Loading...
1997 planning minutes . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill (leftfor Council Meeting at 7:35 p.m.) and Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Rosenberger APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Foust seconded approving the December 17, 1996, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ.FT. Applicant: Mitchell Jones Location: 24245 Wood Drive Planning Director Nielsen explained there is construction underway on the site, however, Mr. Jones did sign an escrow agreement and provided an escrow guaranteeing that in the event the C.U.P. were not granted, he would remove the utility shed so as not to exceed the allowable accessory space. Mr. Jones was present and noted his agreement with Nielsen's recitation of his request. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7 :24 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad asked if the tree in the front of the yard would be impacted by the driveway. Nielsen stated the intent would be to save that tree. In addition she inquired if the buffer trees between the two properties would be affected. Mr. Jones stated he has no intention of removing those trees. Commissioner Lizee questioned the storage of various items under one of the trees on the property. She asked if this would have an impact on the tree during the growing season. Nielsen felt this being the dormant season there would not be any harm to the tree, however, these items should be removed prior to the spring thaw. Commissioner Turgeon asked Nielsen provide the applicant with a copy of the guidelines which were compiled relative to the protection of trees during construction so as not to interfere with the critical wefk root area. She also shared the concerns of Commissioner Lizee. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Chair Borkon questioned the beginning of construction prior to the c.u.P. being obtained. Nielsen stated this has been allowed on a number of occasions where there is a way to comply with the code if for some reason the C.U.P. is denied. In this particular case, there is a financial guarantee as well as the removal of the shed which would then bring the property into compliance with the accessory space requirements. Chair Borkon expressed concern with construction occurring prior to the granting of a c.u.P. In addition, she asked if information relative to tree preservation would be supplied to an applicant beginning an early construction and if the applicant would then be expected to be in compliance. Nielsen explained a building permit application packet is being compiled which will contain the tree preservation guidelines. This packet will be given to the applicant at the time the building permit is issued. Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded approving a C.U.P. for accessory space over 1200 square feet subject to staff recommendations and subject to the removal of the items stored under the tree prior to the spring thaw. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Borkon explained this matter will be presented to the City Council for their consideration on Monday, January 27, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE WATERFORD P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW ON-SITE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE (Continued from December 3, 1996) . Applicant: Vladimir Velikson Location: 19905 State Highway 7 (Waterford Shopping Center) Mr. Velikson was present at the meeting. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Virg Smeltzer, 19600 Waterford Court, appeared and spoke in favor ofMr. Velikson's request. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Commissioner Foust asked Planning Director Nielsen to address the questions submitted by Eloise Rust, 19702 Waterford Court. Nielsen explained the restaurant will be located in the existing building for which there is adequate parking on the site. He noted the project was designed with a shopping center and a family restaurant was specifically approved as a part of that. In addition, Nielsen was unsure if the proposed establishment would result in an increased level of traffic on the service road. Commissioner Foust asked if any input had been received from the homeowners associations which had been notified of this public hearing. Nielsen stated he had not received any input, however some telephone calls were received. The telephone callers were advised their comments should be submitted in writing. Commissioner Foust inquired if any of the responses received had arrived by E-mail. Nielsen explained the E-mail address had not been included in the notice, however, it will be included in the future so E-mail may be utilized. . Chair Borkon asked if there is an indication as to what commitment was made with respect to liquor at this center. Nielsen explained that liquor was included as a protective covenant which continues on with the property until the beneficiary of that covenant agrees to change it. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1997 - PAGE 3 Jeff Shoenewetter, an owner of the Waterford Center, appeared and stated the intent of the previous owner of the site in working with the city in establishing the covenant was addressing a concern relative to a night club type of large scale restaurantlbar type establishment. He felt the City Council would approve of a family type restaurant without a bar which would serve alcohol with a meal. Commissioner Kolstad stated she was in favor of the request, but pointed out a valid concern to be if a change is being considered to the covenant at this time, it could be changed in the future to an even greater extent. Chair Borkon expressed concern with respect to changing a covenant which was the result of strong public concern which had been raised in the past. She expressed appreciation for the written input which several residents submitted for the Commission's consideration. Chair Borkon did not feel statistics had been provided to indicate that there is a dire need to change the amendment. In addition, she had requested trip generation information relative to the shopping center. Mr. Shoenewetter noted the Waterford Shopping Center to be 60 percent vacant. He pointed out the hair salon and floral shop have closed and there are two spaces which have never been leased. Trip generation information would not be available unless someone were hired to manually perform this task. Commissioner Kolstad asked what conditions could be put on the liquor license which would allow for it to be revoked in the event there were problems such as noise or excessive traffic. Nielsen stated the covenant would need to be amended with those conditions included. To revoke a license, there would need to be violations of the conditions included in the covenant. Commissioner Pisula suggested conditions of no free standing bar and hours of operation would be issues to be considered in approving a liquor license. Chair Borkon asked for Commission input on limiting the license to beer and wine. Commissioner Foust felt beer and wine are alcoholic beverages and stated he did not differentiate them from other alcoholic beverages. Chair Borkon expressed her discomfort at amending the covenant due to the public outcry relative to this issue in the past. Commissioner Pisula noted the response to the public hearing notice had been approximately 5 percent which is a higher percentage than what is typically received. He stated the documents which the Commission works with are subject to change with public input and changing traditions. Commissioner Pisula felt it would be to the benefit of the entire city that the shopping center development be a healthy one. He stated he would support the request. There need to be provisions relative to no free standing bar and alcohol not being served without food. Chair Borkon felt there should be restrictions relative to what type of liquor is available at the restaurant. Mr. Velikson stated he had always envisioned a full liquor license. He had not intended to have a bar and had proposed liquor be served only with a meal. Commissioner Turgeon felt the beer and wine license would be a nice compromise. Commissioner Kolstad felt the issue of amplified sound would need to be addressed. In addition, she felt conditions prohibiting televisions in the restaurant as well as advertising relative to liquor should be included. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1997 - PAGE 4 . Commissioner Foust stated he likes the concept and felt it to be intriguing from a marketing standpoint. Chair Borkon inquired as to what the applicant would need to do if the establishment does well and at some point in the future there is a desire to make liquor available. Nielsen stated this would require an amendment to the covenant. Commissioner Lizee pointed out there had not been any inquiries from the community relative to a beer and wine license versus a liquor license. The inquiries had been relative to the hours of operation. She stated she would be in agreement with a full liquor license noting the market is there and many restaurants need a liquor license to be viable. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel this concept would violate the intent behind the original prohibition of a liquor license. Kolstad moved, Foust seconded approving the amendment as proposed by Vladimir Velikson to the Protective Covenants of the Waterford P.U.D. Development Agreement to allow on-site alcohol beverage subject to the hours of operation as currently set out, no amplified sound to be audible within 50 feet of the restaurant, no televisions, no advertising of liquor, no free standing bar, alcohol served with meals only, no video or pinball machines and this may be a full liquor license. . Commissioner Turgeon asked Mr. Velikson if the restrictions were acceptable. Mr. Velikson did not have a problem with the restrictions, however, he stated the hours of operation had not yet been discussed. Mr. Velikson stated the amplified sound would be positioned to face the highway. Commissioner Foust pointed out the Council has discretion to grant a beer and wine license as opposed to a full liquor license. Chair Borkon asked the applicant if a beer and wine license would be viable and he stated it would not. Motion passed 511. (Chair Borkon was the dissenting vote.) Chair Borkon explained she did not believe this request to be in accordance with the covenants which were originally agreed upon with the residents. She noted this matter will come before the City Council on January 27, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. for their consideration. Commissioner Kolstad suggested the Planning Commission's decision and the rationale behind it be sent to the residents. Commissioner Pisula liked the concept, but felt this would make it possible for decisions never to be made and never to be final. Chair Borkon felt direction should be requested from the Council relative to this issue. She was in favor of this suggestion, however, noted this would set a precedence which would need to be followed in the future. Commissioners Pisula and Foust felt it would be a courtesy to respond to letters which are received from concerned residents as well as the residents who appeared at the meeting to offer public testimony. Chair Borkon suggested this mailing be a one time communication in light of the special mailing which was made to an extended area of residents relative to this issue. This will be given as an example to Staff and City Council with a request for further direction in this regard. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 7, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Lizee felt some other avenues should be considered such as an article in the Sun Sailor, a posting at the front door of City Hall or the library. She felt on this occasion a letter could be sent out to people who attended the public hearings and submitted written opinions. She did not want this to become a precedent. Commissioner Foust was in agreement this should be done on a one time basis. He felt it could also be added to the web site. Commissioner Turgeon raised the issue of over communication in which residents are informed of every issue which arises and the important issues are missed due to the abundance of notices which the residents would receive. The consensus of the Commission was to direct staff to prepare a letter to be sent out to the residents who attended the public hearing in addition to the residents who submitted written input. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Roger Champa, 25500 Nelsine Drive, noted he has spoken to hundreds of residents in the community and overall, communication is the main issue which needs to be addressed. 4. REPORTS Commissioner Turgeon noted she made telephone contact with Lino Lakes and Minnetrista with respect to the tree preservation policy. The clause with respect to reducing density is being removed by Lino Lakes due to the potential for lawsuit. Orono does not have a tree preservation policy, however, requested a copy of the Shorewood policy since they will be considering this issue at some point this year. Minnetrista has a policy, however, there is no reference to decreasing density. The only time they have utilized the tree preservation policy was in connection with a P.D.D. Minnetrista also requested a copy of the Shorewood policy since they will be reviewing their policy this year. Commissioner Turgeon requested the Council share their three month and six months goals with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad met with the Councilmembers-elect and explained the Snowmobile Task Force Report in addition to the make up of the Task Force as well as the process the Task Force utilized in defining issues and gathering information. 5. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:29 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. 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, JANUARY 21, 1997 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 Champa, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; Planning Director Nielsen and Administrator Jim Hurm. Chair Borkon welcomed Roger Champa as the newest member of the Planning Commission. Planning Director Nielsen noted the nomination of a Chair and Vice Chair should be added to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded approving the January 7, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Roll Call, change to Council Liaison O'Neill (left for Council Meeting at 7:35 p.m.); Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "provide" to "provided"; Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1, change "work" to "root"; Page 4, Paragraph 4, change to read, "this concept would"; Page 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, change "precedence" to "precedent." Motion passed 7/0. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE WATERFORD P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW ON-SITE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE - REVIEW DRAFT RESOLUTION Applicant: Location: Vladimir Velikson 19905 State Highway 7 (Waterford Shopping Center) Chair Borkon inquired what would happen if another restaurant would come into this site requesting something different such as a bar. Planning Director Nielsen stated the new applicant would need to follow the same process which was followed by Mr. Velikson which would include a public hearing, and if the Council felt it appropriate, the Protective Covenant and the P.D.D. would be amended. Nielsen noted the applicant is still required to apply for a liquor license which is issued annually. He further pointed out the license does not attach to the property, but rather to the owner of the business. Commissioner Foust questioned the hours of operation and whether Mr. Velikson is clear the establishment must close at 11 :00 p.m. Chair Borkon suggested the provision be amended to specify the hours of "restaurant" operation to be from 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Commissioner Champa felt the language was clear and did not need further clarification. Commissioners Turgeon, Foust, Lizee and Pisula felt wording of the amendment to be acceptable as drafted. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Kolstad suggested making the amendment conditional to the request at hand. She expressed concern this amendment would become the new base for future changes which could become incrementally broader. Nielsen pointed out this amendment does become the base of future requests, however, any further changes would need to become an amendment to the Protective Covenants and P.D.D. Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adopt the Amendment to the Waterford P.U.D. Development Agreement to allow on-site alcohol beverage. Motion passed 6/1. Borkon was the dissenting vote. 2. REVIEW COUNCIL PRIORITIES CHECKLIST Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison O'Neill reviewed a priority checklist which has been established by the City Council. Chair Borkon commented the more specific the Council can be on their requests of the Planning Commission, the easier it will be for the Commission to address those issues. Council Liaison O'Neill explained the Council will be considering whether the current City Water system should continue to expand in addition to several other options. Chair Borkon noted the storm water management plan listed as a top priority item. Nielsen explained the Watershed District requires the City have a storm water management plan. Chair Borkon asked if the South Lake cities have any plans for joint endeavors in the future. Council Liaison O'Neill stated the consensus of the Council is to have the Mayor and one Councilmember meet with other elected officials of the surrounding municipalities at various times throughout the year to improve relations and possibly work together on future projects. Chair Borkon questioned why the City has not explored business opportunities other than the liquor business. Nielsen explained it was the view of the past Council that the City should not compete with private enterprise. Chair Borkon did not feel the liquor business to be a family type enterprise and felt a revenue generating business geared toward family would be more appropriate. With respect to senior housing, Council Liaison O'Neill commented the Council would like to review this issue relative to the Livable Communities Act. He explained there has been some discussion with the City of Excelsior to consider the possibility of working together on this matter. Council Liaison O'Neill expects the snowmobile issues and implementation plan to be addressed in the spring at the end of the snowmobile season. Commissioner Champa felt this would be addressed by the State Legislature in the near future. Chair Borkon stated she would like to see Shorewood be proactive relative to this issue and expressed concern for safety when mixing pedestrians and snowmobiles. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel anyone was really working on a solution to the problem and felt compromises would need to be made along the way on both sides of the issue. Chair Borkon asked if the snowmobile issue could be listed as a higher priority. Council Liaison O'Neill explained at the end of the season, he would like to evaluate the plan and review this issue at that time. He commented there is a substantial amount of information which was gathered by the Task Force which he would like to review. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out one of the recommendations of the Task Force was for the Planning Commission to review the lake access points and suggested completion of that study would be helpful to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 - PAGE 3 . Chair Borkon asked if information relative to snowmobile accidents would be provided to the Council. Administrator Hurm responded City Staff will provide that information. Chair Barkan Commissioner Turgeon asked if the back up officer had been trained to patrol by snowmobile and Hurm noted there are two officers who have been trained in this regard. Commissioner Kolstad felt it would be helpful to have a list and tentative schedule of matters to be considered by the Commission. 3. NOMINATION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Foust moved, Turgeon seconded nomination of Vice Chair Pi suI a to the position of Chair. Motion passed 6/1. Pisula abstained. Lizee moved, Turgeon Foust seconded nomination of Commissioner Turgeon to the position of Vice Chair. Motion passed 6/1. Turgeon abstained. Chair Borkon noted the nominations for Chair and Vice Chair will come before the City Council for their consideration on January 27, 1997. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR . Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, expressed concern relative to construction at Watten Ponds and requested Eureka and Orchard Circle be posted "No Parking" for the duration of the construction and that the area be patrolled and restrictions enforced. Chair Borkon felt this should be brought to the attention of the City Council. Planning Director Nielsen responded it would be appropriate to submit a written request to the Council. Administrator Hurm suggested possibly restricting the hours of no parking so as not to inconvenience the local residents. Mr. Larson also referred to the Watten Ponds Development Agreement and noted in his opinion the agreement is weak and does not reflect what was discussed at the public hearing. He did not see a reference in the agreement or City Code as to who is accountable for enforcement of this agreement. Mr. Larson stated he would also like to see a provision where a formalized reporting function is required in written and verbal form on a regular basis by the person responsible for enforcement. Planning Director Nielsen stated there are various staff on the site reviewing various pieces of the project. He felt possibly the project could be reviewed at the weekly staff meetings. Commissioner Champa suggested a citizen group could watch this project. Mr. Larson did not feel this should be the responsibility of the citizens, but rather a member of City Staff. Commissioner Champa felt a contractor should be agreeable to allowing a citizen to monitor the site for compliance with the Development Agreement. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the contractor can refuse to allow a citizen on the site. She stated if there is a problem on the site, City Staff should address this. If a resident notices a violation, they should contact City Staff for enforcement. Mr. Larson felt the responsibility should be given to a staff person. Commissioner Kolstad inquired as to how much time would be required to accomplish this type of enforcement. Nielsen responded he has committed to making weekly inspections of the site. In addition, other City personnel make inspections of the site. In the event of a violation, Nielsen explained that work on the site will be stopped until violations are corrected. . Commissioner Kolstad asked if weekly inspections are adequate. Nielsen did not feel this was sufficient, however, an OSM inspector is on the site every day work is in progress. Hurm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 - PAGE 4 . suggested providing the inspector with a check list of things to look for. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested in projects of a particular size, such as in excess of four lots, there could be a plan to oversee these projects with varying inspection times. City staff will review and coordinate this monitoring. Mr. Larson raised a concern relative to a building permit to be issued for a single family home to be built east of Eureka and north of Nelsine drive on a site which has been prone to flooding. He commented mitigation of flooding after the building is built will come at the expense of the wetland. Mr. Larson stated that although the Planning Commission is not responsible for the issuing of building permits, the Commission does have jurisdiction of the flood plain which is set too low. He related his understanding that it is the opinion of the Army Corp of Engineers, the Watershed District, and the DNR that the flood plain is set too low. Planning Director Nielsen commented there is a flood plain ordinance and the City abides by that ordinance. In addition, concerns relative to this matter show be brought to the attention of City Engineer Larry Brown. If Brown makes a determination which someone wishes to dispute, it would be necessary to have a rationale for the dispute and good information the determination should be reviewed. The dispute should then be brought before the City Council. . Mr. Larson explained the ordinary high water level to be 929.4. The flood plain for Lake Minnetonka is 931.5, for a difference of 2.1 feet. The ordinary high water level for this flood plain is designated by the DNR to be 931.5. The City of Shorewood has determined the flood plain to be 931.5 which is the exact level of the ordinary high water level. Mr. Larson further explained the DNR has determined in a wetland such as this, the difference between the ordinary high water level and the flood plain should be between 1.5 to 2 feet. He requested the City Engineer resolve this issue with the DNR and other agencies. Nielsen noted Engineer Brown has agreed to meet with Ceil Strauss of the DNR to discuss this matter. Council Liaison O'Neill stated he is meeting with Engineer Brown to discuss this issue and Mr. Larson was invited to attend this meeting. Commissioner Champa inquired as to who determines the flood plain. Nielsen stated the City Engineer would determine this. An insurance rate study was completed in 1982 which set the base elevations for much of the community. Nielsen noted his understanding that a flood study can be ordered on an individual property. Commissioner Champa stated the flood plain issue affects more than a single family resident. He expressed concern if the flood plain is not correct and data proving this is found within the City, the matter should be reviewed. Commissioner Turgeon noted this has never been an issue brought before the Planning Commission and did not want it to be assumed this is a Planning Commission issue. She expressed concern relative to wasting Mr. Larson's time since this is not a project before the Commission and at this point is out of the hands of the Commission. Commissioner Turgeon requested Mr. Larson receive some assistance in this matter. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel it was inappropriate for the issue to be brought before the Commission, however, whether or not it falls within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction is a different matter. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 - PAGE 5 Mr. Larson felt the flood plains are an issue which the Planning Commission should take an interest in. Chair Borkon noted that at this point, it is up to the City Engineer, however, the Planning Commission would be happy to address it if it is brought back for their consideration. Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, stated relative to Triax, she would like to see competition which would perhaps result in improved service. With respect to snowmobiles, Ms. Schaff requested this matter not wait to be addressed until the season is over. She felt it important to keep active on this issue and review monthly reports from the sheriff, Hennepin County, the police department and the water patrol. If there are continual problems, nothing can be done about them in the summer. Ms. Schaff stated there is enough data to reflect the fear and safety concerns of the residents. Chair Borkon suggested a decision be made now on what information to put together to present to the Council relative to the snowmobile issue. She inquired as to who will be compiling this information. Administrator Hurm noted the same data which was provided to the Task Force, such as 911 complaints, will be supplied to the Council. Chair Borkon felt it would be important to have county and state statistics as well. 5. REPORTS The attached Farewell Resolution was developed in honor of Commissioner Rosenberger. Commissioner Turgeon reported Woody Love has been named president of the Watershed District. In addition she reported on the meeting of the Watershed District which was attended by Commissioners Turgeon, Lizee and Councilmember O'Neill. Commissioner Turgeon also reported on the matters considered and actions taken by the City Council at their meeting of January 13, 1997. Commissioner Turgeon raised the issue of Planning Commission and City Council relations. Commissioner Turgeon volunteered to be the Commission Liaison for the Council. Commissioners Champa and Kolstad will substitute when necessary. Commissioner Lizee volunteered to be the Commission Liaison for the Parks Commission. 6. ADJOURNMENT Foust moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULL Y 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. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 21, 1997 - PAGE 6 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97-XX A RESOLUTION "EAU de KIRK" ( ... or "Blame It on Iowa") WHEREAS, Commissioner Lizee stated, on the highway of life, Kirk is our centerline, never to define him as middle of the road, but where one can determine definite comings and goings, positive and negative energy flow. Don't cross it unless you're sure of what's around the bend. Right or wrong? Nay, say I, only in the way we approach our deliberation can one appreciate the Kirkster's modus operandi, never is he the one to remain neutral as passion is his middle name. One knows where one stands with him, and having entertained both sides of that fence, must admit that I have learned much from him and appreciate his style. Conflict can be educational. Perhaps it is his training that allows him to instinctively follow the fall line. Smoke jumper, back country skier, adventure man, wonder if he's ever heli-skied? Certainly more adventures will he consider and he will continue his direct route. Style is everything. Doan'ch ya know?; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Foust stated, the Planning Commission recognizes that Kirk is from Iowa; and WHEREAS Kirk must think we're all from Iowa for as many times as he reminded us he's from Iowa; and WHEREAS, Chair Borkon stated, you are a tobacco-chewing dumb boy from Iowa, your words, not mine, but I am in total agreement with you as always; and WHEREAS, we've never seen you really standing up straight secondary to a spherical procedure, and WHEREAS, you are a hard line, democratic bureaucrat, you will truly be missed, especially your views on senior housing; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Turgeon stated, there are certain facts about Kirk that cannot be argued: A. He is from Iowa; B. Garbage is his life; C. He thinks salted nut rolls, Snapple ice tea and chew constitute a food group; D. He finds 10,000 square foot homes personally offensive; E. And to reiterate the words Kirk used during many a public hearing, "You're done." We will miss you and your bottom line, "just the facts" way of conducting business; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Pisula stated, the Kirkster is absolutely, positively, indubitably, without a doubt, one of the most political human beings I have ever encountered in my 47 years on this planet; (Commissioner Foust inquired what Commissioner Pisula did with the other five years.); and WHEREAS, Commissioner Kolstad stated, we like you and we'll miss you; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Champa stated, a minion is now sitting in your chair. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, Planning Director Nielsen declared, your being on the Planning Commission truly was a beautiful thing. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDA Y, FEBRUARY 4, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Kolstad, Lizee, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; and Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Foust. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving the January 21, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, delete "as to"; Page 2, Item 2, Paragraph 2, change to read "current city water system"; Page 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "Chair Borkon" to "Commissioner Turgeon"; Item 3, Motion 2, change "Turgeon seconded" to "Foust seconded"; Page 6, Paragraph 1, change "hell-skied" to "heli-skied"; Paragraph 5, change "plaint" to "planet." Motion passed 6/0. 1. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Dale Tondryk 4990 Suburban Drive Location: Kevin Norby, Landscape Architects, appeared on behalf of Mr. Tondryk and displayed a color drawing of the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Champa questioned the location of the driveway. Mr. Norby explained the positioning of the driveway and noted the applicants intend to create an easement for purposes of creating a buffer. Commissioner Lizee raised a question relative to the placement of the driveway and inquired if the new owners of the property would be encouraged to build farther to the west. Mr. Norby felt this would be left to the discretion of the builder or architect. Commissioner Borkon questioned the landscape easement. Planning Director Nielsen explained the purpose of the easement and noted the creating of an easement would not adversely affect the lot. He further pointed out the easement is a private matter which does not require approval of the City. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern that the City does not have any control over landscape easements and felt it could be a problem at times for a buyer/seller who would be attempting to build or move a home. Commissioner Borkon asked when the easement would be recorded. Nielsen explained it would be recorded with the subdivision. He further explained a building permit would not be issued within that easement. Nielsen stated it would be permissible to remodel the house, but a new home could not be built on that foundation over the easement. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Turgeon inquired relative to the length of driveway which would be required to reach the home which would be constructed in the rear of the parcel. Nielsen estimated approximately 200 feet. Nielsen felt there would possibly be a three car garage constructed on the property and it would be necessary to remove the existing storage buildings to avoid exceeding the accessory space. Commissioner Kolstad inquired what would happen to the Forest Drive land in the event it is not made into a street. Nielsen remarked it would remain as backyard space. Mr. Norby noted it would be very difficult to construct a home in that particular area due to the topography. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a simple subdivision for Dale Tondryk, 4990 Suburban Drive, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Ch~ir Pisula noted this matter will come before the City Council on February 24, 1997, for their reVIew. 2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: D. Carter, Tradewinds Concepts & Design representing Lisa Klaverkamp Location: 23585 Yellowstone Trail There was no appearance by D. Carter or Lisa Klaverkamp. Commissioner Kolstad asked if there would be any recommendation relative to the storage building which is located close to the top of the hill. Nielsen stated if it is located on the vacant lot it would have to be moved to the lot with the existing house. Commissioner Turgeon did not feel the tree inventory was accurate. She noted larger trees on the property which are not indicated on the site location map. Commissioner Borkon noted the applicant is requesting a dividing line different than the dividing line recommended by City Staff and expressed concern the applicant was not in attendance. Nielsen noted Mr. Carter has received a copy of the staff report. Commissioner Borkon stated she was uncomfortable with the fact the storage building located on the hill and the additional trees on the property were not depicted in the site location map. Nielsen remarked the subdivision itself does not require the removal of any trees. In addition, a more detailed tree inventory would be required as a part of a building permit. Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of this matter to March 4, 1997, at which time the applicant will be requested to appear and the issues of lot line, tree inventory, removal or relocation of the garage and storage building which do not appear on the map will be addressed. Motion passed 412. (Commissioners Champa and Kolstad were the dissenting votes.) Commissioner Champa noted the tree inventory and location or removal of the storage building could be addressed as a part of a building permit. Nielsen stated the trees would be addressed as a part of a building permit, however a request was made for a tree inventory for purposes of the subdivision. The storage building should also be addressed at this time. Commissioner Borkon felt the matter should be tabled to the next regular meeting. She did not feel comfortable approving the request subject to additional conditions without the applicant having the opportunity to add his input. Chair Pisula noted his agreement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 1997 - PAGE 3 . 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR John Flesness, ERA Realty, appeared and noted he is interested in developing property in Shorewood and had questions relative to the city water plan. He expressed interest in a parcel located in the vicinity of Country Club and Yellowstone. Council Liaison O'Neill noted the Council will be holding a work study session on February 17, 1997, to discuss the water plan. He further noted there would be no action taken until late March at the earliest. Mr. Flesness had concerns relative to the trunk charges of $10,000 which he felt would make the parcel undevelopable. Nielsen explained there would be a trunk charge of $5,000 per lot. In addition, when water becomes available, there would be an additional assessment for water. Nielsen further explained the trunk charge could be assessed over a 15-year period of time. Council Liaison O'Neill remarked it would be approximately six months to a year before anything could be finalized relative to the water plan. 4. REPORTS Commissioner Turgeon reported on the January 27, 1997 meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Turgeon noted in speaking with Bob Rascop of the LMCD, he indicated a proposed ordinance had been provided to the lake communities relative to the use of nonphosphorous fertilizers. She suggested discussing this matter further at a future study session. . ~ity Administrator Hurm will be attending the February work session to address communication Issues. Commissioner Kolstad requested information regarding notice requirements. Nielsen stated the statute requires notices to be sent to property owners within 350 feet. Shorewood ordinance requires noticing an area of 500 feet due to the size of the lots. He further stated a certified mailing list is obtained by providing Hennepin County with a list of property identification numbers. Commissioner Kolstad questioned noticing an area in excess of what is required in the ordinance and whether this could be determined on a case by case basis. Nielsen stated it would be preferable to have guidelines relative to this issue contained in the ordinance. Chair Pisula stated Mayor Dahlberg would like to meet with the Planning Commission on February 17, 1997, to address his vision for the City. Commissioner Borkon requested information relative to the requirements to become a star or Class I city as well as the requirements for becoming a charter city. She suggested this would be an appropriate item for discussion at a future study session. 6. ADJOURNMENT . Lizee moved, Champa seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 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, FEBRUARY 18, 1997 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; Planning Director Nielsen; Mayor Dahlberg and Administrator Hurm. STUDY SESSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded approving the February 4, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 1, add "Chair Borkon expressed concern the City does not have any control over landscape easements and felt it could be a problem at times for a buyer/seller who would be attempting to build or move a home." Motion passed 6/0. (Commissioner Foust abstained.) 1. INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH MAYOR DAHLBERG Mayor Dahlberg commented on a meeting he had with Chair Pisula. He apologized to anyone who took umbrage to an editorial comment which he made. Mayor Dahlberg stated his belief staff, Council and the various commissions are open to exploring similar values. Chair Pisula asked Mayor Dahlberg to list the values which he would like the Planning Commission to consider. Mayor Dahlberg felt the City to be dominated by a majority of people seeking a balance to the city. He explained the balance he refers to encompasses a village type atmosphere. Mayor Dahlberg stated he feels preservation is a major concern as well as high density. Commissioner Turgeon commented with respect to high density and subdivision of property, the City cannot prevent the subdivision of property. She noted there is a fine line between attempting to balance the village atmosphere and denying property owners their legal right to subdivide their property. Mayor Dahlberg felt the City could consider rezoning. He felt residents would be concerned with changes to the policy in which the City would rezone certain areas to accommodate higher density. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether spot zoning would be appropriate. Planning Director Nielsen stated it could raise legal issues since there is no clear definition of spot zoning. He felt it would be ill-advised in that it is contrary to the purpose of zoning. Commissioner Borkon also inquired whether the City could decide to stop further development. Nielsen did not feel this could be done without compensation to property owners who were denied the right to develop their property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Commissioner Borkon raised a question relative to property owners redeveloping their property to a higher density. Nielsen stated this type of request would come before the Planning Commission and the Council for review and final approval or denial of the request. Mayor Dahlberg expressed concern there is no constitutional stability in Minnesota city government. He felt if that stability were present in the current system, a tradition could be established and institutionalized. Mayor Dahlberg did not feel that sort of stability to be present in Shorewood. Commissioner Borkon asked for Mayor Dahlberg to explain the constitutional stability he referred to. Mayor Dahlberg explained if city government were based more often on charter plans, the City could set the values resulting in a more conservative and stable government. Commissioner Champa felt the City lacks a strong sense of identity and stated he would like to see this change. Mayor Dahlberg felt some of the surrounding cities have a tradition and are stabilized in certain cultural and sociological senses. He noted Shorewood has several different cities in one. Council Liaison O'Neill commented there are State funds available to establish a commission to explore various ways to combine projects with other municipalities. . Commissioner Kolstad remarked the reality is that urbanization is here. It is in both Shorewood and the surrounding communities. Although we might have been able to impact this ten years ago, our primary challenge now is to manage the issues arising with this change, including dark streets and no sidewalks, while retaining those qualities we value to highly. to be the surrounding communities are becoming more developed and while wanting to keep the important qualities, it must be realized the city is beconHFl:g more urban afld she did not f-eel afl-ything could be done to pre';ent this. Commissioner Kolstad commented there are issues other than zoning which need to be addressed. She stated there are ways to manage the zoning issues and still maintain the characteristics of the area. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether changing the zoning would be property tax driven. Nielsen stated values raise property taxes and when property taxes reach the point where a property owner cannot afford them, they are forced to either scale down the property or move out entirely. Commissioner Champa remarked the fact remains there are high density areas in Shorewood which still need to be addressed. He noted there may have to be sidewalks or street lights installed since the issue has gone past the point of safety. Mayor Dahlberg commented the key to governing is to have the best understanding possible on the attitudes and values of the residents and that decisions being made be driven by the desires of the community. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. (Commissioner Foust left at this time.) 2. DISCUSS COMMUNICATION PLAN Administrator Hurm explained the Council is currently reviewing the Communication Plan. In particular, further discussion will be held relative to appropriate input. Hurm felt the Commission should review the overall theme and pointed out there needs to be a very concise communication strategy. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1997 - PAGE 3 . Commissioner Kolstad questioned how to ensure positive input will be received as well as the negative. Hurm felt random telephone calls could be made although he expressed concern relative to the value of the data which would be received. Commissioner Turgeon felt in making telephone calls, the person being called should be informed of a particular meeting and encouraged to attend. Commissioner Turgeon felt if making telephone calls is kept in the communication plan, the person being called should be informed of a particular meeting and encouraged to attend. The calls should be made by staff. Any questions can then be referred to the appropriate staff person. Commissioner Borkon felt prior to integrating the plan, a base line determination should be made in order to ascertain the effectiveness. Commissioner Turgeon remarked many new communications methods are being implemented and there has not been a base line survey to demonstrate what the approximately $42,000 per year expenditure is buying. . Commissioner Kolstad felt there to be substantial merit to the ideas which will open up city government to the residents keeping them better informed and making information more accessible to them. In additioFl, the information is more accessible. She expressed concern with forcing feedback via telephone calls and surveys. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether incoming calls are categorized on a daily basis. She suggested once a call comes into a specific office, they could be broken down into areas of public interest and then a communication plan could be broken down to meet the needs of the public. Council Liaison O'Neill noted one goal is to obtain the involvement of the residents who are complaining. He stated he would like their participation at the beginning of a project rather than dealing with their complaints at the completion. Commissioner Borkon did not feel positive input would be received since citizen input is usually raised in the midst of controversy. Commissioner Lizee questioned at what point a resident would become involved earlier. Council Liaison O'Neill felt it would be at the Planning Commission level. Nielsen explained at the point where the City has plans and projects which are being initiated, the Council would like citizen input. Commissioner Borkon felt one of the goals would be the ability of the citizens to have input as well as power to alter or change things. They would communicate, give input, and then the Planning Commission and the City Council, if at all possible, would attempt to find a compromise. Commissioner Borkon suggested a mechanism the City could institute where citizens would have an obligation to attend City meetings. She suggested providing an incentive to gain citizen involvement such as a discount to their water bill. Commissioner Champa suggested distributing magnets with the City telephone number. He also suggested a banner be placed on City Hall for a short period of time announcing the new telephone number. . Commissioner Kolstad suggested a glass enclosed bulletin board which could be placed in such a way residents could drive up to it to read information rather than getting out of their car. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1997 - PAGE 4 Ghaif. Commissioner Borkon recommended groups of citizens meet with members of the Planning Commission and Planning Director Nielsen to allow them to arrive at a solution on their own which would be an answer to the issue being raised. The group would then present their recommendations to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad suggested an informational session prior to a Planning Commission vote session where residents could become better informed prior to the vote. Planning Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has had an unwritten policy when considering a controversial item, action has not always been taken on the night of the public hearing. Often times these matters are further continued for vote at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Turgeon noted an explanation sent along with the legal notice of the public hearing allows two weeks for residents to contact the City relative to any concerns. If the concerns cannot be addressed, the Planning Commission has the option to further continue their consideration of a matter to a future meeting. Commissioner Turgeon cited Watten Ponds as an example. This project was continued many times due to concerns raised during the meeting which required further information gathering and the vote was postponed until the information was received. Commissioner Champa felt Matters from the Floor should be moved to the first agenda item. It was his belief residents do not want to come to the meeting to wait for an extended period of time to be able to address the Councilor the Planning Commission. Nielsen expressed his concern noting that the people placed on the agenda have paid money and it would be unfair if people not on the agenda were given priority over those people following the appropriate review procedures. Councilmember O'Neill commented that this viewpoint offered a new perspective on the issue that had not been discussed at Council level. Commissioner Turgeon stated that there have been very few matters from the floor over the years and not enough to warrant the change. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern with determining on an individual basis how far the notice area will extend relative to a particular issue. Commissioner Turgeon stated she felt the criteria for notification radius need to be established. The items can still be reviewed individually and expanded if necessary, but minimum guidelines must be in place in order to be fair to all applicants. Commissioner Borkon asked if the Planning Commission should address this Communication Plan in a more structured way. Administrator Hurm suggested the Commission make recommendations as it affects the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad asked what type of planning issues would be included in the newsletter. Commissioner Borkon suggested coming up with a list of items which relate to the Planning Commission and the relevant issues be further discussed at a future work session. 3. DISCUSS SNOWMOBILE ACCESS SITES Nielsen explained the Council has directed the Planning Commission to address the issue of snowmobile access sites to the lakes. He suggested providing a map of suggested sites to be reviewed by each of the commissioners and possibly visiting the sites. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out LMCD has recently developed a map which depicts all of the lake access points in addition to other points of interest. Commissioner Kolstad suggested establishing a criteria to include grade, proximity to houses, and traffic levels in reviewing the access sites. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1997 - PAGE 5 4. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 5. REPORTS Council Liaison O'Neill reported the Council has been discussing the Comprehensive Plan. The Council would like the Planning Commission to review the 50-foot setbacks for wetlands. He noted the Council does not want to encourage PUDs and cluster housing, however, in a situation where these options would be the favorable approach, they would be considered. Commissioner Lizee reported on the eel pout in Walker, Minnesota, and noted the DNR was very visible. 6. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 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, MARCH 4, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Kolstad, Lizee, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; and Planning Director Nielsen; Administrator Hurm (arrived at 8:00 p.m.). Absent: Commissioner Foust. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving the February 18, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 2, Item 2 Paragraph 4, replace Sentence 1 with, "Commissioner Turgeon felt if making telephone calls is kept in the communication plan, the person being called should be informed of a particular meeting and encouraged to attend. The calls should be made by a staff. Any questions can then be referred to the appropriate staff person." Page 4, Paragraph 1, add, "Commissioner Turgeon cited W atten Ponds as an example. This project was continued many times due to concerns raised during the meeting which required further information gathering and the vote was postponed until the information was received." Page 4, Paragraph 2, add, "Nielsen expressed his concern noting that the people placed on the agenda have paid money and already waited 30 days to have their requests reviewed and that it would be unfair if people not on the agenda were given priority over those people following the appropriate review procedures. Councilmember O'Neill commented that this viewpoint offered a new perspective on the issue that had not been discussed at Council level. Commissioner Turgeon stated that there have been very few matters from the floor over the years and not enough to warrant the change." Page 4, Paragraph 3, add, "Commissioner Turgeon stated she felt the criteria for notification radius need to be established. The items can still be reviewed individually and expanded if necessary, but minimum guidelines must be in place in order to be fair to all applicants." Page 3, Paragraph 12, change "Chair" to "Commissioner" and add "The group would then present their recommendations to the Planning Commission." Page 3, Paragraph 3, rephrase to read, "Commissioner Kolstad felt there to be substantial merit to the ideas which will open up city government to the residents keeping them better informed and making information more accessible to them." Page 2, Paragraph 5, rephrase to read, "Commissioner Kolstad remarked the reality is that urbanization is here. It is in both Shorewood and the surrounding communities. Although we might have been able to impact this ten years ago, our primary challenge now is to manage the issues arising with this change, including dark streets and no sidewalks, while retaining those qualities we value so highly." Motion passed 6/0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 2 1. C.D.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Mary Reutiman Location: 5965 Eureka Road Mr. and Mrs. Reutiman appeared and noted their agreement with the staff recommendations. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7: 16 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7: 16 p.m. Commissioner Lizee inquired if there were future plans for finished space above the garage. The Reutimans stated there were no future plans in this regard. Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded approving the C.U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 sq. ft. for Mary Reutiman, 5965 Eureka Road, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6.0. 2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION (Tabled from February 4, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting) Applicant: D. Carter, Tradewinds Concepts & Design representing Lisa Klaverkamp Location: 23585 Yellowstone Trail D. Carter requested by way of letter to Brad Nielsen this matter be tabled to the April 1, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission at which time he felt the concerns which had been raised by the Planning Commission at the February 4 meeting will have been addressed. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to table consideration of the simple subdivision for D. Carter, Tradewinds Concepts & Design representing Lisa Klaverkamp, 23585 Yellowstone Trail, to the April 1, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 6/0. Item No.4 was the next agenda item considered. 3. DISCUSS COMMUNICATION PLAN RE: ZONING A. Notices 2 . Redesign Format Council Liaison O'Neill commented the map with the newsletter accomplishes much of what the Council desired in ensuring residents are notified of a particular issue. 3 . Planning & Zoning Applications A. Policy: Define Boundary of Written Notification Nielsen noted there is a considerable expense to the mailing list which is obtained by an applicant from Hennepin County. Once the list is obtained, the City prepares the legal notice, makes copies, stuffs envelopes and mails the notices. These costs are a part of the application fees. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 3 . Commissioner Champa inquired what would happen in the event of a renotification. Nielsen explained any cost in excess of the application fee is the obligation of the applicant. Commissioner Champa commented on the state requirement for a noticing area of 350 feet and asked if any applicants had been opposed to the Shorewood requirement of 500 feet. Nielsen stated the City ordinance can be more restrictive. The larger Shorewood lots provide the rationale for exceeding the state requirement of 350 feet. C . Public Informational Meetings With respect to the Town Hall meetings, Commissioner Turgeon questioned how the Planning Commission would receive information from the Council which was obtained through a Town Hall meeting. Council Liaison O'Neill felt the Commission could use their intuition in determining which issues would benefit from a Town Hall meeting and make that recommendation to the Council. Nielsen stated the purpose of the Town Hall meeting is to allow residents who do not desire to appear at the Council meetings to address an issue, a more informal setting in which to ask questions and express their concerns. This meeting would not be intended to take the place of a public hearing which is a formal process in which a very distinct record is kept. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether there would be minutes of the informal Town Hall meetings. Hurm explained at the beginning of the regular Council meeting, the Mayor and Councilmembers will report on the Town Hall meeting and those reports will be a part of the regular City Council minutes. . Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern relative to new information which could arise at the town meetings. Nielsen stated if the Council were to receive new information which had not been available to the Planning Commission, this information could be routed back to the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Commissioner Borkon was in favor of residents coming in prior to a Council meeting to speak with the Council relative to issues of concern. D. City Council Conducts Public Hearing, Approves the Feasibility Report, and Orders the Preparation of Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate of Construction Commissioner Turgeon commented on the Glen Road Stormwater Management Project and asked where it would fit into the scenario in light of the fact a feasibility study is being prepared. Hurm stated the City would begin with public information meetings, however, the City would need to determine where the Watershed District stands on this issue. A considerable amount of research remains to be accomplished. Nielsen commented the Watershed District is willing to fund a portion of the project. At the time the amount of funding has been ascertained, the residents will receive further information and hopefully the resident portion will be reduced by the contributions of the Watershed District. Nielsen felt it would be premature to discuss this project with the residents until the City is informed what part the Watershed District will play. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern this procedure not simply be applied to new projects. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 4 . 6. Follow-Up Phone Calls Commissioner Turgeon inquired how long after notices are sent out telephone calls would be made. Hurm felt there needs to be an established procedure to provide consistency. He suggested staff make the telephone calls one week prior to a meeting. Commissioner Borkon asked if consideration had been given to what will be said during the telephone call to avoid discussion or debate relative to the proposed project. Nielsen stated staff will develop a script which will be read to the person being called. 7 . Policy on Additional Signage Commissioner Lizee questioned who would be responsible for the cost of the signs. Hurm stated the application fees will be reviewed and it is possible staff will request the Council approve an increase in the application fees to cover the increased costs. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern with attention being drawn to a particular homestead. Commissioner Turgeon felt there was a privacy issue relative to addresses being published in the newsletter. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested using the address and omitting the use of names. Commissioner Turgeon was in agreement with this suggestion. Commissioner Champa felt signs would be appropriate on development sites, but did not feel they were necessary on the more insignificant requests. Commissioner Borkon felt rezoning would requ~re s~gnage. Chair Pisula did not feel minor requests such as simple subdivisions would reqUIre slgnage. . It was the consensus of the Planning Commission notice signs should be required for the following requests: preliminary plat subdivision, planned unit development, Comprehensive Plan amendment, and rezoning. VI. Input on Communication Strategies Commissioner Turgeon requested the Commission review bullet No.5 and reach consensus on this issue. Commissioner Kolstad noted the residents receive their information at the same time the Planning Commission receives it and takes the vote. This does not allow them any time to put together any arguments they may have. She referenced Watten Ponds and felt the process would have been better had the Planning Commission had the benefit of the later arguments earlier on. Nielsen pointed out the Planning Commission is not obligated to vote the evening of a public hearing if an issue is controversial. Commissioner Borkon suggested an informational video on the public hearing process which would be a mechanism for people who are unfamiliar with the public hearing process. Commissioner Borkon suggested a Statement of Purpose relative to a public hearing be enclosed with the notice mailing. She also noted her agreement with Commissioner Kolstad's comments. Commissioner Turgeon suggested changing the format for taking public testimony. She suggested changing the procedure by not closing the public testimony entirely. Commissioner Turgeon proposed once the public testimony has been completed, the Planning Commission could hold their discussion. If information is produced which causes discussion or concerns, the public would have a second opportunity to raise concerns. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Champa was in agreement, however he felt Chair Pisula would need to take a strong stand as chairperson in controlling the meeting so it does not get out of hand. Commissioner Borkon commented there is a general misunderstanding of the public hearing process. Commissioner Kolstad suggested in the event of a controversial issue, the Planning Commission could table consideration of a matter to a future date. Nielsen felt this could be a case by case decision. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested recruiting volunteers to act as consumer advocates who could give advice and keep concerned members of the public informed. Commissioner Champa noted other cities post a lighted sign announcing a meeting is being held on a certain evening. Nielsen related staff is currently discussing this idea. Commissioner Turgeon asked if there was Commission consensus relative to early information sessions prior to a Commission formal action so residents could become better informed. Commissioner Borkon felt it was a good idea, however, she felt it should be dependent upon the issue and whether or not the issue justifies an information session. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested the Planning Commission develop a mission statement which would allow this provision to be at the discretion of the chairperson. Chair Pisula felt the process could be improved to be made more understandable for the residents. 4. DISCUSS LAKE ACCESS SITES RE: SNOWMOBILES Commissioner Borkon inquired as to prerequisites for a particular site to be suitable as an access site for snowmobiles. In addition, she noted not all of the possible access sites are on the trail. Nielsen explained his understanding the Planning Commission is to be reviewing places which might be suitable for snowmobiles to access the lake. Commissioner Kolstad explained Timber Lane is heavily used as an access to the lake and she felt if other access points farther to the west were to be identified, this would relieve some of the pressure on the trail. Commissioner Turgeon noted the survey reflected the usage of the trail by snowmobilers was to get to the lake. If was felt if other access points could be provided to the lake without having to use the trail, this would relieve some of the traffic and perhaps make it safer for mixed use. With respect to the island locations, Nielsen pointed out with the exception of three lots, virtually every lot on Enchanted and Shady Islands has their own direct access to the lake. Commissioner Borkon felt parking would need to be a consideration. She noted Crescent Beach to be the only option which would have parking availability. Howard's Point would be a consideration if arrangements could be made with the marina. Commissioner Turgeon felt the only viable site to be Crescent Beach. She noted no parking, poor grade, and inability to stop legally would be issues to be taken into consideration when contemplating the other site options. Commissioner Kolstad noted the benefits of the Timber Lane access to be its close proximity to the trail, quick access, and the limited number of homes close by. She felt the terrain issues could be dealt with. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 6 Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the Third Street fIre lane is being utilized at the present time by snowmobiles. Nielsen felt it was probably being used by local residents given the fact the City has not received any complaints relative to this use. Commissioner Borkon was in agreement with Commissioner Turgeon relative to the Crescent Beach access, however she did not feel she was in a position to comment on an appropriate access at this time. Commissioner Borkon stated she would like further information relative to the Council's plan and what issues have been discussed and decided upon. Nielsen stated snowmobiles can be trailered onto the lake and he did not feel higher use of Howard's Point marina by nonresidents would be a good idea. Commissioner Borkon asked whether the intent would be to encourage public other than Shorewood residents to utilize the access points. Nielsen stated the purpose would be to alleviate the pressure of snowmobiles on the trail. Commissioner Champa expressed his opinion the issue relative to access sites is a moot issue until a decision is made to either allow snowmobiles on the trail or ban them. He pointed out there is one access point on Timber Lane. Council Liaison O'Neill noted the Council has made the snowmobile issue a priority item for consideration. The Park Commission will address this issue first. It will then be reviewed by the Council in spring. Nielsen pointed out that as of this point, snowmobiles are permitted on the trail. The Task Force made a number of recommendations to make this a more suitable use. One of the recommendations was to fInd additional suitable locations where local snowmobilers would be able to access the lake without having to use the trail. This would then reduce the pressure on the trail. Commissioner Kolstad felt the lake access issue to be independent from the decision of the Council whether or not to allow snowmobiles on the trail. Commissioner Borkon felt there should be a defInitive answer by the Council prior to discussing lake access points. Commissioner Champa noted his agreement. Commissioner Kolstad felt it might be helpful to the Council in making their decision to be aware of other viable access points to the lake. Commissioner Lizee felt Crescent Beach to be the only viable access, however, she noted discussions would need to be held with Tonka Bay relative to this access point. Commissioners Turgeon and Kolstad felt Howard's Point should be investigated to determine whether or not this would be a usable access point. It was the consensus of the Commission that Crescent Beach would be a possible access point given the parking capabilities. Howard's Point will be investigated to determined whether or not this would be a possibility. Timber Lane would need to be made viable or excluded as an access point. Commissioner Borkon clarifIed the Council should not interpret this as a recommendation of the Planning Commission. Item No.3 was the next agenda item considered. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 1997 - PAGE 7 5. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None Commissioner Turgeon suggested the Commission come to some consensus on where Matters from the Floor should appear on the agenda. Commissioner Champa felt it should be moved up in the agenda so residents do not have to wait a lengthy period of time to voice their concerns. Commissioner Borkon suggested leaving Matters from the Floor in the current position and leaving it to the discretion of the chairperson to move this item to an earlier position on the agenda when appropriate. 6. REPORTS Commissioner Turgeon announced Spring Clean Up is May 17th. In addition, she reported on the February 24, 1997 meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Lizee expressed concern relative to the Waterford Mall Restaurant Resident Survey which was conducted. She questioned the lack of names of telephone numbers and whether the residents surveyed were aware their quotes were being published. Nielsen noted this to be the sharing of the results of a survey undertaken by one councilperson. He explained anyone can conduct a survey, however, a survey can be influenced by the way a question is worded or in what sequence it is asked. Commissioner Borkon agreed with concerns which were voiced, but she felt it was commendable the Mayor was attempting to make contact with the residents which she felt the residents would appreciate. Chair Pisula commented a survey cannot replace a finding of fact and there are very specific ways in which the Planning Commission gathers facts upon which decisions are made. Commissioner Lizee reported the fourth and fifth grade students at Minnewashta are the recipients of a grant which will allow them to conduct a study relative to phosphorous in the wetland areas. Nielsen stated the City will recommend two very specific areas for the students to study. Nielsen reported the Planning Commission has been invited to attend a City Council work session on Wednesday, March 12th at 7:30 p.m. Met Council will be present to address the issues they are involved in. 7. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wall at Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula, Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill and Planning Director Nielsen Commissioners Champa, Foust and Lizee Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to approve the March 4, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as submitted. Motion passed 4/0. 1. DISCUSSION - REGULATION OF ADULT USES Nielsen explained the City Attorney felt in order to meet the provisions of the First Amendment the City must identify approximately five percent of a commercial zoning district where adult use establishments could locate. He further explained Shorewood has a very limited commercial base with less than one percent of the total land area devoted to commercial use. Nielsen reported the Council will be considering a six month moratorium on adult uses at the March 24th meeting which will provide an opportunity for further consideration of this matter. Commissioner Borkon requested the definition of adult uses. Nielsen provided the various definitions of adult uses as well as the definition of an adult book store. Commissioner Borkon questioned the adult area of the Video Update store. Nielsen stated the ordinance is written in such a way so as to allow adult areas provided a percentage of the area or gross sales are not achieved through that segment of their marketing. Chair Pisula inquired whether there is a provision relative to isolating that particular material from under age people. Nielsen stated the ordinance regulating the use addresses the accessibility of the material. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission is being asked to review zoning and licensing regulations. He commented it is reasonable to establish radiuses to sensitive locations such as churches, liquor stores, and day care centers. The next study session will be to review possible locations as well as the way in which the ordinances are written. Impact studies will be reviewed and public hearings will be held relative to the zoning ordinance. Chair Pisula inquired as to the setting of licensing fees for this type of business. Nielsen stated the fee for licensing must be reasonably associated with the cost of monitoring or controlling that particular use. Chair Pisula inquired relative to display of adult materials as well as associated signage. Nielsen explained these issues could be controlled. Council Liaison O'Neill commented on Internet related activities pertaining to adult uses. Commissioner Borkon questioned the regulation of content. Nielsen explained the City cannot determine what types of materials are allowed or depicted. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 - PAGE 2 2. DISCUSSION - ZONING REQUIREMENTS - FENCES Nielsen stated that to date, fences have been treated as accessory uses. Recently application was made to place a fence on a vacant lot. The applicant was advised he would need to combine the two lots and would not be allowed to fence a vacant lot. Upon research by the City Attorney, it was noted the ordinance does not refer to fences as an accessory use or a permitted use. Nielsen explained the ordinance states if it is not specifically listed as a permitted use, it is specifically prohibited. Nielsen inquired whether the Planning Commission has a concern with fences not being considered as an accessory use. He noted storage buildings and docks as well as a number of other accessory uses with less visual impact than a fence are controlled. Commissioner Borkon noted she does not have much of a concern with this, however, she noted a C.U.P. or a variance could address this issue with each application being considered on an individual basis. Nielsen felt there to be two ways to handle this matter. There are height restrictions which apply as well as site distance requirements for a comer lot. He noted that to date, fences had not been allowed on a vacant lot, however, as of the recent application they are being allowed. If fences are to be addressed in the zoning, it would be as an accessory use. Nielsen commented an application requesting a special type of fence could be handled as a C.U.P. He suggested fences could be allowed on vacant properties under a C. U.P. with the provision the applicant must own the house on the adjoining lot. A further condition could be to require an agreement which would state upon a sale of the lot, the fence would be removed or a house built within a specified period of time. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern that the fenced lot would not be mowed and maintained. Commissioner Borkon felt when an application is received, the Planning Commission could then ascertain why the applicant is requesting a fence and question the applicant's intentions relative to upkeep of the lot. The consensus was to consider an ordinance amendment relative to fences. Chair Pisula stated he would be interested in the suggestion of a C.U.P. Nielsen will bring this matter back to the next study session for further review and discussion. Commissioner Borkon raised the issue of traffic on Radisson Road and questioned where it is placed on the priority list. Nielsen stated the priority list will be reviewed and revised at the next Planning Commission meeting. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. REPORTS Commissioner Borkon noted she has received telephone calls relative to the antennas mounted on the water tower at Waterford. The person who called expressed concern relative to the waves which are emitted from the antennas and stated the waves are similar to those used in lithotripsy. One of the comments Commissioner Borkon received is that there is significant scientific proof these type of antennas emit waves which are harmful. In addition, noise can at times be heard emitting from the RF's. The caller stated there is documented evidence the noise being emitted does affect humans. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 18, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Borkon noted the applicants had been thoroughly questioned at the public hearing relative to any available scientific proof to support the fact the antennas are not harmfuL Commissioner Borkon stated such evidence is available, she would like to revisit this issue. Nielsen explained that federal law notes studies have been completed and the opposite conclusion reached. The Telecommunications Act prohibits cities from refusing the antennas based upon that basis. Nielsen noted antennas are allowed on the water towers, however, the ordinance prohibits the construction of a free standing tower. The caller raised concern there is scientific data which provides that the waves affect the molecular makeup of the water. Nielsen pointed out the city cannot adopt regulations which effectively prohibit the antennas. He stated this information should be routed to the attention of the various senators and legislators for their consideration. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern she is receiving calls after the study session and public hearings have been held and in which there were no concerns raised. She felt the monthly newsletter would assist in this issue of communication. The Planning Commission discussed the meeting which was held with the Council and representatives of the Metropolitan CounciL Council Liaison O'Neill commented on the meeting with Senator Oliver and Representatives Sykora and Workman which was held on Friday, March 14th. Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether the City receives literature which would be of interest to the Planning Commission and asked whether the Commissioners could view these periodicals or if subscriptions could be provided to the Commissioners. Nielsen suggested routing the issues of Zoning News which he receives regularly. He stated he would also investigate the possibility of obtaining subscriptions for the members of the Commission. Council Liaison O'Neill stated he would be interested in receiving a list of the publications which the City receives along with a brief description of each. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the reference to the Minnetonka Elementary School on the telephone list should be changed to Minnewashta Elementary SchooL Nielsen reported on a hearing notice which is being sent out relative to a hearing which will take place next month. He provided a copy of the legal notice which will be published in the newspaper. A second version of the notice was reviewed which contains a paragraph explaining the request in simpler terms. A third version resembling an invitation was also reviewed. The Commission was in favor of this particular notice. Commissioner Kolstad felt this version to be more user friendly. Nielsen also noted a special mailing envelope will be utilized which will state that a public hearing notice is enclosed. 5. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Champa, Kolstad, Lizee, and Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; and Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown. Absent: Commissioners Borkon and Foust. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the March 18, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, change "possibly" to "possible"; Page 2, Item 4, Paragraph 1, Last Sentence, change "emitting" to "emitted." Motion passed 4/1 (Commissioner Lizee abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Applicant: Rocky Waldin Location: 5755 Merry Lane Rocky Waldin and Judy Christensen were present with their family. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7: 11 p.m. Commissioner Lizee inquired if the previous variance included the porch addition. Nielsen confirmed that an addition of approximately six feet had been included in the resolution at that time. Commissioner Turgeon questioned what action had been taken relative to the request in 1990. Mr. Waldin recalled that in 1990, the Planning Commission had recommended granting the variance with the exception of the porch area. Ms. Christensen explained there had been a split decision. She explained with the current request they had reviewed several variations of the plans and the one being presented best minimizes the encroachment into the setback area. Chair Pisula explained that the granting of variances is controlled by state law. He explained the criteria which must be met before granting a variance. Commissioner Kolstad did not feel there was a justification for the porch area. Commissioner Turgeon felt the plan could be completed without the addition of the porch. She commented the porch fits where it is now and did not feel it needs to be expanded. Commissioner Turgeon was not in favor of an additional 19- foot variance on a nonconforming piece of property when it is not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 - PAGE 2 . necessary. She stated it is important in these situations to minimize to whatever extent possible the amount of encroachment. Chair Pisula recognized the site to be a challenge and commended the applicants on the efforts which were made to minimize the second story intrusion into the setback area, however, he shared the concerns of Commissioners Lizee, Kolstad and Turgeon relative to the encroachment of the porch. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the setback variance and variance to expand a nonconforming structure, with the exception the porch not be included in the plan, subject to staff recommendations, for Rocky Waldin, 5755 Merry Lane. Commissioner Champa stated he did not have a problem with the request and was not in agreement with the concerns of the other commissioners. Commissioner Kolstad stated she will be voting against the motion because she does not feel it is necessary, however, she felt the applicant had done a good job on the plans. Motion passed 4/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote). 2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AND VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. AND C.U.P. FOR A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS . Applicant: Jay and Dory Venero Location: 5985 Seamans Drive Jay and Dory Venero were present to address their request. Mr. Venero felt the criteria with respect to hardship had been met. He stated the greenhouse is being proposed for hobby purposes. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Robert Picha, 5930 Seamans Drive, spoke in favor of Mr. Venero's request. He spoke to the way in which Mr. Venero keeps his property and noted Mr. Venero to be an excellent builder. Mr. Picha asked the Planning Commission to approve the request. Cory Nelson, 5980 Seamans Drive, noted he would be the most affected neighbor. He also commended the Veneros on the upkeep of their property. Mr. Nelson felt this could be granted conditionally and in the event the Veneros move, the permit could be rescinded. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the request of the Veneros. Colleen Moore, 5955 Seamans Drive, commented the work the Veneros have completed in the past has always been high quality work. She also urged the Planning Commission to approve the request. Mike Venero, Jay and Dory Venero's son, commented his parents have done an incredible job with the property. He stated this would be a hobby based business. He further stated the requested square footage would not allow for anything other than a very low scale business. He requested the Planning Commission vote in favor of the request. . Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 . PAGE 3 . Commissioner Turgeon explained variance criteria is mandated by the State of Minnesota. Variances must meet all of the criteria. She expressed concern and inquired whether the Veneros wished to proceed knowing that all of the criteria must be met. In addition, she inquired whether or not they would be pursuing a zoning text amendment. Mrs. Venero stated it to be her understanding they would only need to meet one of the criteria as opposed to all of them, however, she expressed her belief there needs to be an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Turgeon explained if the request is denied, a similar request could not be made for another six months. She wanted to ensure the applicants fully understand the process involved. Nielsen clarified they could not apply for another variance during that time frame, however, they could request an amendment. Mike Venero stated his belief there are some exceptions which could be made to the variance criteria. He questioned the definition of hardship. Commissioner Turgeon explained a hardship would apply when a property owner is unable to make reasonable use of their property. There is a formula for accessory space so that a property would not have an accessory building larger than the primary dwelling. Mr. Venero stated his understanding his parents would need to build a larger home in order to satisfy the accessory space requirements. Since his parents are not in need of a larger home and a variance would be needed for the accessory space, this would then create a hardship. . Commissioner Kolstad asked about the size of the home on the property and how it would compare to an average house size for a 40,OOO-square foot lot in Shorewood. Nielsen stated he did not have that information. He commented this would be smaller than the newer homes which are being built in Shorewood. Mr. Venero commented he is being limited because he has a modest home. He felt this to be an issue which will come up again. Mr. Venero did feel denying his request would not allow him a reasonable use of the property. Cory Nelson questioned the criteria for granting variances. The criteria for granting variances were displayed and Commissioner Kolstad explained they are state requirements with respect to granting variances. Nielsen explained the state allows the city to establish zoning requirements which are established as laws which apply to everyone. With respect to zoning, the state will allow certain exceptions to the laws once certain criteria are met. Planning Director Nielsen pointed out another tool available is a zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Nelson stated it would be a one year process to amend a zoning ordinance. Nielsen explained it actually would take about the same amount of time as a variance request. Mr. Nelson felt the Planning Commission to have discretion in determining a hardship. Commissioner Champa commented on the hardship criteria and questioned whether the property owner would suffer a hardship in the event he purchased this property which had been built in such a way that he could not obtain a variance. Nielsen stated the ordinance states the amount of accessory space cannot exceed the amount of principle space. Champa felt if the applicant could not get a variance to subdivide, then that portion of the lot would be unusable which creates a hardship. He commented he would like to find a way to accommodate both the applicant and the variance criteria without changing the ordinance. Commissioner Champa was not in favor of amending the ordinance, but felt that each request should be considered separately. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 - PAGE 4 Mr. Picha asked if the Planning Commission and the City Council could approve this request in spite of the variance criteria. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out if a similar request would come in for a situation which is considered unacceptable, this would create a precedent which would force the Commission to grant approval. Commissioner Champa was not in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the applicant would consider utilizing the 652 square feet which is allotted or if he would be interested in seeking an amendment versus a variance. Mrs. Venero stated if all of the criteria must be met, they would not qualify for a variance. Mr. Venero stated this to have been the most upsetting and distasteful process he has had to go through. He expressed disappointment in the process. He further commented he would not be willing to downsize from 1500 square feet. Mr. Venero felt the contacts he has had with staff have been very biased. He stated he would like either a subdivision approved or he would like the request, as presented, approved. Commissioner Turgeon inquired relative to the process which would be used to address an amendment and what the time line would be. Nielsen explained the earliest an amendment could come back due to publication requirements would be the May 6th meeting. Council would consider this either the week before Memorial Day or the Tuesday after. Once the ordinance has been published, the permit can be issued. A Conditional Use Permit could be done in conjunction with the amendment. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would be in favor of an amendment since similar situations have come up in the past. Commissioner Turgeon wanted to ensure everyone understands the process. She wanted the Veneros to get the fairest deal possible without losing any money. Mr. Venero was displeased with the process and the responses he has received from staff. Chair Pisula clarified for Mr. Venero that Mrs. Venero has stated an interest in the amendment process. There is some concern relative to the variance. Irrespective of the quality of the work on the project, the Planning Commission must be consistent and provide people equal protection under law. Mr. Venero stated he would be in favor of a text amendment if he is guaranteed it is not a diversionary delay. Nielsen pointed out accessory buildings would be the section of the ordinance to be addressed. Commissioner Champa felt an ordinance change would be necessary, however, he expressed concern relative to making such a change to the ordinance. Cory Nelson felt amending the ordinance would be taking the hard road and did not feel the ordinance should be amended. He felt the word hardship should be re-evaluated and an exception made which would allow the request to be granted. He did not feel this would set a precedent. Commissioner Turgeon reiterated hardship is not the only criteria, but that there are other criteria which must also be met. Mr. Nelson commented on the neighborhood support ofMr. Venero's request. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out that legally a Findings of Fact cannot be based on resident input. Council Liaison O'Neill felt the amendment to the ordinance would be the route to follow noting the criteria for a variance does not allow for much latitude. Commissioner Lizee asked if the fence on the north side of the shed and greenhouse would meet up with the wall. Mr. Venero stated it will meet with the wall. She stated she would support the softening with coniferous shrubs. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Kolstad would like a maintenance provision which would apply to future owners of the property to ensure the upkeep of the property. Turgeon moved to table the C.U.P. and variance for accessory space over 1200 square feet and the C.U.P. for a special home occupation permit and variance to fence height regulations for Jay and Dory Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive. Commissioner Champa inquired whether a special home occupation permit could be issued conditionally in the event the property were to be sold. Nielsen explained the permit goes with the land as long as the use continues in the same operation. Kolstad seconded the motion. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Pisula pointed out this will be further considered at the Planning Commission work session on April 15, 1997. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - IRONWOOD HILLS Applicant: Don Christensen Location: 4905 Suburban Drive Mr. Christensen was not in attendance. Nielsen noted the most significant issue relative to this request to be drainage. Nielsen stated it is staffs recommendation the applicant's plan be tabled until the issues which have been raised can be resolved. City Engineer Brown addressed the Commission relative to the issue of drainage. He stated one option which the applicant may want to consider would be to make this a two lot subdivision leaving out the cul-de-sac. Brown also recommended tabling this matter until such time as the storm water issues and the location of the roadway can be addressed. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Don Davis, 4961 Kensington Gate, stated the concerns of the Amesbury Division would relate to drainage. He stated the property to the south has a low point and there is a culvert which leads to Sussex Pond. He expressed concerns with the drainage into Sussex Pond. Lisa Smith, 4945 Suburban Drive, stated the cul-de-sac is not customary for their neighborhood. She inquired whether there would be steps which could be taken to retain the neighborhood's present character. Chair Pisula noted the property owner has property which has the ability to be subdivided. The property owner has the right to attempt to get as much out of it as possible so long as it is in keeping with zoning, applicable ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission needs to ensure the law is followed and that any concerns can be addressed. Ms. Smith questioned how the paving of the roadway would affect drainage. Brown noted this is the concern which needs to be addressed. There has been some discussion this may be a two lot subdivision without a street. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 . PAGE 6 . Commissioner Champa noted the Watershed District will a hold hearing on this matter and the residents will receive notice of the hearing. Brown remarked if the developer meets the requirements of the Watershed District, his request would be approved. Greg Quirk, 20720 Idlewild Path, asked for an explanation of adequate drainage into retention ponds. Brown commented on ponds throughout the city which do not have an outlet and serve as percolation ponds. He stated he would not be in favor of a percolation pond in this area since ponds of that size tend to overflow. Bob Boyer, 5020 Suburban Drive, stated a preference for two lots and would be in favor of the revision which depicts the cul-de-sac moved to the southwest quadrant of the property in line with the right-of-way for Idlewild Path. He noted there is a drainage problem three lots to the south and several neighbors have created a drainage type pond. Mr. Boyer commented on the character of the area and stated he would be opposed to curbs and gutters and felt the street should be constructed in the manner of the existing streets. Karen Racouley, 20720 Idlewild Path, asked for clarification of the lot lines and inquired if there were three full lots. Nielsen stated the lots are well over the required size. Allan Erickson, 4885 Suburban Drive, asked if the holding pond would change the size of the lot. Brown stated this would not detract from the size of the lot. He stated it would be most likely subject to a drainage and utility easement which would allow the City to maintain the pond if it were to be established. . Mr. Davis inquired what would be involved in the City maintaining these ponds. Brown explained sediment removal would be the biggest concern. The City must verify the depth of the pond on a yearly basis. If the sediment is too deep, the City would be required to dredge the pond to encourage wetland type vegetation around the perimeter of that pond. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon inquired as to any comments Mr. Christensen may have had relative to the staff recommendations. Nielsen explained he had no comments, but had requested the City's preference relative to the road. Turgeon moved, Champa seconded to table the preliminary plat - Ironwood Hills, for Don Christensen, 4905 Suburban Drive, to the May 6, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission at which time the recommendations in the staff report can be met. Motion passed 5/0. 4. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION (Tabled at 4 March 1997 Planning Commission Meeting) Applicant: D. Carter, Tradewinds Concepts & Design representing Lisa Klaverkamp Location: 23585 Yellowstone Trail . Mr. Carter was present. Nielsen will investigate the matter of the shed on the property and if it is nonconforming, removal will be required. Mr. Carter stated Mr. Klaverkamp is in agreement with the staff recommendations which includes the removal of any shed which would be nonconforming. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 - PAGE 7 . Commissioner Lizee remarked she has no problem with the request now that the lot line has been straightened. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded approving the simple subdivision for D. Carter, Tradewinds Concepts & Design, representing Lisa Klaverkamp, 23585 Yellowstone Trail, subject to staff recommendations and the removal of nonconforming out buildings. Motion passed 5/0. 5. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Applicant: Don Blumberg Location: 23820 Lawtonka Drive Bob Boyer appeared representing the owner of the property and stated he had no further comments to make. Mr. Boyer did state this simple subdivision would not impact any trees or brush on the property. Commissioner Lizee asked about the size of the porch. Mr. Boyer commented the structure will be approximately 10 to 12 feet above the grade. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the simple subdivision/combination for Don Blumberg, 23820 Lawtonka Drive, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION . Applicant: Carol Watsen, representing the Helen Clark Estate Location: 6110 Mill Street Carol Watsen was present to address the Commission. Ms. Watsen stated she would like the driveway placed in such as way so as not to affect the maple trees currently in place. She stated she is familiar with the process and will be certain the staff recommendations are met. Turgeon moved, Champa seconded approving the simple subdivision for Carol Watsen, representing the Helen Clark Estate, 6110 Mill Street, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. Mr. Carter commended the Commissioners on their handling of the matters which had come before them for consideration earlier in the evening. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 8. REPORTS . Commissioner Turgeon commented she felt staff should not be presenting as matters from the floor. She felt when staff has an issue to be raised, they should be placed on the agenda so that it can be noticed. Commissioner Turgeon commented on the March 24,1997 City Council Meeting and Chief Young's presentation during Matters from the Floor. She felt staff should not present information as Matters from the Floor, but should be placed on the agenda so the presentation can be noticed. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 1, 1997 - PAGE 8 Concern was raised relative to the Velikson matter. Commissioner Turgeon felt there should have been some explanation of what had happened on the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Kolstad was in agreement and expressed concern relative to the appropriateness of the open forum prior to the meeting and felt it should have perhaps come earlier in the process. Chair Pisula also expressed concern relative to this matter. Chair Pisula noted Mayor Dahlberg would like to meet with the Planning Commission relative to the Communications Plan and the issue of measurements. Commissioner Kolstad stated due to the lateness of the hour, she will report on New Urbanism '97 at the next work session. Commissioner Turgeon reported she has been asked by the Minnehaha Watershed District to be a part of the Chain of Lakes project. 9. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m. 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, APRIL 15, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Turgeon called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Turgeon; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 9:25 p.m.), Champa, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee; Councilmember Garfunkel; Planning Director Nielsen; City Attorney Dan Greenswig Chair Pisula; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded approving the April 1, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 6, Sentence 3, change "would" to "would not"; Page 4, Paragraph 9, change "do" to "does"; Page 7, Reports, change Paragraph 1 to read, "Commissioner Turgeon commented on the March 24, 1997 City Council Meeting and Chief Young's presentation during Matters from the Floor. She felt staff should not present information as Matters from the Floor, but should be placed on the agenda so the presentation can be noticed." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Foust abstained.) 1. ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GREENHOUSES) Vice Chair Turgeon was in contact with the Department of Agriculture relative to their requirements as they relate to greenhouse structures. Mark Zabel, Department of Agriculture, was in attendance. Jay and Dory Venero were present along with their son, Mafk--Mike. Vice Chair Turgeon raised a concern of where the fertilizers and pesticides go when the plants are watered. She explained a water recycling system which would recycle and contain the water. Mr. Zabel explained the Department regulates pesticides and fertilizers but not the water itself. There would be no enforcement implemented unless it became apparent there was a direct threat to a water resource. He stated he would recommend the water recycling approach which Vice Chair Turgeon described. Mr. Zabel explained the Department does regulate the bulk storage of pesticides and fertilizers. The volume for pesticides would be anything over 55 gallons. He further explained there are specific cut off points for bulk storage of pesticides and fertilizers. In cases where bulk storage becomes a factor, primary and secondary containment becomes necessary. Primary containment would relate to packaging and secondary containment would relate to diking or some means to protect against a general release so that the substance could be recovered if it were to leak into a dike. Planning Director Nielsen inquired of the Venero' s the type of pesticide they would envision using in their operation. Mike Venero stated it would be minimal. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this issue was raised due to the Venero's' high water table. Mr. Venero stated the golf course has the same . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 2 high water table and in his opinion they are using several hundred pounds of chemicals on the greens, including fertilizers. Vice Chair Turgeon reminded this amendment to the ordinance is not specific to the Venero's, but will address any future proposals which are presented. Mr. Zabel stated occasionally the Department will inspect greenhouses for back flow prevention as well as for chemicals and insecticides in the hose sprinkling system would require a permit. However, an inspection of a lower scale operation such as the Venero's are requesting would be complaint driven. In the case of restricted use pesticides, there is a state requirement the person performing the application obtain a commercial restricted use pesticide application license. Nielsen asked Mr. Zabel about the setback which would be required from private wells. Mr. Zabel explained that to be a Department of Health requirement. The Department of Agriculture would be concerned with the bulk storage requirement. Mr. Venero stated it would not be his intent to use the well, but rather the ground water. Commissioner Champa pointed out the fertilizer is applied to the plants and not directly into the ground other than spillage. He felt this to be a rather insignificant issue. Commissioner Lizee felt this to be a more significant issue and noted many cities are requiring water recirculation system to ensure the water is not going back into the ground. She stated the Commission must look at the big picture rather than simply the request at hand. Vice Chair Turgeon noted her agreement. Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether the ordinance amendment needs to be made specific to greenhouses. She noted anyone having a problem with their lot, whether lot size or house size, is inconsistent with the zoning requirements. The Commission could then have some flexibility in working within the ordinance regardless of the use which is proposed. She suggested looking at the broader issue of accessory buildings. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would not be in agreement with making an exception for greenhouses. She suggested in those situations where the lot or primary building is inconsistent with the district zoning requirement, the Commission could be given flexibility to allow accessory space up to two-thirds of the maximum of either the lot size or the house size. Mr. Zabel commented the discussion sounds more like a garden with a cover on it. Commissioner Champa agreed and stated there are larger gardens within the city than the greenhouse being proposed. He noted his agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Kolstad felt greenhouses should probably have their own set of regulations due to the nature of the vegetation and the length of time a greenhouse is in use as opposed to a garden. Nielsen stated a home occupation would require a Conditional Use Permit and the conditions could be worked into that permit. Vice Chair Turgeon suggested an Interim Use Permit. Nielsen stated he would look into this. He did not feel there was a difference between the Interim Use Permit and the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Kolstad stated the benefit vlouId be that the Interim Use Permit 'lIould give the City some control in that the property could be inspect-ed to ensure the use had not changedfelt the benefit of an Interim Use Permit is that there is a time limit on it.. Nielsen explained if the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are violated the permit can be revoked. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 . PAGE 3 . Attorney Greenswig noted there is also the option of licensing home occupations. This gives the City the opportunity to review on a regular basis whether the conditions set by the City are being met. The City would also have the opportunity to change those conditions upon the conditional grant of the license. Commissioner Champa remarked if greenhouses can be handled with a Conditional Use Permit, each application could be considered separately. He stated he would like to pursue the suggestion of Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Foust was in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Lizee would like to pursue that suggestion as well, but would also like to pursue specific regulations for greenhouses. Nielsen suggested working on the concept presented by Commissioner Kolstad and bringing it back to the Commission for their consideration. He further suggested addressing the issues and concerns associated with greenhouses. Those concerns could be incorporated into this particular Conditional Use Permit to be used as a model for future requests or those concerns could be included in this particular Conditional Use Permit and then incorporated into the ordinance at a future date. . Attorney Greenswig pointed out there are some provisions in state law which restrict the ability of cities to regulate the use of pesticides. Commissioner Champa asked whether or not spill stations are a requirement for the mixing of pesticides. Mr. Zabel stated that would depend on the size of the operation, but it would not be required for an operation the size Mr. Venero is requesting. With respect to drainage, Mr. Venero proposed an earth floor with surface crushed rock. He commented the amount of fertilizer he intends to use in this operation would be similar to that used on a lawn. Mike Venero stated he would fertilize according to the light. In higher light concentrations, more fertilizer would be required. Low light conditions would result in less fertilizer. Commissioner Foust inquired whether any glass vents would be used in the building. Mike Venero noted it to be a requirement in this state to use tempered glass. He provided samples for the Commission to view. In response to lighting concerns, Mike Venero stated there are energy curtains which can be used throughout the year. He further stated he does not anticipate high intensity lighting. Mr. Venero stated he probably will not light the greenhouse at alL Vice Chair Turgeon suggested limiting the lighting from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. there be no lighting between the hours of9:00 p.m.. and 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Turgeon inquired as to the heating which will be used. The Venero's stated it would be natural or LP gas, but would not be wood burning. Commissioner Champa noted there is nothing in the ordinance to prevent a wood burning stove in a home. He felt this should be addressed at some point as well. Nielsen stated he will prepare a draft of an ordinance amendment which will be presented at the May 6, 1997 meeting. Mike Venero suggested relating the square footage of accessory space to . the remaining square footage of the property less the foot print of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 4 . Vice Chair Turgeon felt it would be difficult to arrive at an average within a zoning district versus a neighborhood. Commissioner Kolstad felt Mr. Venero's suggestion te- could be a solution to the problem. Vice Chair Turgeon asked Nielsen to provide the pros and cons for each scenario along with an analysis of each. Vice Chair Turgeon recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. 2. DISCUSS ADULT USE ORDINANCE City Attorney Greenswig addressed this issue. Nielsen presented a draft ordinance for review. Commissioner Foust asked if there could be a joint powers cooperation in this regard or is it possible Shorewood is too small or too residential to allow this type of use. Commissioner Kolstad also inquired whether Shorewood would be considered too residential for this type of use. Attorney Greenswig felt it would be unlikely the other cities would want to accommodate this sort of request for Shorewood. He explained at this point, the Council will need to approve or disapprove any request which would come forward, and it would be that decision which could give rise to a lawsuit. Vice Chair Turgeon felt the spaces available would be somewhat limited. Attorney Greenswig pointed out if the shopping center were the only land which is reasonably feasible and accessible, whether or not the applicant could get the landlord to lease, would be between the applicant and the landlord and would not be a concern of the City. . Attorney Greenswig noted the proximity to churches, daycares and liquor stores would be considerations in reviewing possible locations. Commissioner Kolstad questioned Section 309.02, Subd. 1, and the definition of an adult establishment. Attorney Greenswig noted this would include bars. Nielsen stated the ordinance would allow a video store to have a back room type area which would allow for a certain percentage of adult materials. Commissioner Kolstad questioned Section 309.03 and the reference to an establishment not being located within a certain number of feet of an agricultural preserve. Attorney Greenswig stated agricultural land is often thought of as residential as well as a place were children would visit on field trips. Nielsen inquired whether a daycare or church would be disallowed from locating within the same distance to an adult establishment. Attorney Greenswig felt this would create a nonconforming use and the zoning map would then require an amendment which would allow for another location for the adult establishment to relocate. . Commissioner Champa asked if a specific area could be designated for adult use establishments and requested that information be specified in the ordinance. Nielsen stated this could be somewhat regulated by radiuses from various types of uses, but it would not be favorable to specify one particular area. Commissioner Kolstad questioned the type of investigation the Chief of Police would be conducting as referenced in Section 309.06, Subd. 4. Attorney Greenswig stated he would be looking to see there are no prior convictions and that the applicant meets the requirements for a license. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 5 . Commissioner Lizee suggested questioned the area zoned C-2, on the corner of Eureka and Smithtown as a possible location. Nielsen stated the Comprehensive Plan speaks to down zoning the area residential. In addition, he felt these uses would be limited to the C-3 zoning areas. Nielsen noted this matter will come back to the next study session for further review. 3. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITIES CHECKLIST Nielsen stated the Council is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan at this time. Some changes will be made to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the changes to the Natural Resources section of the plan were minimal. He felt the biggest concern at this time would be for the Planning Commission to revisit the setback and buffer requirements for wetlands. (Commissioner Borkon arrived at 9:25 p.m.) Nielsen stated anything which amends the Comprehensive Plan will require a public hearing. In addition, a more significant issue such as the municipal water system will require a public hearing. Nielsen pointed out the Comprehensive Plan and zoning must be made consistent and this will be a priority item. . Commissioner Champa inquired what the deadline would be for completion of the Capital Improvement Plan. Nielsen stated the Capital Improvement Plan leads to the budget, however, the deadlines are self imposed. He noted budget discussions generally begin in June. Vice Chair Turgeon suggested identifying the issues which can be dealt with during the time the Council is working on the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen anticipated by the end of June the Planning Commission will have direction from the Council relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen distributed the Planning Commission Priority Checklist and reviewed the tasks and projects remaining to be addressed. Vice Chair Turgeon listed six items which the Commission can begin to address since they are separate from the Comprehensive Plan -subdivision ordinance, LR District regulations, lake access, refuse hauling, steep slopes and grading ordinances. Vice Chair Turgeon suggested the issues of steep slopes and grading be first considered. This section would then be completed. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 5. REPORTS Commissioner Kolstad - Discussion of New Urbanism 1997 . Commissioner Kolstad reported on her attendance at the New Urbanism 1997 seminar which was presented by Town Planning Collaborative and provided a handout to the Commission relative to a traditional neighborhood design. In addition, she provided photos depicting this concept. She stated the theory would be to develop neighborhoods as opposed to developments and to be more of a traditional neighborhood rather than a transportation oriented development. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether some diversity is being given up given the fact the units are very similar. Commissioner Kolstad stated this happens due to the high density which is recommended. Vice Chair Turgeon felt this would be a good idea for senior step-down housing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 1997 - PAGE 6 . Commissioner Kolstad felt this would be a good solution for an affordable housing type community which could include residential with some commercial to provide convenience. Vice Chair Turgeon reported on the City Council work session on April 7, 1997, at which time the Council addressed the issue of the Capital Improvement Plan. A letter was distributed from Chair Pisula relative to this meeting with the Council. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern that people who want water will not be able to get it. She felt they are being denied an opportunity that other people are being afforded. Councilmember Garfunkel stated his opinion is water is not a right of a citizen of Shorewood, but rather a service. Commissioner Kolstad noted there had been five people on the Council who had decided the citizens wanted municipal water and there are now five people on the Council who have decided the citizens do not want municipal water. She stated she would really like to know what the residents of Shorewood want. Commissioner Borkon suggested another surveyor referendum to ascertain the wishes of the community. Commissioner Lizee felt another survey would be appropriate. Councilmember Garfunkel did not feel the results would be different from the study which was completed in 1991. Commissioner Lizee commented the legacy needs to be considered and the City needs to be responsible for the future and consider what will happen in the future in the reality of economics. . Commissioner Borkon felt because there is controversy on this issue and it is not known one way or the other how the residents feel on this issue, a surveyor referendum should be pursued. She stated she does have a concern relative to finances and the legacy that is being left for the future. Commissioner Champa felt another issue to be addressed should be fire protection which is available for the residents by way of fire hydrants and felt this could be a source of revenue. Nielsen stated that a fire hydrant charge had been considered. Commissioner Champa also felt the Council should get public input on whether or not the residents of Shorewood want municipal water. Councilmember Garfunkel stated this will be explored to see where people stand on this issue. A communication strategy relative to planning and zoning was distributed regarding the Venero's' greenhouse request. Nielsen requested the Commission review the form and advise him of any additions they would like to see in the form. The Commission approved of the form as presented. 6. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 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 TUESDA Y, MAY 6, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Absent: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon; Council Liaison O'Neill; Planning Director Nielsen. Commissioner Champa. Present: APPRO V AL OF MINUTES . Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving the April 15, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 10, last sentence, change to read "Vice Chair Turgeon suggested there be no lighting between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m."; Page 2, Paragraph 12, Sentence 5, change to read, "Commissioner Kolstad felt the benefit of an Interim Use Permit is that there is a time limit on it"; Page 4, Paragraph 1, change "to be" to "could be"; Paragraph 12, Sentence 1, add "and requested that information be specified in the ordinance"; Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 1, change "Mark" to "Mike"; Page 2, Paragraph 1, change to read, "and in his opinion uses several hundred pounds of chemicals"; Page 5, Paragraph 1, change "suggested" to "questioned"; Page 6, Paragraph 3, last sentence, change to read, "Councilmember Garfunkel stated his opinion water is not a right of a citizen." Motion passed 5/0. (Chair Pisula abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1201.03 SUBD. 2D OF THE CITY CODE (ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES AND EQUIPMENT) Commissioner Kolstad stated her intention this change would be generally applicable to most situations in the various districts and not specific to the request currently being made. She felt the Planning Commission would have some flexibility in situations 'lIhere there is a reasonable amount of compliance. She did not feel the amendment which was presented achieved this since it is specific to a particular situation. . Commissioner Turgeon remarked she has a problem trying to adjust the provision so that it fits and stated she is unsure an amendment to the ordinance would be appropriate. Commissioner Borkon asked for a review of why the Planning Commission is moving in this direction since it may result in a substantial impact and may not be addressing the issue of putting a greenhouse into a residential area. Nielsen explained two approaches were provided at the previous study session. One approach was to make an exception for greenhouses. The other approach was to address accessory space, regardless of the use. Nielsen had suggested an exception be made for greenhouses given the consensus of the neighborhood that a greenhouse would be acceptable to their neighborhood. The consensus of the Planning Commission, however, was to review accessory space in general. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Kolstad recalled a concern had been raised that by making the ordinance specific to greenhouses that it would appear the Commission was encouraging greenhouses, when in fact, the Commissioners were uncertain they would want to encourage them. Commissioner Turgeon noted three requests for conditional use permits relative to accessory space had been received in 1996. The requests were for lots which were larger than their zoning district. The applicants were able to make their plans work in spite of the size of their lots and their particular zoning district. Commissioner Turgeon questioned whether the Planning Commission should rewrite the ordinance in order to make it fit the situation at hand when there has not been another like situation, other than the Grewe request. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement with Commissioner Turgeon. She felt additional work should be done on the issue of the greenhouse as well as the applicants'request. Chair Pisula commented he would be more comfortable considering an exception for greenhouses rather than making an amendment to the ordinance relative to other types of accessory space. He felt this would open up a variety of requests for accessory space which are beyond the scope of interest. Commissioner Foust commented there are other accessory uses which could be equally as pleasing to a neighborhood as a greenhouse. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether a commercial endeavor is actually what is being considered and noted a commercial endeavor would result in a significant impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Foust stated that would be a separate discussion. Commissioner Kolstad noted her agreement with Commissioner Foust and would not be in agreement with an exception specifically for greenhouses. She also felt there are other accessory uses which could be as aesthetically pleasing to a neighborhood. Commissioner Lizee noted her agreement with Commissioner K-olstad. She Commissioner Lizee stated she does not feel the ordinance warrants amendment at this time. Commissioner Kolstad suggested the Planning Commissioner consider an amendment which would be more acceptable. Commissioner Turgeon stated she could not rationalize a change to the ordinance based on two variance situations which have arisen in the past several years. Kolstad moved, to table consideration of the Amendment to Section 1201.03, Subd. 2d, of the City Code to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, for consideration of more acceptable wording. Nielsen commented it is important to consider the character of the zoning districts and he felt it may be unwise to create instances where large buildings, principal or accessory, would be placed in the middle of a particular type of zoning district. Commissioner Turgeon stated the ordinance would need to be scaled down zoning district by zoning district to avoid huge accessory buildings on those smaller lots. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether there is truly a need to address accessory space based on the two requests which have been made in the past two years. Nielsen stated the number of cases would not suggest amendment. He felt the issue which would suggest amendment in this case would be the support of the neighborhood for the project the Veneros are proposing. There . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 . PAGE 3 was some consensus on the Planning Commission that perhaps the ordinance could be changed to allow for their request. Commissioner Foust did not feel the Planning Commission should be overly swayed one way or the other based on neighborhood input. Chair Pisula pointed out there was some concern whether or not this request would meet the legal requirements for granting a variance. He stated he did not feel there to be a need for an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad withdrew her motion. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Venero commented he felt the present ordinance to be discriminatory because those with larger homes would be allowed more accessory space. He felt that type of condition placed on a property to be unreasonable. He feels it is discriminatory based on affluence. He noted very large homes are allowed on substantially smaller properties. Mr. Venero stated if his request is denied, he will challenge this decision in court. Mrs. Venero emphasized this will not be a commercial endeavor. Mr. Venero stated this greenhouse is intended as a hobby, although he will be making sales to the public. Mr. Venero stated he is restricted to one customer on the property at one time. He felt a true endeavor of a greenhouse as a commercial entity would require a minimum of 1,500 square feet. Commissioner Borkon questioned the traffic impact and whether large trucks would be bringing in soil or fertilizer for support of the hobby. Mrs. Venero stated traffic would be at the level of a garage sale and would have a very low impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Lizee questioned whether this would be a wholesale business and/or a mail order business. Mr. Venero stated it may be. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether or not this would qualify as an in-home occupation. Nielsen explained the Veneros currently possess a Limited Home Occupation Permit. Once an accessory building is utilized, a Special Home Occupation Permit would be required. Commissioner Lizee asked whether the Veneros could reduce the size of the shed on the property or the size of the greenhouse which would allow them to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Venero stated if the Planning Commission would allow him to subdivide his lot, he could do that, however, Mr. Venero felt the Planning Commission was unwilling to approve a subdivision. Commissioner Borkon questioned how this greenhouse would relate to a nursery. Nielsen stated a nursery would be an allowable home occupation. The use of an accessory building for that endeavor puts the Veneros into the category of a Special Home Occupation Permit. For this type of permit, different rules would apply. Commissioner Borkon asked whether parking would be a concern. Nielsen stated it would be of concern, however during the time the Veneros have had their current permit, there have not been any complaints. Commissioner Borkon stated she would place some weight in the general attitude of the neighbors. She questioned whether anything could be done to address potential problems with traffic. Nielsen felt since the operation is relatively small scale, it would be somewhat self limiting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 - PAGE 4 . Commissioner Borkon referenced a nursery on Tonkawood which is subject to a Conditional Use Permit. She commented on the gradual expansion of the endeavor which has also resulted in traffic congestion. Commissioner Pisula questioned whether the Veneros would be willing to agree to a condition in which activity on the site would be limited and further expansion of the operation would not be allowed. Mr. Venero stated he would be willing to agree to such a condition. Mrs. Venero stated she feels the situation is being blown out of proportion. She stated they are creating something to beautify the area. Mrs. Venero noted it will be a nursery for rare plants more so than anything else. In addition, she noted her feeling the process relative to their request has backtracked and stated there are basically no options available to them. Commissioner Borkon proposed the Planning Commission list the issues and questions in an effort to reach some agreement on the matter. Commissioner Turgeon reviewed the issues to be as follows. There are two separate issues of creating an exception for greenhouses or amending the City Code relative to accessory space. Chair Pisula reminded the reason this process was undertaken was due to the sense of the Planning Commission that the request of the Veneros did not meet the criteria for a variance. Chair Pisula was in favor of an exception for greenhouses within the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would not be in favor of this. . Commissioner Borkon felt the greenhouse should be addressed separately as opposed to within the ordinance, however, she felt as a hobby, there should be a way to address various types of greenhouses as perhaps a subtitle. Commissioner Kolstad commented the two options which are available to the Planning Commission are to either amend the ordinance to address a general accessory space request or to amend to allow the flexibility for greenhouses. Nielsen felt there to be a distinction between greenhouses and other accessory spaces. Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether swimming pools and tennis courts would be impacted by this ordinance. Nielsen responded free standing buildings would be affected. She expressed concern with making an amendment specifically for greenhouses. Commissioner Borkon commented that the impact to the neighborhood would need to be a consideration. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would consider an exception specific to greenhouses. Commissioner Foust was not in favor of tabling this matter. He stated he would not be agreeable to a variance. He did not feel a greenhouse to be a special use and was in favor of an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad noted if more people had smaller houses, there would have been more problems which would have come up relative to the current ordinance. Commissioner Borkon stated she perceives this as a unique situation and would like to address it separately to arrive at a solution which will work for the applicants. Commissioner Foust was in favor of looking for a special way to make the specific request of the Veneros work. Commissioner Borkon noted this to be a unique request which has not been addressed in the past. She felt it important that the matter of a nursery be addressed on a small scale as opposed to a larger scale due to the impact which can result. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 - PAGE 5 . Ms. Venero felt the formula for addressing accessory space needs to be revised. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the requests which have come forward were designed to fit the current requirements. Commissioner Lizee was not in favor of amending the ordinance, but would agree with looking at a specific greenhouse use. Size and restrictions relative to use and construction should be addressed. Mr. Venero felt this to be unreasonable. Commissioner Borkon felt this could possibly achieve what the Veneros are requesting. Mr. Venero did not see any progress on this issue and felt the issue to be stalemated at this time. Borkon moved, denying the amendment to Section 1201.03, Subd. 2d, of the City Code as presented to the Planning Commission. Nielsen explained the request before the Commission is for a greenhouse. He felt the discussion should be limited to that and if it is the intent of the Planning Commission to make the ordinance work for that purpose, a statement noting exceptions may be made for greenhouses under specific conditions could be added. Commissioner Borkon withdrew her motion. . Nielsen suggested if there is a willingness to create an exception for greenhouses in a residential district under Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(a), it could read, "The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the floor area of all stories above grade of the principal structure. Exceptions may be made for greenhouses under the following conditions." Conditions such as no more than one client on the property at one time could be included as well as a provision relative to no outside employees being employed on the property. Nielsen commented if a request is received from someone on two acres of land with a smaller house, they would be allowed the same use under the same conditions. Chair Pisula felt it would be necessary to include the conditions under which a greenhouse would be accepted. The definition of a greenhouse would also be included in the amendment. Chair Pisula noted the conditions to be as follows. 1) The property cannot be reduced from its current size; 2) the greenhouse portion of the proposed building will be constructed such that no less than 75 percent of its exterior walls and roof surface area are of glass or similar transparent or translucent rigid material; 3) the proposed building must be constructed in compliance with the Minnesota Statute Building Code; 4) the use of fertilizers and pesticides must comply with the applicable rules and regulations of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture; 5) lighting within the greenhouse portion of the building will be off between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; 6) the applicants shall submit a landscape plan providing coniferous shrubbery located so as to break up the visual mass of the fenced-in enclosure; 7) the applicants shall comply with the requirements of the Special Home Occupation Permit contained in the Shorewood Zoning Code except there shall be no more than one client at a time and no more than one employee on the property. . Mr. Venero questioned a vehicle with more than one person. Nielsen stated that would not be a problem. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving the proposed amendment for accessory buildings larger than principal dwelling with the addition under 1201.03 Subd 2.d. (4), that No. 4(a) should read "The total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed the floor area of all stories above grade of the principal . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 - PAGE 6 structure. Exceptions may be made for greenhouses as defined herein under the following conditions and contingent on the conclusions just discussed by Chair Pisula. " Commissioner Lizee requested the greenhouse be heated by natural or LP gas as opposed to wood burning stoves. She stated the reason would be that a wood burning stove would create air pollution. Mr. Venero indicated he intends to heat by natural gas. Commissioner Kolstad stated she will oppose the motion and noted the Planning Commission has expended significant time and anguish over the Grewe situation as well as the Veneros' situation. She felt the Commission had had an opportunity to address the ordinance in an effort to resolve these issues, however, she was uncertain whether that has been accomplished. Commissioner Kolstad felt the same situation could arise under less desirable circumstances. She felt the ordinance should be amended to address all of the residents fairly. Nielsen commented that electric heat would also be an acceptable heating source. Commissioner Turgeon felt this would provide guidelines in the event another request comes before the Commission. Commissioner Kolstad was in agreement there is a need for guidelines relative to greenhouses. Vote on Motion: Motion passed 4/2. (Commissioners Foust and Kolstad were the dissenting votes.) Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded, denying a C.U.P. and variance for accessory space over 1200 sq. ft. and C.U.P. for a Special Home Occupation Permit and variance to fence height regulations for Jay and Dory Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive. Motion passed 6/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - IRONWOOD HILLS Applicant: Dale Nelson, representing Don Christensen Location: 4905 Suburban Drive Nielsen suggested since revised plans have not been received, this matter be tabled for two weeks. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded tabling the preliminary plat - Ironwood Hills, for Dale Nelson, representing Don Christensen, 4905 Suburban Drive. Motion passed 5/0. (Commissioner Kolstad was not present for this vote.) Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 15 p.m. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. REPORTS A Communication Strategy relative to a Conditional Use Permit for a picnic shelter which is planned to be constructed at Freeman Park was presented for review. Commissioner Turgeon suggested a liaison from the Park Commission be present at the public hearing on May 20th to address any questions which may arise. * * * . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 6, 1997 - PAGE 7 Commissioner Kolstad reported the Council has requested the Park Commission review the end of season results relative to the snowmobile issue. The Park Commission has reviewed the results, made some recommendations and referred the matter back to the Council for their consideration. Commissioner Kolstad stated she received an inquiry from Councilmember Stover as to whether the Planning Commission would be willing to review the season and make recommendations relative to this issue. Commissioner Kolstad had suggested bringing some or all of the Task Force back together to provide an evaluation to the Council. Councilmember O'Neill noted this was not his understanding. He had distributed a memorandum requesting recommendations relative to signage, police enforcement and lake access. Commissioner Lizee remarked the Task Force was impaneled to thoroughly research and discuss the snowmobile issue and make recommendations to Council. She felt the Council needs to make a decision relative to snowmobiles one way or the other. Councilmember O'Neill noted the chair of the Park Commission had requested the assignment of this issue for review by the Park Commission. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would prefer to support the recommendations of the Park Commission. * * * Commissioner Turgeon inquired relative to the c.u.P.'s being requested by Sprint and Nextel and when they will appear on the agenda of the Planning Commission. Nielsen stated this matter will be on the June 3rd (tentative) meeting ofthe Planning Commission. Commissioner Turgeon stated a notice is being sent home with students of the Minnewashta School advising parents of health issues in connection with antennas on the water tower. The notice will also advise parents that the requests of Sprint and Nextel will be addressed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing to be held in June. Nielsen commented that notices will be sent within 1,000 feet of the water tower. City Attorney Dean will have a specialist relative to the Telecommunications Act of 1995 present in addition to the City's engineering consultant. Nielsen pointed out the Telecommunications Act precludes communities from delaying or requiring an environmental study. * * * Commissioner Kolstad inquired relative to periodicals which she had requested. Nielsen stated a list of the periodicals which are available through staff will be supplied to each of the Commissioners. He noted there is a limited budget which has been established for this purpose. Nielsen will provide samples at the next meeting and if there is an interest in a particular subscription, he will investigate this matter with staff. 5. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 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 20, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon, Champa; Council Liaison O'Neill; Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioners Borkon and Foust. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the May 6, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Approval of Minutes, "change "Mark" to "Mike"; Item No.1, Paragraph 1, Delete Sentence 2; Page 2, Paragraph 7, Delete Sentence 1; Sentence 2, change "She stated" to "Commissioner Lizee stated"; Page 3, Paragraph 11, Sentence 2, change to read, "however, Mr. Venero felt the Planning Commission was unwilling to approve a subdivision." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Champa abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR PICNIC PAVILION IN FREEMAN PARK Applicant: City of Shorewood 25800 State Highway 7 (Freeman Park) Location: Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7: 10 p.m. Paul Krueger, 6015 Burlwood Court, felt the addition of the picnic pavilion would bring increased usage of the park by families and children in the area. He inquired whether the City would consider planting a tree line along the berm area to protect the yards of the adjacent home owners. Chair Pisula commented that Mr. Krueger's concern will be addressed. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7: 14 p.m. Commissioner Champa felt the Commission should investigate a natural barrier in the area indicated by Mr. Krueger. Commissioner Lizee felt the Park Commission would be able to arrive at a plan to beautify the area. She inquired whether a 4/12-foot pitch would be typical for this type of structure. Nielsen stated although it is a minimal pitch, it is expected to be sufficient. Commissioner Turgeon inquired of Park Chair Colopoulos whether Mr. Krueger's request would be possible. Chair Colopoulos noted the Park Commission does have a tree planting plan to add a specified number of trees to a park each year. He felt this would be a location which could be addressed through this program. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 1997 - PAGE 2 Nielsen explained the tree preservation policy includes a provision in which a developer must replace trees which are removed on a particular building site. In some instances, the developer would be required to contribute to a fund rather than making an actual tree replacement. That fund may be utilized to plant trees in public places. Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the Park Commission had received complaints relative to problems with parking at Freeman Park. Colopoulos stated there is an effort being put forth among the various sporting organizations utilizing the park to achieve a more efficient scheduling of activities at the park. He noted the parking at Freeman Park to be adequate if used appropriately. Administrator Hurm noted the soccer organization is now leaving a 30-minute period of time between the scheduling of games to allow for a clearing of the parking lot prior to the next scheduled event. Commissioner Turgeon questioned whether there will be any tree removal in constructing the pavilion. Park Chair Colopoulos did not feel there would be any tree removal necessary, however, he did note one tree to be in poor shape which would probably necessitate its removal. Mr. Krueger felt the pavilion will encourage increased after hours traffic in the park. He noted the Southshore Police Department does patrol the area, however, he questioned whether the park has a specific closing time. Nielsen stated the closing time to be 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon suggested possibly the entrance to the park could be chained off at 10:00 p.m. Chair Pisula requested Park Chair Colopoulos address the concerns of Mr. Krueger and provide a report on the outcome. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the C.U.P. for a picnic pavilion for the City of Shorewood at 25800 State Highway 7, Freeman Park. Motion passed 5/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - IRONWOOD HILLS (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of May 6, 1997) Applicant: Dale Nelson, representing Don Christenson Location: 4905 Suburban Drive Planning Director Nielsen recommended tabling this matter to be reconsidered on June 3, 1997. He explained he will be meeting with Mr. Nelson along with the City Engineer to discuss a revised plan. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded tabling consideration of the preliminary plat for Ironwood Hills for Dale Nelson, representing Don Christenson, 4905 Suburban Drive to the June 3, 1997 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. REPORTS Commissioner Turgeon reported on the actions taken and matters considered by the City Council at their meeting of May 12, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes ofthat meeting). . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 1997 . PAGE 3 Council Liaison O'Neill reported on the matters discussed at the Work Session of the City Council of May 19, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Lizee inquired relative to the public hearing on the requests of Sprint and Nextel to install antennas on the water tower. Nielsen noted the public hearing has been scheduled for June 17, 1997, at the Minnewashta Elementary School. Nielsen will obtain any information which is available on this issue and provide it to the Planning Commission for their review in advance of the public hearing. Commissioner Champa inquired whether there are any plans to clean the Waterford water tower. Nielsen noted funds became available as a result of the agreement between the City and Sprint to pay for the power washing of the tower. 5. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Champa seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wall at 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 3, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Turgeon called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Turgeon; Commissioners Champa, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee; Council Liaison O'Neill; Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Chair Pisula, Commissioner Borkon. APPROV AL OF MINUTES Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded approving the May 20, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Roll Call, indicate Commissioner Champa was present; Item 1, Paragraph 5, change "12.foot pitch" to "4/12 pitch." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Foust abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING . PRELIMINARY PLAT . IRONWOOD HILLS (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 1997) Applicant: Dale Nelson, representing Don Christenson Location: 4905 Suburban Drive Planning Director Nielsen explained the request and Engineer Brown addressed ponding issues relative to this site. Nielsen suggested the matter be tabled to July 1, 1997, to allow the applicant sufficient time to address drainage problems on the site. Mr. Nelson was present and noted there are details which need to be addressed and there has not been sufficient time in which to address them. He stated he is working toward the same goals which staff have enumerated. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7: 19 p.m. Lisa Smith, 4945 Suburban Drive, stated the neighborhood questions why a pond and road or cul- de-sac are necessary in this area. She stated her belief the original recommendation was for two lots which would be acceptable to members of the neighborhood as opposed to the three lots the developer is requesting. Engineer Brown stated the pond is a requirement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District relative to the storm water management plan. Any time there is a plat with roadway surfaces, a pond is required. Nielsen stated with regard to the road, the subdivision ordinance requires each lot abut on a public street with a minimum width on the public street. He noted there are site alteration issues relative to three lots versus two. If the plan meets zoning and engineering requirements, the City must follow the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Nielsen suggested the matter be tabled to July 1, 1997, during which time the developer should make contact with the Watershed District to obtain their approval as well. Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 7 :22 p.m. Lizee moved, Foust seconded tabling the preliminary plat - Ironwood Hills for Dale Nelson, representing Don Christenson, 4905 Suburban Drive, to July 1, 1997, with the request the developer work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District relative to ponding issues. Motion passed 5/0. 2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Applicant: Tom Reifenberger and Barb Morford Location: 6130 and 6150 Church Road Mr. Reifenberger was present and noted a title search has been completed. Kolstad moved, Champa seconded approving a simple subdivision/combination for Tom Reifenberger and Barb Morford, 6130 and 6150 Church Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. Vice Chair Turgeon commented this matter will be considered by the City Council at their June 9, 1997 meeting. . 3. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - W A TERFORD 5TH ADDITION Applicant: Jeffrey Link Location: 5590 Vine Hill Road A letter was received from Michael Greengard, 19285 Waterford Place, and was distributed to the Commission. Nielsen addressed the concerns raised in Mr. Greengard's letter. With respect to the location of the house on the lot, Nielsen pointed out the proposed location of the home, noting it will meet all setback requirements. The trees and foliage on the lot would be addressed by the tree preservation policy. In addition, Nielsen felt the house would be situated in such a way that tree removal and site alteration would be minimal. . Relative to any restrictions on the property, the City would require as a part of any resolution approving the request, a Declaration of Covenants similar to the Waterford Covenants and the original Waterford Architectural Review Committee would need to approve any proposed house plans for that property. This is a provision of the Contract for Deed. In his letter, Mr. Greengard inquired about environmental impact on the property and what would happen to the deer who wander in and out of the area. Nielsen did not feel the deer would be impacted by the construction of this home. Mr. Greengard stated in his letter he had been informed by his builder that this particular outlot would never be developed. Nielsen pointed out the preliminary plat for Waterford shows the . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1997 - PAGE 3 property was originally intended for three lots. He felt the one lot to be a better solution and to also be consistent with the original preliminary plat. Mr. Link was present and stated it is his philosophy to keep the lot as natural as possible. He noted he was unaware of any concerns raised by the neighboring residents. It is his intent to build the home in a natural clearing on the lot which will limit the number of trees which would need to be removed. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner Champa inquired whether the house could be strategically placed on the property in such a way as to prevent a future subdivision of the property. Nielsen noted it is not the intent of the property owner to split the property. Given the placement of the home, a subdivision into three lots would probably not be possible, however, a subdivision into two may be possible. The cost of the road which would be necessary for two lots would probably negate the cost of the new lot and possibly lower the value of the existing lot. Commissioner Kolstad asked why this lot was designated an outlot as opposed to simply a large lot. Nielsen explained it was originally intended this outlot would be combined with other property and developed with that property. She noted her understanding of an outlot to be when something is unbuildable or does not meet requirements. Nielsen explained outlots are not buildable. This particular outlot will be replatted in order to be considered buildable. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern relative to a driveway onto Vine Hill Road which would be a potentially dangerous situation. She felt there should be a requirement for a turnaround area on the property to avoid this situation. Commissioner Lizee inquired whether in creating a residential use for this particular outlot this would create a precedent for the use of outlots. Nielsen stated this is considered a typical use of outlots. Typically an outlot could not be created when it is a remnant which would not be buildable. In those cases, the preference would be to have an unbuildable outlot combined with another property. Vice Chair Turgeon noted there were discussions by the Planning Commission in 1993 reflecting the Commission's concerns relative to restrictions on the property regarding any future subdivision of the property. Vice Chair Turgeon inquired whether the moving of natural vegetation would create run-off to the proposed home or the neighboring home. Nielsen stated as a part of any grading efforts, erosion control would be required along the property line or the improvement itself. Vice Chair Turgeon asked if there will be a water charge. Nielsen stated water is available to the property and the applicant will be required to pay an assessment of $5,000. Kolstad moved, Lizee seconded approving the preliminary plat - Waterford 5th Addition for Jeffrey Link, 5590 Vine Hill Road, subject to staff recommendations, requiring a turnaround on the property for any driveway on the property and that there will be a water charge. Motion passed 5/0. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on June 9, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1997 - PAGE 4 . 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CoUoPo FOR ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: James Bruce Location: 20445 Radisson Road Mr. Bruce was in attendance. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern when a garage is almost as large as the house. . Commissioner Lizee inquired relative to a permanent easement which will exist for a garden between the subject property and Mrs. Larson's property. Mr. Bruce stated the property line had been modified and improved by the City. Since the landscaping of the Larson property extends to some degree into that area, the two property owners have reached an agreement in which that particular site will not have any fence. Commissioner Lizee inquired relative to the maple and poplar trees which will be removed and whether tree replacement is planned. Mr. Bruce stated his understanding the maple would be replaced, however, the poplar would not be covered by the tree replacement plan. Commissioner Lizee noted in speaking with Mrs. Larson, she had expressed a desire to have the driveway shift farther to the north. Mr. Bruce stated he was aware of this request and was confident an agreement could be reached between the two parties. Lizee moved, Foust seconded, approving the CoUoPo for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for James Bruce, 20445 Radisson Road, subject to staff recommendations and to include a use and maintenance agreement for any shared driveway 0 Motion passed 5/00 Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on June 9, 1997. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - CoUoPo FOR BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THRU Applicant: Bayside Financial Corpo Location: 23780 State Highway 7 Vice Chair Turgeon recessed the meeting at 8:13 p.m. and reconvened at 8:16 p.m. Nielsen suggested tabling this matter to July 1, 1997 to allow the applicant sufficient time to pursue the necessary easements on the property. Robin Roberts, president of Bayside Financial Corporation, was present. He explained Bayside Financial Corporation is not pursuing the final potential plan which was submitted. The Corporation is pursuing purchase or use of the easement which would allow the building to be used as originally planned. Mr. Roberts was hopeful these easements would be obtained within a month or two. He expressed concern with the staff recommendation which refers to the easement . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1997 - PAGE 5 being obtained for a 20-year term. Mr. Roberts stated he understands the Conditional Use Permit would be contingent upon the use of the easement, regardless of the term. Commissioner Champa inquired relative to fire lane requirements for the bank building as it now exists. Nielsen explained the original plan satisfied the fire code in terms of access. Commissioner Kolstad expressed confusion relative to the proposed street depicted next to the bank. Nielsen explained the street right-of-way for the street formerly known as Woodruff Path was vacated. That portion of vacated right-of-way was split between the shopping center property and the other adjacent property. Commissioner Champa asked if Linden Drive would be one of the access lanes which is being considered for closure. Nielsen stated Lake Linden will be closed off and any traffic utilizing that roadway would be redirected to the service road and the operated intersection at Highway 41. Commissioner Foust inquired how the existing building complies with the parking ordinance. Nielsen explained the old easement area is being used. In addition, the area under the canopy has been used for employee parking. He felt there to be sufficient parking in the vicinity, however, it is poorly laid out. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Carl Voss, 6090 Lake Linden Drive, inquired relative to the proposed closing at Lake Linden Drive. Nielsen explained that as a part of the Comprehensive Plan and the state highway department's corridor study which was completed in 1995, any traffic down Lake Linden will have to use the service road to reach the signal intersection. This will clean up the traffic pattern in this area. He noted neighborhood meetings will be held in July relative to improvements to Highway 7. Hearing no further public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Vice Chair Turgeon expressed concern relative to the parking situation and asked whether there would need to be a provision for handicapped parking. Nielsen stated that will be a part of the building permit approval process. Commissioner Champa inquired whether the previously vacated street could be reacquired at some point in the future. Nielsen stated there are no plans to reacquire this area. He stated the City would need to purchase the property. In addition, some of the shopping center parking lot is located on that property. Kolstad moved, Champa seconded tabling the C.U.P. for bank facility with drive- thru for Bayside Financial Corp., at 23780 State Highway 7 to July 1, 1997. Motion passed 5/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET AND SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Ron Hume Location: 25040 Yellowstone Trail Mr. Hume was present and stated he had nothing to add to Planning Director Nielsen's explanation of his request. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3,1997 - PAGE 6 . Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether a potential buyer for the properties on the north end of Spruce Hill Court would be aware of the request being proposed for this site. Nielsen stated the buyer would be aware by way of the public hearing. Nielsen has also scheduled a meeting with a potential buyer of Lot 6. Mr. Hume noted Mr. Soderberg has visited the property and is aware of the request. He will be meeting with Nielsen to discuss this matter further. Commissioner Champa inquired relative to the golf course. Mr. Hume stated he has had discussions with the golf course off and on over the years and they have expressed an interest in this particular strip of property. . Commissioner Foust commented the diagonal property line between parcels B and C should be straightened. He asked if the driveway could come off of the cul-de-sac as opposed to the longer driveway. Mr. Hume stated based upon the property he owns, this would not be possible. He stated until that particular property is purchased, he has no one to negotiate with, however, he felt at some point this would be possible. Commissioner Foust asked for Mr. Hume to explain how he envisions the property in the future. Mr. Hume stated there are a number of options available. There are several people interested in the property. He felt either the golf course or the owners of Lots 5 and 6 of Spruce Hill would be interested. Mr. Hume stated this is an unbuildable piece of wooded property and he does not want to do anything which will change the area. Commissioner Foust inquired whether Lot 6 could subdivide. Nielsen stated even if a portion of the subject property were obtained, he did not feel there would be sufficient property to make two lots. Commissioner Turgeon noted more buildings on the property than are depicted on the diagram. Mr. Hume noted the metal shed was recently removed. He noted the screen porch, the existing house and the double garage will remain on the property. Commissioner Kolstad was in agreement with Commissioner Foust's suggestion to exchange property which would allow the property line to be straightened. Kolstad moved, Lizee seconded approving the C.D.P. for accessory space over 1200 square feet and simple subdivision for Ron Hume, 25040 Yellowstone Trail, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on June 9, 1997. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 8. REPORTS Council Liaison O'Neill reported on the actions taken and matters considered at the May 27, 1997, meeting ofthe City Council (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 3, 1997 - PAGE 7 Commissioner Champa expressed concern relative to the request which had been made of the Council for a demolition permit for the Watten home. He noted at the time of the public hearings relative to the Watten Development, the dtweloper had assl:1fed the COmmiSSiOfl tae hOl:lSe Champa assumed the Watten home would remain and would not be demolished. Vice Chair Turgeon noted there was work being done at Gideon Woods on Sunday. Nielsen explained there is a plan whereby a complaint should be made to the police department. An officer will simply make a report which is forwarded to the City. Commissioner Champa noted the Park Commission had stated they will be adjusting the starting times of the various games at Freeman Park to alleviate traffic problems. He felt a 7:30 p.m. start time is too late. He noted a 15 minute delay had been instituted and this alleviated the traffic problem. He felt 7: 15 would be a more appropriate starting time. Commissioner Lizee expressed her disagreement noting the traffic congestion which had been experienced at the park. The Commission noted that to date they have not received any calls relative to the public hearing scheduled for June 17th to address the requests of Sprint Spectrum and Nextel to mount antennas on the water tower. Planning Director Nielsen provided for the Commission's review samples of the periodicals the City receives relative to planning. 9. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Champa seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y 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 MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD TUESDA Y, JUNE 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Lizee, Turgeon; Mayor Dahlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown. Absent: Commissioner Foust; Council Liaison O'Neill (Mayor Dahlberg attended in his absence. ) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the June 3, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 7, Sentence 3, change "remanent" to "remnant"; Page 7, Paragraph 1, change Sentence 2 to read, "Champa assumed the W atten home would remain and not be demolished." Motion passed 6/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF PCS ANTENNAE ON THE WEST SHOREWOOD WATER TOWER Applicant: Sprint Spectrum L.P. 26352 Smith town Road Location: Planning Director Nielsen reported Nextel Corporation has withdrawn their request. Mark McHale, Regional Representative for Sprint PCS, was present to address the Commission. He explained Sprint is in the process of building the necessary infrastructure for a nationwide wireless communications system which will utilize digital technology known as PCS. Terry Hanna, property manager for Sprint PCS, explained the proposed antenna site was selected by Sprint based on several criteria. He noted Sprint has currently secured more than half of their current sites on existing structures. The most common structure for antenna location is a water tower site. The second most common is a roof top site and the third existing structure would be a co-location tower. Mr. Hanna further explained Sprint is a nationwide system presently in 56 markets throughout the United States. Relative to the proposed site in Shorewood, Mr. Hanna noted Sprint has an adjacent site on the water tower to the east, the Wayzata water tower to the north, the Spring Lake Park water tower to the north, and will be building an antenna tower in Lake Town Township to the west. Sprint is building a monopole next to the water tower in Chaska, and already has a monopole in an industrial park in Chanhassen. Sprint is currently looking for an additional site to the northwest in the MinnetonkalExcelsior area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Mr. Hanna explained the process followed to arrive at the proposed site. He noted Sprint has agreed to build a shelter to house the base station equipment apparatus given the proximity to the school and the presence of children in the area. Gary Howard, RF engineer, Sprint PCS, addressed the issue of health concerns relative to this site. Mr. Howard explained the various studies which have been undertaken have focused on EMFs emanating from power lines and other low frequency EMFs. He displayed an overhead diagram and explained PCS technology operates at a higher frequency than power lines and a lower frequency than ionizing frequencies. Mr. Howard explained that two minutes of cellular phone use would expose the user to far more radiation than the exposure from the water tower antennas would be. Studies which address the potential health hazards related to EMFs consider the amount of power necessary to transmit the radio signal. A PCS transceiver usually transmits at less than 100 watts. PCS operates one octave above cellular service. Mr. Howard explained the FCC has adopted the standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Council on Radiation Protection. These standards indicate the maximum permissible exposure levels and label exposure levels in terms of density measured in milliwatts per square centimeter. Exposure levels are measured by the amount of power that a radio frequency emits onto one square centimeter of body surface. Mr. Howard pointed out the standard for acceptable exposure to radio frequencies was determined by ANSI to be 1.23 milliwatts per square centimeter. . Mr. Howard also referenced a study funded by the Cellular Telephone Industry Association. The study was completed in association with George Washington University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Terry Hanna spoke relative to the amount of electricity at the antenna site. At the Waterford site, there is a fenced in area with a platform. He displayed a photograph of a Base Transmission Station (BTS). Mr. Hanna explained transmission takes place between the BTS and the antenna. In addition to the BTS, there is a panel which houses the electrical service. Within the panel, there are circuit breakers. There is a breaker for each BTS. A BTS gets service from one lOa-amp breaker and there is a potential for as many as three BTS units at one site. Currently there is one unit at the Waterford site. Mr. Hanna produced copies of electrical billings for various sites in Minnesota as well as Kansas City. He explained the site uses between 2,000 and 3,000 kilowatt hours of energy per month. A typical bill is approximately $150 to $300 per month and averages approximately $175 per month. Mr. Hanna explained electro magnetic field (EMF) is a field of energy created by the flow of electricity. Every electrical current is surrounded by an EMF. EMFs flow from lights and household appliances such as televisions and radios. EMFs are generated across a wide range of frequency. Gary Howard explained Sprint utilizes a line of sight type transmission and these type of transmissions are not considered harmful. The antennas are directed to radiate most of the energy toward another antenna. To be exposed to the full power of a transmission, a person would have to be in the direct path of the beam. In the event a person were in the direct path of a transmission, power levels would not exceed the maximum acceptable standards. Mr. Howard also explained the power density decreases as a person moves farther away from the transmitting antenna. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17,1997 - PAGE 3 . Mr. Howard explained the power densities at ground level easily fall within the standards for the general population set forth by ANSI. Dr. John DuBois, the City's Communications Consultant, was in attendance to answer any questions which might arise. Dr. DuBois confirmed the information related by Sprint to be accurate. He stated the health effects of radiation are a function of the federal government's domain. The standards were established by the American National Standards Institute which consists of 125 participants and established a safe exposure limit. Dr. DuBois noted the exposure from the Sprint facilities would be .08 millowatts per centimeter. He pointed out the federal government established a limit of 1.1 millowatts per centimeter squared. Dr. DuBois reported Sprint is operating at 13 times below the maximum permissible level. Dr. DuBois noted this is less radiation than what emanates from a few feet in front of a television set. This level is also less than a cellular phone or police walkie-talkie. He stated .08 is considered a very low watt density. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the 13 times below the maximum permissible level would be with the child inside or outside of the school building. Dr. DuBois stated this would be outside without any protection. Commissioner Borkon further questioned whether this reading would change as the child moves toward the tower or away from it. Dr. DuBois stated the child would have to climb up the tower for the reading to increase. As the child moves away from the tower, the radiation would be less. Commissioner Champa asked at what level a person would have to be to reach the 1.1 milliwatts per centimeter squared. Dr. DuBois stated that level could be reached within the top 20 feet next to the antenna. . Commissioner Champa inquired how long a period of time a person could be there before the exposure reached dangerous levels. Dr. DuBois stated the longer the exposure, the more the danger increases. He warned the transmitters would need to be nonoperational at the time the tower is painted. Dr. DuBois explained he is somewhat critical of these situations, however he feels comfortable with the current proposal. He stated the FCC will ensure Sprint is following the dictates of their license. Jim Strommen, Esq., Kennedy and Graven, addressed the legal aspects of this matter. He explained in detail the role of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC and the City of Shorewood. Attorney Strommen explained a wireless service provider is encouraged to enter the market and compete. Sprint is entitled to be in the city to serve its customers as long as it complies with federal and state regulations. He pointed out there is a framework which controls the competition. Sprint must purchase a license from the FCC through a bidding process. A radio frequency is then assigned and is regulated by the FCC. The FCC has the power to make decisions relative to radio frequency emissions. Cities have the authority to regulate certain health issues, general safety issues, aesthetic concerns in addition to site fees. . Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, felt the construction of the water tower was contrary to the wishes of the neighborhood. She asked whether this proposal is intended to pay for the water PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 4 . tower since the residents do not pay for it. With respect to the FCC Act, she stated there are several hundreds of cities fighting this act throughout the US and the world. Ms. Dosen stated there are current health studies which will take years to reach results and she noted the studies she has reviewed have been inconclusive. Ms. Dosen stated it is a separate issue of whether the City needs to have the antennas versus whether they need to be on the water tower at this school. She did not feel this location to be the primary location in Shorewood for this type of use. Ms. Dosen felt a tower could be placed in another area. She asked how big a part the money plays in this decision. Mayor Dahlberg inquired whether the applicant has looked at other possible locations. Terry Hanna confirmed Sprint has considered other opportunities in the area. He noted there had been difficulty locating a site due to the high level of residences. Mr. Hanna noted typically zoning requirements restrict antennas from being near residences by requiring a setback to address the fallout area. Mr. Hanna explained Sprint requires a site of approximately 100 to 120 feet high. He noted obtaining approval on a site of that height would be difficult. It would be the applicant's preference to locate on an existing structure. Mr. Hanna remarked another water tower had been considered, however, approval had not been obtained. Mayor Dahlberg inquired as to the location of the tower where Sprint was refused access. Mr. Hanna commented Minnetonka Beach refused approval based on zoning issues. Mayor Dahlberg pointed out cities may exclude based on a conflict with zoning. . Attorney Strommen noted a community could be so small an area that a provider could serve a larger area without gaining a site in that particular area. He stated generally there must be an accommodation site somewhere within the city. He was unaware of the details of the Minnetonka Beach situation. Mayor Dahlberg remarked in his opinion the rental of the water tower as a way to pay for the water tower was a major factor in consideration of this particular request. Several members of the Planning Commission stated this had not been discussed. Mayor Dahlberg clarified he had had discussions with the Council and City Staff that rental of the tower for the location of antennas would assist in the payment of existing water structures. Chair Pisula pointed out this was not, however, the reason the water tower was built and Mayor Dahlberg noted his agreement. Chair Pisula recalled the discussion centered around the idea of having as much co-location as possible. Commissioner Turgeon asked Mayor Dahlberg to inform the audience how much money is collected from the leasing of the water tower. Mayor Dahlberg commented the most recent lease for the southwest tower is for $12,000 per year. He noted this income does help in the budget spreadsheet scenario over the long term. Commissioner Borkon requested that Attorney Strommen address the issue of other cities opposing antennas on their water towers and how that would relate to the FCC Act. Attorney Strommen noted he is unfamiliar with a group of cities fighting the legislation. He noted that generally the city is not under any obligation to lease space on the water tower. Attorney Strommen pointed out a very small city could conceivably say no, however, he did not feel Shorewood would classify as that small of a city. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Borkon inquired whether a precedent has been set relative to cities which are basically residential communities and were able to deny an application based on the fact the city is 95 percent residential. Attorney Strommen stated he is not familiar with such a case and he did not think that would be a basis for denying space. Mayor Dahlberg asked whether there are other conceivable locations in Shorewood other than the water tower. Planning Director Nielsen felt this to be possible, however, the recommendation this far which was accepted by the City Council was that antennas should be placed on the water towers before considering another location. Kim Klancke, 26525 Smithtown Road, was opposed to a site location which enrolls 800 plus children who would experience ongoing exposure. She also felt the information available is not conclusive at this time. She recognized the fact that legislation dictates this matter, however, she noted this authority is being challenged at this time. Ms. Klancke stated there are 170 cities taking on this challenge on an individual basis. Ms. Klancke cited the Medina case. The Court upheld the city's right to impose a six month moratorium on the permitting of cell towers. This case also involved Sprint Spectrum. Ms. Klancke noted there are numerous ongoing studies analyzing the effects of EMFs generated and the relationship to increased cancer and exposure to EMFs. She felt this issue warrants further consideration and feels an alternate site should be investigated. Dr. DuBois clarified high voltage power lines are of greater concern and the levels of Heki EMFs are much higher than the levels being considered at the school. Commissioner Turgeon requested Attorney Strommen to address the lawsuit which was referred to by Ms. Klancke. Attorney Strommen explained the case was brought by Sprint Spectrum shortly after the Telecommunications Act was passed and a moratorium was imposed. The Supreme Court upheld the city's right to enact the moratorium. Attorney Strommen pointed out the law as it exists would allow for a moratorium for a length of time not to exceed six months to allow additional time in which to gather further information on this issue. Commissioner Lizee explained Medina is a very small city bordered by much larger cities. She asked whether the consideration would be the range or size of city or other sites which would be available. Mr. Howard explained in site selection, the issues of covering an area and sufficient sites to cover the needed capacity are taken into consideration. He explained there are sacrifices in considering other sites and the applicant considers this particular location preferable to others which have been considered. Mayor Dahlberg inquired why the Nextell application was withdrawn. Planning Director Nielsen noted they were successful in obtaining approval in Tonka Bay for construction of a free standing tower to be located next to the water tower. Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, noted his understanding the proposed equipment would run at 1.9 megahertz. He compared this to putting a 100 watt microwave oven on the tower. Each antenna locates 100 watts at 120 degrees. The proposal is for three antennas for a total of 300 watts. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 6 . Mr. Dosen inquired how many PCS licenses are available in the state or are going to be available. He expressed his concern the City is setting precedent for allowing others to locate on the tower. He also expressed concern relative to the co-location of additional antennas. Mr. Dosen pointed out that in 1995 President Clinton issued a Memorandum ordering federal buildings to serve as cellular phone links. He also pointed out the California Public Utilities Commission stated that schools and hospital sites should be used only as a last resort. Mr. Dosen explained the City of Bloomington had imposed a 90 day moratorium. Their minutes reflect from the way the law is written, "As a public policy issue, existing regulations put in theory allow the placement of a l40-foot metal frame tower on a vacant residential lot." Mr. Dosen also stated Armstrong Laboratories is paying particular attention to long term low level exposures to radio frequency radiation. He commented the Yancy standard for radiation exposure has been lowered three times in the past ten years. Mayor Dahlberg asked how many antennas could be placed on a single water tower. Planning Director Nielsen stated as many as four could be located on the tower. Dr. DuBois explained if they accumulated to four the duty cycle would consist of 5 minutes on and 55 minutes off and accumulation is not additive. Mayor Dahlberg asked whether the antennas would be running at the same time. Dr. DuBois stated the likelihood of that would be very low. He explained the antennas transmit only 5 percent of the time and receive 95 percent of the time. . Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9: 10 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 18 p.m. Terry Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, questioned why the City would risk the safety of children for $8,000. He also asked whether the City has towers which are currently providing service. The Commission pointed out the southeast water tower in the Waterford area currently has antennas in place. Mr. Hughes questioned how the City consultant was chosen and whether or not the publication for the consultant was listed in the Shorewood area. Mr. Hughes questioned whether the CDSI study was published in a reference journal since they are put through a much more rigorous review than nonreference journals. Mr. Hughes stated he has reviewed studies in which leukemia rates are higher next to high voltage lines which are allowed in residential areas. Mr. Hughes expressed concern relative to bias on the part of the Planning Commission in approving a request for the $8,000 per year the City stands to gain. Chair Pisula noted the members of the Commission take their jobs extremely seriously and Mr. Hughes' comment that the Commission is attempting to build a revenue base by possibly locating antennas on the watertowers is insulting. Mr. Hughes stated it was not meant to be insulting, but rather an observation. He expressed his belief the arguments of the City Attorney to be in favor of the request and that these arguments are being favored. Chair Pisula explained the Commission is charged with finding facts. The Commission is collecting facts from the public and all sources from which they may be gathered. The Commission will then make a decision based on those facts. That decision then becomes a recommendation which is made to the City Council for their consideration. Commissioner Turgeon noted her understanding that if a moratorium were put in effect at this time, the application of Sprint would still need to be addressed. Planning Director Nielsen stated the Commission would be obligated to act on their application given the 60-day rule under the statute. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17,1997 - PAGE 7 Attorney Strommen explained if the Commission were to recommend a moratorium which would be adopted, the Sprint application would need to be reviewed since it is pending. He further explained the 60-day rule is a time frame within which the City must act. Attorney Strommen responded to Mr. Hughes' comment regarding the City's legal counsel on this issue. He pointed out he provided the City with the legal framework relative to the decision to be made and that he has not advised the City to make a decision to either grant or deny the application. He expressed his belief the Planning Commission and City Staff are taking this matter very seriously. Commissioner Borkon inquired given the fact that Sprint has been given access at the Waterford tower, whether it would be discriminatory to deny a second site location. Attorney Strommen felt that particular prohibition of the law would apply to applications submitted by competitors. He stated in his mind this scenario would not fit the issue of discrimination. It was not his belief the City would be obligated to grant unlimited sites to one company. Sharon Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, expressed concern relative to the prolonged exposure to children. She felt the ANSI regulations have been established relative to adults rather than children. She also noted no one has addressed the issue of monitoring. She questioned if Sprint is able to service a particular area or whether this location is serving people utilizing the highway as opposed to Shorewood residents. Ms. Hughes questioned how the need is determined. Ms. Hughes stated cumulative effect is also of concern and asked if additional antenna are located on the tower, how will this not become a cumulative effect. Engineer Brown stated Dr. DuBois was chosen given his reputation for being tough to deal with. The City consulted several agencies and received the same response. Dr. DuBois keeps very tight control on the vendors who come in. In drafting the agreements, it became clear to staff that Dr. DuBois has the best interests of the City in mind. Brown explained there have been communication companies who have backed out of their request when they learned of Dr. DuBois' involvement. With respect to monitoring, Dr. DuBois stated when the system is installed, should it fail, it will fail in total as opposed to going off scale to excess. The law of physics will determine whether the system is monitoring properly and effectively. He explained if there is a problem on the site, Sprint will want to be aware of the problem because if the system is not working properly, they will be losing money. In addition, the system must be installed in accordance with Sprint's license. Relative to Ms. Hughes' concerns of breakdown destruction of carcinogen identified being different in children than in adults, Dr. DuBois felt this to be true, however, there is no cause and effect between this type of radiation and cancer. He felt there may be in the future, however, the government is addressing only heating effects of radiation. Gary Howard addressed the questions relative to monitoring. He explained there is very rigorous testing which occurs in the amplifiers to ensure there is no mode of failure which can occur which would cause generating more than the maximum RF. This particular system transmits continuously, but 100 watts is the absolute maximum. Mr. Howard remarked Sprint has the most advanced technology. If all vendors are using at a maximum constant level in the same sector, the RF would be the square root of four, referring to four carriers. Commissioner Turgeon asked if Sprint could provide pictures of the monopoles and the lattice type structures and requested input from the audience as to where a structure of this type should be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17,1997 - PAGE 8 . located. Commissioner Champa asked what alternatives would be available other than use of the water tower. Mayor Dahlberg noted another issue becomes whether the City owes another location to Sprint. Sheryl Gilbertson, 26055 Smithtown Lane, stated she is a new resident and thanked the Commission for the time they are taking on this matter. She appeared as a citizen and not a parent. She expressed her belief the City could barr this request based on safety. Ms. Gilbertson felt it would be an attractive nuisance for the area children and that the proposed site is not an appropriate location given the proximity to the school. Ms. Gilbertson raised the question whether the population can be serviced by the antennas Sprint has already located on the Waterford water tower. She felt there to be other places outside of Shorewood which could be utilized. Ms. Gilbertson pointed out Nextel was successful elsewhere and she felt schools should be a place of last resort. Ms. Gilbertson asked how long the leases are and what recourse would be available to the City if data were to become available that the antennas present a danger. Planning Director Nielsen stated the current leases are for 20 years in 5 year renewable increments. There are provisions relative to potential changes which could be grounds for termination of the lease. . Mary Kelly, 5710 Grant Lorenz, stated people do not have the capacity to see damage until after the fact. She asked the Commission to bear in mind the possibility all of the facts are not available at this time. She felt the City Council owes it to the children to err on the side of sound, intelligent, proactive, conservative posture relative to progress and development. Ms. Kelly urged Sprint to withdraw their application. Angie McMullen, 6055 Maple Leaf Circle, felt other sites which could be considered include Carver Park, Minnewashta Park, Minnetonka Park and the Tonka Bay water tower which is located in a commercial area. Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, questioned how many base units will be at the foot of the tower if additional carriers are allowed on this tower. He stated this will make a difficult parking situation even more difficult. Planning Director Nielsen explained the tower will not accommodate more than three or four carriers at a maximum. The issue of building space was considered and staff recommends a consolidated building which would be alongside the northeast corner of the City's easement area and would not be located in the parking lot. Staff will be looking into what size building would be necessary . Lori Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, asked if the Act should change, how would that affect any existing carriers who are located on the tower. She also raised the issue of potential interference with surrounding households and students using computers in the school. Mr. Howard explained there would not be an issue of interference and noted there are massive restrictions relative to interference. In the situation of co-locations, the equipment must be made to work together. Molly Roste stated she feels strong-armed by the FCC regulations over which the City has no control. She stated she would like to know on what basis a city could deny for general safety and aesthetic concerns. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 9 . Attorney Strommen explained that cities do not have authority to make decisions relative to health issues. The Telecommunications Act considers this a national network which is good for the country. If cities were allowed to make decisions based on health, a national network could not be established and many cities would reject the location of the antennas based on health concerns and the FCC therefore made this decision. Amy Armstrong, 5795 Brentridge Road, raised the point the City could deny the request of Sprint given the fact Sprint has already been provided with a location in Shorewood. She felt a moratorium should then be imposed. Sheryl Gilbertson, 26055 Smithtown Lane, inquired whether the City would be at risk for a lawsuit based on discrimination if Sprint were allowed to have two locations in Shorewood and another carrier would not be allowed to have two locations. Attorney Strommen felt this may be a relevant point. Attorney Strommen commented other cities have addressed this issue in their Comprehensive Plans by addressing the criteria for granting a site. Sharon Hughes, 26505 Noble Road, asked if there are antennas mounted on other watertowers within close proximity to schools and does the City have an obligation to locate another site. She questioned if there is not a showing of a need for another site, would the facts back up the granting of another site. . Attorney Strommen explained the City must review the application and determine whether sites or multiple sites are necessary for a certain area for which the carrier is seeking a license. There is a possibility if there is not a showing or a need for an additional site, that the City could deny the application. Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, questioned whether Sprint is investigating any private sites or the possibility of a monopole. Mr. Hanna stated Sprint is not looking at any private site, however, there is a potential for location on a public site and Sprint is going to review this possibility further. John Jordano, 6045 Burlwood Court, pointed out none of the public testimony has been in favor of the request. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m. Commissioner Borkon stated she has many concerns and is disturbed about the application and proposal. She expressed concern with granting a second site of access for the same company. She expressed confusion relative to the issue of discrimination and requested further legal documentation on that issue. Commissioner Borkon also expressed concern relative to the method for monitoring the cumulative effects of the emissions. She requested additional information relative to other cities which might locate antennas in their area. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to look at other cities if Sprint is encouraged to look elsewhere. . Commissioner Borkon requested a determination of how the language of the 1996 Telecommunications Act relates to Shorewood, the existing ordinances and the way they are interpreted and then act upon them. With respect to the 20 year lease and the 5 year renewal, Commissioner Borkon requested additional information on criteria for nonrenewal and what could be utilized to not renew. In PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17,1997 - PAGE 10 . addition, she requested criteria for examination of applications for these types of antennas. Commissioner Borkon felt this should have been done quite some time ago and stated she would like to incorporate that before additional decisions need to be made on these types of issues. She expressed concern relative to dealing with these requests on an individual basis rather than having a predetermined policy in place. Commissioner Borkon noted the health issues to be very disturbing. Commissioner Kolstad noted Commissioner Borkon listed most of her concerns, however, she asked if there would be a way in which to build a shield below the antenna to deflect the rays from the school. Mr. Howard stated this would not be possible. He explained the antenna has a very narrow beam and unless the entire area were covered, a shield would be ineffective. He pointed out the beam would overshoot the school building and grounds. Commissioner Kolstad felt there is a safety and health issue in that the equipment would be an attractive nuisance to children on the school grounds. She felt the potential for falling objects would also be a valid safety concern. Commissioner Lizee stated most of her concerns had been raised by Commissioner Borkon. She asked if the City had received any comments from the administration of school district relative to this issue. Planning Director Nielsen noted Dean Jordan had been in attendance at the hearing. He explained a meeting will be scheduled with the school district to determine the best ground location for the building. Engineer Brown added that the school district commented on the easement agreement at the time the water tower was built. . Commissioner Champa also stated many of his concerns had already been raised. He did not feel there was sufficient information on this issue. Commissioner Champa expressed his belief the Commission will have to deal with choices, values and sacrifices. Commissioner Champa felt relative to choices, the children who attend the school have no choice, because their parents send them there. He stated that being a parent and an adult, those choices must be made wisely for the children. Commissioner Champa stated he could not see value other than monetary in putting antennas on the tower. With respect to sacrifices which would need to be made if another location were to be used, he felt the sacrifice Sprint would need to make cannot be compared to the sacrifice the City of Shorewood would need to make. Commissioner Champa expressed his opinion that Sprint can work with the City of Shorewood in looking at other sites where the tower could work without the City sacrificing any potential problems which might compromise the children attending this school. Commissioner Turgeon noted at the time of the first Sprint application, during that particular meeting the Planning Commission questioned whether or not Sprint would be requiring any additional space. Sprint stated they would not require any additional space or antennas in Shorewood and that their BTS unit was built to get them into the future. Commissioner Turgeon did not feel the loss of the Minnetonka Beach location was the driving force behind this request. Mr. Howard explained there is a wave which is created when losing a particular site such as the Minnetonka Beach tower access. A gap is then created which must be filled and water towers are preferable locations. Mr. Howard states cities are generally anxious to lease the tower space for the revenue it generates. He also pointed out the cities currently imposing moratoriums are receiving multiple applications at one time and their water towers are already filled to capacity. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 11 Commissioner Turgeon inquired if the ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan dictates that the placement of antennas is limited to water towers and the towers then become full, does the applicant have to be provided with a place to put a monopole or lattice tower. Attorney Strommen commented that to limit their placement to public property may become an issue. He felt another location would need to be provided. Commissioner Turgeon explained when the first applications came in, it made sense to use the water towers rather than using monopoles and/or lattice towers. She questioned where the building will be located and whether or not it will be sufficient to accommodate up to four carriers. Commissioner Turgeon recalled the southeast tower contains a platform which was fenced and the City Council requested the addition of barbed wire to the top of the fencing. She stated she would prefer not to use barbed wire on the site. Dr. DuBois explained the building would have sufficient space for eight refrigerator-type- size units. Planning Director Nielsen inquired whether the building would require air conditioning. Mr. Hanna stated an exchange of air would be required and the building will have a fully contained air conditioner in it. Engineer Brown explained building size has not yet been determined, however, if the application moves forward, the City has offered to make a bay of the building available to the school for the storage of Phy Ed and/or grounds equipment. Commissioner Turgeon asked whether the school has expressed concern relative to the antennas on the tower. Planning Director Nielsen stated this issue was included in the easement agreement which provides for review by the school district of the carriers who are making application. He explained the easement agreement anticipated the location of antennas on the tower. Mayor Dahlberg asked if Sprint could use the same area on which Nextel has obtained approval. Mr. Howard suggested tabling the discussion to give Sprint an opportunity to further investigate that location. This would also allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to get their questions answered. Mr. Howard explained the Nextel site would cover a different area since it is at a different height and location. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out Nextel is also a very different type of system from the system utilized by Sprint. Commissioner Champa asked if it is more feasible that the waves from the tower at the Waterford site are directed toward the Minnewashta School and that the waves from the proposed tower would actually overshoot the school property. Mr. Howard felt this to be true. Chair Pisula stated his agreement with the issues which were raised by his colleagues. He felt there may be possible alternatives available to provide the service that the community wants. He stated there must be locations available to provide for this service. Chair Pisula stated he would like to see Sprint investigate any monopole options which may be available. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded tabling consideration of the application to July 15, 1997. Motion passed 6/0. Commissioner Kolstad requested information relative to a moratorium be available prior to that time-,- felt if the Commission were to consider a mortorium, consideration should be given to establishing a policy and to do this, additional information would be needed. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 17, 1997 - PAGE 12 3. REPORTS Commissioner Kolstad reported on the Watten Ponds meeting which was requested by the Eureka Road residents. A number of issues were raised relative to the developer not complying with the Development Agreement. These issues include the builder not complying with the tree preservation policy, fencing not in the appropriate places, and areas of trees not marked. Some trees which were designated to be saved were not saved. Another issue which was raised concerned the demolition of the Watten home without a permit, as well as other issues relative to the wetland area. With respect to the wetland, Commissioner Kolstad stated she had not contemplated the large deep hole which is on the lot and did not believe there was going to be a pond in that area at all. She noted the sewer lines through the wetland and did not recall that being an issue. Nielsen explained the NURP pond is exactly what was approved, however it is not designed to NURP standards at this time. The developer will be addressing this issue. Commissioner Champa noted the pond appears to be too far to the west. Nielsen felt that may be true. Brown stated the developer has been informed the pond was not constructed to specifications and this matter is being monitored by staff. He also stated the sanitary sewer line is placed in accordance with the plans. Brown stated if the City feels the pond is in the wrong location, the City will challenge the issue and there will be no further building permits issued until the pond is corrected. He reported the developer was shut down and sent from the job site as of this date. Brown stated there are other items which will need to be corrected as well. Nielsen reported fencing on the site has been good although the developer has been instructed to straighten it. Erosion control has also been good with the exception of an 8 foot area which needs to be tightened although it has not failed. Nielsen noted demolition of the interior of the Watten house was begun prior to obtaining a demolition permit, however there is no requirement that a demolition permit be obtained relative to the interior of the house. Nielsen stated this would have been another matter entirely had demolition of the house begun without a permit. Brown noted when staff became aware of the situation on the site, the developer was cited for demolition without a permit. With respect to tree preservation, Brown pointed out in several instances there have been attempts to save trees which had been marked for removal. 4. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:37 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 1, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Turgeon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Turgeon; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust, Kolstad, Lizee; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill. Absent: Chair Pisula. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving the June 17, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 5, Paragraph 6, change "field" to "EMFs"; Page 11, Paragraph 2, last sentence, change "type" to "size"; Paragraph 10, change to read, "Commissioner Kolstad felt if the Commission were to consider a moratorium, consideration should be given to establishing a policy and to do this, additional information would be needed." Motion passed 6/0. (Commissioner Foust abstained.) 1. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION (formerly Ironwood Hills preliminary plat -tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 1997) Applicant: Dale Nelson, representing Don Christensen Location: 4905 Suburban Drive Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether staff is satisfied with the site lines on the driveway at this point. Nielsen stated they are satisfactory. Commissioners Borkon and Lizee noted their agreement with the plan. Commissioner Foust inquired what would happen to the existing garage. Mr. Nelson stated the garage will be removed. Mr. Nelson stated he had informed all of the neighbors of the proposed plans and they were in support of them. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving the simple subdivision for Dale Nelson, representing Don Christensen, 4905 Suburban Drive, subject to staff recommendations and the removal of the existing garage. Motion passed 6/0. Nielsen stated this matter will be considered by the City Council at their meeting of July 28, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,1997 - PAGE 2 . 2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THRU (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 1997) Applicant: Bayside Financial Corp. Location: 23780 State Highway 7 Nielsen reported the applicant has requested this matter be continued for 30 days to allow him the opportunity to resolve issues relative to the necessary easement. Foust moved, Borkon seconded to table this matter to August 5, 1997. Motion passed 6/0. Vice Chair Turgeon recessed the meeting at 7: 13 p.m. and reconvened at 7: 15 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: John Majestik Location: 5840 Eureka Road . Mr. Majestik was present and noted the square footage of the home to be 1,470 as opposed to the 1,662 determined by staff, however, he pointed out he is still within the 10 percent requirement. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Lizee questioned whether the paved driveway to the north side of the attached garage would fall within the side yard setback. Nielsen stated the setback is adequate, however, the applicant proposes grass for this area rather than an improved driveway. Commissioner Lizee also asked whether there is any business enterprise anticipated for this property. Mr. Majestik stated this space will simply serve as a workshop and additional storage area. Commissioner Kolstad inquired as to the process followed in determining the square footage measurements. Nielsen stated in this particular case he used the site plan which was provided. Commissioner Champa asked if the deck and the porch would be considered a part of the house for purposes of determining square footage. Nielsen stated the porch would be considered in that calculation. Mr. Majestik noted he had not included the porch area in his calculation and Nielsen felt this would probably account for the discrepancy between the square footage Mr. Majestik calculated and the square footage calculated by staff. Lizee moved, Champa seconded approving a C.U.P. for accessory space over 1200 square feet for John Majestik, 5840 Eureka Road, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of July 28, 1997. . Vice Chair Turgeon recessed the meeting at 7:26 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 p.m. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,1997 - PAGE 3 4. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - REG. LAND SURVEY Applicant: Charles Oberg Location: 5590, 5595, 5625 ad 5635 Christmas Lake Point Dr. Oberg expressed his appreciation to Planning Director Nielsen for his assistance in this matter. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Borkon asked why the applicant decided to undertake this project. Dr. Oberg stated it became evident in the process of completing some survey work that the lot lines did not conform to the main road or the driveways. The goal is to straighten the lot lines and eliminate the easements which really should not be necessary. He felt it would be logical to reconfigure the lots. Commissioner Borkon commended Dr. Oberg and his neighbors for working together and accomplishing this reconfiguration. Commissioners Champa, Lizee, and Foust noted their agreement. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving the preliminary plat - reg. land survey for Charles Oberg, 5590, 5595, 5625 and 5635 Christmas Lake Point. Motion passed 6/0. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of July 28, 1997. 5. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Michael Greer Location: 6020 Galpin Lake Road Mr. Greer was not in attendance. Daryl Blakeborough, 5990 Galpin Lake Road, the property owner immediately to the north of Mr. Greer, was in attendance and inquired relative to the future of the existing driveway which he pointed out is nonconforming. Nielsen stated an easement would have to be obtained from Mr. Blakeborough prior to obtaining a building permit for the new home. In the absence of an easement, the driveway would have to be reconfigured to be in compliance which would require the driveway be brought back five feet onto Mr. Greer's property. Nielsen felt Mr. Greer was more than willing to make that change. Vice Chair Turgeon inquired whether there are restrictions relative to the wetland area. Nielsen explained the applicant must maintain the wetland buffer. The house will be set back to accommodate the 50-foot total wetland buffer and setback. The driveway will encroach on the buffer area. Commissioner Borkon asked when it was decided driveways could encroach upon the wetland buffer area. Nielsen explained it has always been a part of the policy. He noted streets may encroach on the wetland buffer area where necessary, however, these situations are avoided as much as possible. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,1997 - PAGE 4 Commissioner Borkon noted she had assumed the existing house would maintain the shared driveway. Nielsen noted if Mr. Greer were able to obtain the necessary easement from Mr. Blakeborough, that would be possible. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving a simple subdivision for Michael Greer, 6020 Galpin Lake Road. Motion passed 6/0. Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of July 28, 1997. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Tom Murphy, 27360 Blue Ridge Lane, requested the Howard's Point Marina sign be removed from Smithtown Road. He stated this sign adds clutter and has created a nuisance in keeping the area clear of debris and things such as garage sale and realty signs. Mr. Murphy noted the sign is in violation of city ordinance in that it is located within 9 feet of the curb and 23 feet from the center line of the roadway. Nielsen stated a letter was sent to the Howard's Point Marina and he has been informed the Marina will be appealing this zoning ordinance violation. He noted the sign does violate city ordinance in that it is located in the public right-of-way and is an off-site sign. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether or not this sign could have been grandfathered in. Nielsen stated he will consult with the City Attorney relative to this matter, however, he felt that given the sign is in the public right-of-way and the fact the sign is on public property as opposed to private property, it would not have been grandfathered in. Mr. Murphy was informed this matter will come before the Planning Commission on August 5, 1997, for consideration of a zoning ordinance violation. 7. REPORTS Commissioner Kolstad reported on the matters considered and the actions taken by the City Council at their meeting of June 23, 1997. Issues relative to the Shady Island Bridge and the Watten Ponds development were discussed. With respect to the Watten Ponds development, Commissioner Kolstad noted an inspection program had been established and inquired whether a schedule had been developed to ensure all of the concerns relative to this development were addressed. Nielsen stated weekly trips were made to the site, however, the types of complaints which are being made to the City would require daily inspections. Nielsen stated this is a very clean construction site. He felt for the City to be as on top of the development as the residents are, this will require daily inspections. This suggestion will be brought before the Council, however, Nielsen was unsure whether the Council will be willing to fund this. Nielsen noted there had been complaints relative to dirt piled up against the erosion control fencing. He explained that is the purpose of erosion control fencing, although it does need to be pulled back. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Borkon pointed out there appears to be a misconception of the controls in place and how they are working, such as complaints being received relative to the treatment of a tree which is actually hollow and not a viable tree. She felt there to be some confusion relative to definition. Nielsen noted the construction site does represent a drastic change to the area and what needs to be considered is the finished product. He referenced other projects within the City which have been successfully completed. Council Liaison O'Neill noted some areas of the silt fences were down on the site. He felt the Watten Ponds construction site to be better than the majority of the sites he has visited in his 27 years of construction, although there has not been 100 percent compliance. Commissioner Lizee asked if there is a need to be concerned with trespassing on the Watten development and whether concerns have been raised relative to people trespassing on the property. Nielsen was not aware of any complaints in that regard. Vice Chair Turgeon requested the Commission receive a copy of Mayor Dahlberg's response to Mr. Miller's allegations. Commissioner Kolstad stated when the Planning Commission makes recommendations, sometimes there is not a lot of documentation relative to what was discussed and what the actual recommendation was. She noted the Planning Commission has no documentation that their recommendations, as they were made, are actually the same as those presented to the City Council. Commissioner Kolstad felt there may be some responsibility on the part of the Commission to ensure if there is a misunderstanding that it can be corrected so the Council is clear on what is being recommended. Nielsen explained the Council receives the same staff reports as the Commission in addition to a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes. He suggested providing the Commission with copies of the resolutions which are presented to the Council. Vice Chair Turgeon suggested adding this issue to the July 15, 1997, study session for further discussion. * * * Relative to future meetings, the consensus of the Commission was to hold their regular meeting as scheduled on August 5, 1997. The work session scheduled for August 19, 1997, will not be held. * * * Nielsen reported there are two property owners on Enchanted Island threatening legal action based on the denial they have received from the City to use a dock which is located on an outlot. The owner of the outlot did appeal. This appeal was rejected by the City Council. The City Attorney had inquired whether there would be some merit in considering an ordinance amendment which would allow a dock on a parcel which is not otherwise buildable. Nielsen noted the Commission has been consistently not allowing that type of use. Commissioner Lizee asked if the property owner of the outlot has a principle residence on the lake. Nielsen stated the owner of the outlot does not have a principle residence on the lake. He also noted the two property owners concerned do not have principle residences on the lake either. Nielsen stated the two property owners concerned have an old easement over the subject outlot which is owed by the adjoining property owner. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 1,1997 - PAGE 6 Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the easement is for swimming or dock rights. She note~ if the easement is for swimming, the Planning Commission would probably consider this a non-Issue. Council Liaison O'Neill noted a majority of the Council did not feel there to be a reason to reopen discussion of this issue. Commissioner Kolstad felt if the Commission were to consider changing the ordinance, that it should be changed in total for all accessory uses. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement. Commissioner Lizee did not feel there to be a need to reopen this matter. Commissioner Foust noted his agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. He felt in the situation of a buildable lot, the property owner should be allowed the use of his property. He would be in favor of reviewing this issue if this were the actual property owner requesting permission to put a dock on a buildable lot and not two other property owners attempting to gain lakeshore rights. In general, he felt prohibiting any accessory use is somewhat restrictive. Vice Chair Turgeon did not want to revisit this matter. Commissioner Champa felt the ordinance should be reviewed and some changes made to it to address some of the issues which were raised by Commissioner Foust. Nielsen explained distinguishing between permitted and accessory uses is a very basic premise of zoning. Maintenance would be one reason for this. 8. ADJOURNMENT Champa moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wall at Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDA Y , JULY 15, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill. Absent: Commissioner Turgeon APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the July 1, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to the August 5, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF PCS ANTENNAE ON THE WEST SHOREWOOD WATER TOWER (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of June 17, 1997) Applicant: Sprint Spectrum L.P. 26352 Smithtown Road Location: Planning Director Nielsen reported the applicant has requested this item be tabled to the August 5, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the Conditional Use Permit for Placement of PCS Antennae on the West Shorewood Water Tower for Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 26352 Smithtown Road, to August 5, 1997. Motion passed 6/0. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 3. REPORTS Nielsen reported the City Council approved a motion to reconsider the request of Ingrid and Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road, for a variance request. The Council requested input from the Planning Commission as to whether or not the Planning Commission wishes to reconsider this matter. Commissioners Kolstad and Borkon stated they would be open to reviewing this matter. Commissioner Lizee was also willing to review the request. Commissioner Foust stated he was not particularly in favor of reviewing this matter, however, if this would assist the Council in making their decision, he would be willing to do this. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 15, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Chair Pisula stated he would comply with the wishes of his colleagues and the Commission will review this matter at their meeting on August 5, 1997. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded to reconsider the variance request of Ingrid and Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road, at the August 5, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Borkon requested staff include the definition of hardship along with the public hearing notices. * * * Chair Pisula read a letter from Commissioner Turgeon regarding Commissioner Kolstad's concern relative to the Planning Commission's role in tracking developments more closely. Commissioner Kolstad commented the intent was to ensure that everything is passed on as discussed by the Planning Commission. Chair Pisula felt there to be an issue of accountability and did not feel adding the Planning Commission to the process would add anything to it. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would simply like that information for her own knowledge as opposed to a formal review. Nielsen stated this would be for the Planning Commission's information. If there is something wrong with the information, a call could be made to staff to make them aware of this. . Commissioner Kolstad stated these were suggestions she had made and the other two recommendations she made were not discussed, nor were they read in front of the Planning Commission. She questioned why Commissioner Turgeon's comments are being given much more weight. Chair Pisula noted he had not been present at that particular meeting and he wanted to be present to discuss these particular issues. Commissioner Champa felt this matter deserves discussion. Chair Pisula noted it had not been his intention to forestall discussion on those particular issues. Commissioner Borkon asked what the process is for a Planning Commissioner when they want to share a concern or something they feel is appropriate to what the Planning Commission is doing. Nielsen stated whenever a commissioner submits something to staff, it is distributed to the Commission. It is then generally discussed during Matters from the Floor or Reports. Commissioner Borkon believed the process to be awkward and felt there is a potential for people to become defensive when memos are send without there being some kind of discussion and a consensus prior to them. . Commissioner Kolstad stated it is upsetting that Commissioner Turgeon's letter was being read at this meeting, since her memo was not read at the meeting in which it was distributed. Commissioner Pisula apologized and stated this was not his intent. Commissioner Borkon felt if there is a concern which a Commissioner wants to raise, it should be submitted through the Chair or Planning Director Nielsen prior to being included in the packet. She pointed out Commissioner Kolstad followed the proper procedure and stated a process is important to the Planning Commission's formal setting. Commissioner Champa noted his agreement and stated there needs to be structure and a process to be followed. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 15,1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Champa also recalled at the previous meeting Commissioner Turgeon had announced she would be unable to attend this meeting, however, she would have a response to Commissioner Kolstad's memo. 4. ADJOURNMENT Champa moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7 :55 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7 :02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Foust, Kolstad, and Lizee; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown; Council Liaison O'NeilL Absent: Commissioners Champa and Turgeon. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Kolstad seconded approving the July 1, 1997, and the July 15, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY Applicant: Location: Eagle Crest Northwest 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the request in detail and Engineer Brown discussed engineering issues relative to this matter. Bill and John Gleason appeared on behalf of Eagle Crest Northwest. Mr. Bill Gleason explained the development company builds townhomes, primarily senior townhomes. He noted the 20-foot roadways are built in accordance with city specifications. In addition, the association is set up so there are sufficient reserve funds in the future to cover road replacement. Mr. Gleason did not feel 80 units to be sufficient senior housing to accommodate the City of Shorewood. He noted private streets are utilized to keep costs down. When public streets are used, density is lost. Mr. Gleason stated density is the key to keeping the price reasonable. He stated the goal price per unit to be $120,000, base price. Mr. Gleason reported on other Eagle Crest Northwest projects in Brooklyn Park, Rogers, St. Michael and Maple Grove. Mr. Gleason stated with respect to density, given what is allowable, the density of this project is less. Mr. John Gleason described a typical unit and pointed out all appliances are included in the purchase price. In addition, he displayed a floor plan of a proposed unit. He noted all units are designed to be completely handicapped accessible. Additional storage can be provided above the garage stall area. Mr. Gleason stated this particular design reduces the association costs and allows for building up a surplus to address any unforeseen costs which could arise at some point in the future. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 2 Bob Bean, 5285 St. Albins Bay Road, appeared and reemphasized there is no variance to zoning being requested. There are longstanding ordinances to promote senior affordable housing within Shorewood. He stated this has been a long term goal of the City and commitments were made to the Metropolitan Council. He stated there is an objective to create more and affordable senior housing. Relative to the task force of 1991, Shorewood has seen the highest rate of growth in seniors over the last 15 years of any of the southshore communities. The original task force identified a need in excess of 600 units. Mr. Bean referenced a survey in which approximately 1,300 people were surveyed. Of those surveyed, approximately 400 responded. Thirty percent of the respondents indicated a desire for affordable senior housing in the southshore communities. Mr. Bean felt the subject site to be one of the most desirable in the city for this type of project given the significant park area on three sides and the collector street on the fourth side. Mr. Bean questioned how many of the 19 sites which were identified in the study are still available today, six years later. He felt this proposal addresses traffic concerns. He believes this to be a project which Shorewood needs and felt that available opportunities are being lost and the City should move forward on this type of project. Jay Venero, 5985 Seamons Road, felt dramatic changes which are being proposed for Highway 7 will affect the traffic in the area and concentrating traffic on Eureka Road. Mr. Venero did not feel the assessment which has been done truly depicts the project which will result. He questioned the arrangements which have been made relative to the wetland area. Mr. Venero was concerned with the density of the project and he felt this would cause problems for adjacent property owners. He did not feel landscaping would create a sufficient buffer. Mr. Venero stated the area is flat and drainage will occur through the wetland. He felt there to be a possibility of water backup across Eureka Road and to properties to the east side of Eureka Road because of the present drainage which exists in the park. Mr. Venero noted there is an indication a 6-inch watermain is inadequate for the project so the City is contemplating closing the loop back to Eureka Road. He believes the City will bear significant costs relative to water, widening of the streets and abatement of the water problems which come to pass given the hard surface which is involved. Mr. Venero stated he would be in favor of a lower density, possibly single family type development. Colleen O'Neill, 25540 Nelsine Drive, expressed concern relative to the density of the proposed project. She felt traffic on Eureka Road to also be of concern given the roads which are proposed to be closed in addition to the traffic produced by the development. She also expressed concern this development will be pushing more water into Shorewood, there will be another PUD and noted there is also no public transportation out to this area. Ms. O'Neill requested further information relative to the study which was completed regarding the 2.7 acres of the site being wetlands. She questioned whether that study is still valid given the fact it was completed quite some time ago. Ms. O'Neill raised concern relative to the proposed public street which the development will hinge on. She questioned a proposed public street on a project that is currently going through an approval process. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 3 . Ms. O'Neill asked if the $120,000 figure would include association costs as well as possible increases in the costs. She suggested a wetlands expert be included on the walk through of the site with the Planning and Park Commissions to comment on the vegetation and its purpose relative to the wetlands. Ms. O'Neill inquired as to the status of the Comprehensive Plan and how any possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan would affect the proposed development. Ms. O'Neill asked for further information relative to the developers and whether or not they had completed prior projects in Shorewood and have experience with sites which contain wetlands. She cited a number of problems which have occurred in other projects within the city. Ms. O'Neill suggested the City check with other cities in which this particular developer has completed projects. Mike Peterson, 5910 Eureka Road, had no further comment. He echoed the sentiments of Jay Venero and Colleen O'Neill. Shirley Wagner, 25720 Highway 7, echoed the comments of Bob Bean. She also pointed out senior citizens are not out on the roads all the time. She stated senior citizens would generally be out during off peak times. . Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is in favor of senior housing, although he felt the price of the homes as well as the number of homes being proposed to be excessive. Mr. Dallman suggested carrying the park swamp further and that the entire piece of land south of the proposed public street be exchanged for the area of the most northern unit. That unit could be placed farther south along Highway 7. This would allow for proposing a road. It would also give the park a better piece of land to the north which could accommodate an additional ball field. Mr. Dallman also felt lights and noise from the park to be an issue. In addition, he felt the park dedication fee could be improved and commented on the concession stand which has been considered for the park and the cost of the sewer line for this stand. He suggested there may be a trade off. Lela Graupmann, 23240 Park Street, Excelsior, Advisory Board for Southshore Senior Community Center, noted many seniors have moved away because there is only a limited area for them to reside. Ms. Graupmann noted when contacting seniors by telephone to remind them of the public hearing, the response she received from many of the seniors contacted was that they do not drive after dark and would therefore be unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Graupmann noted the seniors are moving to Victoria, the patio homes in Chanhassen and Presbyterian Homes at Glenn Lake given the lack of senior housing in Shorewood. She questioned property taxes on the $120,000, water and sewer fees in addition to association fees. Ms. Graupmann questioned whether there would be another site where a senior apartment section could be located. In addition, she asked if the walk through of the site development would be published in the Shorewood newspaper so residents would be aware of it. Jim McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, inquired as to the cost in widening Eureka Road to 50 feet up to Smithtown Road. Planning Director Nielsen explained the 50 feet would not be the traveled surface. The traveled surface on a collector street would be approximately 26 to 30 feet wide. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 4 Mr. McDougle commented on the density of the site and expressed concern relative to water drainage and the possible flooding which could occur. With respect to purchase of the homes, he asked what would happen if the homes did not sell. Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, commented on the quality of life and did not see any quality of life for seniors who wish to remain in the area. She noted seniors are forced to leave the community in an effort to obtain affordable housing. Ms. Schaff asked if there would be any state funding which would be available on this project to cover Some of the road costs and to assist with the drainage problems. She noted drainage problems have always existed on Eureka Road and felt possibly some type of funding could be sought to address this problem. With or without senior housing, Ms. Schaff felt there would be a stacking problem with Freeman Park regardless of the type of housing which would develop on this site. She pointed out this is simply a proposal and she encouraged everyone to work together to reach a solution to this problem. Ms. Schaff also inquired whether TIP financing has been investigated. Jim Pennington, 5860 Eureka, expressed concern that high density housing will at some point become a target for Section 8 housing. He stated he is in favor of the high cost of living in Shorewood. Mr. Pennington also expressed concern relative to seniors pulling out onto Highway 7. Colleen O'Neill asked for an explanation of what an upgrade to Eureka Road would consist of. Kathy McDougle, 25425 Mann Lane, stated her main concern is Eureka Road and the amount of traffic which will be directed onto that particular road. She also inquired relative to the cost of street lights and any other improvements which may be anticipated. David Hoo, 23260 Park Street, believed there to be a need for senior housing in Shorewood. He felt the only problem in building affordable senior housing will be the higher density which will result. Bill Colopoulos, 26215 Shorewood Oaks Drive, suggested finding a way to work into the project a plan which would provide a guarantee that the property taxes would be at a fixed rate for the duration of the senior's tenure in their home. He suggested Senator Oliver and the City Assessor be asked for input on this suggestion. Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, suggested egress to areas other than Eureka Road could be provided or redone. He stated everyone will have to make a sacrifice for this type of project and felt this could be done in a reasonable manner. Beverly Koehnen, Shakopee, requested information regarding the developer. Gloria Holm, 5315 Eureka Road, visited a model home and stated they are very attractive and felt they would be very appealing to seniors. Bill Hardenburgh, Seamons Drive, inquired how many of the 20 units would be purchased by senior residents of Shorewood as opposed to seniors from other areas. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m. (At this time, consideration was given to Agenda Item No.3.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 5 . Planning Director Nielsen was asked to address the question of how many sites remain for senior housing from the original study which was completed. Nielsen explained 35 sites were studied, however a number of the sites came under development. He noted most of the top five sites which were studied still remain. In addition, there may be other sites which would receive a higher ranking based on the extension of city water down Smithtown Road. Commissioner Borkon asked Mr. Bean to explain his familiarity with senior housing and what his involvement has been with the seniors. Mr. Bean explained he first became involved in these issues when he served on the Planning Commission a number of years ago. Over the past year, Mr. Bean has joined the Board of the Friends of the Southshore. He stated he has been volunteering and been involved with Senior Community Services which is a United Way funded agency which provides senior programming throughout the Twin Cities. The question was raised whether an accurate traffic study was completed on Eureka Road. Brown stated there had not been a traffic study completed. He noted that as a part of the potential closures proposed by MNDOT, there have been discussions relative to paying special attention to the entire Eureka Road/Country Club/Y ellowstone Path area. . The developer was asked for his experience with traffic flow studies with senior developments. Mr. Gleason stated some studies have been done in other areas and typically seniors are not out at rush hour and generally not after dark. As far as traffic problems, these would not be the people stacking up in the traffic from the park. Chair Pisula inquired how many trips are generated from a single family home. Nielsen stated according to the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineering) studies reviewed by staff, there would be a range of eight to ten for a single family and usually five to eight from a townhome. It is also suggested these are non-peak hour type trips. The question had been raised whether density will create problems for abutting property owners. Nielsen stated problems associated with density typically have to do with traffic and often times aesthetics. The nature and character of the buildings are single family in nature. Since the homes are single level, they are easy to landscape and screen from view. With respect to drainage, Nielsen explained there are problems with drainage throughout the community. Nielsen stated controlling drainage is particularly difficult and, therefore, it is critical that ponding which is created is sized to accommodate that development. Relative to the size watermain which will be necessary, a six inch watermain with a loop to Smithtown will need to have a 12-inch watermain. Brown stated the plan analyzes the entire system fully developed and an 8-inch water main was determined appropriate at that time. A question was raised whether the Eureka Road upgrade would be from Smithtown and if it include a walking path. Brown explained the proposal being considered has to do with the section between the east/west road and Smithtown Road. He stated that would be a decision of the city. Relative to the availability of state funds, he noted Eureka Road is a part of the state aid system. There are requirements of curb and gutter and maintaining design widths in order to use those funds. . Relative to Ms. O'Neill's questions regarding the delineation of the wetlands and the study which was completed, Nielsen stated the area which is shown on the plan is the City's designated wetland which was the result of a study which was completed in the 1970s. As a part of any development, the City requires, as a part of the Wetland Conservation Act, that wetland delineation would need to be completed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 6 . When the actual delineation is done, a boundary different than that reflected by the city may be determined. In that case, any setbacks which would be imposed would be based on the more conservative wetland delineation. Until such time as the wetland delineation is completed by a wetland expert and a report is generated, the number is reflective of the City's current mapping. Nielsen stated he will attempt to have someone knowledgeable in wetlands accompany the Commissions on their walk through of the proposed project. A question had been raised relative to association fees and whether they are included in the cost of the project and how future private road maintenance would be funded. Mr. Gleason explained the purchase price does not include the monthly association fee, however, a portion of the monthly association fee would be put into a reserve account for future road maintenance. Questions were also raised relative to the developer and whether or not Eagle Crest has previously worked in Shorewood and if the developer has experience working with wetland areas. Mr. Gleason stated his background is in land development. He listed a number of projects involving wetlands which have been completed by Eagle Crest. Mr. Gleason stated an expert will be hired by the developer to complete the wetland delineation. . Ms. O'Neill had also asked if this development pushes water into the city and whether there are changes in the Comprehensive Plan for water at this time. Nielsen stated there has been a change in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the direction for city water. The current Council has attempted to make this a voluntary system for both current residents and developers. Nielsen stated it has been determined that the extension through Freeman Park to this development would not provide fire flow by itself and, therefore, the Fire Marshall has recommended a sprinkler system for the buildings. At this time, the Council does not intend to extend water down Eureka Road. Brown stated by exploring alternatives, it was not the intention to push watermain down Eureka Road, however, it was the alternative which worked and provided fire flow. At that point, the issue becomes one of feasibility and cost in trying to keep the range to a level where senior housing can be kept at $120,000. Commissioner Kolstad asked if less pressure is used for a sprinkler system versus the fire flow. Brown explained less flow would be required. When looking at the fire flow of a water system, the criteria typically used is conservative. Questions had been raised relative to ponding and the predevelopment standards on 100 year floods. Brown stated MCWD criteria require that the development must maintain the predeveloped run off rate. Once hard surfaces have been added, they cannot release more water than peak rates. Regarding the validity ofthe 1991 Senior Needs Study, Nielsen felt in general the conclusions of the study are still valid and there is still a need for senior housing. He pointed out the study was not exclusively focused on Shorewood, but rather the four communities which make up the south shore. There are studies which show a certain percentage of the people who occupy these units come from a specific radius. . Chair Pisula asked Mr. Gleason to identify the marketing work which was done to clarify and identify demand for such a project in the area. Mr. Gleason explained a list was made up of residents in the Shorewoodffonka Bay area who are 60 and older and there were just under 2,000 identified. Mr. Gleason stated the developer is prepared to send out a mailing to residents in the area, meet at the senior center and work with residents regarding their concerns. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 7 . Mr. Venero expressed his belief if the citizens of Shorewood are asked to accept this development within the community, it should be for the residents of Shorewood and the study needs to reflect whether the demand exists in Shorewood and not a greater area than that. Commissioner Lizee raised the issue of exclusivity, noting if the units are purchased, the taxes are paid in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota and City of Shorewood. Mr. Venero felt if there is a demand for 80 units in Shorewood, this would be a legitimate request, however, he would not consider it legitimate if it takes into consideration an area outside of Shorewood. Mr. Bean stated the census numbers as well as City statistics show this demand does relate to Shorewood. Mr. Colopoulos suggested an idea of land swapping which would solve access problems from the park and development perspective. Mr. Gleason was asked to address the issue of density. He explained smaller units would not be desirable. Once units are removed, the cost increases and must then be spread among the units. He noted if he could make the development denser, he would make it denser to lower the cost. Mr. Gleason stated he would be willing to look at alternatives which would benefit both the park and the developer. Mr. Dallman raised questions relative to a lighting plan and possibly a reduced park dedication fee as a trade off for sewer lines into the park for the concession stand. Brown stated there have been discussions regarding obtaining sanitary sewer service for the concession building for Freeman Park. Sanitary sewer mains have not been in close enough proximity to allow for this to happen. . Nielsen stated at this stage of the concept stage, street lighting has not been proposed, although it would be reasonable to expect some type of internal street lighting within the project. Mr. Gleason stated the project was designed to avoid the use of street lights. Concern was raised relative to possibly the need for a stop light on Eureka Road and Highway 7. Brown explained MNDOT has determined there is no potential need for a signal light at this particular location. With respect to concerns raised by Ms. Graupmann, Nielsen explained the City performed a study approximately four years ago to review actual sites. Of the three or four sites, a couple of the sites were determined more suitable for multiple family and not suitable for single family type housing. Regarding the question of water and sewer fees for seniors, Nielsen stated the initial charges are reduced based on the development potential and the current zoning. To date, the Council has not considered a lower rate for senior housing. With respect to property taxes, there is a deferment option which may be available. Nielsen also explained TIF financing is available and the previous Council had expressed an interest in considering tax increment financing for a number of parts of a senior housing project. The Council would need to be in agreement on this issue. Brown explained there is an amount of proposed legislation relative to eliminating TIF districts or limiting them. Nielsen stated information may be included in the Shorewood newsletter relative to the proposed development. Ms. Graupmann felt that would be better than paying postage to send a notice to all of the Shorewood residents. . Mr. McDougle questioned the cost of widening Eureka Road from the current 21 feet to 26 to 30 feet. Brown stated because the numbers are dependent on right-of-way costs, he would not be able to answer that question at this time. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 8 Relative to Mr. McDougle's questions regarding run off and where it would flow to and whether or not there is adequate drainage on the site, Brown explained the water runs through Freeman Park, under the LRT and ultimately to the wetland between Howard's Point Road and Grant Lorenz. He noted most of the drainage problems are attributed to Eureka Road as opposed to the proposed development. Mr. McDougle's questions regarding the sale of the units was addressed by Mr. Gleason who pointed out the demand greatly exceeds their best projections. In addition, the units are built as they are sold. Mr. Gleason assured this is not the type of project which will become Section 8 housing. Ms. Schaff had inquired relative to state financing which would be available for road costs and drainage. Brown explained the only financing he is aware of would be state aid which again raises the issue of curb and gutter. A question was raised regarding who would pay for street lights. Nielsen explained when the City has approved street lights in the past, NSP has paid the initial installation and the City pays the monthly electric bill. With respect to Mr. Venero's concern regarding local occupancy of the units, Chair Pisula asked if it would be feasible to have a period of time which involves only Shorewood residents. Mr. John Gleason stated the first marketing would be made to the Shorewood and Tonka Bay seniors. Relative to the $120,000 cost per unit, Commissioner Kolstad asked how the City could encourage the developer to keep that price rather than increasing it. Nielsen stated at this point, the most available way to ensure this would be to have some discussion relative to water fee reductions which would be contingent on a certain sale price. Mr. Gleason stated the goal is for the development to be as affordable as possible and stay within the $120,000 range. Commissioner Kolstad questioned how the price would be enforced. Nielsen stated this could be handled through the development agreement. In the event a unit sold for more than $120,000, there would be no fee reduction. Commissioner Kolstad asked what type of services could be available to the seniors such as bus service which would be available to the senior center. Nielsen stated a new mass transit plan was recently initiated and felt that service could be extended to that area and possibly this could be arranged through Dial-a-Ride. Commissioner Kolstad expressed a concern about green space and the quality of development. She did not feel the number of homes fit in with her idea of green space and quality of life. She commented on common areas which build a sense of community. Commissioner Foust questioned whether the ordinance is too liberal in the amount of density which can be put in. Nielsen stated it could be particularly with the stepdown, single level type of housing. Commissioner Foust asked the Mr. Gleason to describe some of their previous developments. Mr. Gleason stated the oldest development is located in Brooklyn Park and is two years old. The newest development is in Maple Grove and the ground breaking occurred the- just one day ago. There were projects in Rogers and Brooklyn Park which opened this last spring. In addition, there are other non-senior type projects in Brooklyn Park and Savage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 9 . Commissioner Foust asked how surrounding property values were impacted by these developments. Mr. Gleason stated in every case a singe family development is adjacent and the property values have not been affected. Chair Pisula asked Mr. Gleason to leave a list of project locations, as well as hours of operation for the existing developments with Planning Director Nielsen. Commissioner Foust inquired as to the resale value on some of the properties in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Gleason stated there has never been a resale in this project. Glen Haven in Brooklyn Park was established approximately 10 years go by another developer, however, the project has been very stable with minimal transitions. Commissioner Foust commented he is intrigued with the project and is looking forward to working through the project. . Commissioner Borkon stated she is also very intrigued by the proposal. She commented the proposed development is something she feels she can go through the next stage with. Commissioner Borkon asked Mr. John Gleason to comment on the main concerns which were raised at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Gleason stated the major concern to be that of density. Commissioner Borkon commented on the Comprehensive Plan as well as the goals which are provided for in the Livable Communities provision of that plan and stated for those reasons this is an appropriate proposal to be considered. Commissioner Borkon asked what elements will be covered in the next stage. Nielsen explained the development stage plans are considerably more detailed and will include more specifics relative to landscaping. Commissioner Borkon stated she is not happy with the 80-unit density, however, she was unsure how to resolve this since the price of $120,000 was determined by Metropolitan Council to be affordable. Commissioner Borkon asked if the price will be increased due to inflation. Mr. Gleason stated there will be some increase. Commissioner Borkon asked how the police protection be affected by the increase in density. Nielsen was unsure of the demand which would be placed on police protection by a senior project. He would expect to see a higher use of emergency vehicles. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the City can require only one garbage collection company be utilized under the P.U.D. agreement. Nielsen stated a development such as this may voluntarily contract with one company. This issue can be further address during the next stage. Commissioner Barkon expressed her concern about Eureka Road being designated as a collector street. She felt an effort was made to remedy the situation by the right-of-way which is being designated. Council Liaison O'Neill felt the width of Eureka Road to be insufficient. Commissioner Borkon asked if there is sufficient space to allow for fire vehicles. Nielsen stated the Fire Marshall has been consulted and will review the area to see if the space provided is adequate. . Commissioner Lizee stated she is excited about the prospect for affordable senior housing. On the special development criteria regarding occupancy, senior housing is limited to persons 62 years of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 10 . age or older. She asked if this would have to be the purchaser and raised the issue of a home health aide who may reside on the premises. Nielsen stated this would have to do with occupancy and whoever actually lives at the property. There are provisions for a live-in health care provider who is younger than 62 years of age. City Attorney Dean is researching the issue of age restrictions. At the present time, the ordinance provides that both residents must be a minimum of 62 years of age. Commissioner Lizee felt it would behoove the Planning Commission to take a field trip to one of the sites. She felt the meetings concerning this issue should be made more available to the seniors who would like to attend and suggested a Saturday afternoon daylight hours meeting. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to hear more from the senior citizens on this matter. Chair Pisula felt this to be a proposal which could move forward. He stated he has an interest in keeping the current zoning. Chair Pisula also inquired whether there will be space available for garden space. Mr. Gleason stated this would be controlled by the association which is ultimately controlled by the residents of the development. . Chair Pisula asked if there have been situations in any of the other projects where residents have requested building things such as decks which would encroach into the green space. Mr. Gleason noted the only request to come forward was for a butterfly garden. Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request for a Conditional Use Permit for Concept Plan of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community for Eagle Crest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road, to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. Nielsen reported the date for the walk through is tentatively set with the Park Commission prior to their meeting on August 12, 1997. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 11 :24 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :29 p.m. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDER SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Location: Richard Hoyt 5710 Ridge Road James Penberthy, attorney for Ingrid and Richard Hoyt, was present and noted the issues which need to be determined are whether there is a hardship in this particular case and whether a deck on the shore is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Penberthy reviewed his Memorandum in Support of an Application for a Variance by Richard and Ingrid Hoyt, copies of which were distributed to the members of the Commission. Mr. Penberthy stated the purpose of the ordinance is to address aesthetic concerns and to provide for proper preservation of the environment. He further stated Mr. and Mrs. Hoyt have taken steps to ensure that these requirements have been met. . Mr. Penberthy did not feel the Commission would be establishing a precedent by granting a variance. He noted the Hoyts had built the deck without a permit. Mr. Penberthy commented the Supreme Court has stated that in the absence of an after the fact variance request, the Council is obligated to view the matter as though it were an application before the matter. He pointed out . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 11 there is a double fee under the building code in a case such as this and that there are penalties involved. Mr. Penberthy remarked there had been comments relative to the proposed application not meeting the intent or the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan. He believed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to state the goals and the objectives which guide the Commission and Council in how the city is to be developed. The mechanism for carrying out those goals and objections is the ordinance, and in this particular case, the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Penberthy referred to the goals and objectives with respect to natural resources which are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated when an ordinance or regulation is enforced, it must be administered fairly and this would include the variance provisions which are included in the ordinance. If the specified criteria are met, then a fair administration of the ordinance states that the variance should be granted. Mr. Penberthy stated this would be considered a neutral enforcement. Mr. Penberthy provided 26 letters in support of the application and one letter in opposition as well as photographs of the subject site. He stated while neighborhood support cannot be the sole reason for granting the variance, it is an important factor which must be considered. Commissioner Foust asked what hardship exists. He questioned whether the hardship is created by not allowing the deck. Mr. Penberthy stated the argument is whether or not the deck is a reasonable use of the property. Chair Pisula clarified he understood Mr. Penberthy to be saying that not allowing a deck in the setback area creates an undue hardship for the Hoyts and that the undue hardship does not allow for reasonable use to be made of the property. Commissioner Borkon asked for a clarification of Mr. Penberthy's memorandum. Mr. Penberthy stated his memorandum is a statement of the law and the arguments he makes would be the arguments the Hoyts would present to the District Court. Commissioner Borkon felt the Hoyts' argument to be a good one and she asked where the City stands in relation to this matter. Planning Director Nielsen stated Mr. Penberthy makes a good case, however, part of the struggle is the notion of what reasonable use actually means. He noted that definition is somewhat open to interpretation. Nielsen stated the compromise presented by the Hoyts addresses many of the items the ordinance attempts to address such as hardcover and aesthetics. He felt from an ethical standpoint, there is an issue with precedent. Nielsen felt if the City is able to achieve greater compliance with the ordinance which would result in less hardcover and fewer structures near the water, this would be acceptable. Commissioner Kolstad asked what reasonable use is being denied by enforcement of the ordinance. She stated everyone on the lake has to deal with some sort of setback from the lake and structures cannot be built within that distance. She questioned what makes this case unique. Mr. Penberthy stated uniqueness is an important concept to be considered. Gary Larson, a neighbor, stated almost everyone on the Ridge Road side has a deck on the lakeshore. The lakeshore cannot be used without a deck because of the topography. Chair Pisula pointed out the applicants knew the regulations when the property was purchased. Mr. Larson PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 12 . stated they also knew there were variance provisions which allow for variances under reasonable circumstances. Commissioner Foust stated there are certain types of docks which are put out and, in some cases, a deck is built out on the dock. He noted that although they are seasonal and removable, they are still a deck within the 75 foot setback. He asked if this would be a more intensive use than a deck which is mounted on the land. Mr. Penberthy noted there are different ordinances which apply to docks. Nielsen pointed out docks are one of the very few things which are allowed along the lakeshore. Commissioner Borkon stated she did not like the fact the deck was established without permission, however, she did feel there could be a hardship and that the property cannot be reasonably used. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern there are many properties on the lake which do not allow for the shoreline to be easily used. Commissioner Lizee stated the DNR must also be a consideration. Commissioner Borkon inquired relative to the DNR. Nielsen stated the DNR is possibly more flexible than the City in terms of what can be placed by the lake. Commissioner Borkon felt one of the most basic issues to be dealt with to be the basic philosophy of the City. She felt if the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan is that people should be able to make reasonable use of their property, then the Comprehensive Plan needs to be revisited. Commissioner Lizee did not agree with Mr. Penberthy that the Comprehensive Plan supports the requested variance. She stated she does not see a hardship, noting the property is not unique and there are many properties with similar bluffs. . Commissioner Foust felt the issue comes down to an issue of fairness to a property owner. Commissioner Kolstad noted the Shorewood ordinance supports that granting a variance will not confer a special privilege denied to other land, structures or buildings. She felt if the variance request were to be granted, the Hoyts would be receiving a special privilege which would not be available to other people with similar circumstances. Without limitation or a way to make it specific to the problem at hand, the Commission would be opening itself up to many arguments for structures on the lakeshore. Chair Pisula stated he is sympathetic to the Hoyts, however, he has voted against this request in the past and he will vote against it again. He commented the Commission is being requested to find that not allowing the deck to be built on the lake shore creates a hardship and does not allow the Hoyts a reasonable use of their property. He noted none of the property owners along Ridge Road were forced to purchase their properties. Chair Pisula stated there are other individuals who are not permitted to use particular pieces of property in ways they consider reasonable because there are conditions attached to the property which preclude their using it. Commissioner Foust believed there should be more control in being able to set conditions. He felt that possibly the ordinance should be reviewed to determine its fairness and whether it does what the City wants it to do. Commissioner Borkon remarked the Hoyts have a unique piece of property and the hardship is unique to their property. She stated they did not create the hardship themselves and there is a desire that citizens have the right to reasonable use of their property. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 13 Commissioner Borkon commented this is a more difficult situation given the fact the property is on a bluff and because the deck is already in place and the Hoyts have taken steps to remedy the situation. Borkon moved, Foust seconded approving a setback variance for Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion failed 2/3. (Pisula, Kolstad and Lizee were the dissenting votes.) Chair Pisula explained this matter will come before City Council for their consideration on Monday, August 11, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION LETTER Appellant: Location: Howard's Point Marina 5400 Howard's Point Road (This matter was addressed after the recess under Agenda Item No.1.) The Appellant requested this matter be tabled to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission given the lateness of the hour. Foust moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of an appeal regarding a zoning violation letter for Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road, to the September 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLACEMENT OF PCS ANTENNAE ON THE WEST SHOREWOOD WATER TOWER (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 1997) Applicant: Location: Sprint Spectrum L.P. 26352 Smithtown Road Planning Director Nielsen explained Sprint PCS has decided not to further pursue application for the location of Personal Communication Services antennas on the Shorewood water tower site located at the Minnewashta Elementary School. Chair Pisula suggested placement of PCS antennas be the subject of the September work session. Commissioner Foust suggested another public hearing on this matter. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE- THROUGH (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of July 1, 1997) Applicant: Location: Bayside Financial Corporation 23780 State Highway 7 Robin Roberts, President and CEO of Bayside Financial, was in attendance. He explained the bank has recently reached an agreement in which the building will be sold to the Shorewood Shopping Center. The bank will lease the property from the Shopping Center for a term of approximately five years. The issue of an easement of approximately 1,600 square feet has been agreed to between Mr. Driscoll, the owner of the easement, and the owner of the shopping center. Mr. Roberts further explained the original easement would be available for five years. During that time, discussions would continue in an effort to extend the easement with the lease. If this is not . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997 - PAGE 14 able to be achieved, a year prior to the expiration of the lease, the bank would relocate an alternate site. Mr. Roberts explained there will also be multiple branch offices for customer convenience. Mr. Roberts expects contracts to be signed in the next week or two. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for bank facility with drive-through for Bayside Financial Corporation, 23780 State Highway 7 subject to staff recommendations and successfully obtaining the required easement. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Pisula stated this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration at their meeting of September 8, 1997. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Location: Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer 6045 Chaska Road Lizee moved, Kolstad seconded approving a simple subdivision for Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer, 6045 Chaska Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 8. REPORTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Borkon seconded adjourning the meeting at 1:05 a.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 TUESDA Y, AUGUST 26, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS SOUTHSHORE SENIOR CENTER 4:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Councilmember Stover. Absent: Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust; Council Liaison O'Neill. 1. INFORMAL DISCUSSION REGARDING CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY Applicant: Location: Eagle Crest Northwest 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road . Bill and John Gleason appeared on behalf of Eagle Crest Northwest. Mr. Bill Gleason explained the proposed development in detail. Mr. Gleason described a typical unit and point out all of the appliances which are included in the purchase price. In addition, he provided photographs of a model unit which is under construction as well as a diagram of the proposed development. A question was raised relative to basements. Mr. Gleason stated the plans do not provide for basements and given the water table in the area, it would not be possible to build the homes with basements. A question was asked about rental units. Mr. Gleason explained the homes are for individual home ownership. The question was then raised why the housing is specifically for seniors. Mr. Gleason stated it was a prerequisite in that the City was looking for senior housing. He pointed out there are requirements which must be adhered to in order to qualify as senior housing. Mr. Gleason also pointed out that approximately 90 percent of the sales for this type of project have been to seniors. In addition, the subject property was designated for senior housing. A question was raised relative to the type of heating to be used and Mr. Gleason stated it is a transit heat which is, in effect, forced air heat. Mr. John Gleason explained the building of a unit and addressed matters relative to construction of the project. With respect to drainage, if problems were to arise, there is a central location to drain the foundation and to pump the water out of the foundation to keep the it away from the house. In addition, Mr. Gleason noted similar developments he has been involved with have not had these problems arise. Mr. Gleason pointed out the only appliances which are not included are a washer and dryer. The units can be customized by moving the location of various rooms in the home. In addition, there are no stairs in the units and they are completely handicapped accessible. Questions were raised relative to decorating of the homes. Mr. Gleason stated the home owner would have a choice of colors as well as vinyl, carpeting and custom made cabinets. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26,1997 - PAGE 2 . A question was asked regarding the type of windows which are used. Mr. Gleason stated they are double pane slider windows rather than the crank out type. A question was asked whether crank out windows could be substituted. Mr. Gleason noted some areas of the home would not be conducive to crank out windows and it would be desirable for the outside of the units to be uniform in appearance. A question was raised about fire walls. Mr. Gleason explained the fire and party walls and noted the units do not connect by the party wall since there is an air space in between the two units. Sounds transfers would be extremely minimal. Questions were raised regarding the taxes on a unit in addition to association fees. Mr. Gleason stated he was unaware of the taxes on the property, however, the association fees in other like projects have been approximately $89 per month. The association fees would include all snow removal and lawn care as well as upkeep on the external parts of the building. Exterior building insurance would also be included in this fee. Nielsen stated a call could be made to City Hall and a comparable could be found and an estimate of the potential taxes provided. A question was asked whether the property surrounding the building would be considered common area. Mr. Gleason explained each unit is plotted with a lot consisting of the area surrounding the unit. There are restrictions relative to what can be done to that property, however, this is generally controlled by the association. . Questions came up as to whether sewer, water and garbage are included in the association fees. Mr. Gleason stated sewer and water are not included, however, the garbage fees would be included. A question was raised how the project will be financed. Mr. Gleason commented Eagle Crest Northwest independently finances the project. Inquiry was made relative to the price of a unit with the addition of a sun room and a fireplace. Mr. Gleason stated the developer is still attempting to make this workable. A unit in the Maple Grove development with those amenities would cost approximately $128,900. A question was asked about the type of water the development will be utilizing. Mr. Gleason noted it will be municipal water. Questions regarding the mitigation of noise from Highway 7 were raised. Mr. Gleason explained there will be extensive berming and planting. In addition, this is a low profile unit and noise is not expected to be a problem. The issue of landscaping was raised and Mr. Gleason explained there is a budget of $2,000 per unit for landscaping so he anticipates an extensive landscaping plan will be forthcoming. Concern was expressed regarding the possible widening of Highway 7. Nielsen explained it is not anticipated the highway would be widened, however, the current plan would be to upgrade the roadway which would involve widening the lanes to the extent possible, creating longer right and left turn lanes and widening the shoulders to the extent possible. Any improvements to be made would be completed within the existing right-of-way of Highway 7 and would not encroach into the subject development. A question was raised relative to the $5,000 water assessment and whether each unit is assessed $5,000. Mr. Gleason explained he is currently addressing this concern and how it will affect a four unit building versus a single family home. . Chair Pisula reported Councilmember Stover checked with City Hall and the taxes on a $120,000 unit would be approximately $2,333 per year and for a $130,000 unit, $2,611 per year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26,1997 - PAGE 3 . A request was made for comments from the Planning Commission relative to this particular project. Chair Pisula stated the goal for senior housing has been in existence since 1990. A survey several years ago identified a need for senior housing. Potential building sites were also identified at that time. Chair Pisula stated the Planning Commission is keeping an open mind at this point and their goal would be to approve a development which will meet the needs of the people in the area. He noted the Commission recognizes there are issues which will impact the citizens of Shorewood and need to be addressed. Chair Pisula also pointed out that senior housing is a goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Chair Pisula noted the Planning Commission will be convening on Tuesday, September 2, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. to continue the public hearing of August 5, 1997, relative to this proposed development. A question was raised regarding how a home owner would sell their unit and if a Shorewood resident would receive preference in purchasing the units. Chair Pisula noted the property would be sold through a realtor. Mr. Bill Gleason stated the units would be first offered to Shorewood and Tonka Bay residents, however, when marketing begins, it will be open to everyone. Questions were raised why the unit cost was originally referenced as $120,000 and it is now referenced as approximately $130,000. Mr. Gleason explained one consideration is the $5,000 water assessment and the cost of sprinkling the buildings which would be an additional $2,000. Land costs in Shorewood are also higher than in other areas. Mr. Gleason commended the Planning Commission on the interest they have taken in this project by the research they have undertaken and the visits which have been made to the site by various commissioners. He noted it is unusual for a Planning Commission to become this involved in a project and he noted his appreciation for the interest the Commission has taken. . Inquiry was made relative to resale of the property. Mr. Gleason stated there is a large demand for the new units. He has not had any experience with resales. Resale of homes in a similar project in Brooklyn Park, the Glenhaven development, have been successful. The homes are generally sold by word of mouth. A question was raised regarding amenities such as a swimming pool, tennis courts or walking trails. Mr. Gleason stated there is a walking trail and Freeman Park is adjacent to the property, however, there are no plans for a tennis court or swimming pool given the expense and burden it places upon the association. A question was asked whether there is a restriction relative to a resale of the property and who it can be sold to. Mr. Gleason stated there is a recorded covenant with the property that the residents must be 62 years or older, however, he was unaware of the specifics regarding that restriction. Concern was raised regarding pet restrictions. Mr. Gleason stated none of the projects thus far have had restrictions relative to pets, however, city ordinances would control this. A point was raised that other 62 and older housing developments have reduced the age limit to 55 and older. Mr. Gleason stated that would not be a consideration with this project and that generally the age reduction is brought about because the cost of the home is set too high and the clientele changes. He noted seniors are not looking to increase their costs per month, but to make it easier for themselves to maintain single family housing. 2. ADJOURNMENT Chair Pisula adjourned the meeting at 5:19 p.m. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, . Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7 :03 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Foust (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Borkon moved, Lizee seconded approving the August 5, 1997, Minutes of the Planning Commission as amended on Page 8, Paragraph 7, Sentence 4, change "until" to "unit"; Paragraph 9, Sentence 2, change "fee" to "feel"; Paragraph 11, Sentence 3, change to read, "occurred just one day ago." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioners Champa and Turgeon abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION LETTER (tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 1997) Appellant: Location: Howard's Point Marina 5400 Howard's Point Road Jerry Brecke, 27450 Pine Bend Road, was in attendance. He stated he is one of eleven Shorewood residents who own the marina. He explained the sign has been in its current location for approximately 56 years. The sign is needed at this particular junction due to the lack of signage in the area. He felt the basis for the request to remove the sign to be retaliation because a similar request for sign placement in the area was discouraged. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Tom Murphy, 27360 Blue Ridge Lane, stated he actually petitioned to have the sign removed. The reason for requesting its removal is that it represents the only business sign on Smithtown Road and it encourages clutter at this intersection. He felt the sign to be an unattractive nuisance which serves no real purpose. Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, stated there are no grandfathered rights relative to signage and given the length of time the sign has been in place, he felt this particular sign is being singled out. Mr. Venero felt there to be many other signs in the city which are also in violation of the ordinance. Hearing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Lizee felt it important to have a sign marking the marina given the number of people who are looking for this location, however, she did not feel it necessary to have a sign as large as the current sign which also advertises boat rental, launching and a snack shop. She suggested the current sign be removed and replaced with a smaller metal sign, similar to a directional sign, which would be attached to the post which is located in this area. Mr. Brecke commented this suggestion would be acceptable to him. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Borkon asked if Commissioner Lizee's suggestion would be in compliance with the ordinance. Nielsen stated to replace the sign would require an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Borkon asked if a variance would be appropriate. Nielsen stated he has consulted with Attorney Dean and a variance would be inappropriate since the owner of the sign does not own the property on which the sign is posted. Commissioner Kolstad suggested a green highway type directional sign noting the location of Howard's Point Road without reference to the marina. Nielsen felt this could be accomplished. Mr. Brecke felt an ordinance amendment would be useful in addressing other situations which may arise given the number of similar signs throughout the city. Commissioner Champa felt if a sign such as the one suggested by Commissioner Kolstad were to be placed, the Commission will then be addressing this situation in numerous other areas. He would like to have the sign remain in place and felt it may be appropriate to consider an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Turgeon was in agreement with the suggestion of Commissioner Lizee and acknowledged the only way this can be accomplished is through an amendment to the ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad asked if this amendment would address only signs which have been grandfathered in and it was agreed this would be the situation. Commissioner Kolstad noted there may be any number of additional signs which could also be affected. Commissioner Turgeon suggested a study session on this matter. Commissioner Borkon was in agreement and felt the Commission would need to be cautious in wording the ordinance in such a way that it can be enforced. Commissioner Champa noted his agreement. Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request of Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road, to the September 16, 1997, work session of the Planning Commission and setting a public hearing for October 7, 1997. Motion passed 6/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE EXCEEDING 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Location: Charles and Carol Crandall 5715 Kathleen Court Mr. and Mrs. Crandall were in attendance. (Commissioner Foust arrived at 7:45 p.m.) Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad felt adequate screening should be maintained throughout the Conditional Use Permit given the proximity to the roadway and adjoining properties. Mr. Crandall explained there are woods behind the garage site and there are 50 to 60 feet of woods between the neighboring driveway and the proposed garage building. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a C.U.P. for accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet for Charles and Carol Crandall, 5715 Kathleen Court subject to maintaining the tree line on the western and southern borders adjacent to the garage and subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Pisula noted this matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on September 22, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 3 . 3. PUBLIC HEARING. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELA TIVE TO SIGNS Applicant: Location: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Greg Limmel, 23290 Highway 7, was present and explained he is the principal of the school and there is a desire to label the building as a school so that its existence is known to the community. The school accommodates kindergarten through eighth grade in addition to a preschool/child care program. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 7:57 p.m. . Commissioner Foust questioned the need for an amendment change versus a variance. Nielsen explained a variance would not be the appropriate tool given the hardship requirement that reasonable use could not be made of the property without the variance. Commissioner Lizee stated she would prefer the proposed signage on Exhibit C and she asked for an estimate of the square footage. Scott Bartz, Board Member, 19422 White Tail Lane, Belle Plain, stated the church is proposing to use 16-inch high letters and provided a diagram to the Commission. With respect to a proposed amendment, he felt the proximity of a property to Highway 7 should be taken into consideration when determining the size of the signage. Chair Pisula inquired whether a Conditional Use Permit might be appropriate. Nielsen felt this could be accomplished. The proposed amendment would need to be changed to indicate that a second sign would require a Conditional Use Permit with the conditions set forth. Commissioner Borkon asked what type of businesses this would apply to. Nielsen explained the proposed amendment would apply exclusively to institutional signs for buildings such as city halls, libraries, churches, and schools and would not apply to commercial signs. Commissioners Kolstad and Champa stated they would not be opposed to considering an ordinance text amendment. Commissioner Lizee felt if a specific square footage could be determined, the ordinance could be amended. Commissioner Turgeon was opposed to determining a square footage and felt the size of the signage would be dependent on the size of the building. Council Liaison O'Neill felt it would be appropriate to address letter size as opposed to square footage. Nielsen noted a Conditional Use Permit will require an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Borkon and Chair Pisula were in favor of a Conditional Use Permit. Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded tabling consideration of the request from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7, to the September 16, 1997, work session of the Planning Commission and setting a public hearing for October 7, 1997. Motion passed 7/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 1997) . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 4 . Applicant: Location: Eagle Crest Northwest 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road Bill Gleason, Eagle Crest Northwest, was in attendance. With respect to the use of restrictive covenants for senior housing, Nielsen explained the protective covenant which limits occupancy to 62 years of age would be enforceable for 30 years and could only be recreated for an additional period of time if the City and all others having an interest in the property agreed. The park dedication fees and local sanitary sewer connection charges have been reduced, however, there could be a provision in the covenant which states those incentives exist as long as the development is designated as senior housing. At such time as the development ceases to be senior housing, the association would be required to reimburse the City for the fee incentives which were allowed as a part of the project plus interest. Commissioner Borkon commented that is an incentive to maintain this property as senior housing, however, she asked if there are any scenarios where it could become necessity for the City to not have this development designated senior housing. Nielsen stated the purpose of the ordinance is to maintain this development as senior housing. Commissioner Champa inquired how the age of 62 was determined. Nielsen explained that age is consistent with the Fair Housing Act which is the federal law which allows discrimination in housing. . Chair Pisula re-opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Mike Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, asked how the Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of senior housing. He also asked what type of notification is required relative to this matter. Mr. Agnew was opposed to senior housing focused on Shorewood and felt it should be a more regional plan in cooperation with other municipalities. . Steve Frazier, 6125 Seamans Drive, stated he is in support of senior housing and acknowledges it has been a long term goal ofthe City. Mr. Frazier asked the following questions. (1) Does this proposal comply with the ordinance; (2) Is the proposal within the guidelines of the land use plan; (3) Are the number of units within the P.U.D. or within the 10 percent conditional use; (4) How many acres of wetland are included in the acreage and are they added into the total acreage to determine density; (5) Are there any wetlands included in the total area of the PUD, and will an environmental impact statement be required; (6) What level of variance to a CUP or PUD is being considered above and beyond the strict number guaranteed under the land use plan; (7) What type of traffic plan concerns does the Planning Commission have and how does that fit into the City's plan and the overall traffic plan for Shorewood; (8) How is that plan complicated by the alternatives reviewed by the Council relative to this development and what impact will that have on Yellowstone Trail; (9) Is there currently a moratorium on development and, if so, what is the moratorium, and are they PUD or Conditional Use; (10) Does the collective covenant carry the weight of the law in requiring the 30-year dedication and the 62-year requirement of the homeowner and does that apply to all persons living in the home; (11) Why is a CUP being considered versus a PUD; (12) Why is this being called a Conditional Use; (13) Is a PUD just a subcategory of Conditional Use; (14) Will there be another opportunity for input and questions; (15) Is the developer certified to develop and/or the architect licensed to do business in Minnesota and fully licensed to operate in Shorewood; (16) What is the water service to the area and does it meet city code; (17) Does the water service meet the fire code and the home owner demand within that, and if not, what are the contingencies; (20) Is there any consideration in going to Chanhassen for water service; (21) What are the City incentives other than the park dedication fees of $1,000, waiving or modifying that, sewer access charges, and water charges; (22) Is there any Tax Increment Financing or any subsidy being used relative to the project; (23) What are the transportation needs of this development and have they been addressed; (24) Is there any public . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 5 transportation being considered for this area; (25) Has the anticipated increase in traffic been addressed with the highway department. William "Bud" Koch, 22845 Murray Street, commented the time has come to sell his home and find smaller accommodations which are affordable. Mr. Koch stated he is very interested in this particular project. Mr. Koch did not feel there would be excessive traffic or noise from this senior development and commented there are no senior accommodations available in this area. Bernadette Thompson, 6100 Seamans Drive, asked if the City can legally agree to swap designated park land. In addition, she was confused with the issue of a CUP and whether this raises the density for senior housing and asked what considerations are given to that. Ms. Thompson commented that the Comprehensive Plan is being rewritten at this time and asked how that would affect making a decision about any development such as this. She stated the last time the City rewrote the Comprehensive Plan a building moratorium was in effect until that task was completed. Ms. Thompson questioned whether there will be public hearings for all three stages of the project. She also questioned how the Planning Commission can agree to the concept plan when there remains the issue of a water flow test which needs to be completed. Ms. Thompson inquired how a PUD would affect the rest of the area, including the undeveloped land along Highway 7 and Seamans Drive. Ms. Thompson expressed concern relative to high density and noted the neighborhood is low density and the residents want to maintain that. Ms. Thompson stated she did not move into the city expecting the city to provide senior housing and she feels the City has an obligation to maintain zoning and the rural area. Bill Hardenberg, 5960 Seamans Drive, expressed concern regarding the 3D-year covenant and asked if another City Councilor Planning Commission could decide in years to come that Section 8 housing would be a priority to senior housing and change the covenant. Mr. Hardenberg requested an estimate of how many Shorewood residents would actually move into this development. He felt the Commission has a ratio or architectural agenda in mind relative to the different types of people who should live in Shorewood. Mr. Hardenberg questioned a document signed by former Mayor Bean relative to Shorewood providing affordable senior housing in exchange for sewage charges and transportation allocations from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Hardenberg felt people should live in the most desirable conditions their resources will allow, whether they are seniors, middle aged, family or single. Martin Wellens, 4755 Lakeway Terrace, stated the July 31, 1997, memorandum of Planning Director Nielsen is based on the assumption the Council will pass a CUP and designate this development as senior and the 108 units for the property is not accurate unless the Council passes a CUP. He noted a discrepancy between the number of units Nielsen states can be established on this site and the number of units the developer has concluded. In addition, Mr. Wellens felt that including the ordinance in the packet to be misleading in that the Livable Communities Act would not apply because it was in effect through the calendar year 1996. He also felt the fee reduction in the park dedication fee and the sewer access charges represents a subsidy to this development by the City. Bob Picha, 5930 Seamans, stated all of his questions had been raised by other speakers and he felt the traffic issue off of Highway 7 would need to be addressed prior to approving this project. Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is not in favor of the senior development and noted, as a park commissioner, this area makes a good park. He felt that as a property owner, if the Planning Commission and the City Council are going to go ahead with the project, it is time to stand aside and not tie the hands of the developer. Mr. Dallman was impressed with the developers and felt they are genuine in their concerns. He also stated a tree is a renewable resource and the developer should not be required to make changes to the development to save a stand of trees. Mr. Dallman did not feel the sale of the homes could be limited to Shorewood seniors. He stated the City is destined to have something in this area and agreed with the comments relative to the traffic situation which needs to be addressed. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 6 Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, commented the project is based on economics as a business venture. He did not believe any subsidy based on senior housing should apply. Mr. Venero remarked the zoning ordinances have been in effect for quite some time and were put in place to protect the residents who have been in the area for an extensive period of time. He stated traffic and noise will be issues which need to be addressed. Mr. Venero felt this senior housing project to be the first step toward subsidized housing. Bob Bean, 5285 St. Albins Bay Road, commented seniors are the single largest growing segment of society and this area needs to be addressed. He stated zoning in any context is no different in the context of limiting what can be done with an individual's land. With respect to the Metropolitan Council, Mr. Bean explained the needs and the priorities of the City relative to senior housing predate anything which was reviewed with the Metropolitan Council. A variance is the varying from an established ordinance. The existing ordinance provides for this level of density within the statutes and no request is being made for anything outside of the ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bean suggested that consistent with the sewer and park dedication fee incentives to promote senior housing, the City strongly consider a provision on the water connection charge because the City's driving need is for affordable senior housing. Mr. Bean noted this to be the best location for the development given the buffering from all surrounding neighbors. He noted a survey was taken during the open house which was held at the Southshore Senior Center and there was a nearly unanimous approval indication and no indication of opposition. Al Wagner, 25720 Highway 7, stated he owns the property adjacent to Freeman Park. He stated he is at the point in his life where his children are grown and have left home and he is ready to move on to smaller accommodations. Mr. Wagner agreed with the comments of Mr. Koch, Mr. Dallman and Mr. Bean. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:26 p.m. and reconvened at 9:36 p.m. Hearing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 9:36 p.m. Relative to the issues raised by Mr. Agnew, Nielsen read from the Land Use chapter ofthe Comprehensive Plan relative to senior housing. He explained the City entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council, the Livable Communities Act, which assigned a numerical goal of achieving senior housing. The Livable Communities Act is the voluntary method of encouraging cities outside of the core cities to participate in affordable housing programs. At the time that was being done, there was a feeling if cities did not join in the voluntary program, something more drastic would occur at the State Legislature level and that the Metropolitan Council could gain a more active role in zoning or use of tax proceeds for various communities which do not provide their fair share of affordable housing. The City did not want to risk the more drastic approach and chose to single out senior housing, which was already a part of the Comprehensive Plan, and used that to satisfy the commitment to affordable housing. Nielsen stated the zoning ordinance requires notification of property owners within 500 feet of the project, however, in this case, the Planning Commission felt the notice should go farther and the notice area was increased to 1,000 feet. The city requirement of notice within 500 feet exceeds the state requirement of notice within 300 feet. In addition, the notice was published in the newsletter as well as the Sun Sailor. Nielsen explained the City has looked into coordinating efforts with other south lake communities in order to accomplish this goal. Mr. Agnew inquired whether the notice needed to be posted on the property. Nielsen stated that is done only in the case of a subdivision of the land. With respect to the questions raised by Mr. Frazier, Nielsen stated the density which would be allowed on this project would be under a Conditional Use Permit if it were approved. With regard . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 7 to the discrepancy between the developer's figures and those of staff, the developer neglected to subtract the road right of way. In addition, the developer based his calculations on units per acre rather than per 40,000 square feet which is what the ordinance prescribes. Since there are two different zoning districts within the site, half of three buildings are located on the R-1A side. There will need to be a determination whether these will be counted as full or half units. Chair Pisula asked Nielsen to explain why this project is being handled as a PUD. Nielsen explained the ordinance cross references a great deal. In a Conditional Use Permit which allows senior housing within any of the zoning districts, it refers to the requirements of the PUD district. Nielsen noted an environmental impact study and assessment work sheet would not be required of this development. With respect to traffic, the Comprehensive Plan identifies a closing of the south entrance to Freeman Park and extending to Eureka Road. This would be done as a result of the corridor study which was completed by MNDOT. What is being proposed is consistent with the direct access to Highway 7 being closed and the traffic being rerouted to Eureka Road. Council Liaison O'Neill stated a study assisted by MNDOT will occur at some point in the future. Relative to any possible moratoriums which may be in effect, Nielsen stated the only current moratorium pertains to adult uses. Nielsen stated there will be opportunities for input prior to this matter coming before the City Council. There will be additional public meetings, however, there are no specific public hearings which would be held. The Council can require a public hearing at any stage of the proceedings. Mr. Gleason explained Eagle Crest is a licensed contractor in the State of Minnesota, however, a license specific to Shorewood is not required. With respect to water flow, Nielsen stated there is an issue with water flow. Testing has indicated the flow is not adequate for fire flow and the Fire Marshal has recommended each unit be sprinkled for fire protection. Since that determination, it was discovered there is a valve which was partially closed and therefore the flow will need to be retested. If the flow is still inadequate, one option would be to sprinkle the units and consideration could also be given to an interconnection with Chanhassen. The issue of incentives was raised and Nielsen stated there has been discussion relative to reduced water charges, however, no decision has been made. The developer has not requested Tax Increment Financing. Regarding transportation needs, no specific routing has been scheduled for this project, however, it is possible arrangements could be made with the South Lake and Dial-A-Ride type services. Issues raised by Ms. Thompson were addressed by Nielsen. He noted the City can dispose of park land even though it was dedicated as a park project as long as the proceeds of the sale or conveyance go into the park fund. In a swap of land, if agreed to, the piece that is traded would have to go back into the park. The proposed swap would be for 1.2 acres of Wagner property for .9 acres of City property which is located on the south side of the wetland area, adjacent to Eureka Road, and that is where ponding is proposed. Nielsen will request a legal opinion on this issue. Council Liaison O'Neill stated the Comprehensive Plan is not being rewritten and offered to provide a list of the areas of the Comprehensive Plan which are being reviewed. Nielsen commented whether the concept plan can be approved without knowing the results of the water flow test would depend on how critical that issue is to the Planning Commission and the developer and approval could be conditioned on the outcome of that test. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 8 Mr. Gleason stated a mailing was sent out to approximately 1,950 senior residents of Shorewood and Tonka Bay and approximately 48 attended the public meeting at the Southshore Senior Center. Out of that meeting, approximately 25 residents were interested in purchasing a unit. Nielsen explained the City cannot specify that the project is exclusively for Shorewood residents, however, the developer will initially market to residents of Shorewood and the south shore communities. Commissioner Champa asked if there can be a preferred list. Council Liaison O'Neill stated the attorney had advised this would be discrimination. In response to concerns raised by Mr. Wellens, Nielsen explained in accordance with current zoning, approximately 22 homes could be located on the site. This is based on the acreage minus the public streets. The buildings are somewhat larger than a single family home. Issues of hardcover were raised previously when discussing drainage. The developer will calculate the impervious surface and supply that information. Commissioner Champa felt it to be a fairness issue to anyone in the City and felt by the ordinance, the City is subsidizing senior housing. It was his opinion this matter requires additional discussion. Nielsen explained when the City established the senior housing ordinance, there was a discussion that seniors put fewer demands on things such as the park system and the sewer system given the lower occupancy rates. In addition, there is no demand on the school district, traffic demands are less in that there are fewer trips and they are at different times of the day and do not contribute to the peak traffic counts. Nielsen explained the intent of the ordinance is to charge a fee based on demand and therefore it was determined the fees relative to senior citizens would be reduced. Commissioner Kolstad felt the subsidy to be acceptable because it is keeping the price down for seniors to purchase the property. Once the home is resold, the City no longer benefits from having affordable senior housing. She felt the affordability of the project needs to be maintained. Nielsen stated in that case, the City would have to own and operate the development. Nielsen stated the price of the homes will increase with the market. Commissioner Kolstad felt in that case, the City should not be subsidizing this project at all. Commissioner Champa pointed out the City will be subsidizing this project for nonresidents who move in. Commissioner Turgeon felt without the fee reductions, the price of the homes would increase to the point they will no longer be affordable. Mr. Gleason pointed out the current proposal is coming in under the current ordinance and any changes which are later made, would not apply to this proposal at this time. Commissioner Borkon asked former Mayor Bean to comment on the concerns expressed by Mr. Wellens relative to the Livable Communities Act. Mr. Bean explained his recollection the Metropolitan Council was looking for a two year adoption and at the end of the two years, the City could opt out of the agreement. There was an incentive for the City to participate given the grant funds which were available. Mr. Bean noted the City chose to append additional items which were a restatement of what was in the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen stated he will obtain a legal opinion relative to the City's obligations under this plan. Mr. Bean stated it was his recollection this was a nonbinding commitment, however, if the City did not participate, grant funds would not be available. Council Liaison O'Neill confirmed the agreement is nonbinding and it will be reviewed by the present Council. Commissioner Champa questioned whether the traffic study should be completed prior to proceeding with this project. Nielsen stated Highway 7 is capable of handling the Shorewood traffic at full development and Eureka has already been designated as a collector street. He stated the question would be relative to the link extending Yellowstone to Eureka. Council Liaison O'Neill stated consideration is being given to a number of options. He noted traffic on Eureka is already a problem. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 9 Commissioner Champa stated his main concerns regarding this development would be traffic and the fee reductions. He also expressed concern relative to noise from Highway 7. Mr. Gleason explained some berming will be done, however, noise has not been a problem in other developments which are also located on busy streets. Commissioner Champa asked how much the addition of a sprinkler system would increase the cost of each unit and Mr. Gleason stated it would cost approximately $2,000. He noted the sprinkler systems present a problem relative to maintenance and other alternatives are being considered. Commissioner Champa asked if there is anything in the covenants which would limit children and grandchildren from moving in with their senior parents and Nielsen noted this would be prohibited. Commissioner Lizee visited the Eagle Crest development in Brooklyn Park and felt this to be a real opportunity for Shorewood and felt the proposal should be moved into the development stage. Having met with the seniors, Commissioner Lizee stated it is important the price remain affordable. She suggested the Commission pursue this proposal on the next level. Commissioner Foust questioned whether a further reduction of fees would be considered in an effort to keep the price down. Nielsen stated as a part of the Conditional Use Permit, conditions may be attached. One condition could be affordability. Commissioner Kolstad stated in addition to Commissioner Champa's concerns, drainage needs to be addressed and a wetland delineation needs to be completed. Mr. Gleason stated the delineation has been completed, however, the results have not yet been received. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to see a trail system connecting with Freeman Park. She requested a nurseryman's opinion on whether the willow trees can survive the development. Nielsen pointed out willow trees are exempt under the tree preservation policy. Commissioner Kolstad felt it important to consider a storm shelter given the location of the project. She asked whether the City or the association will own the internal streets. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like consideration to be given relative to maintaining affordable housing through resales of the homes. She requested an opinion from Attorney Dean regarding the legality of a land swap of designated park land. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would be willing to vote to go on to the next stage. Commissioner Borkon raised concern relative to affordable senior housing, but at same time fair market value may increase thereby defeating the purpose. She felt the City needs to achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan relative to senior housing. Commissioner Borkon feels fee ceilings need to be addressed. She expressed concern with sprinkling and water flow as well as the traffic impact and stated traffic concerns need to be thoroughly explored and addressed regardless of whether this project proceeds or not. Commissioner Borkon stated run off and hard surface area need to be addressed as well as how it will affect the surrounding areas. She felt integration of the trail system would be favorable. Commissioner Borkon felt the proposal should move the basic concept forward addressing and resolving concerns in an equitable manner. Commissioner Turgeon noted traffic to be a concern. She suggested Commissioner Champa visit the Brooklyn Park development. Commissioner Turgeon stated she is concerned with adding the $2,000 for the sprinkler heads and would like to find a way to put fire flow in without the sprinklers. She was also in favor of an integration of the trail system and raised similar concerns of other commissioners relative to a legal opinion on the land swap and drainage. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2,1997 - PAGE 10 Chair Pisula felt there to be substantial issues relative to traffic and traffic patterns which need to be addressed. He stated he is interested in the issue of fire protection, however, he was not in favor of the $2,000 expense for sprinklers. Chair Pisula stated senior housing is an identified community need and the proposed site appears to be appropriate and he would be willing to have the proposal move into the next stage. He pointed out he lives close to the project and could potentially be in favor of this proposal. Nielsen explained the concept stage approval is somewhat binding and as long as the developer addresses all of the concerns raised by the Commission, they will move on to the development stage. He felt the motion would need to be made specific relative to concerns the Commission would want to ensure are addressed. If the developer does not address all of the concerns, the Concept Plan approval would be void. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for concept plan of planned unit development for senior housing community for Eagle Crest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road subject to: density range is acceptable as long as there is compliance with Shorewood and MCWD drainage requirements in terms of quantity and quality of stormwater run off; ponding must be adequate to handle impervious surface; land swap can be legally performed; trail system integration; tree preservation requirements are met; maintenance of internal streets; wetland delineation and compliance with wetland ordinance; water flow determination; fire protection must be resolved; this particular project is one which is not intending to have services and it is understood the age limitation will be 62 years; resolve ownership of internal streets; maintain affordability; determine whether reduction of fees for park and sewer charges is mandatory or available; investigate traffic impact and resolutions to the impact; make determination of how to count the units; location of streets and pedestrian circulation; location of public and open common space; location and extent of residential and nonresidential land uses; staging of development; special development criteria and subject to review of the Planning Commission on September 16, 1997, and consideration of the Council on September 22, 1997. Motion passed 7/0. Commissioner Champa commented he is personally opposed to the proposal, but voted for the concept plan based on what is best for the city as well as the neighborhood. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS - None 7. ADJOURNMENT Champa moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. 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, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Champa, Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioners Borkon and Foust. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 9, change "burming" to "berming." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Champa abstained.) Turgeon moved, Champa seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of September 2, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 6, add "Commissioner Kolstad noted there may be any number of additional signs which could also be affected. " Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Nielsen suggested changing the order of the agenda for the benefit of those who were in attendance relative to the discussion of Concept Plan of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community. 1. DISCUSS CONCEPT PLAN OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY Applicant: Location: Eagle Crest Northwest 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road The Commission reviewed the motion of the September 2, 1997, Meeting of the Planning Commission relative to this issue and made the following modifications and clarifications. Commissioner Turgeon noted the reference to density range relates to the RIA and R1C zoning areas and further discussion will be necessary to determine whether those units will be considered whole or half units in a specific zoning district. Commissioner Kolstad asked if there is any precedent for two zoning districts combining into one project resulting in the two densities being combined and spread equally over the two areas. Nielsen stated often times when a zoning boundary divides a single parcel, there are rules relative to extending the zoning one way or the other. The zoning line cuts units 38 through 47 almost in half. If the line is shifted to the west, even less of the units would be in the RIA portion of the site. Commissioner Lizee felt the units would need to be counted so that units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, and 47 lie wholly within the R-1A district and units 37,40,41,44,45, and 48 lie wholly within the R- . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16,1997 - PAGE 2 1 C district with half of the units in the R 1 A district afld half ill the R 1 C district since each unit is being plotted with its own property. Commissioner Kolstad asked what the impact would be of moving the units so they are completely within the R1 C district. Nielsen explained most of the land for each of the units is under the building. Commissioner Kolstad believed the homeowner would own the property to the street. Nielsen noted this was not his understanding. Council Liaison was in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Turgeon did not feel this would make a difference. Nielsen felt it would be practical to count half of the lots in each zoning district. Commissioner Kolstad noted the zoning ordinance refers to the number of residences in a particular zoning district rather than the number of lots. Commissioner Champa stated he was also in agreement with splitting the units between the two zoning districts. It was agreed: Density range is acceptable as long as it is in compliance with the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, staying within the RIA and Rl C zoning guidelines; calculated with 19 units in the RIA district and 61 units in the RIC district. Six units are split between the zoning districts and units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, and 47 lie wholly within the R-1A district and units 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, and 48 lie wholly within the R-1C district half are in RIC aDd half in RIA; compliance with the MCWD drainage requirements in terms of quantity and quality of storm water run off; ponding must be adequate to handle impervious surface; land swap between the park and the development can be legally performed; trail system is integrated into the park (see report from Park Commission Minutes of August 12, 1997); tree preservation and reforestation requirements are met; ownership and maintenance of the internal streets needs to be resolved to include parking and street width; Commissioner Kolstad questioned why it is acceptable to allow for a street which is narrower than a normal residential street. Nielsen explained it is the recommendation of the Fire Marshall that the streets be designated as no parking although parking is allowed on public streets. Commissioner Kolstad would like to allow some on-street parking on one side of the street. Commissioner Lizee expressed concern this would encourage parking from individuals utilizing Freeman Park. A final determination will be sought from the Fire Marshall relative to the 22-foot width of the street. It was also agreed: Wetland delineation and compliance with wetland ordinance; water flow determination; this particular project is one which is not intending to have services and it is understood the age limitation will be 62 years; Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether a younger spouse would be permitted. Nielsen stated the current ordinance provides for a caregiver which is limited to 30 days. For a younger spouse to be permitted, an ordinance amendment would be required. The consensus of the Commission was to request the Council review this issue. It was further agreed: Explore ways to maintain affordability as defined by Shorewood and Metropolitan Council for the area; . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Kolstad noted this issue has to do with any resale of the property in which the price could increase and no longer be considered affordable. Commissioner Champa felt this referred to up front costs such as park dedication. Nielsen commented the value will increase with inflation. Generally the value of single family homes increases because of improvements and expansions which are made to the home and the proposed units would not be able to be expanded. Commissiofler K-olstad suggest-ed a determination be made relatiye to the reductiofl of fees for park and S6'l/er charges and whether they are mandatory or a'/ailable. It was agreed: Investigate traffic impact and resolutions to the impact; location of streets and pedestrian circulation to be addressed in the development stage. It was also agreed the following will be deleted from the motion: "Location of public and open common space; location and extent of residential and nonresidential land uses; staging of development; special development criteria; and subject to review of the Planning Commission on September 16, 1997." Champa moved, Turgeon seconded accepting the revised wording of the motion. Motion passed 5/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL REGARDING ZONING VIOLATION LETTER (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) Appellant: Location: Howard's Point Marina 5400 Howard's Point Road Commissioner Lizee stated she is in favor of the amendment as proposed. Commissioner Turgeon commented on the 20 year requirement and questioned where the burden of proof lies. Nielsen explained information would have to be gathered and it would ultimately be left to the City Council to determine how long a sign has been in place. Commissioner Kolstad questioned why an ordinance amendment is being considered. She also asked why the Commission is attempting to accommodate the marina. Commissioner Champa felt it to be a safety issue and the subject sign serves its purpose. Commissioner Kolstad stated the City has a very clear ordinance. She expressed concern there would be additional requests for changes to the ordinance. Commissioner Lizee felt this to be a safety and aesthetics issue. She felt there to be a need for a directional sign given the number of residents who look for the marina. Commissioner Champa pointed out the sign has become a part of Shorewood and it is used as a directional point. He also stated there are other areas in the city which have signs located in the right of way areas. Commissioner Turgeon felt this to be a way to reach a compromise which takes the advertisement effect out of the sign and makes it a simple directional sign noting the location of the marina. Commissioner Kolstad did not believe there to be an overriding justification for changing the ordinance. She stated an amendment could prompt more requests for changes. Commissioner Turgeon stated that overall she has no problem with the amendment other than the 20 year requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16,1997 - PAGE 4 . Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m. Champa moved, Lizee seconded approving the ordinance provisions as amended. Motion passed 4/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) 3. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Tabled at Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) Applicant: Location: Evangelical Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 ** Agenda Items 3 and 4 were considered simultaneously. ** Commissioner Kolstad stated Shorewood is a rural residential area and felt the proposed signs are t?O commercial for the area. In addition, she stated she would not be in favor of internally lit SIgns. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would not be opposed to the sign for the senior center if it were in front of the building or on the building. She was not in favor of it being located on County Road 19. Chair Pisula stated he would not mind having the sign located on Highway 7, but he would not want the sign located on Smithtown Road. . Planning Director Nielsen stated the language will read, "Such freestanding sign may be indirectly illuminated and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade." With respect to the wall sign being requested by the church, that sign would also be indirectly illuminated. Internally lit signs will not be permitted. lllumination time was discussed and Commissioner Lizee suggested the illumination time not be allowedfrom the hours of 12 midnight to 6:00 a.m. be set from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m. It was also suggested the illumination time be consistent with the Waterford Shopping Center which is 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Champa did not feel there should be a time limitation on the signs. Commissioner Kolstad felt someone could come in for an exception if there is a problem. Commissioner Turgeon felt if there is light located around a building, there would be a reduction in vandalism. With respect to the size of the sign age, Nielsen explained the church is proposing a sign which would be 2.5 percent of the total building silhouette. The proposed amendment would allow for a sign which shall not exceed 5 percent of the building silhouette. The Commission was in agreement relative to the 5 percent provision. Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded approving the zoning text amendment relative to signs for the Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7, with Planning Director Nielsen's recommended changes, deleting "or internally" from subsection (b); and adding "Section II. Indirectly illuminated." Motion passed 5/0. . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 5 4. DISCUSS AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER ** Considered with Agenda Item No.3 ** 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS Commissioner Champa reported on the informational meeting held by the City Council on September 15th relative to the project being proposed by Evan Meline (as detailed in the Minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Turgeon reported on the September 8, 1997, meeting of the City Council (as detailed in the Minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Lizee reported on the September 6, 1997, meeting with the Lake Virginia Neighborhood (as detailed in the September 9, 1997, Minutes of the City Council). The October work session was scheduled for October 14, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., rather than October 21, 1997. 7. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. 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, OCTOBER 7, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Commissioners Champa and Foust. Absent: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 1997, as amended on Page 1, Last Paragraph, change to read: "Commissioner Lizee felt the units would need to be counted so that units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, and 47 lie wholly within the RIA district and units 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, and 48 lie wholly within the Rl C district since each unit is being plotted with its own property." Page 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change to read: "Six units are split between the zoning districts and units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 47 lie wholly within RIA and units 37, 40, 41, 44, 45 and 48 lie wholly within RIC;" Paragraph 7, Sentence 3, change to read, "to allow some on-street parking on one side of the street." Delete Paragraph 1 on Page 3; Page 4, Paragraph 6, change to read, "suggested illumination not be allowed from the hours of 12 midnight to 6:00 a.m." Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MARY LAKE ADDITION Applicant: Location: Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand 5910 Minnetonka Drive Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter in detail and recommended the request be tabled to the November 4, 1997 meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit engineering plans addressing drainage. Roger Anderson, Civil Engineer, 7415 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 107, appeared on behalf of Ms. Gleason and Mr. Tinnesand. Mr. Anderson explained this plat meets the zoning requirements. He noted sanitary sewer is available in the area and it is likely a new well will be installed which would be shared by all three homes. Mr. Anderson proposed at the time of the plat that no grading be performed. It was his opinion an architect, a builder and a new lot purchaser could fit a home in to match the lot. He felt this would create an opportunity to save trees based on the location of the homes given the current layout of the property. With respect to hydrology, Mr. Anderson stated there is more contribution from off site than from on site: Based on calculations he has made, Mr. Anderson felt the impact created by the new homes would be approximately 10 to 15 percent. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 2 Mr. Anderson pointed out the drain on the site and explained it does drain out to Mary Lake. Mr. Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive, was also in attendance and he related the history surrounding the drainage situation on the property. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. David Weider, 23820 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern relative to drainage. He noted in the spring and winter the drain tile routinely becomes plug resulting in a fair amount of standing water which encroaches onto his driveway. Even when the drain is clear, heavy summer rains will produce some pooling of water. Mr. Weider also commented on the rain event in 1987 which resulted in significant flooding on his property. Mr. Weider pointed out he has a 4- foot wide oak tree on his property which he would like to ensure is protected. Jim Hamstra, 23930 Yellowstone Trail, asked for a clarification of the zoning for the area. He also commented on problems with drainage in the area, typically in the spring when snow is melting. Mr. Hamstra also recalled the flood problems which resulted from the storm of 1987. Rick Howell, 5865 Minnetonka Drive, presented a petition from the adjoining property owners in opposition to Mr. Tinnesand's request. The neighbors feel this development will significantly change the character of their neighborhood. Roger Lepke, 5915 Minnetonka Drive, stated Mr. Tinnesand has been a very good neighbor and stated he makes his comments with much consternation and trepidation. Mr. Lepke commented on the pooling and drainage problems which have occurred in the area over the years. Mr. Lepke felt constructing more houses in this area will leave the appearance of a housing development which will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. He also expressed concern that higher density in the area will reduce property values. Roger Leak, 5870 Minnetonka Drive, expressed concern that the three homes will share one well. He inquired whether a study will be performed to determine how many new homes and new wells will be allowed in this particular area. Jim Eddy, 5830 Minnetonka Drive, expressed concern relative to additional traffic being generated in the area given the number of children currently in the area and the increase in housing. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the Watershed District will review this property. Nielsen explained City Engineer Brown is checking into this matter. The City has recommended that a grading plan be submitted. Commissioner Kolstad asked how the culvert crossing Minnetonka Drive will be dealt with. Nielsen commented the concern on this property is relative to the additional water which will be generated. He stated a 4-inch PVC is typically not adequate to drain a property. The minimum currently allowed would be a 12-inch storm sewer. The engineer will also review this issue as part of a grading plan. The only outlet for the hole currently appears to be the 4-inch pipe. Commissioner Lizee stated she would like to see the engineer's report regarding drainage and grading. She would also like to know the position of the Watershed District. Commissioner Borkon raised the issue of the water table and number of wells in relation to the water table and asked if there is a point in which an alternative is considered such as municipal . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 3 water. Nielsen stated this has not been an issue. In addition, the aquifers in the area are adequate to serve the proposed density which is projected for Shorewood under the current zoning patterns. With respect to the community well which would be shared by the three homes, Nielsen explained this can be proposed, however, the City would expect each home built on this property to be served by its own well system. Commissioner Borkon felt the information available at this time to be insufficient with which to make a decision. Commissioner Turgeon asked if there had been any consideration given to blocking the roadway at either Yellowstone Trail or County Road 19. Nielsen stated this has not been considered, however he noted there has been some shortcutting through the area. Commissioner Turgeon suggested a traffic count be performed on this roadway. Commissioner Turgeon commented that she sympathizes with the neighbors and the petition, however, neither the Council nor the Planning Commission have the power to deny the property owner the ability to develop the property in a manner which meets the criteria for that particular area. Chair Pisula suggested the neighbors meet with Mr. Tinnesand in an attempt to reach a proposal which would be mutually acceptable. Commissioner Turgeon requested the 4-foot wide oak tree on Mr. Weider's property be kept in mind to avoid any damage occurring to the tree. Mr. Anderson provided some photographs of the area depicting the location of the drain. Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request for preliminary plat - Mary Lake Addition for Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive to the November 4, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to provide additional information relative to a grading plan, drainage on the site, a wetland delineation, the handling of the culvert across Minnetonka Drive, detailed storm water calculations, detailed tree inventory and additional information on the water table relative to wells. Motion passed 5/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS Applicant: Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center Glenn Froberg appeared on behalf of the Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center. He stated the Center needs to have a sign with a message board which is visible from County Road 19. Mr. Froberg felt an internally lit sign would be easier to see from the highway and would be more adaptable for changing the message. Mr. Froberg felt this type of sign would be more visible as well as aesthetically acceptable to the area and would not create a hazard to passing motorists. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Lizee felt the key points to be attractive, aesthetic and non-hazardous. She stated she is in agreement with Chair Pisula's memo regarding internally lit signs and felt this sign would . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 4 be attractive and a nice addition to mark the Southshore Center. Commissioner Lizee expressed concern relative to a sign being placed on Country Club Road which would direct traffic onto Country Club Road. Nielsen stated consideration is being given to a wooden directional sign. Commissioner Kolstad commented that she is philosophically opposed to the request on a general basis. She stated she would have a problem with making a blanket ordinance amendment. If the sign were to be within a specified number of feet of a commercial area, she would not be opposed to that. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would not want to see signs place indiscriminately throughout the city and she did not feel this to be appropriate for the city. She felt there may be some other solution to getting word of the Center out to the community rather than placing a sign. CoIIllIiissioner Borkon asked for clarification of the setback requirements. Nielsen explained the requirements would be five feet in toward the building from any property line. It was also noted the bottom of the sign would be landscaped. Mr. Froberg stated the sign would be placed on the side of the building where the former driveway was located. Commissioner Borkon stated she shares some of the concerns of Commissioner Kolstad, however, she felt the Center does need signage given the need to know where the Center is located and the number of people from outside of Shorewood who would be looking for the Center. Commissioner Turgeon stated if the ordinance is amended as proposed, the church would then be in compliance. She stated she would not want to allow signs in residential areas. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out the church on Highway 7 is in a residential area. Nielsen explained churches are handled by a Conditional Use Permit and state law provides they cannot be prohibited in residential areas. Commissioner Turgeon stated she does not have a problem with the amendment and would like to b~ng the church into compliance and this would also allow the Senior Center to establish their SIgn. Commissioner Borkon inquired as to the process to be followed for a Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen explained the language would need to be changed and conditions assigned. For the number of signs which currently exist, he felt a Conditional Use Permit may be excessive. Chair Pisula felt with the way the ordinance is drafted and because so few places in the city can be affected, this is an expeditious way of controlling and managing the process. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a zoning ordinance amendment relative to signs for the Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center. Motion passed 4/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) Chair Pisula noted this matter will come before the Council for their consideration on October 27, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO GIDEON WOODS P.U.D. AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Applicant: Location: Gideon Woods Homeowner's Association Common Area of Gideon Woods P.U.D. . Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 5 Jim Savoy, 5455 Gideons Lane, stated his townhome is the one most affected by the sign. When he purchased the property, he was told by the developer the sign would be gone at the end of the lease. He explained the sign separates the trail from his property and shields the snowmobiles and car headlights from his home. He felt the suggestion relative to planting spruce trees as a buffer to be a good idea and noted the townhome association could use the income from the sign to screen along the trail and County Road 19. Mr. Savoy noted the developer made many promises which were not kept both morally and financially. Fred Dresser, 5480 Gideons Woods, stated the financial aspect is an issue given the problems with the developer and the fact the association has been taken over by the homeowners. He noted a petition had been submitted in favor of maintaining the sign in the area. Mrs. Savoy addressed the issue of planting pine trees as a buffer. She explained the lights from County Road 19 come in on the second floor of their home and it would be impossible to obtain vegetation that tall. These lights are presently blocked by the sign. Council Liaison O'Neill stated the neighbors have taken over the homeowners association and all of the income of the association has been lost. Although this request does not comply with the code, the homeowners have suffered a financial hardship given the problems with the developer. Mr. Dresser explained he has met with Police Chief Young and the State Attorney General. He noted the rent on the sign is $2,000 per year. Kevin Conley, 24740 Amlee Road, stated he is opposed to retaining the billboard and felt the presence of the billboard to be incompatible with the area given the proximity to the park and the entrance to the trail. He did not believe it to be necessarily equitable to allow a noncompliant, income producing entity such as the billboard on a residential property. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether the City could be subject to litigation because of the acts of the developer. Nielsen explained there has been no suggestion of risk to the City. Commissioner Borkon questioned the use of the City Attorney with respect to this issue. Nielsen explained City Attorney Dean is exploring the possibility of fraudulent action on the part of the developer. Commissioner Kolstad asked from what standpoint this would be the business of the City. Nielsen explained the City Attorney is investigating to determine whether a prosecutable crime has been committed. Commissioner Borkon questioned where the City ceases its involvement and the residents take over. Nielsen explained there are claims and allegations by the residents that the City is not involved in. The residents are working with the Attorney General's office in this regard. Commissioner Borkon noted according to the PUD, the sign needs to be removed, however, there appears to be extenuating circumstances. She stated she would like to have legal input from City Attorney Dean in this regard. Nielsen pointed out the City Attorney's involvement in the matters at Gideon Woods does not have anything to do with the request to amend the PUD Agreement and protective covenants. Commissioner Borkon felt the two issues to be entwined. She expressed compassion for the residents of Shorewood who have been put in a hard place through no fault of their own. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 6 . Mr. Dresser stated the issues are completely separate and have nothing to do with each other. The homeowners want the sign to stay up for five years to obtain the rental income for the benefit of the association. Commissioner Turgeon stated the City has been working since the 1980s to get the signs out of the city and while she sympathizes with the situation, the problem which arises is how to separate a business from a homeowners association in the event Fina or Total were to return at the end of their lease stating they need the income from the sign and are, therefore, requesting an extension. Council Liaison O'Neill did not feel this situation would set a precedent with Fina or any other business. It was Commissioner Turgeon's belief the City made a promise in the PUD Agreement and did not feel it could be separated by one situation versus another one. Commissioner Lizee noted her agreement with Commissioner Turgeon's remarks. She also felt a promise had been made and would not support extending the agreement. Commissioner Kolstad commented while she is sympathetic to the plight of the homeowners association, she also felt the sign should be removed. Commissioner Lizee questioned whether there would be other methods of screening available for this area. Nielsen explained for a long term solution, vegetation would be the most favorable method. . Nielsen explained the developer could be required to post an escrow prior to obtaining building permits for the final four units. Chair Pisula stated while he is against the request and is sympathetic to the residents, the Council views agreements as inviolate and not to be changed. He did not feel there to be a public purpose to change the PUD Agreement given the amount of planning when the provisions were set. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement with the other commissioners in that a commitment was made that the sign be removed, however, she was sympathetic to the residents. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded denying an amendment to the Gideon Woods P.V.D. Agreement and Protective Covenants for Gideon Woods Homeowner's Association, Common Area of Gideon Woods P.V.D., contingent on the City Attorney's opinion that the City owes no responsibility to the homeowners or the homeowners association. Motion passed 5/0. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded prior to granting of further building permits to the Gideon Woods development that additional escrow account money is utilized to landscape the old billboard site in such a way that it becomes a screening mechanism for the residents. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Vice Chair Turgeon reconvened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. (Chair Pisula left the meeting at this time.) 4. PVBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) . Applicant: Howard's Point Marina . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 7 Mr. Brecke was in attendance. He was in favor of the recommendation as well as the enforcement provIsIon. Commissioner Kolstad stated she does not object to the solution as presented, but she does object to any sign advertising a commercial business and will not vote in favor of the request. She felt the problem could be resolved by using a larger street sign and not changing the ordinance. Commissioner Borkon felt this situation to be different because this is more of a landmark situation and it is important to look at an alternative. She stated she would vote in favor of the sign ordinance amendment. Commissioner Lizee stated she is in favor of the ordinance amendment which will clean up the neighborhood and still assist travelers looking for the marina. Commissioner Turgeon was in agreement with the exception of the 20-year requirement and the issue this presents relative to the burden of proof. She suggested compiling a list of similar signs in the City so that a record exists from the date of the amendment. Nielsen felt an inventory could be completed. This inventory should be kept where it can be easily referenced. Commissioner Kolstad noted her agreement. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a zoning ordinance amendment relative to signs for Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road. Motion passed 3/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to complete an inventory of existing nonconforming right of way signs as a base of reference to be kept in the office of the Clerk of the City of Shorewood. Motion passed 4/0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) Applicant: Location: Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Fred Limmel, 23290 Highway 7, was in attendance. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Mr. Limmel stated he will be moving the mobile billboard this coming weekend. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a zoning ordinance text amendment relative to signs for Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7). Motion passed 4/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL WALL SIGN Applicant: Location: Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Nielsen explained the movable sign which is currently present on the property can be used twice per year for a period of seven days each and a sign permit is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 8 . Mr. Limmel asked if there is a fee for the Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen explained the fee is $200. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7 for an institutional wall sign contingent upon the removal of the moveable sign. Motion passed 4/0. 7. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Location: Stan Taube 27280 Edgewood Road John Atkinson was in attendance on behalf of Mr. Taube. He noted Mr. Taube is in agreement with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Borkon was in favor of Mr. Taube's request. Commissioner Lizee questioned why the driveway has not been removed. Nielsen explained the driveway may be used for the adjoining lot. He will further investigate whether the existing driveway will be utilized or a new one built. Commissioner Turgeon noted her understanding the driveway, the house, garage and the shed were to have been removed by June 16th. . Nielsen there was some delay on the release of the resolution since an explanation relative to the hardcover had been requested. Mr. Atkinson explained the landscaping plan has been revised because a patio has been moved from the proposed plan. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a simple subdivision for Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road subject to staff recommendations as well as the driveway on the Howard's Point property being removed or rebuilt by May 1, 1998. Motion passed 4/0. 8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 9. REPORTS With respect to the land swap, Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the heirs of the property had been contacted to determine their position relative to the land swap. Commissioner Borkon ask that the City Attorney contact the heirs to determine their position. Nielsen noted the developer intends to modify the layout. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded directing the City Attorney to further investigate the land swap, locating the heirs to request their approval. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Turgeon addressed the issue of the homeowners association meetings and requested the meeting notices be sent to the Park and Planning Commissioners. It was noted on Saturday Commissioner Turgeon spent considerable time attempting to locate the homeowners meeting and was unable to locate the meeting. Council Liaison O'Neill explained the meeting was canceled given the fact only five people could . attend. Commissioner Turgeon stated the meeting should then have been posted as cancelled. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7,1997 - PAGE 9 Commissioners Kolstad and Turgeon recalled that requests have been made in the past asking that the Commission be noticed of the meetings being held. Commissioner Turgeon raised concern relative to communication between the Council and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad stated it is important that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to know the feelings of the community. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern with the results of the meetings coming back and being communicated to the Planning Commission as well as other Councilmembers who were not in attendance. Commissioner Turgeon inquired relative to the resident who had requested a berm along the back of his property given the number of baseballs which are thrown onto his property. This matter had been referred to the Park Commission for their consideration and to report back to the Planning Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Kolstad (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioner Foust 1. DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT MONITORING Chair Pisula explained this particular item was raised in July and the Commission will review a memo which was prepared by Commissioner Kolstad and address any concerns the Commission may have relative to development monitoring and resolutions. In her memo, Commissioner Kolstad suggested the Planning Commission be kept informed on controversial issues of their final resolution to include being provided with copies of the agreements and final documents for review prior to signing, being notified of any meetings prior to construction and being advised of any changes in the Commission's original recommendations. Nielsen felt it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to see the final documents which are signed. (It was decided to delay this discussion until Commissioner Kolstad arrived at the meeting. ) Nielsen suggested amending the agenda to include a discussion relative to Cell Towers. 2. DISCUSSION ON PLACEMENT OF ANTENNAE ON CITY WATER TOWERS Chair Pisula felt if it is the Commission's intent to not allow the antennas on the water towers, a policy should be developed outlining where their placement will be permitted. Chair Pisula suggested the Commission consider a moratorium to allow sufficient time to identify sites which would be considered acceptable for antenna placement. Commissioner Champa stated he had not personally reached a resolution of whether the water tower is an acceptable site because the request was withdrawn. Nielsen noted although the moratorium is usually one year to 18 months on normal zoning matters, this time period has been reduced to three to six months on communication issues. Within that time, the ordinance will need to be addressed with locations identified and regulations specified. A site location study would be appropriate. This would also require a public hearing. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Lizee felt the City should be proactive on this matter because once an application is made, it must be acted upon. Nielsen suggested this matter be considered sometime after December. Commissioner Champa inquired whether a moratorium is necessary or whether this issue can be considered without it. A moratorium would prevent any applications from being made while the ordinance is being reviewed and addressed. Commissioner Borkon felt sites should be identified, a recommendation made, public hearing held and if the neighborhood objects, the site could be abandoned. She inquired whether a moratorium could be utilized while a second site is selected. Nielsen felt the initial study would have to be thorough and not limited to one site. He also felt the antenna space on the southeastern tower should be filled prior to utilizing another site. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether a carrier could purchase a piece of property in a residential neighborhood and construct a tower. Nielsen stated this could occur. Commissioner Borkon was hesitant to take a stand on this issue because the City may then be locked into it. Commissioner Champa expressed his agreement. (Commissioner Kolstad arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Nielsen noted that to date, placement of the antennas has been limited to the water towers, however, it has now been suggested that one of the water tower locations may not be acceptable. He noted there is room on the first water tower for two more carriers. Once the tower is full, it will be necessary to identify another site. Commissioner Borkon felt the Commission should be cautious in implementing a moratorium or in identifying a location given the possible ramifications. Chair Pisula noted the problem with the second water tower to be its proximity to the elementary school. He noted there may be locations which are not in residential districts which may be considered more appropriate sites, for example, the public works area. Nielsen suggested a set of ordinances be developed which would discourage a carrier from being able to locate in a residential district such as requiring a fall type setback. Nielsen pointed out that this time, the water towers have been noted as acceptable locations for these carriers. Nielsen suggested a January moratorium which would allow the Commission to work on this issue for three months. Commissioner Turgeon asked for input from the Council relative to their position on this matter. Nielsen suggested a joint study session with the Council at the January 20, 1998, meeting of the Planning Commission. 3. RESUME DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE RELATIVE TO DEVELOPMENT MONITORING Commissioner Kolstad felt the Commission really does not know what goes on once an issue leaves the Commission and she felt it would be helpful to be kept more informed and establish a process in this regard. She noted Watten Ponds to be an example of this type of situation. Commissioner Turgeon suggested Nielsen report on development monitoring as he does at the Council level. Nielsen supported this suggestion and was also in favor of the Commission . . . PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 3 receiving the resolutions and development agreements to assure the recommendations of the Commission are included. Nielsen noted there could potentially be a problem with timing. He suggested when the Commission adds something to a staff report recommendation that the commissioner making the additional recommendation review the final document to ensure it has been included prior to the meeting on Monday evening. Commissioner Champa suggested this information be e-mailed to each commissioner. Commissioners Turgeon and Lizee do not have access to e-mail and, therefore, the information will be hand delivered to them. Commissioner Turgeon stated if something is added to the final document, she would like to know what was added and the reason for it. Commissioner Kolstad raised a concern with receiving the materials in sufficient time to respond to them. Nielsen commented if there are changes which need to be made to a document, they will need to be made prior to the Council meeting. Nielsen suggested establishing a locked mail box in front of the City Hall which would enable the commissioners to stop by and pick up their packets. Commissioner Kolstad was in favor of this because she would be able to obtain the material much earlier than she currently receives it. It was decided Watten Ponds and Marsh Pointe are the developments Nielsen will report on at each of the Commission meetings. He reported on Gideon's Woods noting that developer funds were used to complete the landscaping. The building permits for the last four units are being held until an additional $17,000 is escrowed for various work which needs to be completed. Commissioner Kolstad had referenced in her memo developing an inspection report format. Nielsen explained inspection slips are currently used for building and the engineers use a slip for maintaining a punch list on projects. Commissioner Kolstad felt Nielsen's report would be sufficient to cover this matter. She felt one member of the Commission could provide some direction to the City Council on what the Commission wants to be focused on from an inspection basis. Commissioner Kolstad felt there may be a different level of concern between the Commission and the City Council on such issues as tree preservation on a given development. She suggested a commissioner be assigned to a project as it progresses. Commissioner Lizee felt this to be the responsibility of the Council since the Council has the ultimate responsibility and because they are elected. The Commission has toured the sites and made recommendations and the councilmembers can contact any commissioner to obtain further information. Nielsen stated any commissioner who is interested to that extent should feel free to view the project and contact him with any questions or comments. The third point of Commissioner Kolstad's memo was that the Commission be notified of any meetings involving major projects where a concern has been expressed by local residents regarding the project. Reference was made to a meeting which was held on the Watten Ponds site. Nielsen stated any time a Council agenda or meeting notice is sent, the Planning Commission should be receiving a copy. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out the commissioners have not received notices of the neighborhood meetings which the Mayor has conducted. Council Liaison O'Neill was opposed to Planning Commission members attending the neighborhood meetings and taking minutes. He noted his intent to propose the Council not notice the meetings at all. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested the meetings be set up through . . . PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 4 Administrator Hurm and if there will be three councilmembers in attendance, the meeting would be noticed, otherwise it would not. He stated these meetings provide an opportunity for the residents to speak with their elected officials and are meant to be informal meetings in which the residents can speak freely without minutes being taken. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out it may be of benefit for the commissioners to hear some of the comments of the residents. Commissioner Turgeon felt it would be a good communication tool for the commissioners to be able to understand what residents' concerns are within their areas and to be able to relate their concerns to other areas of the community. Council Liaison O'Neill did not feel this was the forum in which to make that work. He felt if additional people were to become involved in the meetings and minutes were to be taken, residents will not feel free to speak their minds. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out there is no intention to take minutes, but rather to listen to gain an understanding of what the whole issue encompasses for her benefit as a commissioner in making her decision. She did not intend to ask questions or take minutes. Chair Pisula did not feel the neighborhood meetings are open meetings when Planning Commissioners are not invited to attend. Commissioner Turgeon asked if the Council and the Commission are not attempting to accomplish the same task. Councilmember O'Neill stated he did not know that they are. Chair Pisula felt it to be inappropriate that commissioners are not informed of the meeting and are discouraged from attending. It leaves the impression it is a private matter and is only a province of a couple of individuals. Council Liaison O'Neill noted there are only two councilmembers who attend and it is, therefore, legally acceptable not to notice the meeting. These meetings have been held at the request of the various associations. Commissioner Champa commented when a neighborhood raises a concern at one of these meetings, it is referred to the Commission to address and he expressed concern the commissioners have not heard the concerns which were raised at the meeting. This could result in the Commission going in one direction and the Council turning in another. Commissioner Champa felt it is important to meet with the Council so the Commission has an idea of which direction the Council is going. Commissioner Champa suggested one Planning Commissioner be invited to attend the meeting to simply listen so that person can relate the concerns of the neighborhood back to the Commission. Commissioner Lizee felt the Park Commission should also be included. She commented on a meeting she attended in the Lake Virginia area and noted one of the concerns raised had to do with trails and lake access. One of the residents questioned whether there would be any meetings coming up on this issue, and the councilmembers in attendance were unsure. Two nights later the Park Commission discussed this issue. Commissioner Lizee was aware of this and offered that information at the meeting and that resident became involved in that issue. She felt this to be a matter of communication. Commissioner Borkon suggested a moratorium be considered for the Planning Commission relative to any further planning work in light of the fact the Council's direction is very different from the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Pisula also felt the two groups are going in different directions. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Champa did not agree. He felt there needs to be better communication. Commissioner Borkon referenced the Council meeting the evening before relative to the proposal for a senior housing development. She pointed out the Comprehensive Plan clearly states that senior housing is a direction that the Planning Colllfllission City of Shorewood is pursuing. Commissioner Borkon stated the City Council does not recognize that senior housing is a priority or part of what the community needs to be looking at. Commissioner Champa did not agree with Commissioner Borkon. Commissioner Borkon did not feel the Planning Commission can continue to function as a group any longer and are stalemating at this point. She stated she wants to do what the community wants to have done as a part of what the City Council determines is important. Commissioner Borkon noted the Commission has not been given direction by the Council as to what they want to have done and she stated she does not feel comfortable proceeding until a meeting can be held in which the Council can give direction in an understandable form relative to what they want. Council Liaison O'Neill stated there are members of the Council who have no confidence in the Planning Commission. Commissioner Borkon pointed out the Commission is following the Comprehensive Plan because that is what dictates the movement of the Planning Commission. A question was raised whether the Commissioners should resign. Council Liaison O'Neill has given consideration to resigning his position as liaison to allow another councilmember the opportunity to work with the Planning Commission and gain some insight. Commissioner Turgeon stated she will do whatever the Council deems as its goal, but she must know what that goal is. Council Liaison O'Neill stated there is no clear cut direction. Nielsen noted in work sessions there have been relative to the Comprehensive Plan, there have been suggestions made regarding density in that projects have gotten too high in terms of density, down playing clustering, but beyond that there have not been significant changes. He noted his impression the Council wants a fairly strict adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and the codes which are in place. A wait and see what happens approach was taken with respect to senior housing. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested the Council and the Commission attend a retreat in which they can establish a relationship. Commissioner Borkon commended Commissioner Champa on being a new member to the Commission and his demonstrated ability to be objective. Chair Pisula noted his agreement as did Commissioner Lizee. Commissioner Champa expressed his appreciation, but felt there to be two options at this time which are to attend a retreat with the Council in an attempt to establish a relationship with them or to resign as commissioners. He stated he does feel the Council is trying to follow through with their campaign promises. Commissioner Champa did not feel the Council has taken the time to give the Commission direction. Commissioner Borkon stated if the Commission votes for participating in a retreat, she would not want to attend any further meetings until this has been accomplished. Commissioner Champa was in favor of Council Liaison O'Neill's suggestion to appoint a new liaison to the Commission to afford another councilmember an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 . PAGE 6 . Commissioner Turgeon commented on the Council meeting of the previous evening regarding the senior housing proposal and noted the Commission had reviewed all of the issues it was felt the Council would look at and what the sensitive issues were to ensure they were all addressed or would be addressed prior to progressing to the development stage. The Commission applied the existing zoning with no variances granted. Commissioner Kolstad felt if the Council voted against the senior housing proposal based upon public opinion, the Commission and the Council will not be of the same mind set because the Commission cannot violate the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning laws. Commissioner Turgeon stated if the Council does not want these provisions to be utilized, they should be removed or amended. Chair Pisula did not feel some of the councilmembers respect the process which the Commission has to follow. The Commission wants to do what is right for the City and wants to work with the Council as it currently exists and has been waiting for guidance relative to changes in the Comprehensive Plan and the direction which the Council wishes to take. Commissioner Champa suggested the Commission establish a resolution to the Council stating the objectives of the Commission and what the group would like to accomplish and how they must be accomplished. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out if the Council wants lower density, the zoning codes must be such that the Commission is allowed to make those decisions. Commissioners Champa and Turgeon noted their agreement. . Commissioner Champa volunteered to meet with members of the Council to address this issue. Chair Pisula expressed the importance that Mayor Dahlberg realize this matter needs his immediate attention. Council Liaison O'Neill suggested Chair Pisula and Commissioner Champa meet with the new members of the Council to discuss this situation. Commissioner Champa noted on occasion he has had to vote in favor of a request because he did not have any reason to vote against it given the current ordinances. Commissioner Borkon suggested having legal counsel available at the Commission meetings because she feels she is in a situation where she does not know what to do. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would not want to become involved in any large projects until this situation is resolved and the Council gives some direction to the Commission. Commissioner Champa felt the experience of the current commissioners to be an asset to the City and he felt the new councilmembers need to realize the importance of this experience. Commissioner Borkon felt the Commission had been misrepresented relative to the request for senior housing and the work that had been completed by the Commission in that regard. She commented at this point she may want to take a leave of absence until this situation has been resolved. It was Commissioner Borkon's opinion the Commission should receive a public apology from the Council. . Commissioner Kolstad suggested perhaps the Commission is sending messages to the Council which makes them feel the Commission is not working on their side, however, she did agree the Commission has not received direction from the Council. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION OCTOBER 14, 1997 . PAGE 7 It was agreed Chair Pisula will meet with the new councilmembers along with Commissioners Borkon and Champa in attempt to resolve this situation. They agreed on Tuesday, October 21, 1997, as a possible date. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 5. REPORTS Commissioner Champa inquired about the sign requests made by the marina and the church. He noted he would not be opposed to intemallighting so long as fluorescent lights are not utilized. Commissioner Lizee commented when the final plat was being approved for Marsh Pointe and the Council was at the point of approving the lighting plan, she conducted a neighborhood survey relative to this issue and she felt this should be at the Planning Commission level since it is part of the development stage to be considered with landscaping, curb or road issues. Commissioner Lizee suggested requests for street lights be brought before the Commission for consideration. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 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, NOVEMBER 4, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Turgeon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Turgeon; Commissioners Borkon, Champa, Kolstad (arrived at 7:55 p.m.), Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Chair Pisula APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes - October 7, 1997 Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of October 7, 1997, as amended on Page 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, change "note" to "not." Motion passed 3/0. (Commissioners Champa and Foust abstained.) Planning Commission Minutes - October 14, 1997 Champa moved, Borkon seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of October 14, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 4, change to read, "He also felt the antenna space on the southeastern tower should be filled prior to utilizing another site." Page 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 4, change "Planning Commission" to "City of Shorewood." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioner Foust abstained.) 1. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: J ames and Diane Agnew Location: 6065 Eureka Road Mr. Agnew was in attendance. He noted the facade of the greenhouse will be very similar to that of the house. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 7: 10 p.m. Vice Chair Turgeon asked about the standards which apply within the greenhouse ordinance. Nielsen explained the greenhouse ordinance does not apply in this instance since the proposal is under the size requirement. In addition, this request is not for a commercial greenhouse. Borkon moved, Champa seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for James and Diane Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road. Motion passed 5/0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 2 Vice Chair Turgeon noted this matter will come before the Council for their consideration on November 24, 1997. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT Applicant: Sondra Traylor 23115 Summit Avenue Location: Dr. Traylor was in attendance. She noted she sees four to seven patients per day and asked for suggestions relative to the parking situation. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Vicki Franzen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, submitted a letter on behalf of herself and several other neighbors. She expressed concern relative to any additional traffic which would result from Dr. Traylor's request. Ms. Franzen felt if Dr. Traylor's business volume is increasing to this degree, she should possibly move her business to a commercial location. Dr. Traylor explained she does not intend to increase her practice, but to add some office help. She agreed high volume traffic would not benefit the neighborhood. Arthur Partridge, 6280 Hummingbird Road, expressed concern the Planning Commission is in a position of granting a Conditional Use Permit, but also a variance which would allow the use of the Conditional Use Permit. He related his belief there is insufficient space on this particular plat which would allow for the parking of an additional vehicle. Mr. Partridge felt if a Conditional Use Permit were to be granted, it should be enforced by the City rather than the neighbors. Hearing no further public testimony, Vice Chair Turgeon closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Lizee inquired whether the driveway could be extended to the south to connect with the parking turn-around area. This would allow the visiting car to park parallel to the house and still be outside of the 25-foot setback. Nielsen stated it would still be within the 35-foot front yard setback. He felt the only available parking space which complies with the setback requirement would be on the north side of the garage. Commissioner Lizee suggested posting the address above the garage, making it more visible. She suggested adding a no parking sign in the appropriate area. With respect to the traffic in a residential area, Commissioner Lizee noted a permit had been recently issued to a commercial greenhouse which was located in a similar residential area with a similar width street. Commissioner Borkon asked how many employees would be permitted on the premises. Nielsen explained in accordance with a limited home occupation, only the people living and working on the property would be permitted. A special home occupation permit would allow for one employee who does not live on the premises. Commissioner Champa inquired how many patients could be on the property at any given time. Nielsen explained a limited home occupation would limit clientele to one at a time. It would be possible under a special home occupation permit to have more. Nielsen felt it would be reasonable to impose a condition there not be any overlapping of patients due to the lack of parking available. Commissioner Foust asked if additional parking could be accommodated through an alternative configuration. He suggested a horseshoe or circular type driveway. Nielsen explained additional parking could be extended up into the property, however, the ordinance states there should not be features which would be unusual for a residential property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 3 . Vice Chair Turgeon expressed concern relative to the site line backing out of the driveway as well as the narrowness of the driveway. Mr. Partridge stated there would be no way to approve the Conditional Use Permit without also granting a variance relative to parking. Jane Partridge pointed out by denying Dr. Traylor's request, she is not being denied her business. She felt allowing an additional employee could potentially increase the business. Nielsen explained two cars would be in the garage and one car alongside the garage and this would not require a variance. (Commissioner Kolstad arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Nielsen noted there could not be any overlapping of clients. Commissioner Champa pointed out the parking problem exists today. He noted there are no provisions in the requirements for a Special Home Occupation Permit which would prevent the business from being increased. Nielsen suggested a provision stating not more than one patient can be treated at any given time and this would prevent two doctors from working at this site and increasing the business. Dr. Traylor suggested a provision in the permit stating no doctor other than Dr. Traylor can treat patients at the home. Vice Chair Turgeon felt if a horseshoe design were to be used, cars would not need to be backing out onto the curve. . Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement. She stated she is uncomfortable with the ordinance as it stands because it leaves a lot open to interpretation. Nielsen stated the ordinance limits the number of employees to one, however, it does not identify the capacity of that employee. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern relative to the home occupation issue and stated in the spirit of the new Council, she was unsure whether or not home occupation is something they would like to see permitted. In addition, she noted the trend of home occupations will continue and she felt the ordinance should be reviewed. Commissioner Champa also felt the ordinance should be discussed and reviewed at a future work session. Vice Chair Turgeon was not comfortable with the request at this time and felt more creativity needs to be put into making the driveway safe while staying within the setback areas. At this time, she will vote to either table or deny the request. Commissioner Foust stated if the employee parks in the garage, it does not create any different appearance than that of a residential area. In addition, he did not feel there would be an increase in traffic. . Champa moved, Lizee seconded tabling consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home Occupation Permit for Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue, to the December 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission to allow Planning Director Nielsen and Engineer Brown an opportunity to investigate the viability of reconfiguring the nonconforming area south of the existing driveway into a horseshoe shape thereby reducing the need for vehicles to back out of the driveway and the excess pavement remaining in the turnaround to be removed at that point. Motion passed 5/0. (Commissioner Kolstad abstained.) Vice Chair Turgeon recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:28 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 4 3. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OFF -SITE CARETAKER . Location: Todd Jones, representing Two S. Properties (MN Mini-Storage) 19395 Highway 7 / 5170 Vine Hill Road Applicant: Todd Jones, MN Mini-Storage, was in attendance. He noted the applicants will review and attempt to resolve the issues which were raised by Engineer Brown. Mr. Jones stated the traffic on and off the site is very low. The lighting proposed for the site will be directed downward and in toward the facility. In addition, the facility does not create a noise problem. Mr. Jones stated a neighborhood meeting was held on October 21, 1997. He commented that based on the comments of those in attendance, he believed the residents felt the use to be acceptable. He noted concern was expressed relative to lighting, maintaining more trees, installing a fence behind the pond to act as a buffer, a request for lighting along Vine Hill Road to illuminate the building, as well as concerns relative to the wetland. Mr. Jones stated these concerns will be reviewed and an attempt made to address them. With respect to the request for lighting along Vine Hill Road, Mr. Jones noted the neighbor who suggested this has withdrawn his request and therefore lighting along Vine Hill Road was not included in the lighting plan. . Mr. Jones noted one of the neighbors has expressed concern over the colors which are to be used on the building. He noted the color choices to be an earth tone gray with blue trim. Vice Chair Turgeon opened the public hearing at 9: 10 p.m. Cindy Heimer, 5215 Vine Hill Road, was in favor of the revised plan which would provide for additional trees to be saved. She was also in favor of the fencing which is being proposed since it will block the highway. Maria Heimer, 5215 Vine Hill Road, commented on the proposed color of the building and felt a brown or tan color would blend in and provide a more natural look with the surrounding wooded area. She suggested the blue stripe be omitted. . Chad Moore, 5220 Vine Hill Road, commented on the direct line of site to the intersection of Vine Hill and Highway 7. He suggested the fence be extended to the building to prevent that line of site to the intersection. This would also deter foot traffic which comes through the south side of the property toward that intersection. Mr. Moore was in favor of the proposal, noting the needs of the neighbors appear to be met with this proposal. John Skully, 5133 Vine Hill Road, asked for clarification regarding the berm/wall which is being proposed. Nielsen explained that the ordinance requires any building within 50 feet of a property line must be limited in height to 58 feet. He suggested through grading around the comer and potentially wrapping the retaining wall around it, the building would come back down 15 feet and into compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Skully also addressed the issue of the color of the building and requested it be painted a brown color to allow the building to blend in with the neighborhood and the wooded area around it. He stated he is also in favor of the proposal. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 5 Matt Larson, Vine Hill Road, was also in favor of the proposal, however, he expressed concern for the color selection. He also felt a brown color to be more appropriate. Mr. Larson questioned the hours of operation. Mr. Jones stated the hours will initially be similar to the existing facility, however, he would like to have the ability to work within the ordinance which allows for hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7 a.m. to 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday. Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad asked if there will be access to the site by children given the proximity of the school. She expressed concern relative to there not being a caretaker on the premises and the potential for people to be on the property undetected. Mr. Jones explained a surveillance system will be utilized. Commissioner Kolstad was in favor of the proposal, however, she felt a surveillance system should be included as a condition. Commissioner Kolstad asked about the issue of the building color. Mr. Jones explained the colors were chosen for marketing purposes. Architect Paul Strothers displayed a diagram depicting a gray colored building with blue accents. Mr. Jones noted the existing building will also be painted in this color scheme. Commissioner Champa suggested there be a provision in the amendment requiring the use of surveillance equipment on the site. He felt there should be an alternative site plan in the event the property is sold at some point in the future, the site would not have to be remodeled to provide for an on-site caretaker. Commissioner Champa asked that consideration be given to the color scheme and the wishes of the neighborhood. Commissioner Borkon commended the developer and the neighborhood on their efforts to work together on the proposed plan. She noted her biggest concern to be the lack of a caretaker at the facility. Commissioner Borkon stated she would like to see access to this site from the existing site rather than from Highway 7. Mr. Jones stated that would also be his first choice, however, the land is not contiguous making this impossible. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether the caretaker at the existing site will be required to monitor the proposed facility. Mr. Jones stated this would be a part of the job description of the caretaker. Commissioner Borkon noted she liked the proposed colors, however, she felt the developer should review this matter and give consideration to accommodating the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether sanitary sewer is available to the site should an on-site caretaker need to be accommodated at some point in the future. Nielsen noted there is availability of sanitary sewer to the site. Commissioner Borkon addressed the issue of lighting as well as the hours of operation and felt the hours to be extensive. Nielsen noted the proposed lighting is downcast and the purpose of the lighting is security as opposed to advertising. Mr. Jones confirmed this and stated they are controlled by photocell and turn on and off with daylight hours. With respect to the hours of operation, Mr. Jones explained this would not be a high traffic facility, estimating an average of 15 trips per day. Commissioner Borkon asked what type of signage package is being considered. Mr. Jones stated the signage has not been determined, however, he assured it will be in accordance with the ordinance and he will not be requesting any sort of varIance. Commissioner Lizee asked about drainage and the life expectancy of the french drain which is proposed for the back of the building. Brown stated the pipes are wrapped in a special fabric which increases the life expectancy beyond the 10 to 15 year expectancy anticipated in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 6 . Commissioner Lizee inquired whether gutters are being considered. Brown explained it is unlikely gutters will be considered since they typically require a high amount of maintenance. Commissioner Lizee was in agreement the color needs to be addressed to ensure the building blends in with the surrounding wooded area. She would prefer the entire building be painted in a brown tone, however, in the alternative, she suggested the sides of the building facing the neighbors be painted in a brown tone. Commissioner Foust inquired how fire and rescue equipment would gain access to the facility. Brown explained a fire access box would be required at the gate. They would also require a key or code to allow access to the storage areas. Commissioner Champa was in agreement with the drainage to the southeast corner of the wetland. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether the developer would be required to maintain and upkeep their own NURP pond. Nielsen explained that in many cases the City obtains an easement and maintains the ponds, Engineer Brown explained this wetland is tributary to this site only and therefore the applicant would be responsible for this maintenance. He stated it is expensive to maintain this system. Approximately once every 25 years sediment would have to be removed from the pond. Brown noted it is difficult to dispose of the sediment. With respect to the storm sewer system which services this NURP pond, he did not feel the taxpayers should be subjected to this cost. . Brown pointed out the developer will have to obtain a drainage and utility easement for the storm sewer line which crosses from the pond to the driveway. Mr. Jones felt the recommendations could be addressed. Commissioner Champa was in favor of annual inspections of the NURP pond being required by the Watershed District. Vice Chair Turgeon inquired if approval is granted, when it is anticipated construction will begin. Mr. Jones stated construction would commence in spring consisting of a six or seven month construction phase. . Vice Chair Turgeon commented three letters have been received in opposition to the proposal. Letters were received from Joel Katz, 5401 Ashcroft, James Sullivan, 5409 Ashcroft, and Mark Jones, Highland Management Group. Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for Self- Storage Facility and Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow for off-site caretaker subject to Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed amendment to allow this to occur; that in either the text amendment or as a part of the CUP that a security plan be presented and approved as an alternative to a caretaker; that the MNDOT fence on the southeast corner of the property be extended around the NURP pond on top of the berm to be attached to the building; that the blue stripe be eliminated from the south and east sides of the building; that the applicant be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the NURP pond and storm sewer system; that the lighting plan comply with the lighting requirement in the code; that the staff recommendations are amended to reflect the Purgatory Watershed rather than the Minnehaha Creek Watershed; that the plan will be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Purgatory Creek Watershed; that the landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; that the drainage and utility easements be obtained; that the southeast gate is relocated to a more appropriate location to accommodate snow storage; that an alternative site plan be provided showing caretaker quarters in the event the property is sold; that the Planning Commission recommend to the Watershed that in their approval and requirements they require an annual . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 7 inspection of the NURP pond; that a roof drainage plan be submitted and subject to any additional recommendations in the October 29, 1997, staff report. The developer is encouraged to work with the residents on the color issue. Motion passed 6/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MARY LAKE ADDITION (Tabled at the October 7, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting) Applicant: Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand Location: 5910 Minnetonka Drive Planning Director Nielsen recommended consideration of this item be tabled to the December 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant a sufficient opportunity to provide additional information relative to stormwater run off calculations. He suggested a deadline of November 14, 1997, for submission of the stormwater calculations. Roger Lepke, 5915 Minnetonka Drive, noted a new family has moved into the residence and asked if a home can be turned into rental property without any kind of approval by the City. Nielsen stated single family residences can be rented without City approval. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the preliminary plat - Mary Lake Addition for Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive, to the December 2, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission with submissions of the stormwater calculations by November 14, 1997. Motion passed 5/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS Commissioner Kolstad reported the City of Excelsior discussed, at their Council meeting, the traffic on Second and Third Avenues off of Mill A venue. She stated it has been recommended that a block be established on Third Avenue at Division Street. Commissioner Kolstad noted the Christmas Lane cul-de-sac was also discussed and it was suggested it be reopened to Mill Street. She suggested Shorewood work with Excelsior and MNDOT on this matter given the impact it will have on both communities. '--- * * * Commissioner Kolstad commented on a memorandum which was distributed to the Commission relative to her concern regarding text amendments. She suggested proposed text amendments be noticed in the paper as well as on a broader basis to allow anyone being impacted an opportunity to raise their concerns. This will also bring the Commission's attention to situations which may otherwise not have been raised or considered. \ Borkon suggested an article be included in the newsletter describing a text amendment, its importance and the impact it may have on a resident. Development Monitoring Nielsen reported Marsh Pointe is proceeding welL Commissioner Lizee requested a stop sign be placed in front of the model home. Brown will have the sign posted. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 1997 - PAGE 8 Watten Ponds has submitted building plans for approval, however this is proceeding slowly. Wetland restoration is scheduled for this winter and the Watershed District is holding a Letter of Credit relative to this issue. Landscaping and tree replacement is anticipated in the spring. Approximately half of the landscaping of Smithtown Meadows has been completed. Nielsen reported a portion of the Letter of Credit will be retained to assure the completion of the landscaping. 7. ADJOURNMENT Champa moved, Foust seconded adjourning the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. . 11-10-1997 16:14 P.03/03 6129324125 FPSD-TWIN CITIES Name: PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Date: / / -' L/ -97 Address: Topic: . . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Turgeon, Borkon, and Lizee; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioners Kolstad, Foust and Champa APPROV AL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes - November 4, 1997 Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 1997, as amended to change "NERP" to "NURP." Motion passed 4/0. 1. DISCUSS TREE PRESERVATION POLICY Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the current Tree Preservation Policy as well as the process associated with this policy. He stated when the policy was established it was intended that the policy must be somewhat flexible. If, during the process of a building permit, a tree is misidentified or a tree has to be removed which was not identified in the original plan, the policy does allow for removing that tree and replacing it. Nielsen explained there needs to be clarification of the policy so that people know what to expect. There would be an initial review of an applicant's plan, recognizing that it is preliminary. As the construction process approaches, the plan will be reviewed in more detail. At that point, there is a need for some flexibility to adapt or modify the plan to conditions which are encountered on the site. Nielsen felt it more appropriate to have a preliminary plan, and final plans at construction as well as to address the details of a plan on a site basis when the applicant has applied for a building permit. He suggested in addition to this, identifying trees or areas which will be altered. Nielsen felt the process of marking trees should be clarified within the policy. Engineer Brown explained there are times when installing sanitary sewer and watermain that a trench system must be utilized which will prevent cave-ins. In the event a trench is utilized, there must be flexibility to remove the necessary trees to address concerns of safety and liability. The current policy requires that a forester or registered landscape architect certify the tree preservation plans for a particular site. Nielsen did not feel this provision should be changed. giveR- Nielsen reviewed the tree replacement policy and noted this policy applies to the developer as well as the builder. He noted there are at times a lack of space in which to plant the replacement trees. If there is not an appropriate space in which to plant the replacement trees, Nielsen suggested a payment could be put into a fund which would provide tree plantings in areas where it is needed. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 2 Commissioner Turgeon was in favor of this as long as the trees are utilized within rights-of-way or parks and are not taken from one development and utilized in another. Nielsen suggested modifying the policy to establish a tree fund. The City Planner would make a determination, based on the advice of a forester or landscape architect, that there is insufficient space available for tree replacement and would then require funds be paid into the tree fund. Identification of sites where the tree replacement funds are utilized would be a determination of the Park Commission or the Planning Commission with the Council granting the ultimate approval. Nielsen commented on the tree protection measures and explained they were meant to be guidelines. He suggested some flexibility that some disturbance within the root zone may be tolerated based upon the advice of a forester or a landscape architect. With respect to protective barriers, Nielsen and Brown both felt there need to be specifications relative to the quality of tree protection fencing which is utilized. There is currently a reference to "passive" tree protection fencing and Nielsen felt the word "passive" should be removed from the policy. Nielsen discussed the possibility of an administrative penalty. He distributed a copy of Administrative Offenses which was prepared by the City Attorney which would create a process by which a violation of the code would result in a hearing before a hearing officer and the violator could pay an administrative penalty as opposed to being charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense. Commissioner Turgeon noted the Council had discussed this matter at their previous meeting and did not appear to be in favor of any sort of administrative policy relative to violations of the tree protection policy. The Council had discussed alternatives such as requiring higher escrow funds. Nielsen explained the amount of escrow required would depend upon the number of trees which are at risk. The consensus of the Commission was to favor increasing the escrows which are required. Commissioner Borkon suggested all of the educational material included in the Tree Preservation Policy be grouped together in the front or the back of the policy to avoid confusion. In addition, she felt explanations and enhancements of the policy should be grouped in a separate area with all of the informational material. The Commission discussed the policy and suggested a reorganization of the information reorganized format. Nielsen noted Councilmember Stover had inquired whether the same Tree Preservation Policy would apply to small subdivisions as would be applied to the larger developments. It was the position of the Commission the same policy should apply to both small subdivisions and larger developments. 2. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 3. REPORTS Council Liaison O'Neill reported on the November 17, 1997, work session of the Council in which the Capital Improvement Program relative to streets was discussed. Commissioner Turgeon reported on the November 10, 1997, meeting of the City Council. Commissioner Lizee reported she met with Kathy Timberg of the Minnewashta Elementary School and the wetlands study which was undertaken by the fifth grade class is now being completed and Ms. Timberg would like to have the class present their findings to the Commission at one of the . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997 - PAGE 3 Planning Commission meetings. She noted the class studied the ph levels and the impact of erosion control and development on the wetland areas. Commissioner Lizee suggested the class be presented with a plaque when they give their presentation. 4. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded adjourning the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl WalIat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. 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, DECEMBER 2, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Turgeon, Borkon, Lizee, Kolstad and Champa; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Brown; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioner Foust APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Planning Commission Minutes - November 18, 1997 Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 1997, as amended on Page 1, Item No.1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change to read, "intended that the policy"; Paragraph 4, Sentence 4, delete "given" adding a period after "changed"; Page 2, Paragraph 1, change "right-of- ways" to "rights-of-way"; Paragraph 7, Sentence 3, change "reorganization of the information" to "reorganized format." Motion passed 4/0. (Commissioners Kolstad and Champa abstained.) Commissioner Turgeon requested the addition of Item No.5, a discussion with Bob Gagne, Chair, Friends of the Southshore Senior Community Center. 1. PUBLIC HEARING RENOVATION C.D.P. FOR SHOREWOOD NURSERY Applicant: Location: Brian Pipkorn, Akorn Services, Inc. 23505 Smith town Road Mr. Dennis Pipkom was in attendance along with Brian Pipkom, Bill Aske, and Architect Wayne Jeske. He noted the business conducted by the nursery is 50 percent retail and 50 percent landscaping. Mr. Pipkom stated the objective is to improve the appearance of the property and provide a more desirable atmosphere for their customers. Mr. Pipkom stated the recommendations of staff are acceptable. He addressed the issue of staff recommendation "A" relative to the driveway on Wood Duck Circle. Mr. Pipkom explained a driveway has been eliminated and he would like to keep the driveway depicted on the diagram because it provides good access for employees of the nursery. It also relieves congestion during the spring months. With respect to recommendation "D", with the constraints of the lot size, he stated it would be helpful to use the area up to the lot line which is public property. There would be only plant stock . and nonstructure type materials in this area. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 2 Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Craig Hewitt, 5727 Wood Duck Circle, was in agreement with the staff recommendation to eliminate the access on Wood Duck Circle. He expressed concern relative to lighting and fencing of the property. He was also concerned the bin storage area could be moved so that it will not impact the nearby residence. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Pipkorn explained a four foot high cyclone type fence will be utilized for security purposes. Mr. Jeske addressed the lighting issue explaining the lighting will be in compliance with the ordinance which provides there shall be no lights which shine outside of the property lines. Commissioner Borkon raised the issue of ingress and egress from County Road 19. She noted this to be a difficult turn given the speed on County Road 19. Nielsen explained the eastern most driveway is wider to accommodate the traffic coming in and out of the property. He noted Hennepin County's approval will be required relative to the revised access to the highway. Commissioner Champa suggested constructing one larger driveway. Brian Pipkorn felt this would create congestion on the property. He felt the driveway could be widened if he were allowed to cut into the City's setback area. Nielsen noted the driveway is currently approximately 35 feet wide and he expressed some concern Hennepin County may not approve a driveway of this width. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether there is a need to accommodate an area for discarded statuaries and things of this nature. Mr. Aske did not feel such an area would be necessary, noting all of this debris which had been on the site has been discarded. Commissioner Kolstad asked whether there would be a problem with trees in the eastern setback area. Nielsen stated if there were a 6-foot wooden type fence to screen the materials, this may be acceptable. The materials which are placed in this area could not be higher than the fence. Commissioner Kolstad felt the applicant should be required to maintain shrubbery and trees around the eastern and southern perimeters which would provide a screen between the site and the adjacent residences. Commissioner Lizee inquired how stormwater runoff will be accommodated. Nielsen explained the runoff will come down the driveway and will go into the existing pond. Commissioner Lizee questioned where the overflow parking is located. Nielsen stated there is room for a single car to park along the display area. The code requires 16 spaces and there are currently 19 on the site without the overflow space. Commissioner Lizee asked whether this will be a holding or growing type of greenhouse. Mr. Aske stated it is a holding type greenhouse. Commissioner Lizee inquired relative to water recirculation for the greenhouse and whether pesticides and fertilizers are used on the premises. Mr. Aske explained at this time, everything is watered by hand. He stated well water is primarily used with some fungicide which was used on the roses. Mr. Dennis Pipkorn commented there will be no bulk storage of pesticides or fertilizers on the site. Commissioner Borkon raised the issue of water run off after fertilization. Nielsen suggested Engineer Brown review the issue of drainage and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Champa felt car traffic from Wood Duck would be acceptable, however, he did not feel trucks should be allowed through this access. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 . PAGE 3 . Commissioner Borkon inquired whether fertilizers are utilized on the site. Mr. Aske stated there are no fertilizers used other than on the roses. He stated the only fertilizers which will be sold on the site will be Miracle Grow and spray bottles of insecticide. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern relative to what types of materials would be allowed to be stored in the setback area. In addition, she inquired whether the applicants have obtained the approval of the owner of the property relative to this request. Mr. Pipkorn noted this has not yet been obtained. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would like to see the necessary approvals from the property owner, MNDOT, the City Engineer, in addition to hardcover calculations relative to this request. Chair Pisula commended the applicants for the effort they have put into their proposal. Commissioner Borkon noted there are concerns relative to hard surface cover, drainage, ingress and egress as well as the owner's approval. She suggested tabling this matter to allow the applicant an opportunity to address these issues at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Council Liaison O'Neill felt it would be helpful to obtain further information relative to the greenhouse as well. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded tabling consideration of the C.U.P. for Shorewood Nursery Renovation for Brian Pipkorn, Akorn Services, Inc., 23505 Smithtown Road, to the January 6, 1998, meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 6/0. . 2. PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT. MARY LAKE WOODS Applicant: Location: James Wyman 24020 Yellowstone Trail Mr. Wyman was in attendance. He thanked Planning Director Nielsen and staff for their assistance in this matter. Mr. Wyman explained he and his wife intend to occupy the existing home on Lot 7. As a result, Mr. and Mrs. Wyman have a strong vested interest in the quality of the development. Jim Orr, Schoell & Madson, Inc., was in attendance. He commented on the requirement for a gravel drive in the area of the NURP pond basin. Mr. Orr did not feel there to be a need for access to be provided to the NURP basin. He felt the remaining concerns raised by staff could be addressed and resolved. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Jim Hamstra, 23930 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern relative to the water level of the lake and felt the well needs to be maintained. Mr. Hamstra offered to provide information to Engineer Brown relative to the high and low water marks of the lake. John Legler, 5955 Country Club Road, expressed concern relative to the access which is proposed for the southerly edge of his property line. He would like to ensure the existing seclusion and wooded feel of the property is maintained. Mr. Legler felt if a green space of 70 feet could be maintained between his property line and the edge of the road, this would provide ample space for him to address the issue of screenage. Mr. Legler asked the Commission to take into consideration . this development will impinge on the secluded nature of his own lot. He noted a number of trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 4 . will need to be removed and expressed concern relative to the replacement of the trees to provide screenage between the properties. Hamilton May, 5765 Echo Road, expressed concern relative to access to the turn around from his lot as well as the ability to hook up to sewer service. He inquired relative to an easement for sewer service. Mr. May referenced a lawsuit involving Mary Lake and explained the ownership of the well was vested in the Condons. At the time the water level reaches the 952 water elevation, the cost of operation of the well shifts from the City to the Con dons. Art Beniek, 24240 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern relative to the location of the lot line. Mr. Hamstra questioned whether there will be a pedestrian access easement between Lots 6 and 7 down to the lake. He felt it should be limited to pedestrians with snowmobiles being prohibited. Peggy Wilson, 24140 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern relative to the traffic. She noted three accesses to Highway 7 have been closed which has resulted in a significant amount of traffic and this project will add the traffic of seven households. She felt this should be taken into consideration when addressing the closure of accesses to Highway 7. . Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Wyman remarked he is open and willing to work with property owners in the area. He is willing to work with the Planning Commission and adjacent home owners in developing a landscape plan. He noted there are approximately 114 trees which will require replacement. Mr. Wyman stated if the maintenance of the well passes on to him, he would like to continue to operate it and would be willing to work with the neighbors in addressing the issue of the lake level. Mr. Wyman stated he would be happy to comply with subdivision requirements relative to the sewer easement necessary for Mr. May's property. With respect to the pedestrian access to the lake, Mr. Wyman stated he has considered this, however, he would like additional time to further consider this matter. Mr. Wyman stated he intends to be restrictive relative to the builders he allows to work on this project and allow only reputable builders who build high quality homes in an efficient manner. Commissioner Lizee asked if there is a problem in the Wyman's giving an easement on their property or Lot 7 for NURP pond access. Nielsen felt this to be a reasonable resolution to use the existing driveway to create a link if necessary. Commissioner Lizee inquired whether there will be covenants relative to this development. Nielsen commented he would expect to see covenants with respect to the wetland buffer area, however this is not a planned unit development area. Mr. Wyman stated he is currently reviewing covenants from other developments and it is his intention to provide protective covenants. Commissioner Champa asked whether it is anticipated curb and gutter will be utilized in this development. Nielsen explained unless a variance is granted as part of the final plat or if that requirement is changed in the subdivision ordinance between now and the time the final plat is submitted, curb and gutter would be required. Mr. Wyman stated it is his intention to include curb . and gutter in this development. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether there are any regulations relative to operating a deep well. Nielsen noted this would not be allowed today. The current well was court ordered because of the disturbance to the seal on the wetland. He noted the DNR is opposed to reactivating these type of wells. Mr. Hamstra stated in the last 12 years, the well has probably been used in two or three of those years. Commissioner Kolstad questioned whether Lot 8 could be further subdivided at some point in the future. Nielsen stated the inadequate width would make it difficult to make two separate lots. Commissioner Kolstad suggested a change in zoning to RIA to make it consistent with the current development and avoid the possibility of a subdivision at some point in the future. Nielsen did not feel this property could be developed without very substantial variances, however the site does meet the RIA requirements. Dave Witer, 23820 Yellowstone Trail, noted his agreement with Commissioner Kolstad's suggestion relative to a rezoning and expressed concern the spirit of Mr. Wyman's intent would be lost upon a sale of the property. Commissioner Kolstad commended Mr. Wyman on his sensitivity and commitment to making this a quality development. She suggested considering the rezoning of Lot 8 as well as exercising some control over the use of the well. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would like to see the planting of some of the 114 replacement trees to take place along the north side of the roadway or any part of the roadway which adjoins other residential properties. Commissioner Borkon commended Mr. Wyman on the spirit of his plan. She expressed concern relative to the letter Engineer Brown received from Paul Hornby of OSM. She expressed concern relative to the speed limit of 30 miles per hour on Mary Lake Trail. Nielsen noted this is a state requirement. Commissioner Borkon commented relative to the easement for the NURP pond and she felt it important there be access to the pond. Commissioner Turgeon felt this to be a workable plan. She commented in 1999 there will not be municipal water available in this area and therefore wells would be required. Commissioner Turgeon asked that the issue of the Mary Lake well be investigated and clarified. She is opposed to a gravel Class V driveway and would prefer the drive from the Wyman's property be brought through to the NURP pond. Chair Pisula asked whether the issue of traffic needs to be addressed. Nielsen stated the Highway 7 access closures are currently being reviewed by the Council. Chair Pisula noted some concern had been raised relative to Lot 8 which is in the RIC district. He asked whether this property needs to be rezoned or whether this matter can be addressed through a covenant. Nielsen stated if Mr. Wyman does not object to RIA zoning, this would create a 50-foot front yard setback as opposed to a 35-foot front yard setback. Mr. Wyman stated he would like to review the front yard setback prior to making a decision. Commissioner Champa commented would like to review the area and if there is a viable alternative to curb and gutter, he would like that to be considered. He would prefer a solution more consistent with the aesthetics of the surrounding area. Council Liaison O'Neill explained to Mr. Wyman the majority of the Council would probably favor a variance relative to not using curb and gutter, however, he stated the Council would not force him to not utilize this option. Mr. Wyman stated he would like to review this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 6 . Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the preliminary plat - Mary Lake Woods for James Wyman, 24020 Yellowstone Trail, subject to staff recommendations, and consideration being given to a rezoning of Lot 8 from Rl C to RIA subject to the owner's approval and deleting Item No. 8 of the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan of OSM & Associates. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:33 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MARY LAKE ADDITION Applicant: Location: Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand 5910 Minnetonka Drive Planning Director Nielsen recommended this matter be tabled to allow the applicant sufficient time to demonstrate he has the ability to obtain the easement over the adjoining property as well as the necessary Watershed District approval. Mr. Roger Anderson was in attendance and addressed the issues which were raised by the City Engineer. The Commission was provided a copy of a letter dated November 14, 1997, from Troy Gamble, Professional Engineer, Roger Anderson & Associates, to Nielsen responding to questions and concerns which had been raised at the October 7, 1997 meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Anderson reviewed this letter in detail. . Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 9:49 p.m. Roger Luebke, 5915 Minnetonka Drive, stated water is flowing through the culvert underneath Minnetonka Drive and it therefore does exist. He noted the culvert has not been identified by metal detectors because it is not constructed of metal. Mr. Witer commented relative to easements stating he would not be inclined to grant an easement relative to a storm sewer. He expressed concern relative to preserving the existing trees and this easement would result in the loss of a number of trees. He stated he will keep an open mind, but his inclination is that he would not be in favor of an easement. Mr. Witer felt there to be drainage issues and he requested additional information relative to easements. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad questioned who performed the wetland delineation. Mr. Anderson explained a wetland delineation has not been completed, however, a wetlands expert could be utilized. Commissioner Kolstad inquired whether there has been a resolution regarding the culvert on Minnetonka Drive. Mr. Anderson felt this issue can be addressed. . Commissioner Kolstad asked about the stormwater calculations and who prepared them. Mr. Anderson noted he had prepared them and had been more conservative in his calculations than the City had been. The calculations have been submitted to the City for review. Commissioner Kolstad expressed concern that this is a low area which sometimes floods and asked how the wetland delineation is being handled. Nielsen explained when a wetland is not apparent, the City relies on the applicant's consultants to perform the necessary testing. If there is a question relative to the wetland, the matter is referred to the Watershed District. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 7 . Commissioner Turgeon questioned whether these issues can be resolved given the fact this request has already been tabled twice since October and there does not seem to be substantial progress which has been made. Mr. Anderson noted he received the City Engineer's letter just the day prior to this meeting. In addition, he noted his understanding this matter has been tabled on only one prior occasion. Commissioner Turgeon commented the points raised in the report of OSM will need to be addressed at the February 3, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded tabling the request for preliminary plat - Mary Lake Addition for Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive to the February 3, 1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 6/0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT Applicant: Location: Sondra Traylor 23115 Summit Avenue . Dr. Traylor was in attendance. She did not feel backing out of the driveway to be of concern based upon her experience. She felt there would consistently be only one car in the driveway. Based upon her observations, there has been overlapping of patients only once per day. Dr. Traylor inquired whether she would be able to obtain a variance relative to the number of parking spaces which are required. Nielsen explained a variance could be requested, however, Dr. Traylor would be required to demonstrate hardship which does not allow her to make reasonable use of the property without the variance. He felt it unlikely a hardship could be demonstrated. Commissioner Borkon inquired what would become of the nonconforming paved area. Nielsen explained it would be eliminated. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m. Art Partridge felt this to be a commercial use which has been permitted without a public hearing. He felt if a doctor office is to be permitted, the property should be zoned in that fashion. Mr. Partridge remarked if Dr. Traylor's business is such that an employee is required, perhaps a commercial office space would be more appropriate. Mr. Partridge noted there have been cars parked in the nonconforming area all week. Commissioner Turgeon pointed out this employee would be hired for purposes of office type work and would actually not be increasing the business. Mr. Partridge expressed concern relative to how this situation would be monitored. Jane Partridge felt a mistake had been made in issuing a home occupation permit which allows this use on the property. Commissioner Borkon inquired relative to the requirements for a Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen explained the issues of traffic, parking, signage, and hours of operation are to be considered when issuing a Conditional Use Permit. . Hearing no further testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 10:36 p.m. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 8 Dr. Traylor noted she has spoken with the adjacent neighbors who do not have a problem with this request. Mrs. Partridge stated she is not opposed to Dr. Traylor's business, but she is opposed to the business being expanded. Commissioner Borkon asked how many hours it is anticipated the employee would be working. Dr. Traylor anticipates this person would work four mornings per week from 9:00 to 12:30 or 1:00 p.m. The employee would work a maximum of 26 hours per week with the office being open Monday through Thursday. Commissioner Borkon commented she is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbors and the potential impact to the neighborhood. She stated she would be in favor of a Conditional Use Permit with a review provision as well as set guidelines which would contain documented reasons for denying the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Champa noted the street to be narrow, consisting of only 14 feet. He felt the safest thing to do would be to leave the nonconforming area in place even though it would require a variance. He did not feel the proposed resolution to be as safe as the existing conditions. Commissioner Champa suggested the Commission give consideration to a variance. Nielsen pointed out a variance has not been requested, however, a hardship would need to be determined. Commissioner Turgeon expressed concern relative to safety in backing out of the driveway given the proximity to the curve and stated she would not be in favor of a variance. Chair Pisula did not feel the increased use should be granted given the limited area which exists at the subject site. He explained a variance would require a determination that the applicant does not have reasonable use of her property. Borkon moved, Champa seconded denying a C.U.P. for Special Home Occupation Permit for Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue given the configuration of the lot impeding ingress and egress to the property. Motion failed 3/3. (Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon were the dissenting votes.) Commissioner Turgeon noted the applicant has a limited home occupation permit, she is not intending to expand the business and, therefore, the traffic is going to remain the same. She noted ingress and egress were apparently not a problem in issuing the limited home occupation permit and the patients were permitted to park in front of the garage. Commissioner Champa stated he would be in favor of granting the Conditional Use Permit if the current nonconforming parking area were to remain in place. Commissioner Turgeon commented she would be agreeable to a review of the Conditional Use Permit after a specified period of time. Commissioner Borkon remarked that possibly the limited home occupation permit should not have been given originally because the location is not conducive to business given the characteristics of the property. Nielsen noted Dr. Traylor is in compliance with the original limited home occupation permit. Nielsen explained this matter may proceed on to the Council for their consideration where a 4/5 vote would be required. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would be willing to look at the possibility of a variance if legal information were provided relative to what is considered to be reasonable use. Commissioner Champa suggested looking at the possibility of a variance. Commissioner Borkon would be willing to explore the possibility, but would make no promises. Commissioners Turgeon and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 9 . Lizee felt it would be very difficult to grant a variance. Commissioner Pisula stated he would not consider a variance. This matter will come before the City Council for their consideration on December 15, 1997. CoJ?IIlissioner Champa requested a joint work session be scheduled with the Council relative to varIances. Mr. Partridge commended the Commission on taking the time to visit the property and to spend the amount of time on this issue as was spent on the larger issues. 5. DISCUSSION OF CENTER ISSUES WITH BOB GAGNE, CHAIR, FRIENDS OF THE SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER Bob Gagne was in attendance and reported there have been 25 requests for the rental of the facility. He noted the rental fees and fundraising has been utilized to pay for the facility. Mr. Gagne noted the center is dependent upon the rental of the facility to meet the operating expenses. Mr. Gagne explained there have been rental inquiries in which potential renters have wanted to be allowed to have alcohol on the site. He noted this is currently not permitted, however, he requested wine and beer be allowed to be served on the premises. Mr. Gagne distributed a list a potential requirