant was still short of the number of spaces required. The
Planning Commission consensus was that the use was acceptable and desirable but that the parking
issue was a problem. They recommended the applicant eliminate all variance requests except a
variance which was granted to the previous owner of Vine Hill Market for the setback between the
access driveway on Vine Hill Road and the intersection with the Highway 7 service road.
Nielsen reported the applicant has submitted a plan which satisfies the Planning Commission's
request. The proposal will reduce the building size by one half, reducing the number of parking
spaces required and creating additional room for more parking spaces. The building will be
approximately the same size as the original building on the site. Nielsen indicated staff is
recommending approval of the driveway setback variance and conditional use permit with four
stated conditions. These conditions include that the restaurant classification of the business must
be maintained by using only non-disposable dishes and building permit plans must include
dishwashing facilities. The applicant must submit a signage plan which conforms to Zoning Code
requirements. Nielsen noted three signs were allowed on the site. He assumed the plan will
include the existing pylon sign, a wall sign and a menu board. Staff recommends that hours of
operation be limited, especially for the drive-up. The last condition is that a certificate of
occupancy not be issued until required improvements are completed and a letter of credit be
required to guarantee completion and survival of landscaping for two growing seasons.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 20, 1996 - PAGE 2
. Chair Borkon outlined the procedure for a public hearing.
Stephen Bauer, applicant, stated he did not feel the drive-up window would have much visual
impact due to the proposed berm. He indicated he was agreeable to all four conditions noted by
staff. He reported his hours of operation would be Monday through Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m., Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Chair Borkon stated she appreciated all Mr. Bauer had done to revise his plan. She noted this was
a difficult piece of property.
Chair Borkon opened and closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. since no one appeared to address
the Commission.
Commissioner Turgeon and Faust complimented Mr. Bauer on his revision to the plan.
Commissioner Rosenberger wished Mr. Bauer the best of luck with his business but was
concerned with the sight lines on Vine Hill Road traveling toward Highway 7. He stated he had
serious concerns and reservations about placing a commercial business on this property.
Nielsen noted Shorewood staff and the City of Minnetonka are looking at a proposed plan to
upgrade Vine Hill Road. It is designated on the MSA roadmap and does qualify for MSA funding.
He stated he did not know when this upgrade may occur.
Chair Borkon noted the applicant had changed the aeees& ingress and egress points.
Commissioner Rosenberger agreed this was an improvement.
.
Steve Whitehill, applicant, stated he felt that the closure of the access point to the high school
further down the highway had significantly affected the traffic in the area.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to recommend City Council approval of the
request for a driveway setback variance and conditional use permit for a drive-up
window for Camp Coffee (Stephen Bauer), 19215 State Highway 7 subject to
staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Borkon noted this recommendation will be considered by the City Council at their March 11,
1996 meeting.
2. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported an update on the Snowmobile Task Force had been presented to
the City Council at their February 12, 1996 meeting.
.
Commissioner Foust reported his attendance at a meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Communication
Commission. He noted Barb Brancel is now representing the City of Victoria. He reported a
telecommunication bill was passed by the legislature Congress last week which will impact the
Cable Commission. It will remove the regulatory aspect of the Commission in 1999 or earlier and
will provide competition in the cable which is offered in the City. Commissioner Foust explained
the bill will allow cities to capture a value of the right-of-way used by communication. He noted
the Cable Commission will be working in the next year to develop a comprehensive plan of what
they envision to be the service needs of the cities. The Commission will hold neighborhoodðmeetings to obtain input from residents.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 20, 1996 - PAGE 3
. Chair Borkon thanked Commissioner Foust for his efforts with the cable issues.
Nielsen noted he had received recent inquiries dealing with cellular phones. He asked the Planning
Commission how they felt about allowing additional antennas on the existing water tower,
antennas on the new water tower and also free standing antennas
There was Planning Commission consensus to schedule this for discussion on a future agenda.
There was direction for staff to obtain information on various categories of antennas and how other
cities address this issue as far as where antennas are allowed and what limitations are placed on
antennas.
Council Liaison Benson reported on the actions taken at the February 12, 1996 City Council
meeting. He noted Deephaven had recently approved the proposals for the Senior I Community
Center.
Chair Borkon noted the Planning Commission would like to adopt a resolution in honor of
Councilmember Doug Malam as it was his last evening with the City of Shorewood.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION HONORING
COUNCILMEMBER DOUGLAS MALAM
.
WHEREAS, Councilmember Malam has always been a prime proveyor of a barrage of
legis- purveyor of garage logic for the City of Shorewood; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Malam has taught me the eternal importance of density, I
am indebted to him forever; and
WHEREAS, although his attempts to produce letters of fact failed miserably, his passion
was never lax, the written debate lended itself beneficial for my next challengers - the
snowmobilers; and
.
WHEREAS, a Councilmember was able to bring one of the wetland lovers from one side
of the fence to the Planning Commission, thank you for your inspiration; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember Malam is ~ long-winded but I can always show him up,
for your most brilliant past contributions as a Planning Commissioner and your even more recent
performance as a City Councilmember, we hereby pat ourselves on the back for assisting in your
learning curve and pat you on the back for your courage in moving forward to bigger but not
necessarily better things; and
WHEREAS, Doug's boyish good looks are only exceeded by his sense of reason and
logic; and
WHEREAS, we always referred the questions of the affect of a variance on the
surrounding property value to Doug because he always did so well; and
WHEREAS, based on all I have heard, I wish I had gotten to know you better.
NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood Planning Commission that we
wish you farewell and thank you for all the jokes. We wish you and your family the best.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 20, 1996 - PAGE 4
Doug Malam, 6140 McKinley Circle, retiring Councilmember, stated he wished he would have
been able to get to know Commissioners Lizee and Kolstad better. He stated they were doing a
fantastic job on the Planning Commission and encouraged them to keep up the good work.
He stated he never would have expected Commissioner Turgeon who was on the diametrically
opposed side of the press to become his campaign manager. This shows that life does go full
circle.
He thanked Commissioner Foust for his technical expertise when he does manage to show up at a
meeting. He noted his next computer would still be an ffiM.
He stated he wanted it made known to the public that Commissioner Pisula had applied for the
opening on the Council that will be vacant as of tonight. He gave Commissioner Pisula his
endorsement and noted no one could analyze issues better than he does.
He stated Chair Borkon's passion is outstanding and commended the way she "dives in" to issues.
He stated he has never known anyone who can do 97 different things at once as well as she can.
He noted Commissioner Rosenberger is by far the most political creature he has ever met. He has
never known anyone who is as well connected through the State of Minnesota. He thanked
Commissioner Rosenberger for all he has shown him about how the system works.
He stated no one has taught him more about how a City works than Planning Director Nielsen. He
stated Nielsen has his undying respect and gratitude and encouraged him to keep up the good
work.
He thanked all the Planning Commissioners, stated he will miss them and encouraged them to keep
up the good work.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7 :43 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECT}'ULL Y SUBMITTED,
Lorri L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger and Turgeon;
Council Liaison McCarty, City Engineer Brown and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the February 20, 1996 Commission
meeting minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 8, Line 1, replace "access"
with "ingress"; on Page 2, Paragraph 9, Line 1 replace "access" with "ingress";
on Page 2, Paragraph 15, Line 3 replace "legislature" with "Congress"; on Page
3, Paragraph 8, Line 1 replace "proveyor of a barrage of logic" with "purveyor of
garage logic". Motion passed 6/0. .
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM R-IA TO R-IC AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WATTEN PONDS P.U.D.
.
Applicant:
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing.
Nielsen reported Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing the Dahlstrom Abingdon Limited Partnership,
has submitted plans for the development of approximately 14.7 acres of land located on the west
side of Eureka Road, north of Valleywood Lane. 4.9 acres of the parcel are City-designated
wetlands. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 12 single-family residential
lots, one of which will contain the Watten residence. The site is characterized by dramatic changes
in topography (30 feet between the highest point and the lowest point) and significant mature tree
cover. Land use surrounding the property is primarily single-family residential. Two large
undeveloped parcels are located to the west of the site and a large undeveloped tract consisting
mostly of wetland is located to the east. With the exception of the non-conforming R-1A lot
immediately to the north of the site, zoning surrounding the property is R-1C, Single-Family
Residential to the north, east and south. The area to the west is zoned R-1A. Approximately 250
feet on the north end of the site is also subject to the Shore land "S" District zoning requirements.
Nielsen stated the developer is requesting the City rezone the parcel to R-1C and P.U.D. to allow
flexibility within the zoning standard.
Nielsen reported all zoning requests are subject to evaluation based on the Comprehensive Plan. In
1995, following two years of study, Shorewood adopted an update to its original Comprehensive
Plan which was adopted in 1981. The Land Use map of 1981, which serves as a guide for how
land in Shorewood should be developed, identified the subject property as being suitable for a
density of 1 to 2 units per acre. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan Update reiterated this and also
called for rezoning of the parcel from R-1A to R-1C and recommended a P.U.D. The rezoning
portion of the developer's request will result in a density of 1.3 units per 40,000 square feet. This
density conforms with the suggestion of the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning must also be
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 2
compatible with present and future land use of the area, not depreciate the area in which it is
proposed, not overburden the City's service capacity, and preserve the natural environment.
The R-IC zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet in area, 100 feet wide
with front yard setbacks of 35 feet. The applicant is proposing an average lot size of 31,025
square feet. The smallest lot will be 15,181 square feet and the largest 144,416 square feet. The
proposal requests a reduced front yard setback of 30 feet. Only one lot, a flag lot, will have a
width of less than 100 feet. The flag lot is a result of the developer shortening the length of the
street. The street would need to be 200 to 300 feet longer to serve the lots with a regular width and
would result in significant site alteration. The applicant proposes to access the development with a
cul-de-sac street approximately 620 feet long. The cul-de-sac will be aligned with Orchard Circle
and will extend to the Ruffenacn property.
Nielsen reported there are four City-designated wetlands on this property. A wetland delineation
has been submitted by the applicant's engineer. The Watershed District, as the governing agent,
will not accept a delineation report unless it is performed between the months of May and October
so any approval granted has to be done on a preliminary basis. The delineation will then be
redone. There is also a small depression to the northwest of the wetland area which mayor may
not be a wetland. The developer's engineer is indicating it is not a wetland but this is subje~t to
determination. The applicant's plat takes the City's new wetland setbacks into account. Staff is
suggesting that wherever feasible, the wetland setback be increased in exchange for the reduced
front yard setback requested by the applicant.
Nielsen reported the site is heavily wooded with large trees of many species. The applicant's plan
will disturb the area with the construction of the homes and the installation of water and sewer.
There will also be site alteration where the road is cut in. Staff is recommending that the Tree
Preservation Plan which was submitted be revised to clearly show which trees will be removed and
which trees will be saved. Nielsen noted the development will require installation of ponding
which is consistent with the NURP ponding standards. This will require additional tree removal.
The ponding will occur on the north end of the property.
Nielsen reported the applicant proposes to extend sewer for this project southward to Valleywood
Lane. The City Engineer is exploring the possibility of extending the sewer to Eureka Road, using
the old driveway area which served the cottage on the southerly parcel. It has also been suggested
that a trench box be used which could require as little as 12 feet. The City is proposing to extend
City water to Eureka Road in 1996. A neighborhood public hearing on this matter is scheduled for
March 12, 1996. There is a possibility that Eureka Road will not be upgraded. Nielsen stated it
appears that the majority of the stormwater runoff will be conducted to the street, picked up by
storm sewer and directed to the retention pond at the rear of Lots 1-3, Block 2. The Shorewood
Parks Plan does not include any land acquisition in the area in which the land is located.
Therefore, the plat will be subject to park dedication fees of $1000 per lot, with credit given for the
lot with the existing home on it.
Nielsen reported most of the lots reflect the standard size of the R-IC district. Nielsen stated the
smaller lots are buildable but staff is concerned with the size of the lot relative to the size of the
home which will be built there. An additional concern is that the lot coverage not exceed the
maximum of 25%. Staff is suggesting the applicant demonstrate how the homes will be put on the
lots within the requirements. Nielsen reported the alignment of the road is generally where it has to
be. Staff is suggesting the developer and City Engineer explore measures of reducing tree loss on
the south side of the road, such as grade requirements, retaining walls, shifting the alignment of
the paved surface, shared driveways, etc.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 3
Nielsen indicated staff recommends that the site is deserving of special attention. Planned unit
development of this site is the best way to preserve the natural character of the land. Staff is
recommending that the developer demonstrate how homes would be constructed on Lots 1 and 2,
and Lot 3, Block 2. Detailed plans showing grading, tree preservation, construction limits,
maximum driveway grades of eight percent and maximum slopes of 3:1 should be required for
review. Also serious consideration should be given to eliminating one of the lots in Block 1.
Charles Dillerud, representing the Dahlstrom Abingdon Limited Partnership, stated they have
completed developments in the Cities of Shorewood, Orono, and Plymouth. He noted they had
spent two years considering options for this parcel which included the Ruffenach and Keifer
property. It has now been determined that development of these parcels should be taken in
sequence. He stated the proposal is consistent with the land use plan of the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Shorewood. He noted the shorter street has resulted in the different lots sizes and
the flag lot. He noted the P.U.D. results in only 10 11 lots, where a conventional plat would
result in 11 lots. He stated from the developer's perspective, this project is not driving the City
water installation. He noted it would cost $3,600 for installation of wells in comparison to
$12,000 per lot for City water. He noted they were, however, in support of the City water project.
Mr. Dillerud noted there are 453 trees on the site. The proposal will preserve 2/3 of these trees.
He stated City staff has suggested that the homes shown on the plat were not as large as the typical
homes built in this company's development. He noted he had taken an average of the size of six
homes which were sold in the Heritage Development and the result was 73.67 feet in width and
62.83 feet in depth. He exhibited a drawing in which this dimension of home was drawn into the
plat and noted the change would affect only 17 additional trees. Mr. Dillerud stated he did not have
the necessary information to address the issue raised by staff of the tree removal along the east side
of Lot 1, Block 1. He stated ije felt it would be possible to place homes on all the lots and not
exceed the maximum 25% lot coverage requirement to meet the Shoreland District requirements.
Mr. Greg Frank, Dahlstrom Abingdon Limited Partnership, noted this was a sensitive site. He
suggested that by utilizing the P. U.D., the same density would be maintained but less site
alteration would result. He stated he felt the wetland setbacks could be enhanced as City staff had
suggested. He commended the City for their creation of the wetland ordinance. He stated this
concept plan does address the ordinance and is in conformance with the requirements. He noted
City staff had suggested retaining walls or other options to protect the wetlands and the woods.
He suggested the City consider allowing a narrower right-of-way and narrower street width.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Chair Borkon entered letters received from Mary and Maurice Pokorny; Jason M. Fredericks,
25780 Wi1drose Lane; and Kate Lynch-Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle into record.
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated he felt the City believed the neighbors were late in
being involved with the decision on rezoning of this property. He noted the neighbors may be late,
but they are here now. He expressed the neighborhood's strong opposition to the rezoning of a
higher density of this property. He stated the neighbors believed this was a bad idea and could see
no rationale for the rezoning. He stated he had read the minutes from the 1980 meetings regarding
the Comprehensive Plan and felt it was clear that the intent of the rezoning was to make the Land
Use map and zoning of the property consistent. He stated the original decision to rezone the area
did not take into account the character of the neighborhood or the environmental impact. He stated
he hoped the Planning Commission would make a sensible decision which would benefit the
citizens, the neighborhood and the children.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 . PAGE 4
Chair Borkon entered into record a petition received in opposition to the rezoning of the
aforementioned property and letters received from Joan Johnston, Excelsior Boulevard and James
William, Martha Lane, Minnetonka, MN.
Greg Buckley, 25885 Birch Bluff Road, stated he and his wife had moved to Shorewood four
years ago and started a family. He stated they had intended to remain in their current location for
years to come but were concerned with the proposal for the Watten Ponds property. He indicated
his concerns were that the property was being rezoned from a required 40,000 square foot per lot
to 20,000 square foot per lot with 1/3 of the lots being less than the lowered requirement; the
destruction of the wildlife habitat and the loss of trees that would result; the impact of the increased
traffic; the. impact of the increased density of the development on the school system; and that the
area would lose it's rural attractiveness. He stated he was not against development but did not
want to see another development like Noble Road where trees and wildlife were replaced with
oversized homes and postage stamp lots.
Steve Croissant, 26025 Birch Bluff Road, stated his wife was unable to attend the meeting tonight
but echoed his concerns. He indicated he felt it would be better to stay with the larger R-IA zoning
classification for this property. He noted not only would trees be destroyed with this development
but also the wildlife area. He stated he had recently seen owls in the area and there have been
hawks on his deck. He questioned the impact to the wildlife area. He also noted he felt this
development would overcrowd the schools. He noted the recent bond issue. He stated he felt the
City should leave the zoning the way it is and the developer should work around it. He noted the
Heritage Development has a request before the City Council asking to fill in wetland areas on the
site. He questioned if that request were granted, what would prevent a precedent being set and the
same thing being done on this property.
Steve Undis, 25555 Nelsine Drive, read a letter prepared by his wife and approved by several of
the neighbors, expressing a concern regarding the rezoning of the Watten Ponds property. It stated
a concern for the neighborhood wildlife and the streets and schools becoming more crowded. It
noted the residents are not asking for anything, just to keep the R-IA requirements of 40,000
square feet. It stated the higher density of the development does not conform with the
characteristics of the neighborhood and questioned how it would benefit the area, the City and the
future. It noted the neighborhood is not opposed to development if it is done in a responsible way.
It asked that the City not allow the filling in of wetlands and destruction of the environment. The
letter noted the 3rd phase of the Gideon Development looked like a bomb had been dropped on the
property. The developer of the project has already requested a permit to fIll in the wetlands. It
questioned why this was done after the project was started and the houses built. The letter
expressed concern that this would be done on the Watten Ponds property also. It requested that the
representatives make a decision based on the public good and urged the Commission to take the
concerns expressed into consideration.
Jerry O'Neil, 25540 Nelsine Drive, stated he shared all the concerns which had previously been
expressed. He stated he had learned tonight there were two more parcels which may be developed
and that Eureka Road may not be upgraded. He felt the rezoning and increased density would set a
precedent for these two lots and dump a lot of traffic onto Eureka Road. He stated he and his wife
opposed the high density development.
Patricia Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, asked what benefits would result from the rezoning to a
higher density and creation of more lots on this property. She noted the Comprehensive Plan
seems to be the prime consideration. She stated this development will not conform with the
characteristics of the neighborhood. She noted the Valleywood neighborhood had similar
topography and was able to maintain large, wooded lots averaging 39,000 square feet in area. She
stated for the Watten Ponds property to maintain the semi-rural character it deserved, six or less
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 5
lots should be developed on the property. She submitted a suggested plat illustrating this design.
She stated she was also concerned that staff had stated the building pads appeared too small and the
lot coverage may exceed 25%. She stated she could see no benefit to the higher density and
smaller lots and felt the City should maintain the required 40,000 square feet of area and allow six
homesites to be developed.
Carrie Dorfman, 25845 Birch Bluff Road, noted that when she referred to "land" she was speaking
of the broad amount of land which was being addressed, not just the Watten Ponds property. She
stated she had lived on Birch Bluff Road for 28 years and was a homeowner and also an ordained
Presbyterian Minister specializil).g in spiritual direction. She stated that tonight she spoke both as a
neighbor and as a professional. She stated she wanted to address the spiritual component of living
here and the spiritual health of the neighborhood. She stated although she was only one voice, she
felt she shared many named realities which are shared realities common to the many people who
live here. Each person has a story of why they live where they live. Each person has seen
children playing and exploring the swamps. Her own story is about how she came to the
realization that a sense of self is intimately connected with this place. For a two year period she
drove a 102 mile triangle in the metro area. This was very time consuming. But when she
returned home to the woods, she experienced a deep peace and wholeness. It was then that she
realized that where she lived was a sanctuary. A place where her spirit was nurtured and fed, her
soul was touched with beauty. A space where she could experience a connection with the whole of
creation. We receive gifts from this land. The owls call to one another and we experience wonder
and delight, the frogs announce another spring and we have hope. We stand with the trees in deep
quiet and we experience mystery. We behold the landscape in the midst of this past winter's
icestorm and we are awestruck. Beauty, peace, connectedness, wonder, mystery, awe, all feed the
spirit. She stated tonight we are engaged in making decisions that affect the lives of generations to
come and the land. She stated we have the responsibility to act in behalf of forms of non-human
life and on behalf of generations to come, as well as to act on our own behalf. She stated she
believed the discussions tonight only continue society's trend of estranging ourselves from
wonder, awe, mystery. She urged the Planning Commission to walk easy on this land and to
recognize the sacred dignity of all creation. To keep the zoning as it is, R-1A.
Gale Olson, Jr., 25775 Birch Bluff Road, stated he has lived in Shorewood for 20 years, knows
the woods and used to play back there. He felt the increased density in the area would ruin the area
for the wildlife. He noted there is pheasant, grouse, and deer on the property. He stated the high
density and rezoning of the property would greatly affect more than the Watten Ponds property.
He stated he felt future property owners would try to expand into the swamp. Future owners
would not have the knowledge and would not come to the City. They would expand into the
swamp and destroy it. He felt that high density zoning was like suicide to that property. He noted
bigger lots would give children a place to play. If children have no place to play they will go other
places and destroy things. He stated he felt the only advantage of high density was a higher profit
for the developer. He noted houses will also kill a lot of undergrowth. He also noted if someone
buys the house in the future, there are no regulations which will stop them from cutting the trees
down.
Judy England, 25555 Orchard Circle, noted that when the original determination was made on
rezoning in 1981, significantly smaller homes were being built. This could have been an impact on
that decision. She noted that 34% of the significant trees would be removed. She explained
significant trees were trees eight inches diameter at breast height. Any trees smaller than this were
not even being acknowledged. She stated she removed only one tree when she constructed her
home. She also had to remove some sumac but she tried to maintain as much of the vegetation as
possible. She questioned where the backfill from digging out the basement would be placed on a
15,000 square foot lot as to not impact the trees and vegetation. She stated she did not agree that
one NURP pond would handle all the run-off from this development. She noted that in a
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 6
developed area 55% of the rainfall became run-off as compared to 15% before development. She
stated she felt the proposed rezoning was not necessary. She stated she felt the zoning must
respect the land and adjacent property owners at this time.
Doug Miller, 25525 Orchard Circle, asked how many in the audience knew the Comprehensive
Plan included rezoning of this property. He stated he did not see how the rezoning would benefit
the citizens of Shorewood. He felt it only had drawbacks. He stated he had surveyed 80 to 90
people and almost 100% surveyed in the area don't want the development. He felt the schools
could not support the additional children. He noted a letter written by Dr. Clark Evans and copied
to Lloyd Law. This letter stated the Miflflewashta Elemootary School e*peeted the additiOfl of 100
~~~~:~~: y:ar. It stated the. sc?ool bases its calculations on one acre lots. It projects the
________~ :~---ffi_ntary school wlthm five years. }~ flew elementary school would tak-e two
years to build. He suggested the City consider a development moratorium and perform a study on
development to make sure the City can accommodate the growth and increased traffic. He noted
Eureka Road is the main route for kids going to school and to the beach. The main reasons for his
recommendations were the Shoreland requirements, protection of the wildlife and wetlands, tree
preservation, people don't want the increased development, and to protect the children and provide
the best possible education.
Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, stated he had lived across from this property for 23 years. He
stated he was opposed to the rezoning and new development of the Watten Ponds property. He
noted he was opposed for all the reasons outlined previously but also posed some rhetorical
questions. He questioned who really owned the land and was responsible for it. He stated the
truth was that the land really did. not belong to any of us. It belongs to the future, to the children
and the grandchildren. He asked the Planning Commission to look into the future when making
their decision.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 8:37 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
Chair Borkon entered letters received by Gary and Peggy Dressel, 25505 Nelsine Drive and Susan
and Peter Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle into record.
Fred Lounsbury, 25990 Birch Bluff Road, stated he and his wife had lived in their home for 30
years and were concerned and opposed to the rezoning of the area known as Watten Ponds. He
stated they moved here and continued to live here because of the rural and wooded nature of the
area and placed their reliance in the zoning regulations. He stated he did not believe that changing
the zoning would benefit the citizens or the City. On the contrary, he felt it would result in
destruction of a number of trees, loss of habitat, birds and wildlife and potential danger to Lake
Minnetonka as a consequence of the run-off. He respectfully requested that the present zoning
requirements be maintained.
Bill Bukovec, 5335 Eureka Road, stated he was opposed to the rezoning. He noted the developer
gave his presentation and gave his history but this was not work done in the City of Shorewood.
The developer stated this was not an area where he would put townhomes but this was also not an
area for large houses on small lots. He stated he wished everyone could drive down Orchard
Circle and see how the neighbors try to preserve nature. He stated he does not believe this
development will benefit the City of Shorewood. He noted the developer has stated he is in favor
of installing private wells as City water will be a financial burden. Mr. Bukovec stated he does not
believe this burden will be absorbed by the developer but passed on to the person who is buying
the house and lot. He stated the developer has said he will preserve trees and save the wetlands,
but he does not believe him. He stated he would like to thank the developer for the development
on Noble Road because when he and his wife are having a bad day, they can get in the car and
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 . PAGE 7
drive by that development and say they are happy they do not live there. He stated when he thinks
of that development, the first word that comes to mind is "blight".
Gary Dressel, 25505 Nelsine Drive, stated he had the same concerns that had been previously
expressed. He questioned what the City had to gain by rezoning this property. He stated the only
one who would gain was the developer. He stated he had lived in Shorewood for eighteen years
and enjoyed the "village" atmosphere of the City. He felt the developments in the City were an
eyesore.
Russ Erickson, 5425 Valleywood Circle, stated he owned the piece of property that looked directly
across at the proposed development. He stated he felt the residents of the City would be directly
and horribly impacted by the development. He noted that thousands of rainforests in Brazil were
destroyed everyday and everyone asks why doesn't anyone do something. He felt the proposed
development was the same situation. He asked that the City weigh the profit of the developer and
land owner against the fate of the homeowner and wildlife of the area. He felt the development
would jeopardize the integrity of Lake Minnetonka.
Mark Harland, 5300 Eureka Road, stated he lives in the area directly north of the proposed
development. He stated he greatly appreciates the wildlife in the area and has seen deer,
woodpeckers and woken to the sound of the owls. He stated he grew up in St. Louis Park but had
chosen Shorewood because of the area, the existing conditions, the zoning, the wildlife and the
trees.
Mike Herman, (gave his three minutes to Greg Larson).
Mr. Larson stated he was concerned with the traffic problem on Smithtown Road and Eureka
Road. He stated he had seen nothing worse than the destruction at Gideon Woods. He stated
there had been many promises made by the developer at the 1993 Planning Commission meeting in
regards to landscape but none had been kept. He stated he was concerned this C.D.P. would
produce the same results. He indicated for the past few months he has taken the opportunity to
speak with every Planning Commissioner, City Councilmember, and City staff and none of these
people has been able to explain the benefit of the proposed high density.
Lori Herman, (gave her three minutes to Greg Larson).
Mr. Larson asked the Planning Commission to consider what benefit would result for the kids, the
City and the environment. He stated if a benefit cannot be determined, he felt the P.D.D. and
rezoning should be denied. He stated the streets would be more dangerous due to the increased
traffic, larger class sizes would. hurt the children and 12 lots would require the removal of more
trees. He stated he believed the development could be done in a way that would be compatible
with the environment. He stated the letter from Clark Evans stated that the projections are based on
one acre lots. He stated he felt the implications of the rezoning would have an implication on a
larger basis than the City was acknowledging.
Duane Laurel, 5595 Eureka Road, stated the Planning Commission had a big decision before them
tonight. He stated he felt part of the problem was that Mr. Watten had owned the property for a
long time. He stated everyone in the City has enjoyed the property and owed Mr. Watten a thank
you. All Mr. Watten is trying to do is sell the property so he can retire. The problem as he saw it
was that Mr. Watten wanted to get as much out of the property as possible. He noted if 75 foot
wide houses were put on 100 foot lots there would only be 12-1/2 feet on either side of the house.
He questioned if this was within the integrity of Shorewood. He expressed concern that rezoning
of this property would set a precedent for the property to the west and asked the Planning
Commission to take a hard look at the situation.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 8
Jeff Marshall, 911 Iris Circle, representing his parents who reside at 5320 Eureka Road, stated his
parents were firmly opposed to the rezoning of the property. Their major concern was with Lots 1
and 2. He expressed concern for the preservation of the maple trees as well as the evergreen trees.
He expressed concern that the NDRP pond was being placed right in the middle of an incline of a
hill. He felt this would look completely ridiculous. He again stated his parents were opposed to
the rezoning and the development as it stands as it was completely out of character for the City of
Shorewood. He stated he thought the P.D.D. was used to provide more sensitivity to an area and
protect nature rather than to put more lots in a smaller area.
Gene Ruffenach, 25725 Birch Bluff Road, stated he was the biggest neighbor to the property. He
stated he had no disagreement with the development but suggested the road be named Birch Bluff
Trail.
Chair Borkon entered letters received by Jim and Judy Marshall, 5320 Eureka Road; Mr. and Mrs.
A.E. Lounsbury; and Russ and Angel Erickson, 5425 Valleywood Circle into record.
Tim Miller, 5455 Valleywood Circle, stated he had lived here all his life and felt the City would get
nothing from this development. He stated he and his friends play in the woods everyday and he
felt the development was dumb.
Mr. Harland noted the drainage from this property would run from this site, through the drainage
basins, into Crescent Beach, through Lake Minnetonka, down the Mississippi Minnehaha Falls,
into the Mississippi River and all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. He did not feel one little pond
was going to handle the drainage of the site. He felt this development would encourage juvenile
delinquency as the children would no longer have a place to play and would also create a
neighborhood where neighbors look directly from their window into the neighbor's window.
Vern Watten, stated he felt that many of the comments that had been made were self-serving. He
stated he resented the suggestion of defloration duplicity in his role as a Planning Commission
member. He stated he bought his home in 1964 and two years later had the opportunity to
purchase the additional 10 acres. He stated he had maintained the property which has been
vandalized by the children playing on it. The cottage which was located on the property has been
ruined by vandalism. He noted everyone seems to think this property is their private park but he
has maintained the property and paid the taxes for 30 years. He is now ready to retire and leave the
area for a warmer climate. He stated he offered to sell the property to the City to use a park
property but was told the City cannot buy the land. The developer has complied with the
suggested land use requirements. Mr. Watten noted the residents had a responsibility to their own
children. He felt the development should be considered favorably.
Mr. Larson stated the neighborhood was not opposed to development but believed it their right as
property owners in the City of Shorewood, to have the property developed responsibly. The
neighborhood is adamantly opposed to the rezoning and the P.D.D. They feel the area can be
developed under the current zoning. He stated they are asking for a vote tonight as it is owed to
the developer, Mr. Watten, the citizens and taxpayers of Shorewood.
Mr. Olson, stated he grew up playing on this land and was taught to respect the property. He
stated no one is against development of the property but they are here tonight to evaluate what
should be done. He stated he is totally against high density and low density will have less of an
affect on the environment. He stated he did not want Shorewood to look like downtown
Minneapolis. He noted no one can guarantee that anyone who buys the house will not come in and
cut down all the trees. He stated larger lots will give the children more area to play and will have
less impact on the trees and environment.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 9
Steve Croissant, noted the consensus was that the development was going to happen but he only
hoped it would be in a way that it would influence a better future. He stated he was concerned
with the future of his three small school age children, the safety of the community and the
environment. He stated he had moved here from New Jersey and doesn't want to move anywhere
else. If the development does happen, he only hopes it will be done responsibly.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 9:30 p.m.
Chair Borkon asked for clarification of the zoning requirements and a brief overview of the history
ofthe Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen outlined the requirements of the R-IA, R-IB, R-IC, and R-
ID Zoning Districts. He explained the property was designated to have a density of 1 to 2 units in
the late 1970s and was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 1981. Factors that influenced the
decision at that time were regional pressure from the Metropolitan Council for affordable housing
in Shorewood, sporadic interest in the provision of municipal utilities and some concern about the
legal ramification of exclusionary zoning. Nielsen explained the zoning was also suggested to
provide a graduation in lot size from the Valleywood area to the smaller lots. The only difference
in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan was that the City had planned to do the rezoning itself. This point
is Hffite. moot since the developer is requesting the rezoning before the City is able to address the
issue. Nielsen noted there are 7.6 acres surrounding the Watten Ponds property which remain to
be developed. The Ruffenach property of 5 acres and the Keefer property of 2.6 acres.
City staff and the developer addressed the questions raised by the public during the public hearing.
Mr. Dillerud explained the benefits of the rezoning included conformity with the Comprehensive
Plan and an increase in the tax base.
Nielsen explained he did not feel the rezoning would have an adverse affect on the school system.
He noted in terms of the overall school system, Shorewood was a very small portion. There was
Commission consensus to direct staff to clarify this issue and clarify the land use used for
projection by the School District.
Nielsen confirmed there was a request to mitigate wetlands in the Noble Road development. This
request was tabled at the last City Council meeting. Nielsen stated the wildlife on the property
would be affected by this development as it would with any development of the property. Nielsen
noted the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition from residents for the City to
prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The EQB has received the petition, will make a
determination and then forward a determination to the City.
Nielsen indicated the City had no control in regard to tree preservation after the development was
complete. The Tree Preservation Plan did ensure control during the development and a letter of
credit would be required to ensure that the agreements were completed. Nielsen stated he did not
feel this rezoning would set a precedent for the two remaining undeveloped parcels.
Nielsen stated the backfill from the smaller lots would probably be stockpiled during construction.
The Tree Preservation Plan will be required to show where the dirt will be piled as to not affect the
existing trees. Nielsen noted staff has requested the developer show how the homes would be
located on the smaller lots.
City Engineer Brown stated in regard to the run-off, City ordinance requires that the developer
maintain run-off from the site at the pre-development rate. He noted the City has requested some
changes to the drainage plan including a safety bench within the pond. These items will be
submitted by the developer as part of the design review. Brown explained the standard level of
standing water in the NURP ponds is four feet.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 10
Mr. Greg Frank explained the maximum level of water retained in the NURP pond calculated at a
two year storm event was 4-1/2 feet. The maximum retention of water in the ponds was one to
two days.
Brown explained the City would be responsible for maintenance of the NURP ponds. He stated
the latest agreement with the Watershed District required the ponds to be inspected on an annual
basis.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated the City staff, City Council and Planning Commission had done
everything in their power to make the residents aware of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Update.
He indicated the neighborhood meetings regarding this update were announced on cable television
and published in the newspaper. Commissioner Turgeon noted there was even a moratorium
placed on development during the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Nielsen indicated Minnesota States Statutes require that the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning be
consistent. The land use designated in the Comprehensive Plan calls for one to two units per acre.
Three different zonings could accommodate this including R-IA, R-IB and R-IC. The plan to
date recommended R -1 C based on the surrounding zoning.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he resented the fact that residents had insinuated that there was a
collusion or conspiracy between Mr. Watten's service on the Planning Commission and the
rezoning of this property.
Nielsen noted the Comprehensive Plan calls for more and more use of the P.U.D. Shorewood is a
unique community due to the amount of sensitive land, wetlands and lakeshore. The P.U.D. is
viewed as a means to preserve the natural amenities of the area. The P.U.D. allows the developer
flexibility and allows the City to gain better continuity of the development.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 10:42 p.m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if this rezoning would set a precedent for the land to the west.
Nielsen noted the Comprehensive Plan calls for zero to one units per acre density in the land to the
west.
Commissioner Lizee stated she was troubled by the small lot sizes. Commissioner Kolstad stated
she did not see the rationale and justification of rezoning the area from R-IA to R-l C. She did not
believe the result would be that low and moderate income housing would be placed on the lots.
She stated she saw no benefit to" the City except a higher tax base. She did see however, a lot of
damage resulting to the woods and the aesthetics of the property.
Nielsen explained due to the configuration of the land and impact of the wetland setbacks, R -1 C
zoning without a P.U.D. would only result in 12 lots on the property. With R-IA zoning a
maximum of9 units would be allo'lled, 12 units with the use ofthe P.U.D. 10 lots could possibly
be accomplished with use of the P. U.D. He stated he suspected 10 lots under traditional R-IA
zoning \.vould could result in considerable more site alteration.
Nielsen explained that if it were determined that the .19 acre in question was wetland, it would
affect lot configuration but not the density level of the project. Any development which is
approved for this site will be preliminary subject to the wetland confirmation.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated that every development will have an impact on the landscape.
He noted he was troubled by the size of the homes. He stated he had serious reservations about
this development and felt the "phantom" wetland could have an impact on the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 11
.
Chair Borkon expressed concern that the Commission did not have all the information on how the
wetlands could affect the lots. She asked what control the City had on the size of homes built in
the development. Nielsen noted the City had not exerted control over residential size previously,
other than to regulate setbacks, building heights, etc.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she was concerned with the location of the road and the preservation
of the pine trees. She asked if a narrower road was feasible. Nielsen stated a narrower road
would present problems with location of utilities, snow storage and on-street parking. Possible
solutions for preservation of the pine trees were retaining walls and road grades.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she felt strongly that if there was a reduction in the front setbacks
there should be an increase in the backyard setbacks to protect the wetlands. She indicated she
found it difficult to believe an Eiden home would fit on Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. She stated she
was concerned there would be more than 25% lot coverage and would suggest Lot 1 either be
removed or combined with Lot 2. She asked if there was room for decks, porches or patios on
these lots and stated she did not want to see any variance requests. She stated she did not feel
comfortable with the flag lot.
Mr. Dillerud stated there will be. decks on the homes where there is room within the setbacks. His
assumption was there would not be any variances required.
Nielsen stated he felt the flag lot was appropriate in this development because it allowed the street
to be shortened.
.
Commissioner Pisula stated he felt the project was too massive. He stated he felt nine units would
be an appropriate number for this property. He noted this was a unique site and a P.U.D. would
be a valuable tool. He stated he was willing to be flexible on the size of the lots but 15,000 square
feet was not functional given the size home and amount of amenities people desire of a home in
Shorewood.
Chair Borkon stated she felt generally uncomfortable with the plan as it stands now. She stated
she was concerned with the size of the home which would be placed on these lots and the setbacks
and noted she would like more information on the impact of the wetlands on the proposed lots.
She indicated she agreed Lot 1 should be removed. She stated she was uncomfortable with the
school issue.
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she would like a more accurate Tree Preservation . Plan which
explained where the homes would fit on the lot within the trees.
Turgeon moved to continue the public hearing for the request for rezoning from
R-IA to R-IC and conditional use permit for Watten Ponds P.U.D., Dahlstrom
Abingdon L.L.P., 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road until such time as the developer
provides a more accurate Tree Preservation Plan demonstrating how the homes
will be positioned on the lots, which trees will be saved and which removed,
fencing, staff recommendations and resolution of the wetland and school issue.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she did not agree with tabling the rezoning request. She felt it was
appropriate to table the C.U.P. but that it was necessary to determine the zoning of the property so
the developer would know his constraints. She stated she would prefer to keep the property at the
R-1A zoning and allow that only 9 lots be created. She indicated she felt there was a problem with
the notification of the Comprehensive Plan Update in 1995 and the residents did not realize that
included rezoning issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 12
.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted the City did its best to inform the residents and the rezoning has
been on the books since 1981. Chair Borkon acknowledged there had been a communication
problem somewhere but noted the City had made a wholehearted attempt to ensure the residents
were aware of the process. Commissioner Turgeon noted there had been a development
moratorium in place at the time and it was in the local newspaper.
Commissioner Kolstad acknowledged that residents probably received the notices but did not
realize the issues included rezoning.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Kolstad moved to recommend City Council deny the request for rezoning from R-
1A to R-IC for Watten Ponds P.U.D., Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P., 5340 and
5370 Eureka Road.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she did not see what this would accomplish. R-1A zoning could
result in a significantly larger amount of site alteration than R-1C zoning.
Nielsen noted another option available to the Commissioners would be to simply zone the area
P.D.D. The P.D.D. zoning is tied to the specific project. If the project fails, the zoning returns to
R-1A.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he had serious reservations regarding allowing 12 lots on this
property. He stated he would like the Commission to give the developer and land owner clear
direction but it was difficult in this situation.
. The motion died for lack of a second.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to continue the public hearing for the
request for rezoning from R-IA to R-IC and conditional use permit for Watten
Ponds P.U.D., Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P., 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road to
March 19, 1996, requesting the developer provide a detailed Tree Preservation
Plan including detailed examples of how the homes would be situated on the lots
and guaranteeing inclusion of decks, cement patios and amenities, clarification 0 f
the school issues and clarification of the wetland issue. Motion passed 5 ayes / 1
nay (Commissioner Kolstad voted nay).
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Jay Venero, 5985 Seamons Drive, stated he currently had a conditional use permit to allow he and
his wife to sell perennials from their home on an appointment only basis. He stated they had
serious problems with deer on their property and would like to install an eight foot arbor type
fence. He stated he would also like to construct a 1500 square foot auxiliary building on the
property. Both of these requests are non-conforming. He requested the Commissioner's opinion
as to whether they would consider the applicant favorably before he started the application process.
There was Commission consensus that Mr. Venero talk with his neighbors and solicit some
responses to the proposal. The Commission noted the proposal did not appear to be problematic
and they were open to work with the resident. They were however non-committal at this time.
.
Mark Franchcek, stated he could see the rezoning issue from the City's viewpoint and the
resident's viewpoint. He felt the general public was uninformed and it created a difficult situation
for the City and a passionate issue for the residents.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 4, 1996 - PAGE 13
3.
REPORTS
Commissioner Lizee reported her attendance at a recent Park Commission meeting. She stated
discussions involved more specific information regarding the Minnetonka Hockey Association's
request.
Commissioner Kolstad reported the pilot survey of the Snowmobile Task Force will be sent out at
the end of the week. The authentic survey will be distributed near the end of the month of March.
Two copies will be sent to each household.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Motion
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lorri L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council
Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Rosenberger.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the March 4, 1996 Commission
meeting minutes as amended on Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 8 replace "loose" with
"lose"; on Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 1 replace "Karrie" with "Carrie"; on Page 6,
Paragraph 2, delete Lines "This letter stated the Minnewashta Elementary School
expected the addition of 100 to 125 students next year. It projects the need for a
new elementary school within five years. A new elementary school would take
two years to build.; on Page 8, Paragraph 5, Line 1 replace "Mississippi" with
"Minnehaha" and Paragraph 6, Line 2 replace "defloration" with "duplicity"; on
page 9, Paragraph 3, Line 10 replace "mute" with "moot"; on Page 10, Paragraph
9, Line 3 replace "9 unites would be allowed, 12 units with the P. U .D. " with "10
lots could possibly be accomplished with use of the P.U.D." and on Line 4 insert
"traditional" after "under" and replace "would" with "could"; on Page 11,
Paragraph 3, Line 5 insert "be" before "removed" and on Line 6 replace "request"
with "requests" and on Page 13, Paragraph 5, Line 1 replace "p.m." with "a.m.".
Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING FROM R-IA TO R-IC AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WATTEN PONDS P.U.D. (Continued
from March 4, 1996)
Applicant:
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. She asked that
due to the lengthy discussion regarding this issue at the Public Hearing on March 4, 1996, that all
public testimony tonight be related to only new information.
Planning Director Nielsen stated there was no staff report or specific review of responses to the
development plan. He noted this item had been tabled for two weeks which was a limited amount
of time for the developer to respond and staff and the Planning Commission to review the
response. He noted some new information had been received from the developer. Additional
work had been performed on the wetland delineation but this issue can not be resolved until after
May 1, 1996 as previously indicated. Additional information had been submitted in regard to tree
preservation which was on display for review. Nielsen stated an attempt had been made by the
developer to illustrate how a typical home built by Tony Eiden could or would fit on the building
pads. Nielsen noted staff has not had the opportunity to determine if these illustrations meet the
criteria stated in the previous staff report relating to driveway grades, slopes, etc. Nielsen noted a
petition had been filed by a number of residents requesting an environmental review of the project.
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has determined the City shall be the Responsible
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 2
Governmental Unit and as such is required to evaluate if an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
is necessary. This determination will be made at the March 25, 1996 City Council meeting.
Nielsen stated due to the above circumstances, staff is recommending the request for rezoning and
conditional use permit of Watt en Ponds P.U.D. be tabled.
Charles Dillerud, representing the Dahlstrom Abingdon Limited Partnership, stated he would like
the minutes of the March 4, 1996 Planning Commission amended. He stated on Page 3,
Paragraph 2, Line 7, it should state "the P.U.D. results in 11 lots", rather than 10 as stated in the
minutes. Mr. Dillerud reported his Soil Engineer has again inspected the depression on the
property which the public has suggested is a jurisdictional wetland. He stated there are three
criteria which identify a wetland. Kelly J. Bopray, Certified Professional Soil Scientist, has
indicated in his letter dated March 15, 1996, that this depression does not meet any of the three
wetland criteria. Mr. Dillerud acknowledged that this issue will have to confirmed by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District after May 1, 1996.
Mr. Dillerud stated an attempt had been made to fit typical homes of the Heritage Development onto
the three sites he believed were in question in the development. On Lot 1, Block 1, a two-story
home of 3600 square feet with four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a porch and a deck was placed
within the required setbacks. The deck has been reduced by 1.5 feet to fit within the setback.
Nielsen noted the setbacks used in this illustration were incorrect as the home would be required to
front Eureka Road.
Mr. Dillerud stated the way the home is laid out in the illustration is within the setbacks and has
achieved a driveway grade of 8% with a 23% lot coverage. It includes a three car garage of 34 feet
by 22 feet and has a market value of $430,000.00. Mr. Dillerud explained a second type of home
from the Heritage Development was placed on Lot 2, Block 1. This house is 3,700 square feet
with four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a porch and a deck. This home fits on the lot within the
required setbacks. It has an 8% driveway grade and 25% lot coverage. It includes a garage of
34.5 feet by 22.5 feet and has a market value of $425,000.00 to $430,000.00. The same house
proposed for Lot 1, Block 1 has been placed on Lot 3, Block 2 and fits on the lot within the
required setbacks. It has a 5% driveway grade, 16% lot coverage and a market value of
$430,000.00 to $440,000.00. He stated he did not believe there were questions regarding any of
the other lots in the development.
Mr. Dillerud stated he believed Mr. Nielsen had spoken with the School District but he was
unaware of the outcome of that conversation.
Mr. Dillerud stated he did not agree with the amount of trees illustrated on the map to be removed.
He stated it was a false assumption to believe a developer would take down trees on a whim. He
stated the Heritage Development was the first development in the City of Shorewood which was
affected by the Tree Preservation Plan and great care was taken to preserve the trees in that
development. He noted wooded lots are worth more.
Nielsen noted this map was taken directly from the developer's engineering report.
Mr. Dillerud stated he did not feel this issue could be properly illustrated until the specific lot plans
were determined. Mr. Dillerud stated one issue that had been repeatedly noted at the previous
public hearing was density. He noted density can be considered in a visual sense or a numbers
sense. The Comprehensive Plan establishes density for an area with the land use plan. The
rationale behind the P.D.D. process is not to increase the density, although an increase of 10% is
allowed in the ordinance, but to allow for adjustment of the arrangement of lots on the site. This is
done to protect the sensitive areas of the site. This can result in lot sizes being inconsistent with
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 3
other lot sizes in the community. The visual concept of density is addressed with the Zoning
ordinances which control building height, bulk, and setbacks. Mr. Dillerud stated he believed that
the actual density of the property to the north, east and south of this site was .5 to .66 acres per lot
after deduction of the wetlands rather than the one unit per acre as previously stated. He stated it
had also been noted that the proposed development would provide a transitional density between
the existing properties. He noted this is correct as the average lot size of the development will be
33,000 square feet with existing properties average lot sizes of 30,000 square feet on one side of
the development and 40,000 square feet on the other side of the development. He explained it was
correct that the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan drove the zoning of the area. Mr. Dillerud
noted he did not expect to request any variances for this project. He noted the petition for an EA W
and stated this would be discussed at the March 25, 1996 City Council meeting.
Mr. Dillerud stated he felt the P1anning Commission had been provided with the information they
had requested. He felt the proposal was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
regulations and ordinances.
Mr. Greg Frank, Dahlstrom Abingdon Limited Partnership, noted the lot sizes and precise
locations have not yet been determined for this development. As a result each tree on the site was
identified and the worst case scenario was assumed. He stated there are trees on the site which are
certain to be lost. These trees are indicated on the map with heavy dots. The other trees identified
mayor may not be lost. He stated he was confident the amount of trees which would remain will
be in excess of the City's ordinance.
There was Planning Commission direction to amend the minutes as stated by Mr.
Charles Dillerud on Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 7 replace "only 10" with "11".
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Chair Borkon noted she had received a message on her answering machine which she was unable
to understand. She noted it was a woman and stated she would be happy to speak with this person
if they would kindly contact her again.
Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, asked the rationale for this parcel being slotted to be rezoned
from R-IA to R-IC in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he felt this plan appeared to be cast in
stone rather than a guideline to work from. He stated the residents feel the plan is wrong and
should be altered to fit the needs of the neighborhood. He stated the City should quantify and
define the density benefits which are coming from the P.U.D. He felt three different plans should
be presented for review. One with R-IA standard zoning, one with R-IA P.U.D. and one with R-
lC P.U.D. The only plan submitted had the highest density which would have the greatest impact
on the area.
Patricia Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, expressed her appreciation for the City of Shorewood's
Tree Preservation Plan and Wetland Setback Ordinance. She stated she felt the Comprehensive
Plan should be a guide and not a law. She noted the recommendation made in 1981 was
influenced by the Metropolitan Council and concern about exclusionary zoning. She felt things
such as house sizes have changed since that time. She noted the lots on all four sides of this
development were smaller than the homes proposed for this development. She questioned if R-IA
zoning would result in more significant site alteration or would actually result in a lower density of
the site. She expressed concern that the driveway in the flag lot was too close to the wetland
setback. She expressed concern for the amount of trees which would be removed from the site.
She expressed concern for the taxpayers being responsible to support the NURP ponding and the
pondings ability to hold the run-
off.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 4
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated he was under the impression that the P.U.D. process
was a tool which provided greater flexibility to the developer resulting in greater control for the
City. He felt this should result in some benefit to the City. He felt a structure should be outlined
for the P.U.D. process to monitor when and how a P.U.D. was granted and illustrate how the
benefits can be quantitatively measured. He stated he felt the Planning Commission was working
backwards by considering a plan which assumed rezoning and a P. U.D. would be granted. He
distributed a plat which included seven lots and stated he felt the area could support no more than
seven lots due to the restricted amount of developable high ground.
Judy Englund, 25555 Orchard Circle, expressed her appreciation for the Tree Preservation Policy.
She felt the property in question was more ecologically suited for R-IA zoning. She asked if the
shrubs which help to control the run-off are taken into account as part of the Tree Preservation
Policy. She asked that native grass such as "buffalo" grass be planted in the area. She questioned
the effectiveness of the NURP ponds if two large rains were received in a row. She expressed
concerns for the song birds and expressed the necessity of a closed canopy for the birds. She also
asked if construction could occur after the first nesting season, after July 4th. She noted the
developer's drawings were assuming a 30 foot setback rather than a 35 foot setback. She stated
her home was built on one acre which included the wetland area. She noted things done 30 years
ago could not be compared to what was being done now because the laws have changed. In
response to Chair Borkon, Ms. England stated the birds would not be affected for only one season
but would be affected forever.
Kate Lynch Bix, Orchard Circle, stated she had left the message for Chair Borkon. She explained
her home was located on a flag lot. The lot behind her home sold four months after she moved to
her home. The resulting home was constructed so their front yard faces her back yard. She stated
this has interfered with her privacy and suggested flag lots may not always result in optimum
situations. She asked if the "phantom" wetland would be addressed in the EA W.
Mr. Storlie questioned the procedure for the determination of the "phantom" wetland.
Mr. Larson again stated he felt no more that seven lots including the Watten homesite could be
placed in this development. He questioned why Shorewood considered 40,000 square feet to be
an acre, stating an actual acre is 43,500 square feet. He stated he had seen no rationale for placing
11 homes in an area which could only support 7 homes.
Paul Kaster, 25535 Birch Bluff Road, stated he had lived in this area all his life and felt the
development should be set up and zoned as it was in the past. He stated if large two-story homes
were built on the lots, they may fit and conform to the setbacks but would give the appearance of a
cemetery to anyone driving by. He did not believe this was the environment the City of
Shorewood wanted to create.
Ms. Lynch Bix presented the Commission with a pamphlet from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources with information regarding wetlands. She noted she had received the pamphlet
from Ms. Englund.
Bill Bukovec, 5335 Eureka Road, asked how far the homes would be from Eureka Road. He
stated he felt this site was not suitable for higher density zoning.
Mary Borgeson, 5485 Grant Lorenz Road, stated she was a former Hennepin County Master
Gardener. She asked if consideration was being given to the stress on the trees which would not
become apparent for up to five years. She noted the maples in the area were more prone to stress
due to their shallower root system. She noted the winter had also been very stressful on the trees.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 5
Mr. Dillerud stated he was concerned with some of the issues which were raised including the
density, submittal of plan with alternative zoning, Comprehensive Plan, the similarity of the
proposed lots to the adjacent lots, the driveway on the flag lot, and the NURP pond.
Ms. Larson clarified her statement that all lots in the adjacent areas of Eureka Road, Orchard
Circle, Nielsen Drive and Valleywood Road were larger than the proposed lots.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Chair Borkon entered a letter received from Sue and Pete Davis, 5495 Valleywood Circle into
record.
Chair Borkon asked for clarification of the EA W criteria and what an EA W would accomplish.
Nielsen explained the City is obligated to address the petition of the residents requesting an
environmental review of the project. He explained the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), in
this case the City of Shorewood, would determine if an EA W was necessary. If it is determined to
be necessary, the RGU prepares an EAW and the proposer supplies the necessary data. The RGU
then approves the EA W for distribution and sends the EA W to the distribution list. The RGU
issues a press release. Notice is published in the EQB Monitor and a 30 day comment period
begins on the EOB Monitor publication date. Comments are received from the various agencies on
the distribution list and the RGU determines if the project requires an EIS and responds to the
comments received. The RGU then distributes a notice of decision and notice is published in the
EQB Monitor. Nielsen noted very few projects require an EIS. Nielsen explained an EAW can
either be petitioned by a minimum of 25 Minnesota residents or is mandatory in a case which
involves 250 or more units. Nielsen reported the City Council has to determine if an EA W is
necessary by March 25, 1996.
The Planning Commission and staff addressed the questions raised by residents during the public
hearing.
1. What was the rationale for the Comprehensive Plan to designate this area for rezoning? Chair
Borkon noted this issue was addressed in the minutes of the March 4, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting page 9. Nielsen explained the 1995 Comprehensive Plan reiterated the 1981 Plan for
proposed land use. The main difference in the plans was that the City would decide the zoning
rather than wait until a request came from a developer. In this situation the developer has requested
the rezoning before the City was able to address the issue. The 1995 Comprehensive Plan also re-
emphasized the use of the P.U.D. process. In a community that has features such as Shorewood
does, wetlands, topography, etc., traditional zoning does not always work well. Clustering can
help to preserve the natural characteristics of the area. The P.U.D. process also allows the
developer to gain more flexibility in the layout of the project and the City gains more control. The
P.U.D. also allows better control of the Tree Preservation Plan than does traditional zoning. For
example, the road being shortened will result in a flag lot but will result in more trees being saved
and the P. U.D. will allow the City some control as to how the house is placed on the flag lot.
There is rationale to this zoning as it creates a transitional area between different zoning areas.
Chair Borkon noted this item is also addressed on Page 10 of the meeting minutes from March 4,
1996.
2. Why is the Comprehensive Plan cast in concrete rather than being utilized as a guideline?
Nielsen stated the Comprehensive Plan is not cast in concrete. There have already been areas
which are being revisited such as the transportation aspect of the Plan. He stated the
Comprehensive Plan is a guideline as to how land is to be developed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 6
3. Quantitative Evidence of the benefits of the P.U.D. There was Commission consensus that this
had been discussed.
4. Process of defining wetlands? Nielsen noted there are two different types of wetlands. One is
City defined and the other is defined by the Wetland Conservation Act. The 1.9 acres in question
on this site is being deferred to the Watershed District for resolution. They act as the local
governing agency and are willing in an area of contest, to confirm if an area is or is not a wetland.
This will be confirmed after May 1, 1996. Chair Borkon noted this was discussed on Page 2 of
the March 4, 1996 meeting minutes.
5. Relevance of the Comprehensive Plan of 1981 to current conditions. There was Commission
consensus that this item had been discussed.
6. Control density of the site. There was Commission consensus that this item had been
discussed.
7. What would the development look like if designed to the R-1A standards. Nielsen noted
nothing had been laid out to those standards. He noted the plan Mr. Larson had presented the
commission would still require a variance for the flag lot. He noted the applicant in this case is
applying for rezoning under the guidelines and that is the issue before the Commission for
consideration.
8. The issue of the flag lot. There was Commission consensus that this item had been discussed.
9. The environmental impact in relation to the higher density. There was Commission consensus
that this item had been discussed.
10. The NURP pond and the run-off issue. Nielsen stated the suggestion of two NURP ponds
concerned him. On one side there is a desire to save trees, one the other side there is a desire for
clean water. The NURP pond will clean the water but by design and nature will take land. The
suggestion of two NURP ponds will undoubtedly require more site alteration. He suggested there
needed to be a balance. He noted there was small wetland area on the north tip of an easterly
wetland which had previously been altered by a driveway. He questioned the possibility of
utilizing this wetland and mitigating it elsewhere. He stressed that adding another NURP pond
would require the taking of more trees. Nielsen explained the NURP ponds serve two purposes.
They control the quality and quantity of water. NURP ponds are sized to handle the run-off but
may be unable to do so during extraordinary events.
11. Concern of damage to the trees especially the Watten pines and the Levon maples. Nielsen felt
it was possible to incorporate the Levon maples into a site. He stated ways to preserve the Watten
pines had been addressed in the previous staff report. These methods could include shifting the
house on the property to the south or placing a retaining wall on the south edge of the road right-
of-way. Nielsen noted custom grading is proposed for the sites rather than mass grading. This
will also help save a number of trees. He stated developers do value the trees as the lots are more
valuable with trees than without.
12. Specific benefits of a P.U.D. and how they are quantified. There was Commission consensus
that this item had been discussed.
13. An assertion that the plan was developed assuming a P.U.D. What is the benefit of rezoning?
Also an assertion was made that the Planning Commission was working backwards. There was
Commission consensus that this item had been discussed. Nielsen noted some of the features the
City was looking for in the P. U .D. included the shortened road, the merit of reducing the front
setbacks in exchange for a larger rear yard setback than is required by City Code, the transitional
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 7
aspect of the zoning, preserving the south lots, and enhancement of the Tree Preservation Plan.
Nielsen noted the Tree Preservation Plan does discourage tree cutting and requires replacement but
does not disallow tree cutting. He reminded that the City does not own the land and the neighbors
do not own the land. He noted there had to be a balance between the land owner's right to use the
property and the resident's rights for environmental protection, etc.
14. The submitted sketch which illustrated seven lots on the plat with R-1A zoning. Nielsen noted
this proposal would require a variance for Lot 6 and possibly Lot 7.
15. How the seven allowable lots could be increased to nine? Nielsen noted this would occur if
the 10% bonus in density was allowed through the P.D.D. process.
16. Why was a Shorewood acre considered to be 40,000 square feet when an acre was actually
43,560 square feet? Nielsen explained in the original zoning the number was rounded-off. He
noted there is approximately 3,000 square foot of public right-of-way associated with each acre of
land so the figure does make some sense.
17. How could nine to ten homes under the P.U.D. process result in less site alteration than seven
homes with a conventional plat? Nielsen explained this would be accomplished through the
flexibility allowed with the P.D.D.
18. Are shrubs addressed in the Tree Preservation Plan? Nielsen noted the plan does address
erosion control. The Plan focuses on significant trees of eight inches diameter at breast height.
The Plan does not account for shrubs but does mention that smaller trees in significant
concentrations should be reviewed as well.
Chair Borkon asked Mr. Dillerud how they dealt with shrubs and landscape to prevent erosion.
Mr. Dillerud stated anything with a 3:1 slope had to be tied down somehow.
Chair Borkon noted there are regulations in regard to slopes and how a lot is landscaped after
development. The flat areas are sodded.
Ms. Englund stated that removing the native vegetation that has evolved for a thousand years and
replacing it with Kentucky blue grass, will result in a less effective "sponge" for run-off.
19. Native plants, such as "buffalo" grass, reduce the run-off. Effectiveness of the NDRP
ponding. There was Commission consensus that this item had been discussed.
20. Protection of the song birds. Request to delay start of construction until after July 4, 1996.
Chair Borkon asked when construction will begin. Nielsen stated the developer would like to start
construction in spring or early summer.
21. If the design shows the home 30 feet from the roadway, didn't the developer assume a
P.D.D. in his design? Commissioner Turgeon explained the request is for 30 foot setbacks in the
front. If the Commission allows the 30 foot setbacks in the front, they will be mitigated with
additional setbacks in the rear of the yards to further protect the wetlands. Chair Borkon noted this
was included in the minutes of t)1e March 4, 1996 meeting.
22. Observation that lots developed in the past were one acre and the wetland area was included in
the acre. This has changed because the laws have changed. There was Commission consensus
that this item had been discussed.
23. Developer should maintain the existing zoning. There was Commission consensus that this
item had been discussed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 8
24. How far will the houses be from Eureka Road and observation that he does not agree with the
zoning. Nielsen noted the setbacks in the R -1 C zoning district are 35 feet from the right-of-way.
25. Is consideration being given to the trees in regard to long-term stress, especially the maple
trees? Nielsen noted the Tree Preservation Plan does take this into account. The area known as the
critical root zone needs to be protected during construction. This is required to be demonstrated in
the Plan. The Plan also addresses a two year growing season.
26. Owner of a current flag lot discussed the inconveniences of a flag lot such as abutting back
yard with neighboring front yard and how this can conflict with lifestyles. Also will the EAW
address the questionable wetland? Nielsen noted the EA W will be confirmed.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:28 p.m.
Chair Borkon entered a letter received from Alfred E. and Mary E. Lounsbury into record.
Nielsen reported he had met with Dr. Evans of the School District yesterday. They discussed the
effect of this specific project on the Minnewashta School and overall concerns of development in
Shorewood. Dr. Evans explained in terms of this specific development 6 or 9 or 12 units would
have little or no impact on the Minnewashta Elementary School. Nielsen questioned the
contradiction in a recent correspondence. Dr. Evans explained it may have depended on who was
contacted at the school district and their personal agenda. Dr. Evans had noted there were
numerous possibilities to handle increased enrollment. The school could be expanded, portable
classrooms can be utilized and ultimately district boundaries can be changed. Nielsen stated he
explained to Dr. Evans that if the assumption was that Shorewood was entirely comprised of one
unit per acre this was a false perception. Nielsen noted it was approximately 50% one unit per acre
and approximately 50% other. An agreement was made to coordinate land use information with
enrollment projection and try to make a better determination. Nielsen noted the School District is
not trying to dictate what the City of Shorewood does, but is trying to respond to it.
Commissioner Lizee stated she was heartened to see the concern of residents in regard to crowding
of the schools. She noted there is a referendum on April 23 and the School Board has held over
twelve public information meetings. She noted there was information in the hall which illustrated
the school size, population and School District needs. She encouraged all in attendance to take a
copy on their way out.
Commissioner Kolstad noted she had not been on the Commission at the time of the
Comprehensive Plan Review and asked if this particular parcel and recommendation to rezone had
been revisited.
Chair Borkon stated the Commission had gone through the Comprehensive Plan page by page. It
was not just a review but a revision. Commissioner Turgeon noted this issue was not set in stone,
there is a public hearing required.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she had reviewed the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and the rationale
used for recommending increased density. She stated much of the rationale of affordable housing
and concern of exclusionary zoning were no longer valid to support the rezoning. She noted there
was some rationale in providing a transition between the high density to the east and the low
density to the west. She stated she was unsure of the necessity of the rezoning and felt P.D.D.
zoning would allow for a slightly higher density and at the same time protect the area from being
overbuilt. Commissioner Kolstad stated she had read the citizens comments for the 1995 public
hearings and most were similar to the comments heard here tonight. Most of the comments
included a desire to maintain the basic character of the trees, wetlands and woods. She noted she
also wanted this.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 9
Commissioner Turgeon noted the neighborhood and public hearings were what prompted the
Wetland Preservation Ordinance and the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan. To some
residents these plans may not seem strong enough. She noted there would be no benefit to having
policies in place which were unenforceable. There could be stricter policies but staff is not
qualified to ensure that they would be upheld. She noted these policies and ordinances had been
debated for hours, months, before they were put into place. She noted her personal experience
with an EA W and suggested residents contact the DNR. Commissioner Turgeon noted her
comments in regard to the porches and decks at the previous meeting was because of the size of the
site and not specific to any other development. Her variance comment was due to the fact that the
building pads look too small for this size of house. She stated she wanted to see the homes placed
on the sites with the trees shown and which lots would have an additional setback in the rear in
exchange for a lesser setback in the front.
Commissioner Pisula stated he felt the P.D.D. process was a tool to provide a greater control of
the site to meet the requirements of the City and the neighbors. He stated he was concerned with
the size of the homes in this development. He stated he would like to see 9 to 10 houses in this
development.
Chair Borkon stated she echoed the concerns expressed by the Commissioners. She stated she still
felt there was not enough information being provided. She questioned the option of using straight
P.D.D. zoning. Nielsen stated this was an option. The property could be zoned P.D.D. and if the
project was not carried out, the property would revert back to the original zoning.
Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded to table the public hearing for the rezoning from
R-IA to R-IC and conditional use permit for Watten Ponds P.U.D., Dahlstrom
Abingdon L.L.P., 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road to April 16, 1996, recommending
rezoning to P.U.D. and requesting the following: Consideration by the
Shorewood City Council of the EA W of said property; wetland delineation which
is acceptable to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards including the 1.9
phantom wetland after May 1, 1996; a detailed Tree Preservation Plan including
the Watten Pines and Levon Maples with an emphasis on retaining internal
clusters of trees when possible; detailed examples of how the homes will be
situated on the lots and guarantee inclusion of decks, cement patios and amenities
with the trees on the lots; detailed grading plan which includes a grade maximum
of 3:1 ratio and grade of driveway no more than 8%; the plan should show 9 to 10
homes including the current Watten home; a minimum lot size guideline of 20,000
to 35,000 square feet which are the neighborhood averages; and show the specific
lots which will include an increased rear wetland setback to mitigate the reduced
front yard setback.
There was Commission discussion to restrict public testimony at the public hearing on April 16,
1996 to written form only. The Commission decided against this as there may be substantial
changes to the plan and it would be appropriate to receive public testimony relevant to those
changes.
Mr. Dillerud noted for the Commission that his agency was capable of turning in a request in two
weeks.
V oting on the motion: Motion passed 5/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 19, 1996 - PAGE 10
2.
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS / PRELIMINARY PLAT - WATER'S
EDGE P.U.D.
Applicant:
Location:
Bill Blegen
20295 Manor Road
Chair Borkon announced the case.
Nielsen stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission table this item to the April 2, 1996
meeting. There is vital information having to do with ownership which has been requested and as
of today has not been received. He noted aside from that formality, the project is consistent with
the items the Commission had previously requested.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to table consideration of the development stage
plans and preliminary plat to the April 2, 1996 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion passed 5/0.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Kate Lynch Bix expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission.
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported the Snowmobile Task Force has gotten the pilot surveys back.
The formal survey is being prepared and will be distributed to residents April 1, 1996. They will
have three weeks to complete and return the survey. She noted there will be notices regarding this
in the local newspapers and the newsletter. She encourage everyone to complete and return the
survey.
Council Liaison Benson reported on the discussion and actions taken at the March 11 and 12, 1996
City Council meetings.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Motion
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lom L. Kopischke
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
7 / u/
"J -, 1- 1 ~
ADDRESS
'J. Jjl
,.----' ~ ~ 't' 1
j J / -5 t;(Jjl/ 1~ /iC',
. 553(
[t
-.
AGENDA ITEM
f;j'J/!t;] ,r:./O
I (
'/
( r
I I
vr
t{
V(
ft
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon, Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Rosenberger; Turgeon, Council
Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Pisula.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded to approve the March 19, 1996,
Commission meeting minutes. Motion passed 5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING REZONING FROM R-1A TO R-1C AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WATTEN PONDS P.U.D. (Continued
from March 19, 1996)
Applicant:
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested a brief review of the matter from Planning
Director Nielsen.
Planning Director Nielsen stated there had been public testimony on this matter. The developer had
proposed a 12-unit single family residential development would be designated Watten Ponds.
After considerable public testimony and considerable discussion, the Planning Commission
directed the developer to come back with a revised plan addressing a number of concerns that had
been raised. Nielsen commented that the number of lots and tree preservation, as well as a number
of other things, remained at issue.
Since the March 19 meeting, Nielsen stated he had met with Mr. Dillerud and the developer's
attorney, Mr. Rod Krass, and they had indicated they did not intend to submit a revised plan, but
rather they would request some action on their proposal as it stands to date. He also indicated the
developer was present and would possibly like to speak to that decision.
Rod Krass, Krass, Monroe, Moxness & Gibson, P.A., attorney for the developer, stated he had
reviewed the previous meeting minutes. Mr. Krass stated that as the developer had indicated in
documents he has submitted, the property is presently zoned R-IA, but has been guided for R-IC
since 1981. He stated that as the Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive Plan in the
two years which ended in 1995, that guide was reaffirmed and the City came to the conclusion that
this property belonged in the zoning category of R -1 C and, in fact, directed the City to take the
appropriate steps to get this property rezoned. Before the City acted upon that, the developer made
application to include the rezoning. He stated the property on three sides, as was mentioned by the
developer in his previous memos, is already zoned R-IC. He further commented the developer had
initially asked for 12 building sites on that property which is almost 15 acres, about five of which
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 16, 1996 - Page 2
are wetlands so about 9 acres could be developed. The developer is looking at approximately 1.3
units per Shorewood acre which is 40,000 square feet. The smallest lot proposed is 15,000 feet
and some reach an average in excess of 30,000 square feet. The ordinance requires, for this
zoning category, 20,000 square feet minimum and that is one of the reasons for P.D.D., which is
to allow the flexibility to modify some of these numbers so there can be a better job done in
preserving trees and wetlands. Mr. Krass further stated there are indications in City documents
that the City believed P.D.D. was preferable to this area because it gave the City some additional
flexibility in dealing with issues such as wetlands, trees and other concerns which the City has.
Mr. Krass noted the developer is aware there are other concerns the Planning Commission has
raised in the previous hearings regarding lot coverage and the size of the houses that are going into
that particular area. Mr. Krass informed the Commission he was aware of the motion which was
passed at the last meeting asking the developer to attempt to re-work the plan at nine or ten units
and then commit to details on how to place houses on each of those nine or ten units. Mr. Krass
stated this had been completed for the lots the developer felt were the most difficult three lots. He
added this was very expensive to do and the problem the developer has is two-fold. Number one,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to do that until the density issue is decided and the City makes a
final determination as to how many units are going to go in there. He advised the Commission it
would be difficult to justify spending the engineering money to design house pads for houses that
mayor may not exist some day. He further stated that the second problem overshadows the first in
that from an economic standpoint, as the developer went back and carefully reviewed and
considered the Commission's comments from previous meetings, he had concluded that to make
this project work, he would need 12 building sites. Mr. Krass stated that the developer is already
at the lower end of the one to two acre provision of the ordinance at 1.3.
Mr. Krass suggested the Commission separate the issues and deal with the zoning issue separate
from the planning issue, which would be acceptable to the developer. He said that if the P.D.D.
doesn't make sense because it is going to restrict or lower some of the square footages in particular
lots, the developer could live with that. If the Commission wishes to simply rezone in
conformance with the guide and put this property in the zone that the City has designated it, the
developer will come back with a standard plat which will conform to all of the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. He further stated that in the developer's judgment that would not be as
good a plat, however, it would meet the ordinance and there would not be a need for variances and
changes in some of those square footages.
Mr. Krass concluded by stating the developer had "massaged" the plat as much as they felt
possible and believe it is time for the Commission to make a decision on their request.
Chair Borkon thanked Mr. Krass for his comments and asked Mr. Dillerud if he had any
comments to make. Mr. Dillerud declined.
Chair Borkon stated she would not be taking any public testimony tonight since Mr. Dillerud was
presenting the same request, however, she did express the Commission's appreciation to everyone
who attended to show their support for the way they felt.
There was a request from the floor asking how the Commission knew how the public felt if they
were not going to be taking any public testimony. Chair Borkon responded the Commission had
previously listened to this request and responses and that was the reason the Commission did not
feel they needed any further public testimony. She stated the Commission had heard what the
public has to say, they appreciate it, and their input has been documented.
Chair Borkon noted Commissioner Pisula was not present, but that he had faxed the Commission a
letter regarding his own feelings on this issue. Chair Borkon commented she felt it was a
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 16, 1996 - Page 3
noteworthy letter and requested that Commissioner Turgeon read the letter for the audience. Chair
Borkon stated the letter would be entered into the record for anyone who wishes to review it.
Commissioner Turgeon stated the Commission had attempted to separate out the zoning and
planning, at the previous meeting. She noted that the minutes of that meeting would reflect that the
recommendation would be for straight P.D.D.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to deny the request for Rezoning from R-IA to
R-IC and Conditional Use Permit for Watten Ponds, P.U.D., Dahlstrom
Abingdon L.L.P., 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road.
Chair Borkon ask for any discussion from the Commission regarding the motion.
Commissioner Lizee stated Commissioner Pisula's letter was excellent and she would oppose the
request.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she would repeat her comments from the previous meeting regarding
the zoning change which she is opposed to. She stated the plan which was used in 1981 to justify
the zoning is no longer applicable. The lots on the west side are all one acre and even though the
lots on the east side are smaller, the P.D.D. development provides a nice transition between the
two sides. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel there was any reason for the City to rezone the
property and stated she was opposed to doing it on that basis.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he was going to support the motion to deny the request for two
reasons. His first concern is tree preservation and he commented he hadn't seen anything which
would give him any comfort whatsoever. Commissioner Rosenberger went on to state that he was
not opposed to rezoning, however, he would like to be sure it's done correctly. He stated one of
his concerns was in the original plan, the Commission had not anticipated the size of the houses
versus the lot size. He felt this was a transitional area and if there were to be large houses on small
lots, he would prefer to have fewer to help with that transitional area. Commissioner Rosenberger
also stated it was obvious the area would not support 12 homes, however, depending on the site
plan, he may be satisfied it would support ten or eleven.
Chair Borkon concluded the discussion by stating that Commissioner Pisula's letter did cover the
points of concern of the Commission and the issue which the Commission had hoped the
developer would be able to address. She expressed disappointment the developer had not returned
with a different type of situation for the Commission to consider. She further stated she was in
favor of a straight P.D.D. as it would give the Planning Commission and the City an opportunity
to work with the developer and assist in developing something that everyone could be proud of and
pleased with. Chair Borkon stated she would also support the motion to deny the request.
Chair Borkon stated that Commissioner Pisula's letter would go into the record, however, it would
not be counted as a vote.
Voting on the motion: Motion passed 5/0.
Planning Director Nielsen stated this request would go to the City Council on Monday, May 13,
1996, at 7:30 p.m.
Council Liaison Benson stated there would not be any more public testimony. If anyone wished to
voice a concern or an opinion to the Council, it would need to be in writing.
Chair Borkon thanked everyone for coming and showing their concern.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 16, 1996 - Page 4
2.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported that the Snowmobile Task Force Survey was out and they had
received over 600 responses of the 2,500 surveys which had been sent out. She stated there was
another week in which to return them. She noted the Task Force had completed approximately 95
percent of the information gathered on this issue and on Thursday, April 25, they would complete
the meeting format v/rnch ':{ould be submitted for changes and review and move into more analysis
of the infonnation.
Commissioner Rosenberger moved for a resolution, Whereas, the Commission is grateful to Lom
for always managing to make sense of the minutes; and
Chair Borkon added, Whereas, you have moved on to larger, but not necessarily better, places and
you will no longer need to commute long hours in the ice and sleet; and
Commissioner Kolstad added, Whereas, you made me sound brilliant, for which I am ever
appreciative and I wish you well in your new endeavors; and
Commissioner Lizee added, Whereas, I cheer the woman who transcribed words and made us
sound like MENSA candidates. Thank you very much, Lom; and
Commissioner Turgeon added, Whereas, your dedication to accurately state our sometimes
humblest impressions and going beyond the call by making sure you were accurate and calling us
at home; and
Planning Director Nielsen added, Whereas, first and third Tuesdays will undoubtedly be lonely for
you hereon out.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that you are hereby invited to come back and visit with us at any
time.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7 :30 p.m. Motion
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon, Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger, Turgeon;
Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust.
APPRO V AL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the April 16, 1996 Commission
meeting minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 4, replace "it" with
"it's"; Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 4, change "Thursday, April 25, they would
complete the meeting format which would be submitted for changes and review"
to read "Thursday, April 25, they would complete the meeting format and move
into more analysis of the information." Pisula abstained. Motion passed 5/0.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND C.U.P. FOR
AMOCOIMCDONALD'SICAR WASH FACILITY P.U.D.
Applicant: D.Y.S. Properties, represented by Larry Youngstedt
Location: 5170 Vine Hill Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. The matter
will be before the City Council on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. She requested a case analysis from
Planning Director Nielsen.
Developer John Kosmas addressed the Commission. He stated the process he is asking for is a
conceptual plan approval rather than a development plan approval or a final plan approval. He
stated it is his understanding there would be a three part process. He stated the concept of putting
Amoco and McDonald's together is new to both corporations. There are three similar facilities in
Illinois.
He stated this is a difficult site with grade changes occurring. There is a need to even out retaining
walls and create some landscaping. He would hope to consult with the new business owners and
rework some of the site with respect to the retaining walls. He further stated the issue of the
property being a wetland will be addressed. While they would prefer to eliminate the pond, in the
alternative they would like to move it north. The developers have had conversations with MNDOT
regarding the ponding. Mr. Kosmas also stated there is a catch basin in that area, therefore the
ponding area could be enlarged to reduce the amount which would have to be located on another
part of the site.
He further discussed traffic concerns and stated because of the slower process of clearing vehicles
from the pump islands, the pump island count would be increased.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE2
McDonald's would be a scaled down version without a play area. Seating is limited to 60 seats as
opposed to the larger McDonald's which provide for 80 to 150 seats. The parking and drive-thru
may require modifications to meet the parking requirements. The developer stated he had
interpreted the code differently than staff in that he did consider pump island stalls as parking
spaces. The developer felt the seating and waiting areas had been accounted for in a double ratio.
Mr. Kosmas stated a correction needed to be made in that the diagram was prepared as 30 degree
parking and noted as 60 degree parking. When stated as 30 degree parking, it does meet the
criteria.
He stated the developer had been working with their interpretation, which provided for a IS-foot
setback requirement being a dual front property. There may be a need to request a five foot
variance to achieve a 25-foot setback rather than 30. Part of the reason for the 30-foot setback
would be to provide for more green space.
Mr. Kosmas displayed a color photograph of the proposed facility. With regard to the pump
island, he stated there appears to be a typical canopy using the Amoco color scheme. The canopy
will have the clear height of 14 feet required for clearances. Typical canopy height would be
between 30 and 48 inches. If the canopy is 14 feet with a 30-inch fascia, it would reach 16.6 feet.
The City has a IS-foot requirement, therefore this issue would need to be addressed.
He further stated there is a typical car wash building. There has been nothing at this time to
appropriate roof length. The three facilities in lllinois do not have car washes, therefore the issue
of how the car wash will blend with the existing building is still being evaluated. Typically, a car
wash would achieve a height of approximately 13 to 14 feet.
After receiving the Staff Report, the developer reviewed the site in an effort to gain parking space.
He commented the developers are working at the conceptual stage and would have a final solution
at the development stage. There are other alternatives for parking, however there remains a
question as to the setback issue.
Mr. Kosmas stated there are limitations with what can be done with wetlands based on state
requirements and guidelines. Conceptually the developer has the ability to locate the building and
parking stalls on the property to meet the requirements and fulfill the needs for both parking and
setback requirements.
He stated the lighting plans will be addressed. He further commented at the concept stage, the
basic ideas meet the general requirements and then proceed to the development stage, at which time
any issues with landscaping, lighting, signage, adjustments for grading, etcetera, would be
resolved.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Sue Dodsen, 19265 Shady Hills Road, asked if she were addressing a concept, how would she
address a development? She inquired if there would be a public hearing on that as well. She stated
she and her husband are opposed to the proposal for several reasons. The first was for
environmental reasons. The second was that expansion of strip development is not consistent with
the goals of the neighborhood or the community. The third reason is the serious safety issues
which arise with respect to the traffic pattern and congestion which already exists at Vine Hill
Road, Delton and Highway 7.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to explain the public hearing process. Nielsen explained on a planned
unit development, the public hearing is at the concept stage. The Planning Commission and/or the
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE3
City Council could require additional hearings, however the initial concept is when the public
hearing is held. It would be up to interested residents to track the development as it progresses,
however the City does announce when a particular issue will be heard.
Chair Borkon mentioned a number of letters had been received and were included in the packet for
each Commissioner to review and she thanked the audience for their input.
Marty Zgraggen, 5210 Shady Lane, provided a hand-out to the Commission which he reviewed in
detail. Mr. Zgraggen raised concerns regarding the impact of this development on surrounding
property values and stated the values would be depressed significantly which is in violation of city
ordinance. He further stated there was currently no lighting plan. He anticipates the lighting will
encroach the abutting residence. Noise will also be of concern. Mr. Zgraggen further stated water
and snow drainage would be a problem in addition to various safety issues. He further commented
the both neighborhood and the City have the right to dictate the type of businesses which would be
allowed in this area. Mr. Zgraggen further noted within 2.5 miles of this area there exist seven gas
stations, six convenience stores, three car washes, and two McDonald's. He requested, by way of
his letter, the Commission consider rezoning the property and possibly using the site for a park.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to address the issues raised by Mr. Zgraggen. Nielsen stated the
purpose of the zoning ordinance is to create compatibility between various kinds of land uses. He
further stated this site has been zoned in this way since at least 1973. The current ordinance
requires screening and buffering to mitigate the effects a particular site has on a residential area
when they are in close proximity as well as regulating the types of uses to mitigate any adverse
effect on the property values. Nielsen stated a traffic study would also be very important in this
case due to the congestion problem along the service road and intersection of Vine Hill and Delton.
Nielsen stated drainage would need to be handled properly. He further explained the ponding area
is where snow would typically end up. Since the parking is relatively short on the plan presented,
and snow cannot be piled into required parking spaces, it would need to be accommodated on site.
The 50-foot buffer provides area for that, as does the ponding area, as well as the setbacks.
Nielsen stated he feels snow storage is adequate on the site.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired with the high water table, would the ponding be adequate to
handle the drainage. Nielsen stated there are drainage concerns in that area. He stated the engineer
feels it is critical there be some overflow which moves in the other direction and that it not
overflow onto that property.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen for the history of the zoning. Nielsen stated the site has been zoned in
this way since at least 1973. The current Comprehensive Plan carries that forward. It doesn't
suggest any down-zoning. If the City were going to do a rezoning, it would need to address the
value of the commercial property itself. He further stated there is no proposal to change the zoning
at this time.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired of the developer why they chose this site given the number of gas
stations, convenience stores, car washes and McDonald's within two miles of the site. Mr.
Kosmas stated it is a good strip corridor, a well traveled area, and it justifies the numbers. He
further stated Minnetonka will be expanding some facilities as well and this is a viable location with
the level of traffic on Highway 7.
Nielsen commented with reference to putting a park on the site, there had been a referendum a
couple of years ago, primarily for the development of the existing park system, however the
referendum had failed. The Park Plan does not call for any additional parks or additional land
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY?, 1996-PAGE4
.
acquisition. There is no money for that purpose and it would entail an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan to designate any given area as a park. It is also possible
this site would not be suitable for a park.
Commissioner Rosenberger asked whether the City can dictate to the developer the specific kind of
project he can develop. Nielsen stated the ordinance does not attempt to interfere with the market.
The City has the authority to regulate land uses and, in this case, has extra authority in that they are
virtually all conditional uses within the zoning ordinance. They can be regulated to the extent the
code has requirements.
.
Chad Moore, 5220 Vine Hill, expressed opposition to the proposed development and his belief it
would result in a negative effect on property values. He stated the retaining walls and wetland are
not accurately placed. He further stated concerns for watershed and the wetland. He commented
the developer's plans indicate the water will drain in one direction, however, at the present time, it
drains in three different directions. Mr. Moore stated when the site was improved, MNDOT was
to put in privacy fences and he would like to see something done with regard to privacy fencing.
He commented if this needed to be re-done to utilize the property, it should be done at a cost to the
developer. He stated the development would bring additional congestion which will make the Vine
Hill Interchange a negative area in which to be a land owner. The multi-use on this site does not
mix with the community.
Chair Borkon asked if the water drains from the site in three different directions. Nielsen
commented that was true of the current site and there would need to be significant site alterations.
The proposal would be to drain everything to the southwest with the exception of the Vine Hill
Road driveway. He stated that will need to be further addressed.
Chair Borkon asked if the southeast wetlands and retaining walls are accurately placed or if they
would have to be moved back. Nielsen stated they are accurate as far as where the developer
proposed to put them. They are also in the wetland area and would need to be moved out of that.
Wetland setbacks would also need to be addressed.
.
Chair Borkon asked if the Commission could address the privacy fences even though it had been
the plan of MNDOT. Nielsen stated the privacy fencing which was placed along the south edge of
the new intersection stopped where it did because that was the end of the right-of-way. It was
decided at the time the commercial property was finished, the screening and fencing would be
extended along the residential boundary rather than in front of the commercial. MNDOT went as
far as they had proposed to go.
Lloyd Enger, 5230 Vine Hill Road, expressed concern regarding the run-off problem going the
other direction several years ago on Vine Hill Road which required culverts and drainage. He
inquired as to the cost for eliminating the wetland areas when they would bring in tax dollars for a
business. Where would the water go that goes into wetlands area? Is there a cost to the
community or taxpayer to culvert and get the water re-routed? Mr. Enger stated a further concern
for the deer, ducks, and squirrels. He stated the community misses the Skipperette and Mr. Pyle.
Chair Borkon asked Planning Director Nielsen to respond to Mr. Enger's question regarding the
cost of buying a wetland area and eliminating it. Nielsen stated Shorewood has had wetland
requirements since the early '70s. Shorewood has become more restrictive in that regard, not only
protecting the designated wetlands which are identified as a part of that first ordinance, but it is not
allowed to be counted for density purposes in the case of residential. It cannot be altered. If it is,
it has to be mitigated and kept in some configuration. Nielsen also stated the Wetland
Conservation Action of 1991 has been enforced.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 5
Cindy Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, expressed concern for the environmental impact and the effect
on property values. She commented that Holiday is very close by. McDonald's would generate
considerable traffic which will take away the efforts to make this a safe intersection. This would
also result in increased littering. This residential area not a good location for buildings serving
customers in late hours. Ms. Heimer also stated her concerns for the air and noise pollution this
development would cause in the neighborhood. Ms. Heimer's letter was submitted as a part of the
record.
Chair Borkon inquired regarding the late hours. Nielsen stated the current hours of Holiday are
6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and could be negotiated as part of a conditional use permit. He further
stated the conditional use process allows the City to place additional conditions on a development
such as hours of operation.
Maria Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, stated seven concerns. The first, there is a gas station about a
block away. This development would require cutting down trees. Noise pollution would be a
factor. There would be increased traffic on an already busy intersection. There would be litter
flying into the residents' yards. The increase in the number of people coming and going would be
of concern for the children in the area. The development will also generate gas and food fumes.
Ms. Heimer submitted her letter to the Commission. Chair Borkon thanked her for attending and
expressing her opinions.
Sandy Abts, 5129 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, inquired when the current commercial zoning
went into effect. She commented the zoning should be reviewed to determine its appropriateness.
She stated there is a vast discrepancy between the City of Minnetonka's plan to create a bike path
along Vine Hill Road with the proposed plan which would drive major traffic from Highway 7 to
Vine Hill Road, through an already congested intersection. She further commented the lighting
will be annoying. The neighborhood is quiet and pleasant. There are many small children who
ride bikes and play baseball. Ms. Abts stated when the Burger King was open, this area would
serve as a shortcut for the Minnetonka High School students who were going to the market and
Burger King. High school students would drive recklessly through the neighborhood causing
safety hazards. She further commented this is not a problem any amount of landscaping or fencing
could solve. Ms. Abts further stated the log home currently located on that site, which would have
to be removed, was brought to this location from Fort Snelling and has historical significance. She
further stated when the land was purchased, she had assumed it was residential and would remain
so. Icy conditions on this particular roadway are a problem. She further commented the local
media has been investigating questionable business practices of some of the parties involved.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to comment on the issues of the log home to be removed and the
current zoning. Nielsen stated he was not aware of any historical significance in regard to the
home, however staff will research that. He further stated the zoning possibly dates back to before
1973. In terms of its appropriateness, at the time it was zoned, it was judged to be appropriate.
From a planning standpoint, it may not be today. If it were appropriate, some sort of transition
would probably be proposed between this site and the residential to the south. In working with
existing conditions and zoning patterns, there is an effort to mitigate things through site design and
regulation of uses. Nielsen also commented the traffic is a concern. A study in 1987 resulted in a
recommendation that Vine Hill Road intersection should be upgraded and not closed off. That
particular study identified the level of service will never achieve what an ideal situation would be.
Nielsen explained to change the current zoning, the City would be looking at the potential of a
taking. If the property is devalued, there could be some expense involved with that, however cities
do down-zone property. Studies would have to be done to make a determination whether a change
in zoning would be appropriate. He further commented the intersection size is probably not
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY?, 1996-PAGE6
.
appropriate for housing, so it does suggest an alternate non-residential use might be more
appropriate.
Chair Borkon asked if Shorewood would be participating in the bike path proposed by
Minnetonka. Nielsen commented the bike trail is on the Minnetonka side. Shorewood will include
Vine Hill Road on its MSA system and agree to cooperate with any improvement of Vine Hill
Road. He further stated a bike trail would be consistent with a collector street. Nielsen briefly
explained the meaning of MSA and what being an MSA street entails.
Tom Dousette, 5123 Valley View Road, stated in his past experience, students spent time at Burger
King rather than in school. He stated when Highway 62 is finished, it will merge onto Vine Hill
Road and will create additional traffic. Burger King did generate a large amount of litter.
Commissioner Turgeon stated it cannot be anticipated how much additional traffic will result on
Vine Hill Road from Highway 62.
.
Bethany Hanna, 51 08 Valley View Road, commented on concerns regarding students loitering at
McDonald's rather than being in school. She stated the traffic is dangerous and would only be
enhanced by bringing in a McDonald's. She further stated there are no sidewalks in the area and
would like to know if the developer is prepared to absorb the cost of installing sidewalks. Ms.
Hanna commented on the noise and disruption of large trucks and gas tankers coming through on a
regular basis.
Chair Borkon inquired of the sidewalk issue. Nielsen stated there are no pedestrian facilities to
speak of in the area. Minnetonka has proposed a bike path on their side of the road. Shorewood
has not proposed anything for their side. When the intersection was developed, there was
discussion of creating a sidewalk. That is a possibility, however it is not programmed at this time.
The right-of-way needs to be adequate for pedestrian movements. Borkon inquired who would be
required to pay the cost of the sidewalks. Nielsen explained there are instances where a
development comes in and the development would agree to pay for pedestrian facilities. If there
was an attempt to go around the intersection, that would be a city expense.
Marty Snyder, 19855 Chartwell Hill, suggested the operations in lllinois be investigated to see if
any of them are located in residential areas or possibly do some canvasing to see how people there
feel about the operation. She further expressed concern to investigate the credentials of the
developers. Ms. Snyder stated she also called the I-Team to report questionable practices by one
of the developers. She expressed hope the City of Shorewood would work with the City of
Minnetonka to develop a vision. Ms. Snyder asked if there would be a survey, such as the one the
Park Commission utilized, to find out how the residents feel about this development. She further
commented the addition of high density commercial on this site will make the strip more attractive
to other developments. Ms. Snyder asked what would need to be done to have this property
rezoned.
.
Chair Borkon inquired if it would be appropriate to check the credentials of the developers.
Planning Director Nielsen stated the City's concerns are that the project, if approved, gets done in
the manner it was approved. The City would want to confirm there would be adequate funding
available to accomplish the site improvements. Cash escrows or letters of credit would be required
based upon estimates of improvements. That would then be multiplied by 150 percent to arrive at
the amount of the cash escrow. He further stated the City does not get into the background of the
developers. The only time that would be done would be in the issuance of a liquor license.
Nielsen stated the City Attorney could be consulted in that regard, however the primary concern is
financial and whether or not they meet the criteria.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 7
.
Chair Borkon stated the idea of working with Minnetonka to develop a vision is a good idea.
Nielsen said the City does try to coordinate with surrounding communities and has recently had
some positive contact with Excelsior and Victoria. As far as the area in question, Nielsen stated it
is mostly developed, with the exception of this site. He stated the City could confer with
Minnetonka in an effort to coordinate land uses. Borkon asked how a development together would
be initiated. Nielsen stated he would look into that.
Jo Dahl, 5201 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, stated it would be important to know the date the site
was zoned commercial. She stated the hill is a natural buffer of intersection noise for the area. If
the natural buffer were removed, it would create additional noise. She stated the car wash next
door to the City offices is almost underground and is not comparable. Ms. Dahl stated when the
service road was widened and smoothed, it became a raceway for teens. She expressed a concern
for pedestrian traffic safety on Vine Hill Road and stated the main purpose of this development will
be to increase traffic.
Chair Borkon stated there appears to be an issue that possibly the zoning has been changed without
the public being aware of it. Nielsen stated the rules relative to rezoning have changed drastically,
however, staff will research and find the date and circumstances under which this site was
rezoned.
.
Tom Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, stated his main concerns are the noise factor and the signs. He
stated he can currently hear stereo noises from the intersection in his back yard and in his house. If
additional trees are taken out, that will increase the noise. Mr. Heimer submitted a videotape of the
point of view from his back yard for the Commissions' review.
Chair Borkon requested Planning Director Nielsen make arrangements for the Commission to view
the video tape at the next meeting.
Mike Nicklaus, 5240 Vine Hill Road, commented the neighborhood has developed as a residential
neighborhood. He expressed a concern for the zoning to be updated. He inquired why Jim Pyle
had been turned down on his request for gas pumps on that site. Mr. Nicklaus stated the developer
was trying to fit too much on a site that is too small.
.
Chair Borkon stated the Commission was not considering Mr. Pyle's situation, however, the
reason he was initially denied on his request was for trying to fit too much into too small of an
area. She further stated Mr. Pyle had been faced with the same problems such as sight distance
and congestion. He finally did get approved and at that point he decided to sell.
Mark Jones, 19600 Chimo West, Deephaven, stated he is a contractor/developer/partner in
Waterford townhouses and Waterford commercial. He stated he is presently building Ashcroft on
Vine Hill Road and he built Stratford Wood I and Stratford Wood II which is off of Hunter's
Ridge. He stated he personally feels, as a developer, the site is too small for all that is proposed.
Mr. Jones stated he lost at least one, possibly two sales at Ashcroft because of the Burger King.
He stated his biggest concern is the children in Stratford Wood II will be loitering at McDonald's.
Mr. Jones further commented in coming from the south to the North on Vine Hill Road and turning
onto the service road, looking for the site where the car wash is proposed would be almost blind.
Gary Westman, 5240 Shady Lane, described a day in the life of having Burger King in the
immediate area. Tractor/trailers are brought in at non-peak hours. The sounds of the drive-thru
begin early in the morning. High school students come through residential yards and garbage is
left behind. He stated lighting would make a difference and is a serious concern.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 8
.
.
Jim Federline, 19480 Shady Hills Road, asked if the car wash would be the traditional Amoco
automatic style car wash where the customer is given a slip of paper with a code number they
would need to punch into a console. Trash would be an issue with the car wash. Mr. Federline
spoke of concerns regarding high school students cutting through at peak hours. He also
expressed concern for the animals living in the area. He further stated the Minnetonka High
School was not aware of this proposed development until May 6th.
Chair Borkon inquired if the car wash would be the standard car wash consisting of the console.
Mr. Kosmas stated typically all car washes are operated in this manner and the issue of what a
customer does with that slip of paper would be up to that particular individual.
Chair Borkon asked Mr. Nielsen to address the issue of traffic and cut throughs. Nielsen stated
one suggestion would be to monitor traffic and, if necessary, channelize the intersection at Vine
Hill Road and Shady Hills Road so as to restrict turning movements and through traffic. He
further stated this would need to be a physical channelization. Chair Borkon suggested the
Commission consider this at a future meeting. She inquired if the residents in the area would be
notified when this subject is placed on an agenda. Nielsen stated the first step in a problem traffic
area would be to monitor the traffic. There are traffic counts from the late '80s. The monitoring
would need to be scheduled and the count compared with the earlier count. If it is increased, at that
point, the neighborhood could be brought in to discuss solutions to that problem. Chair Borkon
inquired what steps would be necessary to schedule the monitoring. Nielsen stated direction from
the Planning Commission could accomplish that monitoring.
Matt Larson, 5125 Vine Hill Road, expressed concern regarding the noise produced by the
blowers in the car wash. If the proposed development were to be approved, a future sale of the
home would be difficult. He also stated he is confident property values would decrease.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:57 p.m.
James Favor, Lot 28, 5152 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated the intersection is a safety
hazard. Ice is also a problem. Cars coming from the car wash dripping wet will cause more ice on
an already icy intersection. He stated the biggest issue is the safety factor.
Brett Helgeson, 5640 Vine Hill Road, asked what the criteria would be for a traffic study and what
would constitute a pass or fail as far as this particular development. He stated in approximately
1990 there was a discussion regarding the speed on Vine Hill Road. A study concluded the
average speed was 50 mph which the residents felt to be very accurate. Mr. Helgeson stated
another concern is the Crosstown into Delton. He further stated he believed the developers were
aware Crosstown will come into Vine Hill Road at some point and they are counting on that traffic.
A traffic study at this time will not identify that traffic and he asks the Planning Commission to take
those future considerations into account when considering the proposed development.
.
Chair Borkon stated Highway 62 will be a traffic generator. She asked Nielsen to explain the
criteria for a traffic study. Nielsen stated traffic studies in that area do anticipate the completion of
Crosstown. He further stated a traffic study would be looking for total volume as well as peak
hour volumes of traffic to make a determination whether the roads which serve the property are
adequate to handle that. The effect of the amount of traffic versus the capacity of those streets
would be evaluated. Nielsen explained that if the traffic generated by the proposed use exceeds the
capacity of the road, it fails. He further explained when the traffic study was completed, 50 mph
was the top speed rather than the average speed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE9
.
Tom Dousette, 5123 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated several members of the Valley View
Road neighborhood had contacted McDonald's. He further stated McDonald's expressed concern
because they were not aware of any opposition to the proposed development. It was McDonald's
understanding from the developer there was very little opposition. The neighborhood informed
McDonald's ofthe petition in opposition containing in excess of 100 names of the residents who
live in the immediate area. Mr. Dousette expressed concern there may have been some
misrepresentation to McDonald's on the initial plan. Amoco was contacted, but did not wish to
discuss this development.
Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:04 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired about the inconsistent use between the zoning and the fact there is
a house on the property. Nielsen stated this could be researched. Kolstad stated a concern of the
C-3 zoning which has had a house on it for 30 to 40 years. She further inquired if the developer's
plan was still feasible with the wetland setbacks on it. Nielsen stated it is not identified on the site,
so the extent to which it requires modification is not clear at this point. Mr. Kosmas stated this
was new information, however, it would be their intent to make this work. Kolstad questioned if
the developer would be able to meet the requirements for parking taking the setbacks into
consideration. Mr. Kosmas stated he would be able to meet those requirements.
Commissioner Kolstad read the purpose of a conditional use permit from the Shorewood City
Ordinance, Section 1201.04, subd. 3, Conditional Use Permits. Kolstad stated on that provision,
the discussion heard, and a view of the site, the Commission would be justified in not accepting
this use, since a conditional use permit would be required under the ordinance.
. Kolstad moved, Rosenberger seconded, a motion to recommend denial of the
Application of D.Y.S. Properties for Preliminary Plat and C.D.P. for
Amoco/McDonald's/Car Wash Facility P.D.D., 5170 Vine Hill Road.
Commissioners Rosenberger and Pisula stated this development is too large for the site.
Rosenberger commented this was not to say this site would not get some kind of commercial
operation. He stated the Commission will discuss rezoning the site.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she would like to have entertained a discretionary EA W had this
development proceeded or had another project of similar usage been proposed. Because of
problems with regard to air quality, contaminated soil potential, contaminated ground water
potential, traffic and vehicle air emission, there would be nothing that would not reach the
environmental guidelines for an EA W. She further commented even if this development were to
proceed, she would want an EA W.
Chair Borkon stated she shares the views of the Commission. She further stated this issue would
likely be confronted again since the site is zoned commercial at this point. She commented she
would like to discuss the procedure for re-examining the zoning of the site as well as the traffic cut-
through which will be reviewed. Borkon stated she would also like to discuss the possibility of
working with the City of Minnetonka to develop a vision for this area so neighborhood objectives
could be met.
.
Commissioner Kolstad clarified that the request for a conditional use permit was being denied
because it does not meet the requirements of a conditional use permit as outlined in Shorewood
City Ordinances, Section 1201.04, subd. 3, Conditional Use Permits.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 10
.
Mr. Kosmas asked to clarify the procedures to be followed at this point. Planning Director Nielsen
stated there would not be a public hearing with the City Council unless the Council were to
determine an additional public hearing were appropriate. He further explained the Council is the
Board of Adjustment on appeals.
Mr. Kosmas asked if he was correct in stating the motion was denied based on the ordinance
which was read by Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Kolstad stated the denial was based on
the criteria set forth in Section 1201.04.
.
Mr. Kosmas stated he wanted to be very clear on the denial because the parties are very interested
in this site. He further stated modifications could be done to the building and it is his belief the
question of the wetlands can be resolved and that it is an overriding factor. He stated his
understanding if the request goes through appeal or deny, the developers would still have the
opportunity to come back and go through the process again. Planning Director Nielsen stated that
a similar application could not be submitted for six months..
Chair Borkon explained to Mr. Kosmas the development he proposed was not at all acceptable.
She stated there was very little the Commission could concur with.
Commissioner Rosenberger informed Mr. Kosmas he could ask that the request not be presented
to the City Council and he could then present a different proposal to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kosmas stated he does recognize the concerns of the neighbors, although he does not agree
with all of them.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Ronald Born
Location: 4865 Ferncroft Drive
Chair Borkon announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to review the case.
Mr. Born stated he had just recently received the recommendations on the cost of closing up the
present structure and the cost of removing the shed. For this reason, he has not had an opportunity
to obtain an estimate from a contractor. He stated he will obtain an estimate at which time the
escrow could be calculated.
Mr. Born explained with regard to the existing storage shed which was to be removed, he has
made arrangements to take the structure down with the assistance of a friend, however, he would
like to have the proposed garage built before disassembling the shed since it serves as storage for
various equipment.
.
Mr. Born also inquired if he would be bound to the dimensions of the structure as listed in the
proposal. He explained that each builder utilizes different dimension. Mr. Born asked if the
building was within the required square foot dimensions, would it be possible to change the
dimensions. Nielsen stated that with a variance, whatever is presented as a part of the variance is
what he would need to comply with. The building permit would have to be consistent with what is
approved as a part of the variance. Nielsen suggested the proposal state the structure will not be
inconsistent by more than four feet in either direction.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 11
.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Hearing no response, Chair Borkon closed
the public hearing at 10:27 p.m.
Commissioner Turgeon asked the applicant if it was his intention to house his other vehicles which
are inoperable in the new facility. Mr. Born stated he would be removing the inoperable vehicles
and the vehicle which is currently stored under his deck will be stored in the new garage.
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded a motion to recommend approving the
setback variance for Ronald Born with the recommendations that the dimensions
of the garage do not vary by four feet of the proposed 26 x 38 dimensions in the
staff report and not to exceed 1,000 square feet, that the project be completed
within six months of the issuance of the permit and that escrow be posted.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Borkon informed the applicant this request will come before the City Council on May 28,
1996, at 7:30 p.m.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE - REVISED
Referred by City Council on 22 April 1996
Applicant: Richard Hoyt
Location: 5710 Ridge Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case. Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the case. Upon going
before the City Council, the applicant suggested he would be willing to revise his proposal in order
to comply with city zoning regulations. Nielsen reviewed the applicant's letter which outlines his
proposal. He commented the numbers in the proposal do not quite come up to the amount of the
deck, however, Mr. Hoyt's attorney had conveyed that Mr. Hoyt would be willing to remove
approximately 200 square feet of concrete, which is part of a dog kennel, on the lake side of the
property and that the resulting hard cover would actually be a net reduction by about 100 square
feet. Nielsen stated his recommendation would be to reconsider the previous motion with a
stipulation as to when the corrections would take place.
Planning Director Nielsen stated it had been placed on the City Council's agenda because the
Planning Commission had taken action on it, so it was required to be placed on the agenda. He
also stated the delays have been a result of scheduling. He further stated the Council, at its last
meeting, did refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the revisions.
Mr. Hoyt stated that since he had appeared in December, he had attempted to address the two main
issues which were the aesthetics and the run off. Mr. Hoyt explained in detail how these issues
have been addressed.
.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:38 p.m.
Bruce Benson stated this problem started in connection with the DNR requirement for 75-foot
setbacks. He stated there has been a history of this type of thing occurring on Christmas Lake for
years. He stated he didn't feel the applicant was asking for any more than anyone else had always
had. Mr. Benson further stated he did a calculation which included people with decks, boat
houses, houses, large houses, and whole houses in the setback requirement and approximately 56
percent of the people on the lake are in violation.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 12
.
Benson further stated the Planning Commission tries to reflect the zoning of what is existing rather
than what is coming up. He stated the percentage would be higher than 56 if enforcement had not
been occurring. He stated one building which had been required to be removed was part of the
character of the lake. He stated the Commission wants to change the 75-foot requirement, but the
lake is the way it is and part of the charm of it is that people have decks down at the lake due to a
hardship or some other reason.
Benson went on to say that what Mr. Hoyt was asking to do was relatively small. He commented
on the structure at Kowalski's. He stated Mr. Hoyt has a screen porch and a deck behind the trees,
however, the Commission gave two more floors to a building which is entirely in the setback
requirement. He stated the request came about because the owner wanted a garage and expanded
from a garage, which was seen as a hardship, to a building which gained more floors. Benson
related another instance where an historic building, which is also entirely within the setback,
received approval for a new roof. That came about as a result of the owner requesting a garage by
the road.
Benson stated the hardship in Mr. Hoyt's case is that he isn't asking for any more than what is
reflected or in place. He stated as far as a delay tactic is concerned, it hasn't been delayed. He
stated he could probably get a 4/5 vote, however he stated he would not be able to get a 5/5 vote.
He further commented the applicant has made changes and if the Commission is satisfied with the
changes, he would like to see it approved since what he is asking for is really no different than
others have. He stated the resident who filed the complaint had actually wanted to do the same
with his property. Benson stated what should be reflected is what is existing.
. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad stated although she agrees with Benson, there is a 75-foot setback. She
asked if the rules should be changed for the east side of Christmas Lake. If every residence is in
violation of the zoning, perhaps the zoning is not consistent with that neighborhood and needs to
be looked at. She further commented she is not certain it is a hardship to not have deck down by
the lake.
Chair Borkon inquired what it would take to examine the ordinances as the City has them and
would it be realistic to make changes to them in order to bring these homes into compliance.
Nielsen stated any zoning ordinances are subject to periodic review and, in some cases, revision.
He further stated the City would need to contend with the Shoreland Management Regulations. It
would be contrary to everything in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the setback to the extent it
would allow structures in close proximity to the water.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated, to a certain degree, the City is driven by the requirements of the
DNR. He further stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad and feels it is important
to remain consistent. The purpose of rules and guidelines is to do just that, provide guidance.
.
Commissioner Lizee stated it was upsetting to think that granting a variance would set a precedence
around the lake which would need to be upheld. The applicant's alternative plan reduces the pre-
deck total hard cover by one-third of one percent. The deck, which is now built illegally, would
add one-half of one percent of hard cover to just under 2.5 acres the applicant owns. She further
stated hard cover is not the issue, however zoning regulations are the issue. Nothing has changed
since December 5th. Lizee suggested reading the criteria for granting a variance contained in
Planning Director Nielsen's memo dated November 28, 1995, Pages 2 and 3. Lizee also stated her
disappointment in having been directed to revisit this issue when there is no new information to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 13
.
review and in light of the many issues currently on the Planning Commission's schedule which
have merit, that is where the Commission's time and energy would be best utilized. Unpleasant
decisions need to be made and although this is an unfortunate situation, it is the role of the
Planning Commission to uphold city codes and zoning regulations for the benefit and safety of the
entire community. Commissioner Pisula stated the mission of the Planning Commission is to
enforce the law as the Commission sees it.
Chair Borkon stated this was particularly difficult since she is a neighbor, however there is no
manner of enforcement and the Commission needs to address that. She stated this is an
unfortunate situation, however, the property is not in compliance with the ordinance, is in violation
of the law, and there is nothing which can be done to put it in compliance. She further stated she
also agrees with Council Liaison Benson and his argument has merit.
Commissioner Turgeon reiterated the fact there is variance criteria which was established by higher
powers than the Commission. She stated there are Shoreland Management Ordinances, and bluff
requirements. She further commented she does not appreciate Mr. Benson's comment in regard to
being able to obtain a 4/5 vote to get the variance approved. Turgeon stated it does no good to
have ordinances if they are not going to be followed. She further stated if a building permit had
been pulled, this situation could have been avoided.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated that the point of the guidelines which are given to the
Commission is to provide guidelines. He stated one of the major aspects of the guidelines is the
hardship case. Chair Borkon stated hardship cases are open to interpretation.
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated this does not apply only to Christmas Lake. Therefore, if it is
acceptable to do something on Christmas Lake, then it is acceptable to do it on all of the other
lakes.
Planning Director Nielsen stated a very conscious decision had been made to handle these
situations on a complaint by complaint basis.
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded a motion to recommend denying the setback
variance request of Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request.
Chair Borkon informed the applicant he would have an opportunity to appear before the City
Council on May 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
4. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT - REMOVE DETACHED GARAGE
Applicant: Mark Warren
Location: 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested Planning Director Nielsen review the case.
The applicant stated he had given the structure to another person who had, in turn, hired a mover.
He further explained he was not aware of the fact a permit was needed. Mr. Warren inquired if the
driver had provided a copy of his license and bond. Nielsen stated he had not received those items
and that he would also need copies of the approvals which had been obtained.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 14
.
Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded a motion approving the building moving
permit to remove a detached garage by Mark Warren, 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road.
Motion passed 6/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad stated almost 800 snowmobile survey responses have been received. The
first draft shows 753 responses and approximately one-third voted to ban snowmobiling while the
remaining were looking at other alternatives. The alternatives being considered involve education,
training and safety. Kolstad will prepare a summary for the next Commission meeting. The
survey will give the Task Force considerable direction with respect to decision making. The Task
Force has begun looking at various policy areas and will proceed with the analysis and
recommendation making.
Commissioner Turgeon spoke of the land use session which she attended along with
Commissioners Lizee and Kolstad in which the topic was Comprehensive Plans. City Attorney
Keane addressed this issue in a memorandum. Planning Director Nielsen explained the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning need to be consistent, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not
supersede the zoning process.
.
Chair Borkon inquired about park dedications. Nielsen stated the City cannot charge park
dedication fees if they are not going to build and develop parks. The City does not plan on
acquiring more land, however, there are development plans for parks, which are allowable.
Planning Director Nielsen stated there was an issue with regard to interim use permits which will
be discussed at some future time.
Commissioner Turgeon stated there was a suggestion that when conducting public hearings, copies
of staff reports should be made available for the audience to look at. Chair Borkon stated that
information would be available upon request. Nielsen stated it would be very difficult to anticipate
the number of copies needed.
Commissioner Turgeon stated the other issue discussed was the 60 day requirement and problems
which could be encountered if someone other than the Planning Director were to accept the
application. Nielsen stated the process exceeds 60 days, therefore the application form was
modified to contain an acknowledgment the applicant must sign indicating they understand the
process will take longer than 60 days and up to 120 days and they are waiving that right. He
further stated the application would have to be reviewed within 10 days of being submitted. If it is
incomplete, the applicant must be notified.
Chair Borkon inquired if the Christmas Lake Management Plan for May 1996 had been submitted.
Nielsen confirmed it had.
.
Nielsen stated the Commission will receive a tabulation of the priorities which will be reviewed in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Liaison Benson stated the Senior Center is up for bid. He also stated he would appreciate
any input on police coverage. Excelsior wants to cut 500 hours of patrol time. Benson suggested
perhaps the City should consider its own police force. Commissioner Rosenberger stated a
separate fire and police district may be appropriate.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 15
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY , MAY 21, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon, Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger,
Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rosenberger moved, Pisula seconded to approve the Planning Commission
meeting minutes as amended, Page 13, Paragraph 3, Sentence 3, change to "She
further commented she does not appreciate Mr. Benson's comment in regard to
being able to obtain a 4/5 vote to get the variance approved"; Page 13, Paragraph
2, Sentence 2, clarify to state "She stated this is an unfortunate situation,
however, the property is not in compliance, is in violation of the law, and there is
nothing which can be done to put it in compliance." Page 1, Paragraph 7, Line 1,
change "where" to "with"; Page 9, Paragraph 1, Line 3, change "concerned" to
"concern"; Page 13, Paragraph 5, Line 2, change "the" to "then." Motion passed
6/0.
1. ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION - COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Chair Borkon announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to review the matter. Sonja
Dusil and Anne Marie Solberg of SBA, Inc., a consultant representing Sprint, addressed the
Commission.
Ms. Dusil explained Sprint Spectrum is a participant in the Personal Communications Services
(PCS) market. Their goal is to develop a nationwide telecommunications company which will
provide consumers with a variety of telecommunication services including local telephone service,
long distance service, wireless communications and cable services. They will provide the next
generation in cellular phones which will be a hand held unit similar to a cellular phone. It is
different in that a cellular phone is an analog system and PCS is a digital system which results in a
clearer signal. In addition, pirating will no longer be an issue. This unit would eventually replace
cordless phones as well as contain a pager so the phone number and pager number will be the
same. A PCS has a more advantages than a cellular phone and will eventually drive down the price
of the cellular phone.
Ms. Dusil further explained transmission towers of differing heights are needed for this service. In
Shorewood, Sprint would be looking for 100 feet. Chair Borkon inquired if this antenna would
need to be mounted on something which is already 100 feet. Ms. Dusil stated in the alternative, a
monopole could also be constructed. She stated the poles sometimes need to be taller based on
ground elevation. She stated another alternative would be a lattice tower. Monopoles are very
expensive and for aesthetic reasons, Ms. Dusil would suggest using a lattice tower.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 2
Ms. Dusil explained Sprint would need one tower in Shorewood, however, other vendors would
be approaching the city for antenna locations. The radius they would need to occupy would be half
a mile to a mile which would cover 8 to 16 miles depending on the interference. Ms. Solberg
explained their system would require a line of site transmission. Ms. Dusil suggested the water
tower would be the best solution.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if federal law requires a city to have a site available and does
the law dictate whether a monopole or lattice is used. Nielsen stated the city has the ability to place
reasonable regulations.
Chair Borkon inquired if the site could be shared by the various companies. Nielsen stated that
would be another requirement which could be imposed by the city. Commissioner Rosenberger
asked what the city would be required to provide. Nielsen stated there are four licenses at the
present time and as companies become licensed, the city would be required to provide sites. Chair
Borkon expressed concern about the amount of equipment which would be required at the site.
Ms. Dusil stated as technology increases and use increases, the equipment will decrease in size due
to growing technology.
Ms. Dusil stated when Sprint builds a pole, the pole belongs to Sprint and they will negotiate with
other vendors to allow their use of the pole. The property would continue to belong to the city and
the city would be entitled to additional revenue on the ground space by leasing it to other vendors
for their equipment. Chair Borkon inquired about the equipment. Ms. Dusil stated there would be
a BTS, base transmission station, which is a self-containing structure, approximately the size of a
pop machine, which lays on its side and contains everything for the antennas. Nielsen stated at the
present time, Cell One has an 8 x 12 building to store their equipment. Ms. Dusil stated Sprint will
make the BTS aesthetically pleasing by using fencing and shrubbery.
Commissioner Rosenberger asked if the city would be required to build a pole. He further
inquired if the vendor wishes to locate in Shorewood and the water tower is available for their use,
however it doesn't work out, would the city be required to provide another site for their use.
Nielsen stated he would investigate that issue. He stated it to be his understanding the city would
have the right to limit site availability to the water tower. In addition, a second water tower is
scheduled to be constructed. Nielsen stated the city has to make provisions, however, it could be
the water towers which would not necessitate the construction of another tall structure and gives
the city a chance to receive revenues from the existing facilities. Nielsen also inquired how many
carriers would fit on a water tower.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if the city would have to do an EA W. Nielsen stated the
materials available suggest the city cannot turn the carriers down on the basis of environmental
effects such as radiation or transmission, however, the city can become involved in the aesthetics
to a degree. He stated the ground facility could be screened, but there would be no way to screen
the tower.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if it would be possible for the city to build their own pole.
Nielsen stated that would be possible. Commissioner Foust stated the question would be if the city
could anticipate where those would need to be located. There is a science determining the RF
factor. Foust stated the city can address the issue of height and possibly restricting it. Ms. Dusil
stated anything placed on the water tower has to be same color and cannot block the water tower's
name.
Nielsen stated A TT had proposed three antennas on the top of the 160- foot water tower, in addition
to three on the stem of the tower as well. He inquired if Sprint would be able to confme their
antennas to the stem of the tower. Ms. Dusil stated all of the antennas would be the same height.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 3
She stated their engineer, in reviewing the water tower site, suggested locating the antennas under
the ones on the stem by approximately 5 to 10 feet and located at three sectors, 0-120-240. This
would consist of a set of three to four panel antennas at each sector facing each way. The panels
would be five to seven feet in height.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired about the city being required to provide a site. Nielsen stated
he did not believe the law requires the city to provide a site, rather it is required that the city cannot
create barriers to location of facilities. Commissioner Foust explained the more customers the
carriers pick up, the shorter the poles will be and the smaller the equipment, however it would
require more poles.
Chair Borkon asked if as more and more spaces are necessary and as the city is required to make
available sites, eventually, in order to get something in Shorewood which is high, the city would
be looking at building a lattice pole or the monopole or in the future, could they be mounted on
something shorter as they became more powerful. Commissioner Foust stated that would be the
projection.
Commissioner Turgeon asked if there is potential to use up space on two water towers.
Commissioner Foust stated there is a limit to spectrum. Commissioner Rosenberger commented
that as the service evolves, the need for a higher tower is less and less and the city may need to take
a look at the issue of visual pollution. Nielsen suggest the initial direction should be to allow use
of the water towers. As technology evolves and there is a need for additional sites, then the city
could look at acceptable locations for a tower. Nielsen also stated if the carriers would be looking
at placing antennas on buildings, the city would need to look at the requirements which would be
involved with that. Nielsen inquired if there were any acceptable locations for a tower. He
commented there are limited commercial districts.
Chair Borkon inquired about individuals, churches, or banking facilities who would want to make
space available for carriers to rent out. Nielsen stated that issue would need to be addressed.
Chair Borkon also stated there could arise the issue of residents wanting to rent out their yards.
Nielsen stated the ordinance does not currently allow for that type of use. He is asking for general
direction from the Commission.
Nielsen inquired if SBA was actually looking for a tower or if they would prefer to use the water
tower. Ms. Dusil stated from a zoning standpoint, the water tower would be easier, less cost and
is better for everyone. Once residents see the benefits of the service, they will be more accepting
of a pole being present. Chair Borkon stated the antennas on the side of the water tower and stem
are more aesthetic.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if the small antennas could be restricted to the right-of-ways.
Nielsen stated the city would have to look to see what locations would be acceptable. Council
Liaison Benson inquired if the number of antennas could be limited. Commissioner Foust stated
they could be, as long as the city is not creating a barrier. Nielsen suggested there is such a thing
as "full" in anyone location. He further stated no more than six antennas and no microwave
dishes would be allowed on the existing tower.
Rosenberger stated his feeling it is intrusive that the federal government dictates this and cities have
to allow it. He stated the city has made an effort to provide an acceptable site. If it is filled to
saturation, does the community have the responsibility to allow them to put more antennas up or
allow them to construct a tower. Commissioner Kolstad inquired if the downside would be that
the residents would not be able to access the service. Commissioner Foust stated that was true.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 4
Nielsen will provide to the Commission the Telecommunications Act which will explain the reason
there is this requirement and the theory behind it. It is felt it is important national policy this whole
communications issue is extremely important to the future of the country.
Nielsen stated the city could start out with approval to use the water tower and then respond to
changes in the law as they come up. Commissioner Lizee stated it appears the initial direction is
the water tower. Nielsen suggested the previously proposed AmocolMcDonald's site would be a
good site; would not require site alteration; neighbors would not see the tower because of the
existing trees and no traffic would be generated by it. Commissioner Lizee inquired if that would
be an additional site once the water tower reaches saturation. Nielsen stated that would be
something for the engineers to determine.
Chair Borkon asked Ms. Dusil if she had generated any figures which would document how soon
the city might be looking at additional towers. Ms. Solberg stated she had no information in that
regard since it is a new system. She stated she would obtain that information for the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Kolstad inquired how many users are in a cell at the preset time.
Ms. Solberg stated she was unsure of that number, however, she will obtain that information.
Nielsen inquired when the service would be available in Shorewood. Ms. Solberg stated she
would anticipate November. Nielsen further inquired how many sites had been secured. Ms.
Dusil stated they are looking at approximately 200 sites and approximately half of them have been
secured.
Ms. Solberg stated her understanding most cities are not pleased at the prospect of a tower being
installed. She assured the Commission SBA will work with city to make ensure they are less
noticeable.
Nielsen stated he is in need of direction from the Planning Commission. He inquired if this issue
should be treated as a permitted use or allowed by a conditional use permit. Nielsen explained with
a conditional use permit, everyone would need to be notified this project would be going in and
would also require public testimony. Ms. Solberg stated she will be working with the zoning
aspect of the project.
Chair Borkon asked if there would be potential this could be put on the tower for a short period of
time, and is it possible Sprint could lose their ability to provide service for one reason or another.
Ms. Dusil stated that type of issue would be provided for in the lease. If Sprint were breaking the
law or if the market changed and the tower became of no use, within 30 to 60 days, at Sprint's
cost, Sprint would have to remove the antennas and replace the land. She further stated Sprint, as
well as the industry, is looking for a 25 year lease with four renewal terms of five years with a
certain increase in rent every five years. Ms. Dusil further explained it is basically a 25 year lease
and the renewal is included to reflect the rent increases. Chair Borkon inquired what sort of things
Sprint could do which would be illegal. Commissioner Foust stated there is a provision of their
license which guarantees operation within a certain period of time and a certain coverage of their
license period. Chair Borkon inquired if Sprint would inform the Commission when they apply
for the C.U.P. or interim use permit, what they are contractually obligated to provide. Nielsen
stated they would have to provide that information.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if the lease would have an 180-day clause in the event Sprint
would decide to terminate their lease. Nielsen stated he was uncertain, however, Council has the
ability to review the lease agreement.
Chair Borkon inquired what the advantage to a C.U.P. would be versus an interim use permit.
Nielsen stated he did not feel strongly either way at the moment, however, the advantage of a
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21, 1996 - PAGE 5
permitted use is that a public hearing would not be necessary. He further stated that even as a
permitted use, there would still be conditions attached.
Ms. Dusil stated when Sprint enters into a contract, they put hundreds of thousands of dollars into
each site. She stated if each city was given the right to review the lease every five years, the cities
could decide to terminate the lease or require an unreasonable rent. For that reason, Sprint would
not agree to a review of the lease. Chair Borkon stated it was a difficult situation and it is hard to
dea1 with the unknown. Nielsen stated it would need to be tied to performance. Commissioner
Rosenberger suggested a permitted use and established conditions.
Council Liaison Benson stated there should be a limit to the number of antennas. He felt there
should be a time when the tower antennas could be abandoned and removed. He felt a permitted
use would be appropriate. Commissioner Pisula stated this is a use that is coming. He further
stated the antennas should be placed where it makes the most sense and attach reasonable
conditions.
Chair Borkon inquired how a C.U.P. would be different from an interim use. Turgeon stated
interim uses are tied to specific dates or events. Nielsen stated he is not sure how that would be
different from a conditiona1 use permit with those requirements. Commissioner Kolstad stated an
interim use is linked to ownership and a conditiona1 use permit is linked to the land.
Chair Borkon asked if Sprint could ever abandon their antennas and sell them to someone else.
Ms. Dusil stated with the industry growing as it is, Sprint would not abandon something this
expensive. Possibly two companies would merge and the owner or the name of the owner would
switch, however it would not be abandoned. If they sold anything, it would be an entire system.
Ms. Dusil stated these things would be provided for and regulated in the negotiated lease.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if permitted use would be tied to a certain zoning district and how
would it be limited. Nielsen stated a condition could be put on the permit requiring the antennas
must be on a water tower. Commissioner Foust stated the Commission could a1so go zoning
district by zoning district and make a determination. He further stated the Planning Commission
would need to decide what it sees as acceptable standards for the community.
Nielsen stated permitted use for the water towers would be appropriate, however, if the Planning
Commission were to be looking at other zoning districts, permitted uses may not be the appropriate
mechanism to use.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if Sprint would trade service such as telephones or services. Ms.
Dusil stated Sprint would not trade telephones or service time, but would prefer to work on a
monthly monetary lease va1ue.
Nielsen stated the next step would be to put together some ordinances and see what other cities are
doing which will be available for the next study session. Ms. Dusil stated the water tower has
been tested and is a viable location. Nielsen stated a conditiona1 use permit could be processed at
the present time and there would be no need to rush the current process to accommodate Sprint.
Nielsen stated a public hearing will be required on any ordinance amendment. He proposed
reviewing a draft ordinance by the July study session and could then be in place by August.
Ms. Dusil stated it would genera1ly take approximately a month to erect the equipment. The co-
location on the water tower would probably not require that amount of time. Ms. Solberg inquired
if a building permit would still be required for the BTS unit which will be located on the ground.
Nielsen stated that would be about a 30-day process. He stated it would be similar to a site plan
review. Nielsen was directed to put a11 of the necessary items together.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 21, 1996 . PAGE 6
. Chair Borkon thanked Ms. Dusil and Ms. Solberg for their presentation.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Snowmobile Task Force. The Task Force has two
scheduled meetings remaining with six policy change areas to be addressed - access, grading,
patrolling, education, safety and ban.
Commissioner Kolstad distributed a written summary of the survey results and explained each
question and answer. She also explained cross tabulations which were done. She stated the next
step will be to come up with final recommendations to be presented to the City Council.
Chair Borkon asked for the Commissioners' feelings on the public testimony which was taken at
the previous meeting and the way in which each person's questions were answered when they had
finished speaking rather than making a list of questions to address at the completion of the public
testimony. The general consensus was it went well. Commissioner Rosenberger was concerned
about the potential for debate versus taking testimony. Chair Borkon stated she would like to try
this format a couple of more times.
Commissioner Foust reported on his trip to Australia. He had an opportunity to meet with the
Planning Director for one of the cities as well as attended a city council meeting. He spoke with
the Planning Director regarding the telecommunications issue and related to the Commission how
they are addressing this issue.
. Commissioner Turgeon and Council Liaison Benson commented on the May 13th City Council
meeting and the municipal water issue which was heard at that meeting.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Rosenberger moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, JUNE 4, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon, Commissioners Lizee, Rosenberger, Turgeon, and Planning
Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust, Kolstad and Pisula; Council Liaison Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded to approve the May 21, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 4, change
"place" to "placed"; Page 2, Paragraph 6, Line 2, change "used" to "use"; Page 4,
Paragraph 6, Line 11, change "Spring" to "Sprint"; Page 6, Paragraph 3, Line 4,
change "general consensus" to "consensus"; Page 6, Paragraph 3, Line 5,
Commissioner Rosenberger clarified the issue was with taking testimony versus
debate. Motion passed 4/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - LARSON ESTATES
Applicant:
Location:
Carl Zinn, representing Stephen and Lucinda Larson
20435 Radisson Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the process for a public hearing. Planning Director
Nielsen presented a detailed staff analysis of the matter. Mr. Carl Zinn appeared with Stephen and
Lucinda Larson. Mr. Zinn commended Planning Director Nielsen for improving the Larson's proposed
subdivision.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Joe Joyce, 5550 Shore Road, inquired if outlots C and D would be included with the primary residence.
Nielsen confirmed they would. Mr. Joyce also asked if the subdivided lots would have the easement to
use Lot 11. Mr. Zinn stated he had received legal input in which he was informed the subdivided lots
would have the same privileges as the original covenant with regard to Lot 11.
Nielsen explained the history surrounding Lot 11 and that some years ago, because the property was
substandard in size, it was the subject of a c.u.P. in which all of the property owners had a right to use
Lot 11. Nielsen further explained the applicants had received legal input in which they were told the
additional lots would have the same rights as the larger parcel and these rights would not be diminished
by a subdivision. Mr. Larson stated his understanding the covenant travels with each of the subdivided
pieces of property. Chair Borkon clarified the covenant applies only to bathing.
Sherry Maxwell, 20480 Raddison Road, inquired if the City would request an opinion with regard to Lot
11 prior to the property being sold. Chair Borkon confirmed the Planning Commission would be
requesting an opinion from the City Attorney.
. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 2
.
Rosenberger requested the issue of transference be reviewed and commented on by the City Attorney.
He inquired of Nielsen if the creation of outlot B would cause more gerrymandering of the lot lines.
Nielsen stated that would be true to some degree, although most of that occurs as a result of the City's
wetland dedication requirement.
Chair Barkon asked Mr. Zinn if the property which is for sale on Carrie Lane would abut outlot B. Mr.
Zinn explained an outlot had been created in the Peterson subdivision which does not reach the Olson
property. Nielsen added that outlot B was set aside to preserve the trees and the slope in that location as
a part of the Peterson Division.
Commissioner Rosenberger commented he is not comfortable with outlot B and of most concern would
be the issue of hard cover. He inquired if a precedence had been set in which property owners were
allowed access to an outlot so as to avoid the issue of hard cover. Nielsen advised it would be
encouraged to acquire more land rather than exceed the 25 percent hard cover.
Commissioner Turgeon noted Lot 3 is built up to the setback which would not allow any room far a deck
or patio. She cautioned the applicants they may wish to leave more room for the benefit of future
homeowners for that purpose. It would be difficult to get a variance at a later date because there is no
hardship. Mr. Zinn stated that was good advice and expressed his appreciation to Commissioner
Turgeon.
.
Chair Barkon inquired if outlot C would be joined with outlot D and become a part of the existing Lot 2.
Nielsen stated it currently is joined with outlot D. Separation occurs because of the City's wetland
dedication requirement. In addition, the right-of-way for Shore Road cuts that lot in two. At the present
time, it appears as one parcel with the Larson property. In the platting process, the same situation cannot
be shown and in the alternative appear as outlots. Those parcels should not be sold separately, but
should remain with the existing homestead parcel. Chair Barkon inquired if that would cause Lot 2 to
become a separated lot. Nielsen stated it does become separated by creation of the outlot which is subject
to the city's dedication requirement.
Chair Borkon inquired if the footprint on Lot 3 could be moved back. Nielsen stated the diagram reflects
a building pad which would be the logical location for a building, however, the house may not take up all
of the area and could also shift uphill. Within the building pad, the City would expect that decks and
patios would be accommodated.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concern over the issue of Lot 11. Nielsen stated it would be
reasonable for the City to not want to create more property owners who would have use of the lot. He
further commented if that is the concern, the City Attorney could be consulted with respect to whether or
not the City, as part of the plat, can restrict that from happening.
Chair Borkon asked if the property would have to be a P.D.D. for the City to place a condition on it.
Nielsen advised the City can place reasonable restrictions on the property as a part of the subdivision
approval.
Mr. Larson addressed the Commission and related his distress over this issue and requested the
Commission allow him an opportunity to speak with other property owners with current covenants to see
if it would be a problem to have two additional homeowners use Lot 11. He stated it is very difficult
having the City attempting to negate a covenant which has been on the property for many years. Chair
Borkon pointed out that at this point, the Commission was simply asking for some information from the
City Attorney with respect to what the City may be able to do with regard to Lot 11. Chair Borkon stated
she understands the Larsons' concern.
.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 3
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she will not feel comfortable until the Planning Commission receives a
legal opinion with respect to whether the covenant is or is not transferrable with the subdivision and what
can and cannot be done as far as covenants.
Mr. Larson expressed his concern that city government would intrude on his private property and his
private covenant which has nothing to do with the City. Commissioner Rosenberger stated the Planning
Commission is not taking issue with the applicants as to being right or wrong, however, they would like
to have additional information.
Chair Borkon clarified the issue is not a matter of one use, but of two additional uses, plus a potential for
three more families to be using Lot 11. She expressed her understanding the applicants want to utilize
their property in the best way possible.
Chair Borkon inquired to what extent tree removal would be allowed within the buffer area. Nielsen
stated the buffer area was to be left in its natural state. She further inquired about the setback. Nielsen
explained the setback may be used as yard if it is graded for yard purposes. It may be graded and sodded
for yard purposes, however, no buildings can occur in this area. If trees are removed, they must be
replaced. The plans attempt to minimize tree removal, however, in most cases there are trees which come
out. As a result of construction, anything removed would be replaced up to the eight trees per acre
requirement.
.
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded recommending approval of a preliminary plat
for Stephen and Lucinda Larson, 20435 Radisson Road, based on staff and
engineering recommendations, with an additional recommendation that the applicant
provide written documentation to future homeowners regarding an assessment for
water and that staff obtain a legal opinion regarding passing for usage for new
homeowners to Lot 11.
Chair Borkon noted she was aware there had been a problem with too many boats docking and that the
Lot 11 area was meant to be a swimming beach. She inquired what would happen if three new families
were added to Lot 11. Nielsen stated he was unsure how many boats are docked at this location. He
was not aware of anything in either a Court decision or the ordinance which allows the docking of boats,
however, this has been treated as though it were grandfathered in. Nielsen stated if the two new lots
were to have some use of Lot 11, he would not expect to see more boats at those docks due to the fact
grandfathered use is allowed to remain as is and as it has been used in the past. Mr. Larson noted most
of the homeowners had taken the covenant off of their titles due of the availability of their own access
areas.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated his only issue with this matter is whether or not the covenant is
transferrable.
Vote on Motion: Motion passed 4/0. Chair Borkon informed the applicants this matter will be
brought before the City Council on June 10, 1996. Mr. Larson asked how he could facilitate the issue
regarding Lot 11. Chair Borkon stated it would be helpful if the applicants provided a statement from
their attorney which could be utilized at the City Council meeting as well as input from the City Attorney.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant:
Location:
Kevin Johns
26890 Edgewood Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to review the matter.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 4
.
Mr. Johns appeared and addressed the Planning Commission stating the reason for his request is the
need for additional accessory space. He explained he is making a complete improvement of the home
which was built in the 1950s. He assured the Commission there is no occupation being performed out of
the property.
Chair Borkon opened public testimony at 8:26 p.m.
Julie Scherer, 26930 Edgewood Road, stated she considers this to be a request for the expansion of a
nonconforming use in the area. She stated the structure is basically a three story apartment building.
Ms. Scherer stated this property looks like an apartment building and has functioned as an apartment
building since Mr. Johns purchased the property. She stated there have been continual renters occupying
the lower level of the house and she is concerned, as a taxpayer, there will be continual pressure in
residential zones to convert homes to apartment buildings, calling them homes and being taxed as homes.
.
Ms. Scherer stated living next door to Mr. Johns' property has had a negative effect on the value of her
own home. She expressed her concern that zoning ordinances need to be enforced.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to address ordinance enforcement. Nielsen explained with regard to the
subject property, the owner was previously cited for violation of the zoning ordinance when he had four
people living at the residence. Mr. Johns noted he had himself and three professionals living on the
property. He explained when he bought the home he had not been aware of the existing ordinance which
provides that a homeowner cannot have more than two unrelated roommates. Since that time, he has
complied with the ordinance and the roommate moved out of the property in the time allotted.
Nielsen advised the Commission that a single family district is defined as the traditional nuclear family
consisting of husband, wife and children or as many as three adults unrelated by marriage or blood. He
noted that in Mr. Johns' case, the City had received a complaint there were more adults living there than
the ordinance allowed. The City advised Mr. Johns to correct that violation and he did.
Nielsen further advised the City's rental housing code with respect to single family homes provides if the
owner moves out and rents out the property, that property is subject to the rental housing code the same
as apartments and duplexes. With respect to boarding, in the case of three adults living in a single family
dwelling, that would not require rental housing requirements.
Chair Borkon inquired if boarding would assume only one facility with respect to kitchen and laundry.
Nielsen stated in Mr. Johns' home, there is a kitchen in the lower level. The code defines a dwelling unit
as having a separate kitchen facility, separate exit facilities and separate sanitation facilities. In this
particular case, the lower level had been closed off from the upper level thereby creating a separate
dwelling unit and Mr. Johns was directed to reconnect the two levels resulting in a single family
dwelling. Mr. Johns did comply with this request.
Nielsen stated many of the large houses being constructed in Shorewood are including kitchen facilities
in the family room areas and in determining whether a dwelling is an apartment, the City would look for
the combination of three elements consisting of kitchen, exits and sanitation facilities.
Chair Borkon suggested it would be helpful in the future to have notation of any complaints made against
a particular applicant included in the application materials which are provided to the Planning
Commission for their review prior to the meeting. She expressed concern that had Ms. Scherer not
appeared, the Commission would not be aware a prior complaint had been made in this regard. Nielsen
noted that would be the purpose of the public hearing and would be addressed by someone appearing at
the public hearing and voicing their concerns or writing a letter to that effect. Chair Borkon clarified she
.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 5
.
would like input as to if it would be possible to have pertinent information such as prior complaints listed
on the application.
Commissioner Rosenberger pointed out the Commission is actually looking at two different issues, use
and the request which is being made. Chair Borkon stated her opinion the two issues are inherently
related.
Kirk Scherer, 26930 Edgewood Road, stated the applicant has, in the past, been in violation of the RIA
zoning requirement. He stated if the C.U.P. were to be granted, he would like to see the Planning
Commission and the City Council ask for some type of verification in the future that the applicant is in
compliance with the zoning requirements.
Hearing no further public comment, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated from his perspective the situation does look suspicious especially with
regard to a four car garage for a single homeowner. He pointed out there are requirements related to
C.U.P. and verification would be justified in this particular situation with respect to three people living in
this house. Nielsen suggested monitoring the use of the property either by periodic inspection or
discussions with neighbors.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired how to balance the issue of being allowed three unrelated adults
when it is foreseeable that at one time, there could actually be six people at the residence on a regular
basis. Nielsen stated the Shorewood ordinance is more restrictive in that regard than either the building
code or many other cities. It is common for the ordinances to define families as being as many as five
unrelated adults.
.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to explain the definition of a c.u.P. Nielsen explained it is a use within a
given district which, because of certain circumstances, requires special scrutiny and, in some cases,
additional conditions as a part of approval. A conditional use requires a specific list of conditions to be
met and if those conditions are met, it is treated the same as a permitted use.
Chair Borkon inquired how much landscaping was on the property and how much would be completed
with the remodeling. The applicant informed the Commission at the present time he has substantial
landscaping. His plan is to relocate a crabapple tree. At the current time there are approximately 18 trees
in the yard area. Mr. Johns plans on planting bushes around the garage.
Commissioner Turgeon noted the applicant's proposal for a pool and Mr. Johns explained the pool was
added to the plans because he had expended $1,800 on a survey and he asked the survey company to go
up to the 25 percent so if in the future someone wants to add a pool, the homeowner will not have to
come back and have another survey completed. Turgeon cautioned the applicant regarding the use of
poly with the property being at 24.8 percent hard cover and with the addition of a pool, extensive
landscaping around the driveway, the garage and the pool, the applicant would be considerably over 25
percent hard cover. Mr. Johns commented at the present time, he is close to extensive landscaping.
Nielsen stated the applicant could use fabric rather than poly since fabric would not count and allows the
water to go through.
Commissioner Turgeon cautioned Mr. Johns to not add any more doorways or to separate the lower level
of the home. Chair Borkon inquired of the Scherer's what factors lead them to believe there were a lot of
people at Mr. Johns' home. Mr. Scherer stated during the past summer there was a stream of 10 to 20
different people per week in and out. He stated he could see them and hear them.
.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 6
.
Commissioner Lizee pointed out the problem with the property is the topography and the way the home
is situated on the lot and overlooks other property. She stated there are very- many large trees on the
property. There is also a fence and bushes, however, the problem is the topography because the
applicant is on a hill and the Scherer's home is on the flatter part of the shore. Nielsen mentioned
conditions could be attached to a conditional use permit, however, they would have to be reasonably
related to the conditional use permit itself.
Whether the garage is approved or not, Nielsen suggest due to the past history of the property that the
Commission ask the City Attorney for his input as to what sort of monitoring and enforcement could be
employed given the circumstances involved.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if the number of garages could be limited. Nielsen stated the
C.U.P. process works well for these situations due to the additional scrutiny. Commissioner Lizee
commented based on the facts and the request being made, the applicant meets all of the requirements for
a C.U.P. and would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood. She clarified what is currently labeled
as a garage is actually a boat house. The applicant stated the building was used for storage during the
wintertime of the dock, skis and things of that nature. Lizee pointed out that building should be labeled
as a boat house. With the boat house square footage subtracted, Mr. Johns would be just over 1,000
square feet in his other accessory space which is comparable to other properties in the neighborhood.
Chair Borkon stated two separate issues are actually being dealt with and she is in agreement with
Commissioner Lizee's comments, however, in light of the complaints which have been made and the fact
he is potentially using the property in a way that is inappropriate, she would question what use is being
put to the additional garage stalls.
. Commissioner Rosenberger expressed an individual homeowner has certain rights. The applicant has
met the conditions and while he may not have been the best neighbor, the Commission should try to find
some kind of conditions which can be attached to attempt to mitigate the impact. He further commented
that to a certain degree that would not be under the purview of the Planning Commission.
Chair Borkon stated her concern with ordinances which are not enforceable and relying on neighbors to
report neighbors anonymously and the fact that it does not set up a situation for neighborly interaction.
She further pointed out, on the other hand it would not be favorable to have the police force come onto
the property and examine what is going on. She expressed her frustration at the way the ordinances
work and this would not be limited to Shorewood where neighbors have to step out and go through an
agonizing process in order to have a satisfactory neighborhood.
Nielsen stated the first step would be to separate the issues into the accessory space and the use of the
property. If the Planning Commission is in favor of additional conditions with regard to the accessory
space, that should be a part of the motion. In terms of use, the Commission can note that as a problem to
City Council and City staff and they will discuss various ways of trying to resolve the problem.
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded recommending approval of a Conditional Use
Permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Kevin Johns, 26890 Edgewood
Road. Motion passed 4/0.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded directing staff to prepare recommendations as
to enforcement of codes related to use. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Borkon explained the matter would come before the City Council on June 10, 1996.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9: 18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:22 p.m.
.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 7
.
3. SITE PLAN REVIEW - DAY CARE FACILITY
Applicant:
Location:
New Horizon Child Care, Inc.
19625 State Highway 7
Chair Borkon announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to review the matter. The
architect, Yanis Blumentals, appeared to address the Commission along with Nola Kremel, Executive
Vice President of New Horizon Child Care, Inc., and Lisa Swan, also of New Horizon Child Care.
Mr. Blumentals stated he is in agreement with the recommendations of City staff. He would agree to
increasing the size of the trees and expressed he would not have a problem with increasing the
landscaping to a point and will have further discussions with Nielsen related to this.
Mr. Blumentals stated the fence would consist of a four foot white picket fence which would be made of
plastic rather than the wire mesh which had previously been used at other sites. He added the extension
of the berm would not be a problem and with regard to the pylon sign, the appropriate measurements will
be made according to the specifications.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if any school age children would be included at this facility. Ms.
Kremel indicated the facility would provide for 6 to 12 year-olds. At this time, the plan provides for 30
school age children.
.
Commissioner Turgeon also inquired if the center would be allowed to use the bank parking facility for
after bank hour parking. Nielsen stated the center is actually adjacent to the office building and it is
possible that could occur, however, that would be dependent upon agreement of the office building
owner.
Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern there would not be sufficient parking on the occasions when
the center would put on special programs for parents and relatives to attend. Nielsen stated there would
be no on street parking at any time. Ms. Kremel explained that due to a similar problem at other care
centers, the programs which are presented are staggered according to age groups to allow for sufficient
parking.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if a four foot fence would be sufficient to meet state requirements since
many care centers have an eight foot fence around play areas for the purposes of safety. Nielsen stated
some of the fence could be as high as six feet. Ms. Kremel emphasized the children are well supervised
at all times when in the fenced area. Generally, the care center has used five foot fences when the center
is near a roadway more directly located to the playground.
Chair Borkon stated part of the concern is also to try and protect the privacy of the neighbors since that
has been an issue in the past. She inquired if the fence, given the slope of the property, would afford the
neighbors more privacy.
Commissioners Lizee and Turgeon emphasized the matter of the fence is a safety issue as well.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he would defer to the day care's expertise. Ms. Kremel stated there
are 45 New Horizon Day Care facilities in the Twin Cities area and they have not experienced any
problems with the shorter fences. She further stated there are particular ratios which must be met
whether the children are inside or outside of the building. In addition, the group sizes are limited.
Commissioner Lizee noted there are two play areas for older and younger children and she inquired if
there was a concern children from the neighborhood would come in to play in this play area such as on a
.
Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 1996 - page 8
.
weekend or after hours. Ms. Kremel indicated it has happened on occasion. Nielsen suggested barberry
bushes on the Shady Oak side of the facility to deter anyone from coming over the fence. He stated this
would require a variance or a text amendment to the ordinance.
Commissioner Lizee stated she would like to see a fence for purposes of screening and security around
the perimeter of the center particularly on the Shady Hills side.
Chair Borkon inquired what height requirements and restrictions would be allowed in the area. Nielsen
stated the Waterford P.D.D. is limited to two stories with a foot limitation involved. Chair Borkon
inquired about the height of the bank and Nielsen explained the bank is two stories and the cupola does
not count as a story since it is considered decoration. She asked what the height of the building would be
without the cupola. Mr. Blumentals stated it would be approximately 18 feet to the peak of the roof and
the cupola would be an additional eight or nine feet. He further stated the proposed building would be
very similar to other New Horizon facilities in the Twin Cities area.
Mr. Blumentals explained the cupola is a prototype of identification and the height has not been changed.
The area inside will be opened to provide a room with a high ceiling and high story window. Chair
Borkon inquired as to the use of this particular room. Ms. Kremel stated the room would be used as a
playroom for children to participate in large muscle activities and things of that nature.
Nielsen pointed out the point to the height on the buildings is due to the City's requirement for pitched
roofs.
.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded recommending approval of the site plan review for
New Horizon Child Care, Inc., 19625 Highway 7, subject to planning and engineering
recommendations. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Borkon explained this matter will come before the
City Council on June 10th for their consideration.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
5. REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon and Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the actions of the City Council with
regard to the revised setback variance being sought by Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road.
Commissioner Turgeon briefly updated the Commission on the status of the Snowmobile Task Force and
stated the Task Force completed its final meeting on May 30, 1996, and would be submitting a final
report to the City Council.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. Motion passed
4/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Chery I Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger, Turgeon, City
Administrator Hurm and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Chair Borkon and Council Liaison Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the June 4, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 6, Paragraph 1, Line 2, delete
"very" to read, "many large trees." Motion passed 3/0. Foust, Kolstad and
Pisula abstained.
STUDY SESSION
1. HOUSING ACTION PLAN (Livable Communities Act Program)
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed in detail the Housing Action Plan, which is required under the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The Plan sets forth the goals and benchmarks for
affordable housing in Shorewood and the potential programs which may be utilized to achieve the
goals. The City has an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to focus its initial efforts on
senior housing. The Action Plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by June 30, 1996.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if the City would be required to provide affordable housing.
Nielsen explained the program is intended to be voluntary, however communities which were
signed up to participate were given priority for funding of other projects.
Commissioner Lizee asked how cooperative other communities would be in working with the City
of Shorewood on cooperative housing programs. Administrator Hurm explained the Hennepin
County money for cities who receive less than $50,000 would be pooled and therefore, it would be
to each city's advantage to cooperate. There are advantages which are available with the
Metropolitan Council funds, however, not all communities will be willing to participate.
Commissioner Rosenberger felt the plan was lacking the City's commitment.
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to recommend the Shorewood Housing Action
Plan be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Motion passed 5/1, Rosenberger
passed on the vote.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Foust stated another technology is being used by Sprint in municipalities which will
not allow towers to be built. The technology is referred to RAD RASP which utilizes the local
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE 2
.
cable company for a remote antenna driver rather than erecting monopoles. Nielsen will ask Sprint
to address this issue.
Nielsen commented on property located at 5170 Vine Hill Road where the Amoco/McDonalds/Car
Wash project had been proposed. City Engineer Brown monitored speeds and traffic in the Shady
Hills area and will be proposing a meeting with the neighbors in this area to discuss their concerns
and possible alternatives, however, closing off the street will not be an option.
Commissioner Kolstad commented given the nature of the neighborhood and the residential
concentration, a change of zoning to C 1 would allow less opportunity for the same types of uses to
be proposed. Nielsen explained a C.U.P. would allow for control over what use could be made of
that particular area. Commissioner Lizee suggested this matter be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Kolstad moved, Turgeon seconded to explore the possibility of a change in the
commercial zoning of 5170 Vine Hill Road by the end of 1996.
Acting Chair Pisula, inquired if this motion were acted upon and a decision were made to rezone
the property C 1, would the City be exposed to legal action from an aggrieved property owner.
Nielsen stated the value of the property would be diminished when the use becomes limited and
any time property is down zoned, the City would be exposed to potential legal action.
Kolstad moved, Turgeon seconded to amend the motion to review the zoning
currently in existence at the intersections of Vine Hill Road and Delton by the end
of 1996. Motion passed 6/0.
.
3.
REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon voiced comments on behalf of Chair Borkon regarding a letter from Judy
Marshik which addressed the resignation of Ingrid Schaff from the Snowmobile Task Force.
Chair Borkon was outraged extremely concerned that a person in this capacity would take issue
with a resident who volunteered her own time to be on this committee. She felt the letter was
inappropriate and should not have been released.
Chair Borkon had a concern that because the Snowmobile Task Force was formed based on a
Planning Commission recommendation to the Council, if the Council were to decide to keep
snowmobiling within the City, what role would the Planning Commission play. The
Comprehensive Plan states that the Planning Commission recommends a ban. She inquired if the
Comprehensive Plan would need to be addressed since the Planning Commission initiated this
inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen stated it would be appropriate to modify the
recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan, however, it would be at the discretion of the Council
to decide who will address this issue.
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she also took offense to the Marshik letter. Acting Chair Pisula felt
the letter was inappropriate.
Commissioner Kolstad commented she had seen the letter before it went out and that changes had
been made to it. She further commented that although the letter was not well written, it was in
response to another letter which had been brought forth.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he did not have a problem with any of the letters which had
been written, however, he felt they should not have been written on a personal level.
Commissioner Lizee stated the letter was unprofessional and she disagrees with comments which
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JUNE 18, 1996 - PAGE 3
were made by Marshik. She further pointed out Marshik's letter came three weeks after the
resignation of Schaff. Rosenberger did not feel it was appropriate that the letter had been edited.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she had seen the letter prior to its release and some changes were
recommended to Marshik, however, she was not obligated to make them.
Commissioner Kolstad did not see any point in discussing this matter further and Commissioners
Foust and Pisula were in agreement.
Commissioner Kolstad distributed copies of the Executive Summary which has been completed by
the Snowmobile Task Force and gave a brief summary of the Task Force's recommendations. The
Final Report will be presented to the Council on June 28 by Task Force Co-chairs Kolstad and
Colopoulos.
Commissioner Turgeon stated City Council suggested looking a different requirements for the east
end of Christmas Lake.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions
and strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY , JULY 2, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon, Council Liaison
Benson; City Engineer Brown; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Pisula and Rosenberger.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to approve the June 18, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 2, Item 3, Paragraph 1,
Sentence 3, change "outraged" to read "extremely concerned." Motion passed
4/0. Chair Borkon abstained.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCENARIANCE TO
EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Applicant:
Location:
William Jensen
4880 Rustic Way
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. Planning
Director Nielsen presented an analysis of the request. Mr. and Mrs. Jensen appeared at the
meeting and informed the Commission that their surrounding neighbors were not opposed to the
variance request.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public
hearing was closed at 7: 16 p.m.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if the Jensens would have any problem with angling the deck to
comply with the side yard setback requirement. Mr. Jensen expressed his willingness to comply
with that requirement.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve a setback variance/variance to expand
a nonconforming structure for William Jensen, 4880 Rustic Way subject to staff
recommendations to include the angling of any future deck to comply with the
side yard setback requirement. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Borkon explained this case will come before the City Council for their consideration on July
22, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Cheryl Johnson
Location: 5785 Eureka Road
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2, 1996 - PAGE 2
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. Planning
Director Nielsen presented an analysis of the request. Cheryl Johnson was present at the meeting.
Commissioner Lizee noted she had been contacted by Ingrid Schaff and Tom Kelsey at 25605
Smithtown Road who stated they heartily approve of the improvement and wish Ms. Johnson
many happy years with the garage. Commissioner Lizee stated she would join in that approvaL
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public
hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m.
Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to approve a setback variance for Cheryl
Johnson, 5785 Eureka Road. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Borkon explained this case will come before the City Council for their consideration on July
22, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
3.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
SMITHTOWN WOODS
PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLA T
Applicant:
Location:
Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland
25895 and 25865 Smithtown Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. Planning
Director Nielsen presented an analysis of the request. The applicants did not appear at the meeting.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if a tree preservation plan had been developed. Nielsen
confirmed that issue had been addressed.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Chair Borkon
closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Commissioner Lizee asked if Lots 1 and 6 were currently the subject of a Contract for Deed.
Nielsen stated his understanding one of the lots has a mortgage or another interest in the property,
however, Mr. Carlson does have clear title to his property. This would also be investigated as part
of the development agreement to ensure clear title exists on the properties.
Commissioner Lizee asked if the driveways of Lots 1 and 6 would front Kelsey Drive or
Smithtown Road. Nielsen stated there is no ordinance which would preclude use of Smithtown
road, however, staff would discourage use of that particular roadway. He further stated that could
be incorporated in the staff recommendations.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to address the issue of drainage, erosion control and storm water run-
off. Nielsen explained the proposed plan for drainage as well as screening and buffering along
Smithtown Road.
Kolstad moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the preliminary/final plat -
Smithtown Woods for Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland, 25895 and 25865
Smithtown Road, subject to staff recommendations, as well as the requirement the
garage on Lot 1 be moved and that driveways front on Kelsey Drive. Motion
passed 5/0.
Chair Borkon explained this case will come before the City Council for their consideration on July
22, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2,1996 - PAGE 3
.
4.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Location:
James Anderst
6020 Chaska Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested Planning Director Nielsen present an analysis. He
explained Mr. Anderst proposes a subdivision into two lots. Nielsen stated the applicant is not
aware of the recommendations at this time. Mr. Anderst did not appear at the meeting.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she would be more comfortable having the applicant's input on the
staff recommendations and requirements and suggested tabling the request until the July 16, 1996,
Planning Commission meeting. Chair Borkon was in agreement.
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded tabling the request for a simple subdivision by
James Anderst, 6020 Chaska Road, to the July 16, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting, at which time the applicant's appearance is requested. Motion passed
5/0.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM R-IA TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.) FOR WATTEN PONDS (Referred by City
Council on May 28, 1996)
Applicant:
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. She explained
the Planning Commission had taken public testimony on this case in the past and requested public
comments not be repeated and that only new information and concerns be addressed. Planning
Director Nielsen presented an analysis of the request. In addition, City Engineer Larry Brown
addressed the engineering aspects of the case.
Charles Dillerud did appear to address the Commission. He stated the developers do concur with
the staff recommendations. He stated with regard to the NURP pond location, there are three
alternatives which they intend to offer to the Watershed District. Mr. Dillerud stated many changes
were made to arrive at a plan for 10 units versus the plan for 12 units which was originally
presented. He commented financial compromises had been made by both the Wattens and the
developer. Mr. Dillerud reviewed the revised plans for this project (as detailed in his letter dated
June 13, 1996).
.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Kate Lynch Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, presented a model to show the topography of the area.
She expressed concern for the high quality of the environment in the subject area. With regard to
utilizing the existing wetland as a holding pond, Ms. Lynch Bix stated the Watershed District
would not support that idea. She did consult the Comprehensive Plan and pointed out that in the
past, wetlands have been used as sediment traps and all new developments shall be required to
construct sedimentation ponds to the NURP ponding standard.
City Engineer Brown stated with regard to utilizing the existing wetland as a NURP pond, the
Comprehensive Plan did adopt a statement that NURP ponds are recommended for new
subdivisions. He stated the Watershed District had indicated there would be room for trade offs.
Brown further stated storm water run-off calculations will be reviewed with regard to rate control
and nutrient removal.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JDL Y 2, 1996 - PAGE 4
Judy England, 25555 Orchard Circle East, stated her agreement with the comments of Ms. Lynch
Bix. She spoke with respect to the Type 1 wetland stating it is an abandoned wetland and is meant
to be that rather than a graded shallow area which is only filled in the early springtime. Ms.
England referred to the Wetland Resource Book which is provided by Hennepin Parks. In
addition, she felt if a couple of the proposed lots were eliminated, the water and sewer lines could
be accommodated.
Pat Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, commented she felt the plan is moving in the right direction.
She spoke with regard to the average lot size which has increased somewhat. She stated even if
the average lot size of the proposed development is close to that of the surrounding neighborhood,
the development would not be consistent with the size of the homes in the surrounding
neighborhood. Ms. Larson felt in considering a P.D.D., the proposed project should match the
surrounding neighborhood. She stated her belief the property could yield only six buildable sites
due to the present wetland areas. In addition, she stated it was her impression it would be contrary
to City code to utilize wetland areas as holding ponds.
Nielsen informed the Commission the project is consistent with the density regulations of the
Comprehensive Plan and is actually on the low end of that regulation. In terms of the existing
zoning district, this actually averages out closer to the R-1A requirement than the previous plan
did. City Engineer Brown stated the applicants can certainly provide a NDRP pond and pretreat
that prior to entering the wetlands although this would involve some trade offs.
Jim Marshall, 5320 Eureka Road, expressed concerned regarding the effect this project will have
on surrounding property values. He also voiced a concern regarding the Type 1 drainage pond
which abuts his property to the north of the subject site.
With respect to surrounding property values, Nielsen stated his professional opinion that property
values would not be adversely affected. He further stated this issue could be referred to the tax
assessor for his opinion if the Planning Commission would so desire. The City strives to mitigate
the kinds of things which would affect property values such as the proximity of two homes,
creating buffers, and things of this nature. In many cases, property values actually increase which
does result in higher taxes.
Doug Miller, 25525 Orchard Circle, gave his three minutes to Greg Larson.
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, did not feel a P.D.D. would be advisable on the subject site.
Mr. Larson displayed a diagram which represented an area where he felt a P.D.D. would be
acceptable. He further commented that a P.D.D. would not be acceptable on the subject property
due to the fact it is a heavily wooded area with an existing home which would need to be worked
around. In addition, Mr. Larson expressed his opinion it would be favorable to have fewer houses
on the property. He displayed a sample development under the current R-1A zoning which
allowed for six homes including the existing Watten home.
Mr. Larson displayed the requirements for a P.D.D. as outlined in City Code 1201.25 which
indicated the P.D.D. must result in a more desirable environment than would be possible through
the strict application of zoning.
Jerry Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, asked if all of the Commissioners had walked the property and
observed the lot lines prior to making this decision. Commissioner Foust stated he had not had an
opportunity to walk the property, however, he is familiar with the area.
Roger Champa, 25500 Nelsine Drive, commented he does not have a problem with anyone
developing their own land, however, there are rules and regulations in place which should be
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2,1996 - PAGE 5
adhered to. He expressed concern regarding continual exceptions to the existing rules and
regulations.
Duwayne Laurel, 5595 Eureka Road, stated with the exception of the wetland in the northwest
quadrant, he is unable to discern any other changes in this proposed project. He stated the
setbacks are the same and the houses are still big.
Carrie Dorfman, 25845 Birch Bluff Road, suggested the Planning Commission obtain plat
drawings which would include all deck space as well as any possible amenities. Nielsen stated the
development concept plan does reflect typical houses on it and reflects the size and style of the
houses. This plan also includes the driveway grades and tree removal which would result from the
location of the houses. With a P.U.D., the City can require a conservation easement over trees.
This could not be done under the current zoning.
Chair Borkon inquired who would determine what size house would be appropriate on a particular
lot. Nielsen stated this would be addressed in the building plan review and that the setbacks will
dictate the size of the house. He further stated Shoreland restrictions will also influence this.
Nielsen also explained if a specific area is identified to be preserved, it would be preserved through
the P.U.D.
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, asked to clarify some concerns with respect to the Type 1
wetland. Mr. Larson displayed information which was sent to the Watershed District. He also
requested that a decision be obtained from the Watershed District prior to the Planning Commission
making a decision on this matter. Mr. Larson explained that the Watershed district would require
an application from the developer in order to make a decision.
Nielsen stated the Watershed District would prefer the City make a decision prior to the District's
review of this matter, however they could consider it simply on the application of the developer.
Kate Lynch Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, informed the Commission she had been in contact with the
Watershed District several times as well as the DNR and the Army Corp of Engineers. She stated
her understanding there are a number of overlapping responsibilities. They would have looked at
this plan had one been submitted to them to consider.
Mr. Dillerud said he resented some of the statements made during the public testimony and stated
the developer is required by the Watershed District to submit wetland delineations completed by a
state certified wetland delineator.
Chair Borkon stated the Planning Commission has a responsibility to go through all of the stages
of the process to ensure the Commission addresses any issues which they have committed to
address and to do their job the best they can for the benefit of the community.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. and
recessed the meeting at 9:43 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad stated the amount of available land is 14.7 acres and of that, 4.9 acres is
wetland which leaves 9.8 acres available on which to build houses. She asked for clarification on
this issue as some felt there was room for only six houses, when there is actually room for nine.
Nielsen explained this is a density issue. The Comprehensive Plan states both lot size and density
must be a consideration in reviewing the building requests.
Commissioner Kolstad clarified her understanding that the nine acres available for building could
not be utilized under R-1A because the configuration would allow only six houses, leaving three
acres which could not be utilized by the owner for houses. A P.U.D. would allow for a full use of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2, 1996 - PAGE 6
.
the nine acres for building and also allow for rules and guidelines to be put in place which would
make the best use of that property. Nielsen added that the City would gain a higher level of control
than they would have under traditional zoning.
Commissioner Turgeon asked if the Type 1 wetland would need to be changed to Type 3 to enable
it to be used as ponding. City Engineer Brown explained that based on his understanding from the
Watershed District, the change in the wetland designation would have to have significant value to
wildlife for the district to allow the impacts of the storm water to the pond. From the Watershed
District's viewpoint, if the creation of open water is an amenity to the environment, then they will
allow the impacts created by allowing storm water into the pond. Brown further stated the
Watershed District is the responsible governmental unit.
Commissioner Turgeon also inquired if the contour is larger than delineated, what impact would
this have on the project itself. Brown explained the Watershed District has a set procedure for
determining the exact boundary. In the event of a discrepancy, the Watershed District will be the
determining authority.
Chair Borkon asked if a NURP pond is not established and the existing wetland area is utilized for
run-off, how would that affect the existing wetland area. Nielsen stated his belief it would change
from a Type 1 which is periodically flooded to a Type 3 which consistently contains standing
water.
Chair Borkon stated her understanding that each type of wetland serves a different purpose and if
the Type 1 wetland is changed to a catch basin, it would then become a Type 3 and utilize NURP
standards as if it were a NURP pond and it is then no longer a wetland. Nielsen explained the
standing water will begin to develop aquatic vegetation.
.
Commissioner Turgeon noted she did not see any lots which reflected increased rear yard setbacks.
Nielsen stated rezoning to a P.D.D. to some degree opens the setback issue to negotiation. There
are opportunities on several of the lots to obtain a greater wetland setback.
Commissioner Turgeon stated there was controversy on the amount of trees being removed.
Nielsen explained there is a tree inventory which indicates specific trees and locations which will
be removed. In addition, Turgeon pointed out a deck which was going back to the setback.
Nielsen stated that as a part of the next level of review, this issue could be reviewed and a
determination made as to the best course of action.
Commissioner Foust stated he was struggling to balance what the best development of this
property would be, a P.D.D. or piecemeal development. Nielsen stated control would be lost with
traditional zoning. Foust further stated he can appreciate the neighborhood concerns and
apologized for not walking the property, however, he has driven by the property and is familiar
with the area.
.
Commissioner Lizee related her feeling that a P.U.D. would be appropriate based on the
restrictions and covenants which could be included. Chair Borkon stated her agreement with a
P.U.D. and added she feels comfortable that a P.U.D. will give the community the best
opportunity to develop the land in a way that eventually will be an asset even though the property
will not remain the same as it is today.
Chair Borkon commented she was struggling with the water run-off issue and asked if the
Planning Commission should wait for a decision from the Watershed District. Nielsen stated there
would need to be a condition that this issue is subject to the approval of the Watershed District.
Chair Borkon stated she would feel comfortable with the issue coming back before the Planning
Commission for review once it has been before the Watershed District.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JDLY 2,1996 - PAGE 7
.
Commissioner Lizee inquired at what point the restrictive covenants could be included. Nielsen
stated that could be done at the final plan stage.
Commissioner Foust stated he was still struggling with a P.D.D. versus the current R-IA zoning.
He was not convinced a P.D.D. would give much more authority and added that six lots would be
less intensive. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the City Council and the Planning Commission
had already indicated a P.D.D. would be preferable.
Council Liaison Benson stated there wasn't a consensus, however, the Council had a problem with
the lot size and a problem with 12 houses and wanted to see something more in the area of 10
homes. He further stated he felt there would be something to be gained by utilizing a P.D.D.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the concept and development plan for
Watten Ponds P.D.D. based on staff recommendations and contingent upon
delineation and approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a 30-yard
easement, tree preservation, the addition of mesh and wood chips in construction
areas to avoid soil compaction, and an increase in rear yard setbacks to Lots 4
and 5, Block 2, and any others that can handle the increase. Once approvals or
recommendations have been obtained from the Watershed District the issue shall
be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. The applicant shall
agree to hold the City harmless for failure to complete the installation 0 f
watermain lines by a specified date.
.
Commissioner Kolstad thanked the residents for presenting their information and concerns which
helped to mitigate the concerns which arose out of the development. She stated she would be in
favor of a P.D.D. which is fair for the owner and the City and would minimize the impact on the
area.
Vote on motion: 5/0, motion passed.
A consensus was reached to have the matter come back before the Planning Commission once the
issues are addressed by the Watershed District.
Chair Borkon thanked everyone for coming and expressing their concerns and also thanked Mr.
Dillerud for submitting changes to make the project feasible.
6. MATTERS FROM FLOOR - None
7. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad stated the Snowmobile Task Force Report has been issued and briefly
reviewed the recommendations the Task Force will be making to the City Council on July 8, 1996.
Commissioner Foust suggested adding this information to the web site. Engineer Brown advised
that the addition of a lengthy document could possibly slow up the web site considerably.
Commissioner Lizee noted that the City of Tonka Bay was revisiting their ordinance with regard to
undeveloped lake shore and the addition of accessories and suggested this may be something the
City of Shorewood should also consider. Nielsen stated there are many violations which are
noticed and then remedied and, therefore, do not come before the Planning Commission. He
suggested the creation of a status book which would contain a copy of all violation notices which
the Commission would be able to review.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 2, 1996 - PAGE 8
Nielsen reported with regard to the Southshore Senior Center, in going through the plans and the
review processes, the Watershed District became involved and required, because of the parking lot
improvement, that a NURP pond be built. City Engineer Brown displayed a diagram and
explained the situation.
Council Liaison Benson reviewed the actions taken by the City Council with regard to the
Southshore Senior Center. He further stated emergency repairs have been made to the Shady
Island bridge to allow for an axle weight of approximately six tons. It has been determined that
five A-beams have rusted through.
Commissioner Foust noted the Lake Minnetonka City Council received testimony with regard to
the future needs of cable communications.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Motion
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chery I Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:20 p.m.), Kolstad,~,
Pisula, Rosenberger (arrived at 7:08 p.m.), Turgeon, Council Liaison Benson;
Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Feast Lizee.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to approve the July 2, 1996 Planning Commission
meeting minutes. Motion passed 3/0. Commissioner Pisula abstained.
STUDY SESSION
1. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION (tabled at July 2, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
James Anderst
6020 Chaska Road
. Chair Borkon announced the case and Planning Director Nielsen presented an analysis of the request.
Mr. Anderst was present and noted the Quit Claim Deed does not include the northerly lot, however,
there is an executed Purchase Agreement with the property owner to the north.
Turgeon clarified if the sale of the northerly lot were not completed, the lot would be limited to a single
family development. Mr. Anderst stated that was also his understanding.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the simple subdivision for James Anderst,
6020 Chaska Road, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Borkon stated the matter would come before the City Council on Monday, July 22, 1996, for their
consideration.
Jack and Mary Jo Feltl appeared after consideration of this issue and stated they are the property owners
to the north who will be purchasing the northerly lot to provide for additional parking. The Feltls stated
there were many other places the money could be put to use other than building a parking lot, however
they expressed their desire to be good neighbors.
2. ZONING ORDINANCE - DOCK REGULATIONS
Planning Director Nielsen explained there have been a number of dock complaints recently and a
suggestion had been made at a prior meeting that the Planning Commission may want to review the
current regulations relative to docks. He further explained that docks are accessory structures and in
order to have an accessory structure on a property, a principal dwelling must be located on that property.
In addition, the number of docks and wharves per lot are limited to one and their use is limited to that of
the family which occupies that property. Nielsen commented that accessory uses would also include
such things as swimming pools, tennis courts, and garages.
.
Commissioner Rosenberger asked if there was a particular type of dock material which should be
addressed in the ordinance. Nielsen explained the LMCD had addressed this in their code and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 16, 1996 - PAGE 2
.
Shorewood adopted it by reference. Rosenberger also asked if there was a limitation with respect to the
number of boats and boat slips. Nielsen stated the LMCD and the City of Shorewood both limit this and
currently allow two slips per dock by right. This may be increased to four if it can be established that all
four watercraft are used by the residents of the property.
With respect to Subd. 14 (d) of the Shorewood Code, Commissioner Rosenberger inquired as to the
definition of "residence" with respect to such watercraft as houseboats. Nielsen stated that with respect
to recreational vehicles, there is a provision which permits an RV to be used for up to two consecutive
weeks.
Commissioner Kolstad asked what the rationale was for not allowing a tennis court on a vacant lot.
Nielsen explained that safety and maintenance are the main reasons for not allowing an accessory use
without a principal dwelling. In addition, the current zoning will not allow an accessory use without a
principal use.
Commissioner Foust expressed concern that a property owner would not be permitted to build a seasonal
dock without a principal structure on the property. Chair Borkon suggested if the City were going to
allow docks or tennis courts without a principal dwelling, guidelines may need to be establish to allow
those uses. This could avoid potential problems with inappropriate lighting or excessive car parking.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed his belief that a principal residence should remain a prerequisite to
adding accessory uses. Council Liaison Benson expressed his opinion the problem created in allowing
an accessory use without a principle structure is the absence of a permanent resident who would maintain
the property. In addition, there may be problems with extensive use of a property by friends and
extended family members resulting in a more extensive use than a resident who is living on the property
would have.
. Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concern with regard to property owners leasing out portions of
their property for docks to be built and the potential for dock subdivisions. Nielsen explained if a dock
were a permitted use, a property could be subdivided into small parcels which could be sold for docking
purposes.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed his opinion that a property owner purchases a piece of property
and they should be allowed to utilize it within the conditions of the City. Council Liaison Benson
commented zoning is done for the protection of everyone. He further stated an absentee neighbor does
not enhance the neighborhood.
Commissioner Kolstad pointed out that recreational accessory uses should be looked at from the
standpoint of what would be common to the neighborhood. Kolstad acknowledged there could be safety
and nuisance issues, however, other than those issues, she inquired if there would be problems with
these kinds of uses. Chair Borkon expressed her opinion it is not a matter of whether or not it is a good
idea to allow these uses, but rather an issue of the kind of neighbor this property owner becomes.
Commissioner Foust pointed out the potential for lots to be subdivided into smaller lots than would be
appropriate to a particular zoning district.
Commissioner Pisula stated potential property owners should be aware of the codes which prohibit an
accessory use on a property without a principle residence prior to purchasing the property.
Chair Borkon suggested if a property owner wanted an unpermitted use on their property, they could
apply for a conditional use permit in which guidelines could be set. Requests could be considered on an
individual basis.
.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated he did not have a problem with the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad
stated Rosenberger makes a good point, that if the City is going to have these rules, a good record needs
to be made which reflects the rationale for the rules to be in place.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 16, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
Commissioner Turgeon responded she has no problem with the ordinance, but was in agreement with
Commissioner Kolstad that the rationale should be reflected.
Commissioner Foust added that he would not want to do anything to cause lots to be subdivided. Foust
suggested in the case of a buildable lot, guidelines could be established which would allow a conditional
use permit for a dock which would be subject to a very narrowly defined use. This permit could be
renewed every two years or so.
Commissioner Kolstad stated it would be desirable to find out what other cities are doing with respect to
accessory uses.
Commissioner Foust requested that in addition, Nielsen contact the City of Minnetrista with respect to the
houseboat issue. Commissioner Turgeon suggested the language with regard to recreational vehicles be
added.
Planning Director Nielsen will research what other cities are doing with respect to accessory uses and
present that information to the Planning Commission for their consideration.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Planning Director Nielsen explained a memorandum which was included in the packet with regard to the
Watten Ponds project.
.
Commissioner Turgeon distributed a letter from Commissioner Lizee with regard to the Smithtown
Meadows development.
Commissioner Kolstad stated it is difficult when viewing a property to know what trees will be removed
and which trees will be saved because there is nothing to visualize where the building pad will be.
Commissioner Turgeon commented she has difficulty in making promises to save certain trees and then a
developer comes in and removes the trees and plants replacements. Nielsen pointed out that the
ordinance does not intend to save specific trees, rather stands or clusters of trees.
Commissioner Rosenberger referred to a meeting when a child addressed the developer and the Planning
Commission with regard to the removal of a specific oak tree on a project. Planning Director Nielsen
informed the Commission that particular tree had died and was removed since it was unable to be saved.
Rosenberger asked that the child be informed of the reason the tree was not saved.
Commissioner Foust related that US West had brought suit against a city which imposed a fee for the
burying of fiberoptic cable under city right-of-way. US West contested this to the PUC alleging the city
was impeding telecommunications. The PUC determined the city has the right to charge this fee.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Motion passed
6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Pisula; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:09 p.m.), Kolstad,
Lizee, Rosenberger, Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen and City Engineer
Brown.
Absent:
Chair Borkon and Council Liaison Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the July 16, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended to reflect Lizee as the absent
Commissioner rather than Foust. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Lizee
abstained.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND C.U.P. FOR GRADING BALL FIELDS -
MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Applicant:
Minnetonka School District 276 represented by S.E.H., Inc.
Location:
26350 Smithtown Road
Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the procedures for a public hearing. Vice Chair Pisula
announced the case and Nielsen reviewed the matter in detail. City Engineer Brown addressed
engineering concerns relative to this project.
Scott Herrick of Short, Elliot, Hendrickson, Inc., addressed the Commission noting he is in
agreement with the recommendations of City staff. With regard to the need for additional parking
at some future time, it may not be feasible to provide hard surface parking. He suggested it may be
more feasible to look at alternatives such as semi-hard surface parking.
Gene George, Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds, Minnetonka Schools, also addressed the
Commission with respect to overflow parking which would be available during events which
would be held.
Vice Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Diane Anderson, 3441 Lowell Street, Wayzata, appeared and related her support for a soccer field
on behalf of Tonka United Soccer Association. Ms. Anderson explained the difficulty the
Association has encountered in obtaining fields for use and noted three of the available fields
represents a danger with respect to fly balls. She further stated soccer would not create a parking
problem since soccer is a summertime sport and although it would extend into the fall, games are
held only on weekends.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 6,1996 - PAGE 2
Kevin Sheppard, 26410 Smithtown Road, explained he is the resident adjacent to the site and
stated he did not have any problem with the project and noted his concerns with respect to potential
parking situations had been answered by Planning Director Nielsen.
Mr. Sheppard also expressed concern with respect to Smithtown Road and the hazard it presents
with respect to the width of the road and the 30 mph speed limit which needs to be enforced.
Mr. Gene George expressed his appreciation to City staff for their cooperation and assistance on
this project.
Molly Rothstein, 26705 Noble Road, inquired how much of the site would be visible to residents
in the area and how many trees would be affected by this project. She further inquired if there is
any plan to screen the field. Mr. Herrick addressed this issue and explained the landscaping which
is expected on this site.
Vice Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Commissioner Lizee expressed concern with respect to parking and the heavy use it could
potentially generate. She further stated her approval of the addition of the soccer field and inquired
if there would be future plans for the addition of another soccer field in the future. Mr. George
stated that with the use of cones, soccer play could be created on the grass fields which are
currently available.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired as to potential plans for lighting. Engineer Brown stated that was
not a part of the application and Mr. George confirmed there would not be future plans for the
addition of lighting.
Commissioner Rosenberger made suggestions with respect to potential landscaping. Mr. George
was in agreement with the suggestions and noted he had plans along those lines as well.
Commissioner Rosenberger suggested Mr. Sheppard, as an adjacent neighbor, may want to
consider landscaping prior to the addition of any future parking spaces.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted the Planning Commission recognizes the issue with respect to
pedestrians and motorized vehicles on Smithtown Road and pointed out when the Commission
attempted to address this issue, the Smithtown Road neighborhood had been opposed to any
changes in that area. Commissioner Foust suggested perhaps the Commission should review this
issue. Commissioner Rosenberger stated he would be willing to once again address this issue,
however, he felt this should be initiated by the neighborhood.
Commissioner Turgeon asked what plans had been made with respect to restoration of wetland
vegetation. Nielsen stated a landscape professional would handle this issue. Commissioner
Turgeon asked for clarification of the statement which indicated fencing would be as high as
practical. Mr. George stated it is contemplated the fence would be approximately 12 feet tall.
Vice Chair Pisula inquired how many vehicles could be accommodated if the hard surface play area
behind the school were to be used for additional parking. Mr. George felt approximately 100 cars
could be accommodated.
Commissioner Lizee noted her support for this project and suggested residents be encouraged to
car pool in an effort to reduce any parking difficulties.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to amend the C. U.P. for grading ball fields at
the Minnewashta Elementary School, for Minnetonka School District 276, 26350
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 6, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
Smithtown Road, subject to Watershed District approval, staff recommendations
and school events and recreational events not being scheduled on the same
evenings. Motion passed 6/0.
Vice Chair Pisula noted this request will come before the City Council for their consideration on
Monday, August 26, 1996.
2.
DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS/PRELIMINARY PLAT
EDGE P.U.D.
WATER'S
Applicant:
Bill Blegen
20295 Manor Road
Location:
.
Vice Chair Pisula announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to reVIew the
applicant's request.
Kevin Norby, a registered, licensed architect, appeared on behalf of the applicant and addressed
the Commission explaining he had been working with Mr. Blegen relative to the development of
the subject property. He stated the adjacent neighbors had been consulted and noted positive
comments had been received from the City Council as well.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded approving the development stage
plans/preliminary plat - Water's Edge P.U.D., for Bill Blegen, 20295 Manor
Road, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. (Commissioner Foust
was not present for consideration of this request.)
Vice Chair Pisula noted this request will come before the City Council for their consideration on
August 26, 1996.
3. SITE PLAN REVIEW - JMS OFFICE BUILDING
Applicant:
Waterford Partners, LLC
Location:
19685 State Highway 7
Vice Chair Pisula announced the case and asked for an analysis of the matter from Planning
Director Nielsen who reviewed the request in detail.
.
Dave Siebold, JMS Companies, Inc., was present and addressed the Commission. He noted this
is the final site of the Waterford property to be developed. He further noted he is in full agreement
with the recommendations of City staff.
Commissioner Foust inquired if this would be a multi-tenant building. Mr. Siebold stated it is
intended to be multi-tenant and although leases have not been signed at this point, he is currently in
negotiations with a potential tenant who would use approximately half of the building.
Commissioner Foust expressed concern with the level of traffic which would be generated by multi
tenants. Nielsen noted office buildings would typically not produce excessive traffic.
Commissioner Foust asked if a lighting plan had been included in the request. Mr. Siebold stated
the Waterford P.U.D. contains restrictions with respect to lighting, however, lighting plans could
be submitted for approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 6, 1996 - PAGE 4
.
Commissioner Foust asked Mr. Siebold to address the issue of signage. Mr. Siebold stated in the
case of multi tenants, individual signage would be considered, however if a single user tenant were
to be obtained, a larger, illuminated sign would possibly be more desirable. Planning Director
Nielsen stated some signage had been anticipated, however multiple signage for each individual
tenant would require a separate Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen noted this had not been
anticipated for the Waterford P.U.D.
Commissioner Lizee inquired if employee space such as picnic tables would be anticipated in the
area behind the building. Mr. Siebold stated some thought had been given to that possibility.
Nielsen also pointed out with respect to trash facilities, if an outside dumpster were to be
considered, it would need to be an enclosed, masonry screened facility.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the site plan review of the JMS Office
Building for Waterford Partners, LLC, 19685 State Highway 7, subject to staff
recommendations, and changes to staff recommendations, changing No. 2(b) to
read, "Plant low growing evergreen shrubs and two ash trees at berm to soften
view." Change No. 3 to read, "Submit a sign and lighting plan for review and
approval by the City Council." Add No.4, "Relative to outdoor dumpsters, they
must be screened with a masonry enclosure." Motion passed 6/0.
Mr. Siebold expressed his appreciation for Planning Director Nielsen's assistance on this request.
4.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINA TION
REARRANG EMENT)
(LOT
LINE
.
Applicant:
Cheryl O'Brien
4780/4790 Lakeway Terrace
Location:
Vice Chair Pisula announced the case and requested a case analysis from Planning Director
Nielsen. Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien were present along with Jan Haugen who addressed the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Haugen expressed her appreciation to the Commission for the action taken on the previous
request with respect to the Waterford property. Ms. Haugen also noted her appreciation to the
Planning Commissioners for their time and service on the Planning Commission.
Ms. Haugen stated she is having discussions with Ms. O'Brien and is optimistic an agreement will
be reached. She stated she would like the Commission to approve this request and if a mutual
agreement is not reached between the two property owners, Ms. Haugen will have the request
withdrawn.
Ms. Haugen and Mr. and Ms. O'Brien also expressed their appreciation to Planning Director
Nielsen for his assistance on their request.
Rosenberger moved, Kolstad seconded approving a simple
subdivision/combination (lot line rearrangement) for Cheryl O'Brien, 4780/4790
Lakeway Terrace, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 6,1996 - PAGE 5
6.
REPORTS
Planning Director Nielsen asked for Planning Commission input with respect to the Shorewood
Shopping Center site. He noted a potential developer is interested in buying and upgrading the
shopping center in conjunction with the Driskill property which includes the Baker parcel and the
vacant office building site as well.
Nielsen presented sketches of the proposed development for comment by the Commission.
Potentially a Super Valu store would be considered. If the developer were to develop the adjacent
property in addition to the shopping center site, tax increment financing would possibly be
considered. Nielsen noted it would be preferable to have an overall development of the property as
opposed to just the shopping center property.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission the area is in need of renovation and they would
prefer to see an overall site improvement.
Commissioner Foust noted Triax Cable Communications has petitioned the Cable Commission for
early franchise renewal. Their current franchise would not expire until 1999. Commissioner
Foust explained the potential benefits to the City of Shorewood with respect to an early renewal.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:19 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee,
Pisula, Rosenberger, Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning
Director Nielsen.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the August 6, 1996 Planning
Commission meeting minutes as submitted. Motion passed 5/0. (Chair Borkon
abstained.)
1. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF CITY CODE
REGARDING NONCONFORMING DOCKS
Applicant:
James Cabalka
Location:
58XX Christmas Lake Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and explained the procedure which would be followed with
respect to the public hearing. Chair Borkon requested an analysis of the case from Planning
Director Nielsen who reviewed the matter in detail.
Jim and Betty Cabalka appeared with their family to address the Commission. Mr. Cabalka
provided each Commissioner with a typewritten copy of his presentation. He explained he has
never received any complaints regarding the dock or docking privileges. The Cabalkas have
received letters and telephone calls in support of continued dockage. Mr. Cabalka provided a
packet of information, including copies of letters of support on his behalf. He noted others in
support of the dock have contacted the Mayor and other officials to express their approval,
however, they were unwilling to write letters out of concern for the relationship this would create
with the complainant.
Mr. Cabalka stated a dock of varying shapes and sizes has been in existence on the property
predating 1981 and 1965. Mr. Cabalka questioned why, after 42 years of dock existence, there is
a demand for him to respond immediately with removal of the dock.
Mr. Cabalka stated this issue should be reviewed if the City codes are to be applied equally to
everyone. He noted there are two situations on the lake in which docks were built in the 1950s.
There are no residence on the property, however the docks are there. Mr. Cabalka feels there
exists a tolerance around the lake with respect to issues of this nature.
Mr. Cabalka commented when the extended dock was installed, it was placed as a handicapped
ramp for a family member. He stated there would be a need for this now and in the future. Mr.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 2
Cabalka noted there is a requirement in which the least restrictive environment and program must
be provided.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Kevin Kuester, addressed the Commission explaining he is the property owner next to the Cabalka
property. He stated there was a dock on the Cabalkas' property when he moved in in
approximately 1991. Mr. Kuester explained the dock at that time was very sheltered, however, in
the past two to three years, the dock was removed completely and anew, significantly larger dock
installed. The old pieces were assembled next to the new dock forming a canoe ramp.
Mr. Kuester pointed out he had recently visited the property and noted there were three docks and
four boats on the property in addition to an underground storage tank, a lawn mower, as well as a
host of building materials. He further noticed a fence which had been reinforced in the past year.
Mr. Kuester expressed concern the area will begin to resemble a marina. In addition, he has
noticed children from the nearby apartment complex playing unsupervised on the pontoon boat and
expressed a safety concern relative to this.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired with respect to the requirements for replacement of a
nonconforming dock. Planning Director Nielsen explained any nonconforming structure can be
repaired up to 50 percent of its value, however, at any point a dock is destroyed or removed to 50
percent of its value, the grandfathered rights are lost.
Chair Borkon asked about docks which are removed in the winter and put back in place in the
spring. Nielsen stated this is difficult to determine, however, the City attempts to be flexible in
terms of docks being seasonal. He further pointed out the City has been flexible with respect to the
lengthening of docks.
Chair Borkon suggested on alternative would be to allow the older dock to remain with its present
use, but that the new dock be required to be removed.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if the old dock was safe to continue to use. Mr. Cabalka commented
most of the lumber has been discarded because most of the dock had been underwater. He
explained the useable fragments of the dock had been utilized and that the new dock covers up the
original dock from 1950.
Chair Borkon inquired as to boat storage during the wintertime. Mr. Cabalka stated there would be
no storage of boats over the winter.
Chair Borkon asked Planning Director Nielsen to address the issue as to the use of the property if
there is no proof to show there was a dock which had been grandfathered in. Nielsen stated the
property could still be used, however, it could not be used for swimming or fishing. One
possibility would be to sell the property to an adjoining property owner. Nielsen explained it is a
remanent piece of property which is unbuildable.
Commissioner Turgeon did not feel the burden of proof which is placed upon the applicant had
been met. She expressed her concern for the number of docks on the property, the number of
watercraft present at the docks and the number of people utilizing the property. Commissioner
Turgeon commented that giving approval to this request would be allowing the Cabalkas a use
other property owners would not be permitted to have.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
Chair Borkon noted this is a small piece of property which has remained in the family. If the
grandfathered dock is not allowed, the property would not remain in the family since it has no use
other than to be sold off. Chair Borkon stated she wORld like to reach a conclusion which would
be in conformance with the ordinance, but allow the Cabalkas to utilize the dock had the dock been
in conformance with the ordinance and remained in continous useage, this would allow the
Cabalkas to utilize the dock..
Mr. Cabalka explained he utilizes the public access for the watercraft. He stated he would be
willing to remove the older material which is longer and extends further into the lake due to a low
water level. A newer, much shorter dock was put in its place.
Chair Borkon noted if the Commission were to reach a consensus the dock had been
grandfathered, 50 percent of the old dock and 50 percent of the new dock would need to be
maintained for one year and the remaining 50 percent of the old dock replaced the following year.
Commissioner Kolstad expressed her belief some proof should be obtainable to verify the
existence of the dock in 1965 which would allow it to be grandfathered in. Commissioners
Turgeon and Pisula noted their agreement.
.
Commissioner Foust suggested tabling the matter for two weeks to allow Mr. Cabalka to obtain
some proof the docks had been present on the lake. Mr. Cabalka noted the people who would
have knowledge of the existence of the dock are deceased.
Commissioner Turgeon suggested aerial photos, the original survey work and any available
witnesses should be submitted to the Commission. It would be acceptable to have letters from two
neighbors verifying a dock has been in place and continuously maintained since 1965.
Commissioner Kolstad felt it would be sufficient to have two people come forward who could
attest to the existence of the dock since 1965.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted reasonable use of the property would need to be discussed in the
future.
Foust moved, Pisula seconded to table consideration of the Appeal Interpretation
of City Code Regarding Nonconforming Docks for James Cabalka, 58XX
Christmas Lake Road, to the October 1, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Borkon informed Mr. Cabalka he will need to submit the requested information one week
prior the scheduled meeting on October 1, 1996.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF CITY CODE
REGARDING SETBACKS IN AMESBURY P.U.D.
Location:
McNulty Construction Co.
4613 Bayswater Road
Applicant:
.
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for the public hearing. She
requested a review of the matter from Planning Director Nielsen who reviewed the case in detail.
Jim McNulty appeared and addressed the Commission. Mr. McNulty explained the subject unit is
currently under construction to be displayed in the Parade of Homes. He expressed his belief the
presence of a deck is necessary for a successful sale of the home. Mr. McNulty noted the deck
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 4
would extend two feet into the common area. He also expressed his disagreement with Planning
Director Nielsen and stated over the past 20 years, the City has routinely approved extensions into
the common area not only for the building of units, but for additions to them at a later time.
Mr. McNulty went on to review and explain the photos which were included in the Planning
Commission packet. He stated the letter from Planning Director Nielsen of 1990 was in
contradiction to City policy and practice at that time. Mr. McNulty also expressed his belief that
this code is contrary to the law and is being applied unfairly.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Chair Borkon
closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired how many of the photographs depicted units which had been built
since 1990. Mr. McNulty stated he was not sure, but possibly one or two had been built since that
time. Commissioner Turgeon noted this matter came up with Mr. Grable a year ago and there had
been almost a year to work out this disagreement. Mr. McNulty responded he had appeared before
the Commission to simply exhaust his remedies and requested the Commission vote on the
request.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded to deny the appeal interpretation of City
Code Regarding Setbacks in Amesbury P.U.D. for McNulty Construction Co.,
4613 Bayswater Road.
Commissioner Kolstad recalled staff had been directed to attempt a resolution of this issue when it
arose in the past and inquired if any action had been taken on that request. Planning Director
Nielsen stated prior to a Council decision being reached, Mr. Grable had withdrawn his request.
Commissioners Rosenberger and Foust noted a substantial amount of time had been spent on this
issue in the past, however, Commissioner Rosenberger felt the time would be better served in
working with the Amesbury Association. He suggested they submit a request to the Planning
Commission and attempt to work with the P.D.D. agreement.
Motion passed 7/0.
Kolstad moved, Rosenberger seconded directing City Staff to explore alternatives
available and clarify the setback provisions in the Amesbury P.U.D. by the
September 17, 1996, Planning Commission Study Session. Motion passed 7/0.
3. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant:
Mark Sass
Location:
Lots 10, 11, 12, Block 11, Minnetonka Manor
Chair Borkon announced the case. Commissioner Rosenberger recused himself from
consideration of this issue due to a working relationship which currently exists between himself
and Mr. Sass.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Chair Borkon requested a review of the matter from Planning Director Nielsen who reviewed the
case in detail. Mark Sass appeared and stated he will attempt to meet the time requirements
included in the recommendations of City Staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 . PAGE 5
.
Commissioner Foust asked if Mr. Sass would receive a rebate of sewer access and trunk water
charges since the property was assessed as four lots. Nielsen explained the lots probably were not
assessed since the local sanitary sewer access fees were implemented in the early 1970s and the
water trunk charges within the last year or two.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired if Mr. Sass would be more comfortable with the dates moved into
October. Mr. Sass expressed some concern with meeting the time requirements, however, he
stated he would prefer to complete this work as quickly as possible.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approval of a simple subdivision/combination for
Mark Sass, Lots 10, 11, 12, Block 11, Minnetonka Manor, subject to staff
recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. (Commissioner Rosenberger recused
himself from consideration of this matter.)
4. REZONING FROM R.IA TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P.U.D.)
FOR W A TTEN PONDS (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting
7/2196)
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
Applicant:
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested a review of the matter from Planning Director
Nielsen who reviewed the case in detail.
. Charles Dillerud appeared and addressed the Commission. He reviewed and explained the
alternative location which was selected approved by the Watershed District for the NURP pond.
Mr. Dillerud explained his interpretation of the 4/2 vote of the Watershed District with respect to
their approval of the plan and the variance.
Mr. Dillerud noted he has reviewed the recommendations of City Engineer Larry Brown and felt
they could be accomplished. He further expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission
for their patience in this matter.
Nielsen noted a rezoning from R-IA to a Planned Unit Development would require a second public
hearing at the City Council level.
Jerry O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, noted his disagreement with Mr. Dillerud's comments with
respect to the recommendations of the Watershed District.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:51 p.m.
Commissioner Turgeon inquired why the Watershed District did not consider the alternatives the
Planning Commission had suggested with respect to this issue.
Mr. O'Neill clarified the size of the buffer and noted the reason for the two dissenting votes was
due to the fact those two particular members suggested moving the pond onto a buildable site thus
eliminating one of the sites. Mr. O'Neill stated he would like the Commission to review the
minutes of that particular meeting of the Watershed District to clarify the reasoning for the two
dissenting votes.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 6
.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned the 8 percent driveway grade on the one of the lots. Nielsen
noted 10 percent would be a maximum grade, however 8 percent is preferable with streets limited
to 8 percent in most cases.
Commissioner Turgeon stated she would prefer the pond not be located as close to the house pad
as is reflected and would prefer a Type I pond to a Type 3. She further stated she would like to
review the discussion which took place leading to the final decision which allowed the pond to
remain in this particular location. Commissioner Lizee noted her agreement.
Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, explained the Watershed District did not determine this to be
the best place. The Watershed District noted they do not make opinions, but strictly review the site
as presented by the developer and it was determined this pond met the NURP requirements of the
Watershed District. The Watershed District then left the matter up to the City to determine whether
any remaining criteria had been met.
Commission Turgeon noted the Planning Commission's primary focus had been to request a Type
I designation to a Type 3 designation.
Mr. Dillerud commented the Watershed District had not determined what the standards were going
to be which would permit the developer to dredge the pond. Three months prior to that time, there
had not been any standards in existence. Mr. Dillerud went on to explain his interpretation of the
decision process of the Watershed District.
.
Mr. Dillerud also noted there were three locations left as possibilities for the NURP pond. There
was a more favorable site for the pond, however, this would have resulted in a substantial loss of
trees, which will not be the result in the current location.
Commissioner Turgeon asked the Watershed District be approached and the rationale for their
decision be requested. She would like to have them consider the alternatives which were proposed
by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dillerud clarified the suggestions of the Planning Commission had been discussed in telephone
conversations with the Watershed District and he explained the sequence of events relative to this
discussion.
Commissioner Kolstad expressed her belief more information would need to be brought forward
before the Planning Commission could make a decision on this issue.
Mr. Dillerud noted the Board staff recommendations went through some of the same alternatives
discussed by the Planning Commission.
Nielsen pointed out that City Engineer Brown has considered all of the alternatives and noted his
preference for the wetland area which was approved by the Watershed District. Commissioner
Turgeon stated she would like to review the rules which would make it feasible for the Planning
Commission's preferred wetland area to be utilized.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to table the development stage plans for Watten
Ponds P.U.D. until September 17, 1996, subject to staff receipt of the rationale
from the Watershed District with respect to the decision determining the location
of the NURP pond and the discussion relative to the Planning Commission's
preferred wetland area. Motion passed 7/0.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 7
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed his opinion a resolution needs to be reached with the
Watershed District, and possibly a meeting with the Board Chair and a staff member would be
helpful. Nielsen will attempt to arrange this. Chair Borkon suggested utilizing a study session for
this purpose. In addition, Chair Borkon requested information on how members are appointed to
the Watershed District and the length of time a member serves.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to know why the Planning Commission's suggestion
was not submitted to the Watershed District and would like to have accurate and objective
information relative to the actions which were taken by the Watershed District.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6. REPORTS
Chair Borkon inquired with respect to Highway 7 and Christmas Lake Road noting another
accident has occurred and she suggested additional signage would be appropriate noting an exit
would be necessary to accomplish a left turn and acknowledging the upcoming semaphore.
Planning Director Nielsen stated he will investigate this issue with MNDOT.
Chair Borkon also inquired why the diameter of the water line into the Minnetonka Country Club is
at 8 inches. Nielsen explained a 6-inch diameter is necessary to allow for a building sprinkler
system and 2 inches for portable water. Nielsen noted a 6-inch water line would have sufficed, but
it was determined an 8-inch line would be preferable.
Commissioner Lizee questioned when Smithtown Road would be reopened and Nielsen noted the
paving is scheduled for Thursday of this week. She further inquired with respect to the Smithtown
Trail. Nielsen explained the Park Commission will need to review this matter after the right-of-
way issue has been determined.
Council Liaison Benson reviewed the matters considered and actions taken at the August 26, 1996,
meeting of the City Council in addition to the discussions held during the work session which
followed the regular Council meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger,
Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Council Liaison Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the September 3, 1996, Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 5, Item No.4, Paragraph 2,
Sentence 2, change "selected" to "approved"; Page 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3,
change to reflect "Chair Borkon stated had the dock been in conformance with the
ordinance and remained in continuous usage, this would allow the Cabalkas to
utilize the dock." Motion passed 7/0.
1.
MEETING WITH MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
REPRESENT A TIVES
To allow for the arrival of Mr. Love, Item No.4 was the first item reviewed and considered by the
Commission. This item was considered after Item No.6.
Chair Borkon announced the matter and Planning Director Nielsen gave a brief explanation of this
matter noting a meeting had been held between City Staff Nielsen and Brown and Woody Love,
Eugene Strommen, and other staff members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Various
projects in progress within the city were discussed including Watten Ponds, Minnewashta School,
and the Evan Moline project.
Woody Love and Dionne King appeared on behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to
address the Commission.
With respect to the Watten Ponds project, Nielsen reviewed the discussion and concerns with
respect to the location of the proposed wetland area. He recommended the Planning Commission
stand by the preference which they had previously expressed.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if a representative of the Watershed District completes a site visit
once an application is received. Ms. King stated she had visited each of the sites.
Chair Borkon asked Ms. King to explain the process once an application or request is received
from the Planning Commission. Ms. King explained with respect to a wetland alteration, residents
within 600 feet are noticed, the plans are reviewed for accuracy and the application is then
forwarded to the Board. Ms. King explained the Board is appointed for three year terms by the
County Commissioners. Commissioner Rosenberger inquired how members are appointed. Ms.
King explained they are chosen at large consisting of six members from Hennepin County and one
from Carver County.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17,1996 - PAGE 2
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired with respect to rules and regulations regarding wetlands and
if specific regulations are associated with wetlands, including setbacks. Ms. King confirmed this
and noted the local setbacks take precedence over those of the Watershed District. She further
explained Shorewood imposes a stricter buffer zone than the Watershed District. (Commissioner
Foust excused himself at 8:03 p.m. for a business commitment.)
Chair Borkon inquired what was done to assist in communication with the Watershed District.
Nielsen stated a letter would go to the Board outlining the plan which was approved by the
Planning Commission to ensure they are considering the same plan.
Commissioner Turgeon asked if the Board could table a request rather than approving an
alternative plan which the Planning Commission has not reviewed. Mr. Love commented it would
be their preference the City review the request. He expressed his willingness to develop a good
working relationship with the City of Shorewood.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if the Watershed District is comfortable with this particular
alternative. Ms. King commented she would prefer to see some fill from the middle of the wetland
removed noting a restored wetland functions better than a created wetland. She felt in general, this
would be a good option.
With respect to wetland ordinances, Commissioner Rosenberger asked where Shorewood fits in
with the other 27 cities which are a part of the Watershed District. Ms. King noted Minnetonka
and Chanhassen provide their own wetland regulations, however, she did not believe any other
city requires wetland buffers of their own accord. Mr. Love noted Shorewood had them prior to
the Watershed District making it a rule.
Chair Borkon asked what recommendations the Watershed District would like to see or assist with
in the future. Mr. Love commented this winter they would like to have workshops where
standards and effects of implementation could be reviewed.
Commissioner Rosenberger inquired if the Watershed District has taken any steps to ensure the
integrity of NURP ponds already in existence. Mr. Love stated the Watershed District would stay
the enforcer of the maintenance agreements on those ponds. He noted inspection can be difficult.
The Watershed District would like to devise a system with the various cities where an inventory
could be established and an enforcement authority would be used to maintain the integrity of the
ponds. Planning Director Nielsen explained Shorewood's policy has been to maintain those
ponds.
Commissioner Rosenberger questioned if developers are required to pay a fee for review by the
Watershed District. Mr. Love stated while there is no standard permit fee, after one hour of staff
time has been expended, the developer would be assessed on staff time only. Consideration is
being given to approaching the legislature with respect to this matter in an attempt to cover
expanding costs.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concern with the amount of chemicals utilized on grass.
Ms. King pointed out the City of Plymouth has a fertilizer ordinance prohibiting fertilizers
containing phosphorous. Mr. Love noted the Watershed District is trying to work more with
public education in this regard.
The Planning Commission expressed their appreciation to Mr. Love and Ms. King for taking the
time to attend the meeting and discuss these issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
2.
REZONING FROM R-IA TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P. U .D.)
FOR W A TTEN PONDS - CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Applicant:
Location:
Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P.
5340 and 5370 Eureka Road
This matter was considered after Item No.1. Chair Borkon announced the case and asked for a
review of the matter by Planning Director Nielsen. A public hearing will need to be held before the
City Council with respect to this matter.
Mr. Dillerud appeared and noted the planned mitigation is an easier solution. He suggested the City
keep in mind that NURP ponds need to be accessible for purposes of cleaning out the pond.
.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she is pleased with solution with respect to mitigation.
Commissioner Lizee inquired how much area will be reclaimed in outlot A. Mr. Dillerud noted a
total of 5,475 square feet is the total which must be reclaimed and he noted the road is
approximately 4,000 square feet.
Jerry O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, asked for an opportunity to address the Commission. He
noted the neighbors want the area to be consistent with a Shorewood acre. He stated the property
owners are not opposed to the development, however, they are opposed to the lot size. Mr.
O'Neill noted he will address the City Council with this concern at the public hearing.
In response, Commissioner Lizee pointed out in looking at the zoning map, the average lot size on
the northern half of Orchard Circle is 28,157 square feet. On the southern half of Orchard Circle,
the average lot size is 28,975 square feet and Nelsine Drive is approximately 34,800 square feet
which is quite different than a Shorewood acre. Commissioner Turgeon felt this would be setting
standards for a development which are inconsistent with the surrounding area. She explained
density and lot size are not the same subject.
Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, expressed his opinion the original lA zoning should remain
and that the developer should present a plan utilizing the original zoning without the P.U.D. or any
rezoning. Mr. Storlie noted that such a plan has never been presented, therefore, no one knows
what the baseline would be. He feels the present plan represents the most aggressive.
Tom Dahlberg, 25270 Smithtown Road, questioned the logic and procedure of the P.U.D.
situation. He stated there is disagreement between the people and the experts, including the
Planning Commission. He stated his belief there is not a purely empirical basis on which to decide
this situation.
.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if there is an expert who can determine that a particular situation is a P. U.D.
situation anyone was expert enough to make a determination that a particular situation is a P. V.D.
Chair Borkon stated the answer to Mr. Dahlberg's question is very clear cut and is not a matter of
debate. She pointed out the Planning Commission is subject to guidelines and ordinances which
dictate how the land is developed.
Mr. Dahlberg stated presumably there are criteria to determine what is a P.U.D. situation. He
stated his impression this is a matter of interpretation to which people differ in opinion. Mr.
Dahlberg continued to say the problem is resolved by people who designate themselves as experts.
Commissioner Rosenberger responded he did not think anyone was an expert. He explained the
Planning Commission looks to see how a particular issue fits into the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted the density in this particular area is 1 per 39,000 square feet.
He pointed out for R-IA, the density is 1 to 40,000 square feet which falls well within the
requirements. In exchange for that, the Planning Commission has more control through setbacks
from the wetlands and acquires additional protection.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17,1996 - PAGE 4
.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated the Planning Commission is utilizing the Comprehensive Plan
as a guide with respect to density. In addition, the Commission looks at the neighborhood and the
plan is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
Planning Director Nielsen pointed out there are criteria in the P.D.D. ordinance with respect to
what is looked for in a P.D.D. He further noted those criteria are applied to every project and the
purpose is to allow for flexibility from the ordinary zoning standards, but from City standards the
City's perspective, to gain additional controls in various areas.
Mr. Dahlberg stated his belief that the Planning Commission is ultimately applying criteria and
interpreting relevance of that criteria to a particular situation to preserve values with regard to the
environment. He further stated the decision is ultimately made by the Planning Commission and
the City Council who are saying they are the experts at interpreting whether or not this is a P. D.D.
situation. He felt the City Council and the Planning Commission have a choice to respect the
opinions of the people in the community.
Chair Borkon expressed her appreciation of Mr. Dahlberg's philosophical approach, however, she
felt it important for him to understand there is a Comprehensive Plan that is approved by the
Metropolitan Council. She pointed out that in addition to the Comprehensive Plan, there are
ordinances which guide the Planning Commission in making a P.D.D. decision. Chair Borkon
pointed out while the Planning Commissioners do not refer to themselves as experts, they do
consider City Staff experts and the City Staff do provide recommendations to the Commission.
She stated the Planning Commission tries diligently to abide by what is dictated through the
ordinances.
.
Commissioner Turgeon stated her belief the Planning Commission does take the residents' input to
heart, noting that if the Commission had not done so, Mr. Dillerud's project would have been
completed some time ago. Commissioner Turgeon noted the goal of the Planning Commission is
to make the community better as a whole, an entire community.
Pisula moved, Rosenberger seconded approving Watten Ponds concept and
development stage plans subject to staff recommendations as documented and
subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the ponding plan.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Borkon noted a public hearing will be held before the City Council on Monday, October 14,
1996.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired with respect to the process for residents to raise questions
regarding the Planning Commission processes when there is not a public hearing. Planning
Director Nielsen explained the resident should be present at the public hearing or questions could
possibly be raised as a Matter from the Floor. Chair Borkon noted it is the decision of the Chair
whether or not to entertain conversation. She further noted all matters should be taken up at a
public hearing or Matters from the Floor before City Councilor the Planning Commission.
Another alterative would be for a resident to request time on the City Council agenda with respect
to overall decision making.
Duncan Storlie, 5375 Eureka Road, expressed frustration from the viewpoint of the residents
noting there is a procedure to be put on the agenda, however, the timing is such that once a
developer presents a plan, there is insufficient time to react to it. He expressed his opinion the
residents feel they are reacting to something that is already underway.
. Planning Director Nielsen explained the State enacted a 60-day rule which obligates the City to act
on zoning requests within 60 days. Failure to do so is construed to be an approval. Notification
requirements must be completed within a certain period of time. Nielsen noted the public hearing
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17,1996 - PAGE 5
is the opportunity to comment on the plan. In addition, residents may also come in and visit with
staff prior to the public hearing and review the plan. Neighborhood meetings are also used for the
purpose of keeping residents informed.
Chair Borkon expressed appreciation for the input and interest that is put forth by residents such as
Mr. Storlie. Mr. Storlie expressed his concern he did not want the Wattens to take his concerns
personally.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted he shares many of the concerns of Mr. Storlie. He further
commented on a newspaper article referring to the Planning Commission as terrorists and
commented this is very upsetting. Commissioner Rosenberger pointed out Shorewood has the
most stringent wetland ordinance of any community. In addition, the tree preservation ordinance
places a more significant burden on a developer than on a homeowner.
Tom Dahlberg, 25270 Smithtown Road, noted in his editorial he reported with perfect accuracy his
emotional state and that of his wife over some of the City's planning.
Commissioner Pisula pointed out Mr. Dahlberg's editorial referred to the Planning Commissioners
as being the people who caused that terror. Mr. Dahlberg stated he was not referring to the
Planning Commission in his article.
Mr. Dahlberg went on to say he was terrorized by a bulldozer and stated it is important for the
Planning Commission to understand a number of other people feel similarly.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted the Planning Commission is attempting to balance the dreams of
the developer as well as the residents. He pointed out any development will have an impact on a
particular neighborhood. Commissioner Rosenberger explained the Planning Commission
attempts to minimize the terror of the residents by mitigating the overall impact of a particular
development.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he has never questioned the integrity of the people involved in Shorewood city
government. He noted the bottom line is that the perspectives of the two groups are fundamentally
different which creates difficulty in communication. Chair Borkon pointed out there is not an
adversarial situation between the Planning Commission, the City Council and the community. She
further pointed out the Commissioners work on behalf of the community in an attempt to
accomplish many of the same goals the community has both as a commission and personally as
well.
Mr. Dahlberg stated in spite of the fact this is not supposed to be an adversarial relationship, many
people feel that it is.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted his perspective when residents come in before the Planning
Commission, 50 percent of the people are upset. They feel they will be impacted negatively. The
Planning Commission attempts to mitigate that impact as much as possible through strict wetland
ordinances, tree preservation activities and through clustering to support or protect sensitive areas.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted change is inevitable and the Planning Commission attempts to
assure a particular piece of property is developed with the smallest amount of impact on the land as
well as minimal impact on the neighborhood.
Chair Borkon commented things do not always come out the way anyone everyone wants them to,
however there is a process at work which is successful in that there is input from all of the affected
areas.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he sees what is happening politically in Shorewood and that is that the
Planning Commission and City Council have processes, procedures and criteria and in spite of
that, residents are now finding them inadequate. He expressed his belief the people are looking for
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17,1996 - PAGE 6
a fundamental change and new ways of doing these things. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is not good
enough to utilize the present process.
Commissioner Rosenberger noted a park referendum was passed brought to a vote to make money
available to improve the parks and to buy land to preserve open space. During the vote, the
referendum failed. As a result of that, the Park Foundation was established to raise money from
individuals and corporations for this purpose. Commissioner Rosenberger suggested Mr.
Dahlberg become involved with the Park Foundation who would be anxious to have people with
his energy, intellect and ability to communicate to help them be successful.
Commissioner Rosenberger suggested Mr. Dahlberg talk to the Park Foundation as well as putting
this issue on the ballot. Chair Borkon expressed appreciation to Mr. Dahlberg for visiting with the
Planning Commission.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING SETBACKS IN THE AMESBURY P.U.D.
This item was considered after Item No.4. Chair Borkon announced the case and Planning
Director Nielsen reviewed this matter in detail.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if input had been received from the Amesbury Association
reflecting their feelings on this matter. Nielsen stated he spoke to two of the board members who
were seeking clarification. He noted his belief this amendment to the ordinance will provide
clarification. Nielsen further pointed out a public hearing process would need to be followed with
respect to this amendment.
Commissioner Turgeon noted her agreement with the interpretation of the Planning Director and
stated there are zero lot lines and property owners should not be allowed to encroach into that area.
The purpose for the common area is to provide green space.
Commissioner Pisula noted he is comfortable with the interpretation which was used in the past.
He further commented he would support this amendment if the Amesbury Association is in support
of it. Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concern with potential requests for variances. He
wanted it made clear if the Planning Commission decides to move in that direction, a variance
request would be denied. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern that residents choose between
the 2-foot and 4-foot setback options.
Pisula moved, Kolstad seconded directing staff to contact the Amesbury
Association and clarify the amendment to the existing Amesbury P . U . D .
Agreement. Motion passed 7/0.
4. DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE DATES FOR NOVEMBER 5TH (Election Day)
MEETING
This item was considered first on the agenda. Wednesday, November 6, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. was
selected as the alternate date for the November 5th (Election Day) meeting, with a study session
scheduled for Tuesday, November 19, 1996.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
This item was considered after Item No.3.
6.
REPORTS - None
This item was considered after Item No.5. Commissioner Kolstad noted the City Council will be
entertaining a vote on Snowmobile Task Force recommendations on Monday, September 23,
1996.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 7
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p. m.
Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon; and Planning
Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Pisula and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Benson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the September 17, 1996, Planning
Commission meeting minutes contingent on Commissioner Rosenberger's
approval of one correction on Page 5, and as amended on Page 6, Paragraph 2,
Sentence 1, change "part" to "park" and change "passed" to "brought to a vote."
Page 6, Item 3, add "Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern that residents
choose between the 2-foot and 4-foot setback options." Page 3, Paragraph 7,
Sentence 1, change the sentence to read, "Mr. Dalhberg asked if anyone was
expert enough to make a determination that a particular situation is a P.U.D."
Page 5, Paragraph 11, change "anyone" to "everyone." Page 4, Paragraph 2,
Sentence 2, change "City standards" to "the City's perspective." Motion passed
5/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200
SQUARE FEET
Applicant:
Location:
Allan Larson
4320 Dellwood Lane
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedures for a public hearing. Planning
Director Nielsen reviewed the request in detail. Corey Beyer, Mr. Larson's son-in-law, appeared
on Mr. Larson's behalf.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public
hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioner Lizee asked if there will be any electrical in the gazebo. Nielsen noted he anticipates
there will be lighting, but stated any outside lights would need to be hooded so they are not visible
from the lake.
Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern with respect to future landscaping. Nielsen explained
Mr. Larson had obtained advice from foresters recommended by the City with respect to this issue.
Chair Borkon thanked Mr. Beyer for attending the meeting and commented the Commission
appreciates Mr. Larson's attempt to preserve the wooded look of Shorewood. Chair Borkon noted
this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on Monday, October 28,
1996, at 7:30 p.m.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 1, 1996 - PAGE 2
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for
accessory space over 1200 square feet for Allan Larson, 4320 Dellwood Lane,
subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO CO-LOCATE PERSONAL
COMMUNICA TIONS SERVICES ANTENNAS ON S.E. AREA WATER
TOWER
Applicant:
Location:
SBA, Inc. (representing Sprint Spectrum L.P.)
5500 Old Market Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and requested a review of the matter from Planning Director
Nielsen. Nielsen explained the request in detail.
Chair Borkon open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public
hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m.
Anne Marie Solberg, SBA, Inc., appeared along with Rick Boyd, Brian Schilling and Scott
Schackelman of Sprint Spectrum.
Chair Borkon asked if other companies wanting to install equipment would also require ground
boxes. Nielsen noted each company would have its own ground equipment, although this
equipment is getting smaller and less conspicuous. Nielsen noted a direction from the Planning
Commission was to consider amending the ordinance so these items are not given a Conditional
Use Permit, but would be considered permitted uses with conditions.
Chair Borkon felt it was unfortunate no one had attended the public hearing because she feels this
type of request will become more and more of an issue. Chair Borkon asked how to assure future
antennas will look approximately the same. Commissioner Foust noted the size and shape of the
antenna is generally dictated by physics. Mr. Schackelman stated if another company came in
desiring to mount antennas on the water tower, it would be expected the antennas would be similar
to those being used by Sprint.
With respect to monthly rental, Commissioner Foust pointed out the League of Cities has
completed an extensive study with regard to zoning requirements and financial arrangements made
by other cities. Nielsen noted the City has received that study.
Chair Borkon stated her major concern is the boxes on the ground and the potential for
accumulation. She commented if smaller boxes become available for a company already on a lease
with the City, she would like to require the smaller boxes be used and the ground equipment be
screened. Commissioner Foust suggested a vault type box which could be buried underground,
however, Mr. Boyd noted periodic maintenance would be required for the ground equipment and
therefore a vault type facility would not be feasible.
Chair Borkon inquired as to the availability of documentation which reveals the boxes or antennas
are hazardous to surrounding areas. Nielsen commented in the Telecommunications Reform Act,
the federal government has determined there is no environmental hazard and cities may not refuse a
company's request on the basis of potential or perceived environmental hazard.
Commissioner Lizee asked if the ground unit would cover the entire space allotted. Ms. Solberg
noted the platform provides space for two units. She further commented the space has been
designed for expansion. In addition, Commissioner Lizee inquired when Sprint plans to have the
antennas installed. Ms. Solberg stated they would like the work completed before winter.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 1, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
Commissioner Foust inquired when the capacity would be exhausted on this site. Mr. Boyd noted
with the ability to add a second BTS unit, he does not anticipate exhausting the capacity.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired if a mailing had been completed to residents in the area. Nielsen
stated notice had been sent to all residents within 500 feet of the site.
Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like restrictions on how the antennas look on the water
tower. Commissioner Foust related his understanding this conditional use was only for PCS and
no other services. Nielsen confirmed this is specific to their request. Chair Borkon clarified the
Planning Commission is not discussing amending the ordinance to allow uses with conditions, but
that the Commission is discussing a c.u.P. Nielsen noted an ordinance amendment would come
back at some future time, possibly a work session in October.
Commissioner Foust inquired how many cell sites Sprint has identified for placement Shorewood
and Mr. Boyd confirmed this to be the only site.
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit to co-locate
personal communications services antennas on the Shorewood water tower for
SBA, Inc., (representing Sprint Spectrum L.P.), 5500 Old Market Road, subject
to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Borkon noted this issue will come before the City Council for their consideration on
Monday, October 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m.
3.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL INTERPRETATION OF CITY CODE
REGARDING NONCONFORMING DOCKS (Tabled at the 9/3/96 Planning
Commission Meeting)
.
Applicant:
Location:
James Cabalka
58XX Christmas Lake Road
Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure to be followed for a public hearing.
Chair Borkon then requested a review of the matter from Planning Director Nielsen. Nielsen noted
this matter had been tabled at the September 3, 1996, meeting of the Planning Commission to
allow Mr. Cabalka an opportunity to provide verification that the dock on his property was in
existence prior to the City's current codes.
.
Mr. Cabalka appeared to address the Commission. He stated he attempted to respond to the
direction of the Planning Commission and focused on the primary issue of grandfathering.
Mr. Cabalka noted he withheld a letter from the Hillius family regarding, at the time of their pre-
purchase, how Mr. Cabalka explained about the dock and their property. He noted comments have
been made there was no dock at the time of the Hillius sale to Kuester in 1990 and he stated he
would address those comments if it became necessary.
Mr. Cabalka pointed out the Planning Commission received many letters, some which were
unsolicited, from people who recall a dock having been in existence for many years. Mr. Cabalka
was not in agreement with comments made at the September 3, 1996, Planning Commission
meeting indicating four power boats were noticed at the dock and that there has been increased
activity at the dock.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8: 16 p.m.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 1, 1996 - PAGE 4
Kevin Kuester, appeared to address the Commission stating he was curious about a document
which was falsified to the City. Chair Borkon clarified that even though Mr. Cabalka states there
were two docks on property, he asked the surveyor at the time of the survey not to show the
second dock on the property because he would not have been in compliance with the local
ordinance. That was the reason the dock in question was not reflected on the original survey.
Hearing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8: 19 p.m.
Chair Borkon asked for input on how the Planning Commission would be expected to proceed on
this issue. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission is required by the ordinance to make
determinations on appeals of the zoning ordinance. Chair Borkon asked if the City Attorney
should be included in this discussion. Nielsen stated the City Attorney has been copied on this
material and he had not noted any suggestions on this matter.
Chair Borkon noted Mr. Cabalka had been asked to produce proof by way of letters and written
documentation, however, she did receive calls and letters to the contrary. Chair Borkon pointed
out she has not seen any conclusive evidence to show a dock had been in existence.
Commissioner Turgeon did not feel the burden of proof had been met.
Commissioner Foust felt Mr. Cabalka had complied with the request of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Turgeon pointed out he had been asked to obtain other proof as well.
Commissioner Kolstad noted other situations could come up in the future and she did not feel
enough evidence had been presented to support this issue one way or the other and that conclusive
evidence to support the claim would be needed.
Commissioner Lizee noted her concurrence with Commissioner Kolstad. Chair Borkon noted her
concurrence as well. Commissioner Turgeon noted the Planning Commission had asked for aerial
photos, surveys and letters. She pointed out the Planning Commission received a few letters and
an equal number to the opposite.
Chair Borkon asked for any other evidence which could be provided. Mr. Cabalka noted it would
be hard to prove. He pointed out in going into a civil suit, the burden of proof will transfer to the
City rather than himself. He feels he has done everything humanly possible to prove his point.
Mr. Cabalka feels things are hidden by nature and there would not be any aerial surveys which
would show the dock due to ice on the lake.
Commissioner Kolstad suggested if Mr. Cabalka is able to come up with any new evidence, this
could possibly be addressed by the City Council.
Chair Borkon asked what uses of the property would still be able to Mr. Cabalka. Nielsen stated
the beach could be used for fishing, swimming and picnicking.
Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to deny the appeal of the interpretation of the
City Code regarding nonconforming docks for James Cabalka, 58XX Christmas
Lake Road. Motion passed 4/1. Foust was the dissenting vote.
Chair Borkon noted this matter will come before the City Council on Monday, October 28, 1996,
at 7:30 p.m. She informed Mr. Cabalka if he is able to locate conclusive evidence, it would be
imperative to bring that with him to that meeting.
Chair Borkon suggested Mr. Cabalka speak with Mr. Zinn with respect to possible aerial photos of
the area. Planning Director Nielsen noted the city may have some information with respect to other
aerial photos and suggested Mr. Cabalka call him regarding this. Commissioner Lizee also gave
Mr. Cabalka another source to contact.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 1, 1996 - PAGE 5
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
5. REPORTS
Commissioner Kolstad reported on the City Council Work Study Session in which the Council
addressed the snowmobile ordinance. City Administrator Hurm was instructed to put together an
implementation plan to be reviewed. In addition, the lake access issue will be referred to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kolstad also thanked everyone for their thoughts and wishes at the recent death of
her mother.
Commissioner Lizee reported on the Park Commission meeting. The trail survey was reviewed
and there is support for an off street trail or improved trail in various locations. Commissioner
Lizee reported a petition was presented to the City Council for an off street trail on Smithtown
Road from County Road 19 to the Victoria border. This matter will be referred to the Park
Commission to consider.
Commissioner Kolstad suggested looking at ways to make a more extensive effort to ensure people
are informed of public hearings. Nielsen commented the notices are currently sent to residents
within 500 feet of the subject area. The legal requirement would be to send notice to residents
within 350 feet of the subject area. Chair Borkon inquired if the Shorewood notifications in the
Sun Sailor could perhaps have a border so they stand out more. In addition, the City of
Shorewood newsletter could reflect upcoming public hearings. Nielsen pointed out the City pays a
certain rate for legal notices.
Commissioner Turgeon suggested a particular type of envelope noting a public hearing notice is
enclosed. Commissioner Lizee was in agreement with this. Chair Borkon suggested posting signs
on property which is the subject of a public hearing. Chair Borkon asked Planning Director
Nielsen to approach the City Council with this request. Nielsen stated he will also check with
other communities to ascertain their noticing procedures.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. Motion
passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1996
MINUTES
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee,
Pisula, Rosenberger (arrived at 7:06 p.m.) and Turgeon; Council Liaison
Benson (arrived at 7:25 p.m.) and Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the October 1, 1996, Planning
Commission meeting minutes as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner
Pisula abstained.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FOR DOCK USE, LENGTH AND
SETBACK
Applicant:
Location:
Bob Mellett
4435 Enchanted Drive
Mr. Mellett was in attendance along with Mike Hajicek and Dave Skrien. He noted there is an
easement agreement which will be recorded on all three properties. In addition, Mr. Mellett stated
he had discussed this request with the neighborhood and he has received full neighborhood
approval.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7: 13 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Chair Borkon
closed the public hearing at 7: 13 p.m.
Chair Borkon asked for clarification of the side yard setback. Planning Director Nielsen explained
the LMCD established a rule that dock configurations must maintain a minimum ten foot setback.
Commissioner Lizee asked if a permanent dock permit had been applied for through the LMCD.
Mr. Mellett noted he had made this application. In addition, Commissioner Lizee noted the
Declaration of Easements requires an owner not make any improvements, additions or alterations
in or to the dock or the easement area without the express consent of all of the owners. Nielsen
stated this would apply to changes in configuration of the dock.
Commissioner Kolstad inquired as to the setting of precedence with respect to the length of the
dock over the wetlands and whether the LMCD has given their approval. Nielsen pointed out the
LMCD has given their approval. In addition, the DNR has determined this area to be lake shore as
opposed to wetlands and would not be opposed to the proposed dock.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if this particular site would be considered unusual compared to any
other site with respect to reeds and water. She also asked if the Commission should consider an
ordinance relative to this issue rather than a variance. Nielsen explained the only unusual aspect to
the area is the shallow bay that results in a reed situation which extends farther than most. He also
pointed out the City is enforcing an LMCD requirement which has been adopted by reference.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - PAGE 2
Commissioner Kolstad stated this appears to be a well thought out proposal, but noted this request
will change the natural environment.
Commissioner Rosenberger suggested the Commission may want to review the ordinance so that a
variance would not be necessary should this type of request again be presented. In addition, he
asked about the possibility of additional docks should a new owner purchase one of the subject
properties. Nielsen stated the easement covers only the use and maintenance of the single dock. A
condition could be added to the variance which would prohibit the building of additional docks on
any of the adjoining lots.
Chair Borkon asked if this agreement could be dissolved at some future date. Nielsen stated all
three property owners would need to agree to release the easement and dissolve the agreement.
Commissioner Foust noted he had received several calls with respect to the aesthetics of the dock.
He noted this is the outcome of a situation where a dock had been built on a lagoon in which at
least one owner was using the dock in violation of city code.
Commissioner Rosenberger stated if the LMCD gave approval of the request, he would defer to
their judgment. Commissioner Foust felt this dock created a more massive structure on the lake
which would have a visual impact on surrounding property owners. In addition, the dock could
result in excessive activity. Chair Borkon pointed out the surrounding neighbors have given their
approval.
Commissioner Foust expressed concern with respect to aesthetics and asked if a canopy would be
included on this dock. Mr. Hajicek stated the applicants would be in agreement with a restriction
which would prohibit the use of a canopy on the dock.
Chair Borkon inquired as to the length of the dock. Nielsen explained the length was to allow for
boat access to open water.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned whether the reeds create a hardship sufficient to grant a
variance. Commissioner Rosenberger pointed out the variance to be considered is for multiple use
and the other issues which have been raised have been addressed by the LMCD. He felt the
variance would be a positive in that the request provides for one dock with multiple uses as
opposed to three separate docks.
Commissioner Foust noted this is a posted spawning area, but he was unsure as to the affect the
dock would have on this issue. The applicants noted this to be an issue for the DNR and the DNR
has given their approval.
Commissioner Pisula pointed out the alternative would be to have three docks of a greater length
than the proposed single dock. Nielsen did not feel the dock would be obviously visible due to the
weeds which are present. In addition, he pointed out any individual dock could have a minimum
of two slips with the possibility of having four.
Mr. Hajicek noted the LMCD had commented on the visual aspects of the dock and felt this would
be favorable to having individual docks with four slips each.
Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded approving the variance for dock use,
length and setback for Bob Mellett, 4435 Enchanted Drive, subject to LMCD
recommendations for a limit of three BSU's on the dock, a maximum slip length
of 25 feet, a dock to be seasonal in nature with hand-driven poles, a permanent
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - PAGE 3
.
dock permit be applied for and obtained, no additional docks may be added to the
three properties and there shall be no dock canopies. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Borkon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on
Monday, November 25,1996, at 7:30 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE TO SHORELAND DISTRICT
HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS
Applicant:
Location:
John Miller
21125 Minnetonka Boulevard
Mr. Miller was in attendance.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Chair Borkon
closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
.
Commissioner Foust asked what types of things could be done to minimize the hardcover. Mr.
Miller stated a tuck-under would eliminate the need for a separate garage on the property. He noted
the topography made the plans for the driveway difficult. Commissioner Foust noted this to be the
largest variance request he could recall with respect to hardcover. Planning Director Nielsen
pointed out the hardcover requirement was changed by the DNR and accordingly the City adjusted
the code to reflect 25 percent hardcover.
Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to address the issue of drainage. Nielsen noted the drainage is
currently flowing to Minnetonka Boulevard. There is an open ditch system with culverts under
driveways which provides some opportunity to filter the water. Chair Borkon asked if there would
be adequate drainage to avoid erosion and drainage onto neighboring yards. Nielsen felt adequate
drainage would be available.
Commissioner Rosenberger expressed concern with respect to the amount of hardcover and the
current erosion of the hillside. He also suggested this could possibly be an unbuildable lot.
Chair Borkon asked if there would be any way in which to reduce the hardcover. Nielsen did not
feel the driveway could be created steep enough to reduce the hardcover without creating a safety
hazard.
Chair Borkon asked for an explanation of what would constitute an unbuildable lot as well as the
rights of the property owner. Nielsen explained an unbuildable lot is one which does not meet size
requirements of the ordinance. He further explained the variance procedure would allow the owner
to make reasonable use of the property. Nielsen pointed out this is not a situation which was
created by the property owner. The code specifically addresses the problem of steep slopes or
poor soils as the type of issues which constitute a hardship that prevents a property owner from
making reasonable use of the property.
Chair Borkon expressed concern with erosion which may result from the granting of the variance.
Nielsen pointed out the proposed plan would actually prevent erosion of the site. He did not feel
this lot met the criteria of an unbuildable lot.
.
Commissioner Turgeon felt natural vegetation on the slope would prevent erosion better than sod.
Mr. Miller stated he had been advised the sod, if left to grow, would create the same situation,
however, he stated he would not be opposed to leaving the natural vegetation. Nielsen pointed out
in a disturbed area, it is preferable to use sod which is staked in. Commissioner Turgeon felt the
applicant had addressed the hardcover issue to the extent possible. She also pointed out it would
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - PAGE 4
.
be important for Public Works to maintain the culverts throughout the construction process to
avoid any adverse situations on the site.
Commissioner Kolstad asked for clarification of the tree preservation policy noting only four trees
are planned for replacement. She felt some of the drainage issues could be mitigated by requiring
the 'planting of additional trees and/or vegetation. Nielsen explained this could be included in the
vanance.
Commissioner Lizee expressed concern with respect to the driveway. Commissioner Pisula felt
the applicant had done everything possible to minimize the impact on the property. He did not feel
this was an ideal situation, but the property does not meet the criteria of an unbuildable lot.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving a variance to Shoreland District
hardcover requirements for John Miller, 21125 Minnetonka Boulevard, subject to
staff recommendations, including the lilac bushes be moved to provide better site
line along the boulevard and Public Works to be put on notice to keep drainage
open during construction. Motion passed 6/0. Rosenberger passed on the
motion.
Commissioner Rosenberger asked when construction would begin. Mr. Miller felt he may wait
until the road restrictions are lifted.
Chair Borkon noted this matter will come before the City Council on Monday, November 25,
1996, at 7:30 p.m. for their consideration.
.
3.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Location:
Richard Jenson
6020 Galpin Lake Road
Mr. Jenson was in attendance. He stated he was surprised to learn the property contained a
designated wetland.
Planning Director Nielsen noted the wetland is designated on the City Designated Wetland map
which is based on aerial photos which were obtained in 1967. He explained the procedure to be
followed in determining or changing a wetland designation.
Commissioner Kolstad noted she had not had a chance to view the site and would, therefore,
neither comment nor vote on the request.
Rosenberger moved, Turgeon seconded approving the simple subdivision for
Richard Jenson, 6020 Galpin Lake Road, subject to staff recommendations.
Motion passed 6/0. Commissioner Kolstad abstained.
Chair Borkon explained this matter will come before the City Council on Monday, November 25,
1996, at 7:30 p.m. for their consideration.
Mr. Jenson expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission for their work and the careful
consideration given to the issues brought before the Commission.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 - PAGE 5
5.
REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon suggested the Commission revisit the tree preservation policy at the next
study session. Commissioner Foust noted his agreement.
It was the consensus of the Commission to extend an invitation to the members of the new City
Council to attend a joint study session to provide the Commission with guidance relative to the
Council's vision for the city.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7 :03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon; Council Liaison
Benson and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust, Pisula and Rosenberger.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the November 6, 1996, Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 6, Line 1, change
"concerned" to "concern." Motion passed 4/0.
1. DISCUSS TREE PRESERVATION POLICY
Commissioner Kolstad inquired as to the existence of a tree preservation ~ ordinance at the
present time. Nielsen explained while there is not currently an ordinance, the present tree
preservation policy is enforced.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if a property owner is unable to comply with the tree preservation
policy, would they be required to apply for a variance. Nielsen stated it would not be a variance
and it would be favorable to have some flexibility in the ordinance.
Commissioner Turgeon reviewed the tree preservation policies of several other municipalities and
noted each policy contained a provision allowing for a reduction in density. She pointed out a
provision in the Chanhassen ordinance which states that a property owner must demonstrate more
than 80 percent of trees will be preserved.
Nielsen stated this is a policy and the Planning Commission makes specific recommendations to
the City Council for adoption. Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to contact Minnetrista relative to their
policy regarding the percentage of trees to be preserved. Nielsen pointed out escrows will be
obtained on tree preservation as well as erosion control.
Council Liaison Benson felt another issue which needs to be addressed relates to undergrowth and
brush as opposed to tree preservation. Chair Borkon also noted this to be an underlying issue
which needs to be addressed. Nielsen noted the tree preservation policy applies to large trees as
opposed to undergrowth and brush.
Commissioner Turgeon felt the Tree Preservation Policy to be a very good one, noting the policies
of Lino Lakes and Chanhassen had been reviewed in developing this policy. She noted 10 to 15
percent of the land in Shorewood has not been developed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE 2
Chair Borkon commented the residents do not want further development and suggested possibly
the City could purchase property to prevent development. Commissioner Turgeon noted residents
in other communities participate in a land trust to purchase property they do not want to see
developed. Chair Barkon asked if the other cities reviewed had participated in a land trust
arrangement and Turgeon noted they had not.
Jerry O'Neill was present and stated several members of the new Council had had discussions
relative to this issue and he suggested the Planning Commission may want to defer action on this
issue until after January 1st.
Nielsen commented it is clear the community has placed a value on trees. Benson noted the policy
has been in place for only a year. The fIrst signifIcant application of the policy will come with the
development of Watten Ponds. He stated the Planning Commission may want to address this
policy after the completion of Watten Ponds at which time the Commission can re-evaluate the
effectiveness of the policy.
Commissioner Turgeon asked that Nielsen research the issues of percentages, P.D.Do's, and land
trusts. Nielsen felt the criteria for P.D.D's may need to be more specifIc.
Commissioner Lizee suggested if tree replacement is not possible, then possibly the replacement of
the trees could occur in a park or city owned property where additional trees would be beneficial.
If there is insuffIcient space to complete a tree replacement, the property owner would need to
bring a request before the Planning Commission or the City Council to plant the remaining trees in
another area.
Nielsen suggested the use of escrows be included in the policy. Commissioner Turgeon suggested
an agreement be signed whereby a property owner would acknowledge what requirements need to
be met and what cost will be assessed if the requirements are not fulfIlled. Commissioner Kolstad
did not feel the policy could Bet be enforced if it is not an ordinance.
Nielsen stated with respect to replantings being accomplished elsewhere, a cash donation could be
another alternative to the replacement of trees. Commissioner Lizee was in favor of a cash
donation and suggested a fund be established. This would allow the Park Commission to research
the best location for a replanting.
Commissioner Lizee asked if the donation policy is known to the residents. She commented that
various residents have asked how donations such as a bench or trees can be made to the City.
Nielsen noted the Park Foundation will accept donations for various uses.
Chair Borkon inquired if the City could initiate a foundation to buy land to keep it from being
developed. Nielsen stated the City could establish a foundation, but it would be up to the members
of the foundation to solicit the donations.
Commissioner Kolstad raised a concern with respect to the Miller property and suggested a letter
be sent to the neighborhood to ensure the adjacent property owners are aware of the signifIcant
change there will be to that neighborhood.
Commissioner Lizee felt when issuing the public hearing notice for the first time, it should be
worded in layman's terms notice of the fIrst public hearing, if it is worded in layman's terms in
addition to a new envelope design, this will capture the attention of affected residents. Nielsen
stated that is currently being developed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - PAGE 3
He commented a notice had been sent out relative to the December 3, 1996 public hearing with the
usual legalese as well as an explanation of the request in layman's terms.
Chair Borkon inquired with respect to the public hearing notices and envelopes. Nielsen noted the
required legal information is included as well as an explanation of the request in addition to a site
map.
With respect to the envelopes, the Commission suggested "Public Hearing Notice Enclosed" be
stamped on the front of the envelope. Nielsen suggested a questionnaire in the newsletter asking
residents the best way for the City to inform residents of upcoming hearings and events.
Commissioner Kolstad suggested the newsletter be sent out more frequently to reduce the amount
of information contained in it with the hope people would be more likely to read it.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
3. REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon related matters considered and actions taken by the City Council at their
meeting on November 11, 1996.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996
with a Study Session planned for Tuesday, December 17, 1996. The Planning Commission
extended an invitation to the new City Council to attend the Study Session to meet with the
Planning Commission to discuss their plans and visions for the future of Shorewood. Mr. O'Neill
stated he will discuss this with the other members to confirm this date.
4.
ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion
passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl Wallat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1996
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger and
Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Council Liaison Benson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the November 19, 1996, Planning
Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 1, Item No.1, Paragraph 1,
Sentence 1, change "preservation policy" to "ordinance"; Page 2, Paragraph 5,
Sentence 3, change "could not" to "could"; Page 2, Paragraph 10, Sentence 1,
change to read, "Commissioner Lizee felt when issuing the public hearing notice
for the first time, it should be worded in layman's terms"; Page 2, Paragraph 10,
Sentence 2, begin a new paragraph; Page 2, Paragraph 10, Sentence 3, change to
read, "He commented a notice had been sent out relative to the December 3, 1996
public hearing with the usual legalese as well as an explanation of the request in
layman's terms." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioners Foust, Pisula and
Rosenberger abstained.)
1. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE WATERFORD P.U.D.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW ON-SITE ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE
Applicant:
Vladimir Velikson
Location:
19905 State Highway 7 (Waterford Shopping
Center)
Vladimir Velikson and Irina Primak appeared along with Jeff Shanewenner Schoenwetter to
address the Commission. Mr. Shanewenner explained he is the most recent developer of
Waterford. He felt the developers had inherited covenants which were practical in 1984 in that
they addressed a specific concern in which the City of Shorewood and its residents did not desire a
sports bar type facility. Mr. Shanewenner stated the projections for the Waterford Center had not
been met due to the absence of a family restaurant.
Russ McGinty, of Griffin Companies, appeared on behalf of the Waterford Plaza and spoke to the
Commission. He noted several national restaurant establishments have not located in the center
due to the restrictions relative to liquor. Mr. McGinty pointed out the restaurant business will peak
at different times than the other tenants of the center. He stated the restaurant would not contain a
bar and patrons would only have the ability to order liquor with a meal.
Vladimir Velikson addressed the Commission. Mr. Velikson explained he and Ms. Primak have a
small delicatessen, Euro Gourmet, which is located in St. Louis Park. Mr. Velikson stated he
would not want to have a bar in the restaurant, but would prefer a pleasant establishment which
will reflect positively on the city of Shorewood.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 2
Mr. Velikson stated the alcoholic beverages available would be of a limited nature. In addition, he
stated the objection which was submitted by Peter Boyer was unclear to him.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Nancy Markowitz, 19685 Waterford Court, felt the serving of wine or beer with dinner would be
acceptable. She asked if the restaurant would serve lunch and dinner. Mr. Velikson stated lunch
would be served buffet style. Ms. Markowitz asked if the liquor being served would be limited to
beer and wine. Mr. Velikson acknowledged there would also be hard liquor served.
Ms. Markowitz inquired as to the proposed hours of the restaurant. Mr. Velikson stated the
weekday kitchen hours would be until 9:00 p.m. with weekend hours extending to 10:00 p.m.
Ms. Markowitz questioned if music is intended for the restaurant. Mr. Velikson stated he would
like to have a keyboard player, guitarist or an accordion player. Ms. Markowitz expressed concern
relative to noise from the music in the summer.
Mr. Velikson stated his intention to have the restaurant open until 12:00 a.m. on weekends,
however, the kitchen would close at 10:00 p.m. Ms. Markowitz asked if alcohol would be served
during this period ohime. Mr. Velikson stated liquor would be available after 10:00 p.m. only
with dinner. Nielsen pointed out there is a restriction within the covenant which determines the
hours of operation for family restaurants to be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Chair Borkon asked which neighborhoods had been notified of the public hearing. Nielsen stated
that everyone within 500 feet surrounding the property had been notified and this would include
the twinhome development.
Commissioner Lizee inquired if the Waterford Homeowners Association had been notified of the
public hearing. Nielsen stated that specific association had not been notified. Ms. Markowitz
noted the association is also holding a meeting and they are aware of the public hearing. In
addition, Mr. Velikson noted he had spoken with members of the association and they were not
opposed to the restaurant.
Commissioner Lizee inquired as to the types of liquor licenses available. Nielsen stated there is a
beer and wine license and a hard liquor license. He commented he is not aware of the specific
criteria for the two. In addition, he stated there is a third type of license for nonprofit clubs such as
the American Legion.
Commissioner Lizee asked if a wine and beer license would serve the needs of the restaurant. Mr.
Velikson stated it would, however, it would limit the selection available to customers who desire
hard liquor type beverages. He stated his intention to have a very limited selection of hard liquor
drinks.
Commissioner Kolstad questioned if an approval were granted, whether there would be a way to
restrict it, making the license approval very specific so a precedent is not being established should
this type of restaurant not succeed. Nielsen stated the City has discretion in issuing liquor licenses.
In addition, the license would be subject to an annual renewal. Background checks would also be
a part of the process.
Commissioner Kolstad asked if amplified sound would be necessary for the type of music planned
for the restaurant. Mr. Velikson stated it would be his intention to have amplified music.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 3
Chair Borkon was curious how the liquor store fit into this center and why there is nothing in the
protective covenant restricting a liquor store. Nielsen explained since 1989, it had been anticipated
the liquor store would locate in this area.
Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern relative to making a decision on this matter prior to all
Waterford residents being notified. Nielsen did not feel it should be limited to the Waterford
resident. Commission Kolstad stated these are the Waterford covenants and any change in them
should first have input from the Waterford residents.
Rosenberger moved, Pisula seconded directing City staff to perform a scientific
random telephone survey of the surrounding neighborhoods of Shady Hills, the
area to the north, Waterford, Ridge Road, Covington Road and the neighborhood
across TH 7 to determine whether or not the neighbors are in favor of alcoholic
beverages in the proposed Euro Gourmet Restaurant.
Commission Pisula suggested a local option election for a decision to be made by the residents of
that local precinct.
Commissioner Kolstad disagreed noting that a survey is very costly and if responses are received
and everyone in the area is notified, due diligence would have established a precedent to resolving
these types of questions . 'Nill have been completed. She felt a survey would be extreme.
Commissioner Rosenberger felt the best way to assure that everyone concerned is aware of the
proposal would be to have a scientific survey.
Commissioner Foust asked if Shorewood has liquor licenses in any area restaurants at the present
time. Nielsen stated there were none. Commissioner Foust also expressed concern relative to the
cost of a referendum. Commissioner Lizee did not feel there would be a sufficient turn out.
Commissioner Turgeon also noted she would not be in favor of a survey. Commissioner Foust
felt there would be less costly, more effective ways to obtain this information.
Vote on Motion: Motion failed 1/6. (Commissioners Borkon, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee,
Pisula and Turgeon were the dissenting votes.)
Chair Borkon noted her agreement with Commissioner Kolstad that notification within 500 feet of
the center was not sufficient and a larger surrounding area needs to be notified. In addition, the
appropriate neighborhood associations should be notified.
Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern relative to a license allowing hard liquor and would be
more in favor of a beer and wine license. In addition, the operating hours would need to be in
conformance with the covenant. With respect to music, she noted the concern raised by the
residents relative to the amplification during the summer months. Commissioner Turgeon noted
her approval of the concept.
Commissioner Kolstad expressed reservations relative to hard liquor as well as the amplified
sounds. She stated she would not have a problem changing the covenant with respect to the hours
of operation proposed by Mr. Velikson. Commissioner Kolstad also noted her approval of the
concept.
Commissioner Lizee was in agreement with Commissioners Kolstad and Turgeon and noted she
would be more in favor of a beer and wine license.
Commissioner Foust noted the main issue to be the issue of liftaeF serving alcoholic beverages on
the site rather than the granting of a beer and wine license as opposed to a hard liquor license. He
requested further background information by way of minutes relative to the period of time when
the covenants were developed. He stated he would like to have anyone who had volunteered
public testimony at that time to be contacted to get their input.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 4
.
Commissioner Rosenberger was in agreement with Commissioner Foust in that there would not be
much difference in whether the restaurant serves hard liquor or beer and wine. He stated there was
a reason for the covenants which are in place and noted the developers were aware of the covenants
at the time they became involved with the center.
Commissioner Pisula stated he would not personally have a concern relative to this establishment if
the residents are not opposed to it. He felt a liquor license would be reasonable with the proper
controls. In addition, he felt it would be beneficial to have viable commercial enterprises in the
city. Commissioner Pisula stated he liked the concept, however, his decision will be guided by the
feelings of the affected residents.
Chair Borkon was in favor of the concept. She noted her personal preference that hard liquor not
be available. Chair Borkon pointed out the developers had noted their agreement with the
protective covenants at the time the developers became involved with the center. Chair Borkon
also noted she will be guided by the preference of the surrounding neighbors.
Nielsen suggested a draft of a notification letter along with a map depicting the area of 1,000 feet
surrounding the Waterford Center be available at the December 17 study session for review of the
Commission.
.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded tabling the amendment to the Waterford P.U.D.
Development Agreement to allow on-site alcohol beverage for Vladimir Velikson,
19905 State Highway 7 (Waterford Shopping Center) to the January 7, 1997,
Planning Commission Meeting subject to the matter being reviewed at the
December 17, 1996, study session at which time a map and the draft of the
proposed letter will be available for discussion. Motion passed 7/0.
Commissioner Foust suggested the study session include a discussion relative to contacting the
president of each of the area homeowners associations relative to the public hearing.
Chair Barkon introduced Councilmember-elect Jerry O'Neill and expressed her appreciation for his
consistent attendance at the meetings.
Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 8:34 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE TO TEMPORARILY ALLOW TWO
HOUSES ON ONE LOT
Applicant: Stan Taube
Location: 27280 Edgewood Road and 5315 Howard's Point Road
.
Mr. Tom Ososki, Bruce Knutson Architects, addressed the Commission and stated Mr. Taube was
in agreement with the staff recommendations. He noted Mr. Taube is aware a subdivision would
be an option in the future.
Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Chair Borkon
closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
Commissioner Foust noted in the past when two homes had been allowed on a single lot, both
homes had not been occupied at the same time. He asked how the removal of the house would be
undertaken. Mr. Ososki was unsure if it would be demolished or moved off of the lot.
Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern that the applicant had not appeared in addition to
concerns relative to a potential subdivision at some point in the future. She noted she would not be
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 5
.
in favor of a variance at some future point relative to this issue. She expressed concern for any
possible extensions to the variance from the June 16th date.
Commissioner Lizee asked if any elevations had been submitted relative to this request. Nielsen
provided a diagram of the proposed residence.
Commissioner Lizee also inquired as to the hardcover. Nielsen noted there may be additional
hardcover in the form of landscaping proposed. He explained if the lots are left together, more
hardcover could be added. Commissioner Lizee suggested the use of landscape fabric as opposed
to poly.
Commissioner Lizee noted a large maple tree on the property and asked if it will be outside the line
of the addition or if there are plans to remove it. Mr. Ososki stated he had not measured the exact
location and was unsure if it would be removed. Commissioner Lizee commented she would like
to see that tree protected.
Commissioner Foust asked for an explanation of Torrens property and abstract property which
Nielsen provided.
.
Commissioner Rosenberger commented on the amount of hardcover and asked how this would
relate to the Watten Ponds P.U.D. Nielsen noted there is a high amount of hardcover. Nielsen
stated in joining the two lots, if they are not subdivided in the future, the property is more in
conformance with the ordinance than it is currently.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded approving the variance to temporarily allow two
houses on one lot for Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road and 5315 Howard's
Point Road subject to staff recommendations, with a clarification in
Recommendation No. 2 to reflect the westerly house, garage, driveway and the
shed, June 16th remains in the variance, that a fourth recommendation state any
additional landscaping be fabric and not poly, and the applicant be strongly
advised to review these plans for future subdivision.
Commissioner Foust asked if the hardcover is met, why fabric would be required as opposed to
poly. Commissioners Lizee and Turgeon stated the fabric is more environmentally friendly in a
Shoreland District. Commissioner Kolstad suggested that be brought as a recommendation rather
than a requirement. Chair Borkon was in agreement with this suggestion.
Vote on Motion: Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Borkon noted this matter will come before the City Council on December 16, 1996, for their
consideration.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
4. REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon noted a topic for discussion at the study session should be that of chair and
joint chair for the Planning Commission for the coming year. Nielsen noted the study session on
December 17th will be a joint session with the City Council and Council-elect.
.
Commissioner Lizee noted she had attended a meeting of the Watershed District along with
Commissioner Pisula in which one of the matters being considered was the final approval of the
Lundgren stormwater management NURP ponds. It was recommended the covenants be amended
to completely restrict the use of phosphorous in the development. Phosphorous would be
prohibited even in the first year of growing.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 3, 1996 - PAGE 6
Commissioner Kolstad noted the City Council has approved most of the recommendations of the
Snowmobile Task Force, with the exception of the use of a side trail, the grooming of Freeman
Park, and the Timber Lane access.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Cheryl WalIat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE: Corrections to minutes by the Planning Commission are shown as italics for additions and
strikeouts for deletions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1996
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. She welcomed Mayor-elect Dahlberg and
Councilmembers-elect O'Neill and Garfunkel and thanked them for attending the meeting.
Councilmember McCarty arrived at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula and Turgeon; and
Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioner Rosenberger; Council Liaison Benson.
APPRO V AL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded approving the December 3, 1996, Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes as amended under Item 1, change "Shanewenner" to
"Shoenewetter"; Page 2, Paragraph 7, Sentence 2, add "that" after "Nielsen
stated"; Page 2, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2, add "kitchen" before "hours"; Page 2,
Paragraph 11, Sentence 1, change "license" to "approval"; Page 3, Paragraph 3,
Sentence 1 change to read "to perform a scientific"; Page 3, Paragraph 5,
Sentence 1, after "due diligence" add "would have established a precedent to
resolving these types of questions."; Page 3, Paragraph 12, Sentence 1, change to
read "serving alcoholic beverages" rather than "liquor." Motion passed 6/0.
1. REPORTS
Commissioner Turgeon reviewed the matters considered and actions taken by the City Council at
their December 16, 1996 meeting.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1997
Councilmember-elect O'Neill asked the Commission to delay consideration of this matter until after
the 1st of the new year. Chair Borkon explained the procedures followed by the Commission
noting that generally the senior most person would be nominated as the chair person. This
nomination would be forwarded on to the Council for their approval.
Councilmember-elect Garfunkel stated there will possibly be two new members appointed to the
Commission who should have a voice in this decision.
Councilmember-elect O'Neill explained there had been discussions during the campaign relative to
changing the Planning Commission through the appointment of the chair and vice chair positions.
Since the election and input received from other people, this position has been backed away from.
Commissioner Turgeon commented on how she felt when she was initially appointed to the
Commission and expressed her opinion it would not be easy to be the chair person without some
experience in this regard.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 2
.
This matter was reconsidered after consideration of Item No.4.
Councilmember McCarty expressed her opinion that an experienced member of the Planning
Commission would be appointed as the chair person.
Councilmember-elects Garfunkel and O'Neill stated it was their understanding once the
Commission has been completed with the appointment of at least one new member, at that time the
Commission should follow their established procedure of nominating the chair and vice chair
positions. These nominations would then be forwarded to the City Council for their approval.
Councilmember McCarty noted her agreement. She felt the members of the Planning Commission
would be the best suited to decide who would be the best chair and vice chair to be submitted for
Council approval.
Commissioner Kolstad commented that as a fairly new member of the Commission what is
important in a chair and vice chair is not their views, but the way they handle meetings, the way
they build consensus and the way they deal with the public. She noted these to be critical issues,
more so than the personal views of the chair and vice chair. Commissioner Kolstad felt that
perhaps someone on the Commission would have a better feel for those characteristics than
someone newly appointed.
It was the consensus of the Commission to make the nominations for the positions of chair and
vice chair after the 1st of the year.
Item No.6 was the next matter considered.
.
4.
DISCUSS SPECIAL NOTICE FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE WATERFORD
P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Chair Borkon expressed her approval of the letter prepared by City Staff. Nielsen informed the
Commission the applicant had expressed a desire to prepare a letter describing his request which
could be distributed to everyone receiving the public notice.
Chair Borkon suggested the public hearing notices be added to the net page. Councilmember-elect
Garfunkel commented this is an issue he is currently addressing with City Staff. He also felt when
feasible, perhaps a telephone call leaving a message relative to the public hearing would be
appropriate. Garfunkel felt this would be an enhancement to the notices which are mailed.
Mayor-elect Dahlberg suggested the possibility of hiring a full time staff person for the purpose of
communications. He inquired as to the cost of telemarketing. Commissioner Pisula stated his
belief this would cost $4.00 to $5.00 per call given the nature of the calls being made.
Commissioner Foust asked if the homeowners association presidents would be contacted by
telephone. Nielsen stated they would receive the notice. In addition, the three affected
homeowners associations could be contacted by telephone advising them of the hearing.
Relative to the proposed amendment to the Waterford P.D.D. Development Agreement, Mayor-
elect Dahlberg commented this could be a change in social policy and felt a number of people
should be involved in the process.
.
Mayor-elect Dahlberg suggested in a situation such as this, perhaps the applicant should be
required to provide valid market research as to the public interest in an establishment of this type to
be located on this site. Commissioner Lizee felt this would be addressed through the public
hearing process.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 3
Commissioner Kolstad felt if this were to be a sports bar type establishment it would be more of an
issue, however, this is a fairly low key type establishment. She felt that noticing the immediate
neighborhood would be sufficient. Commissioner Pisula noted his agreement. He stated it is the
responsibility of the applicant to make his case for his request rather than the City carrying that
burden.
It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed with the distribution of the proposed notice
with telephone calls to the three homeowners associations which are affected. Commissioner Lizee
requested further information relative to the types of liquor licenses available in addition to copies
of the meeting minutes at the time the covenants were developed.
The Commission reconsidered Item No.3 at this point.
5. JOINT MEETING WITH SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL-
ELECT
Councilmember-elect Garfunkel asked for some background from each of the commissioners and
what brought them to serve on the Planning Commission. (Commissioner Foust left at 8:36 p.m.)
Mayor-elect Dahlberg expressed concern relative to developers who violate the terms and
conditions of a P.D.D. and view the monetary sanctions as a cost of doing business. Nielsen
pointed out that a P.D.D. can be revoked. Chair Borkon noted there to be an issue of
enforcement.
Mayor-elect Dahlberg suggested the Planning Commission address the issue of developer
compliance and enforcement. He felt sanctions relative to violations should be much stronger.
Renae Dussault was present and suggested the neighborhood associations be made aware of the
various codes to be watched for and the associations could then monitor the developments for
violations.
Mayor-elect Dahlberg also noted green space to be a topic to be addressed and stated Shorewood
could potentially purchase green space for purposes of preservation. Dahlberg also felt there are
property rights issues to be addressed.
Mayor-elect Dahlberg expressed an interest in visiting again with the Planning Commission with
respect to such subjects as the Metropolitan Council and contemporary logistics. (Dahlberg left the
meeting at 9:30 p.m.)
Councilmember-elect Garfunkel felt one of the main issues to be addressed to be communications
with the residents. Some considerations would be a monthly newsletter versus a quarterly
newsletter. Commissioner Kolstad felt it would be helpful to include in the newsletter the issues
being considered by the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember-elect O'Neill stated he has researched neighborhood associations and noted to get
an association started requires volunteers and a lot of work. He stated there are studies available
explaining how to get associations established. Chair Borkon noted there is an expense involved
with completing clerical type tasks within the association. Resident participation within the
association can also be difficult to obtain.
Commissioner Kolstad felt a benefit to having a neighborhood association is that it provides a
conduit for getting information to the neighborhoods.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 17, 1996 - PAGE 4
Mr. Dussault suggested the Planning Commission do as little as possible and if something
important needs to be addressed, that should be publicized. It was his belief the residents would
prefer a less proactive government. Mr. Dussault felt the residents' interests should be protected,
but the local government needs to be less active. He expressed his opinion that residents do not
like to attend meetings at night to address the issues which arise.
Councilmember McCarty pointed out residents are not required to appear at a meeting to have a
voice. They can simply call City Hall or put their position in writing and it will come before the
Council the same as if they appeared at the meeting to speak.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED,
Cheryl WalIat
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial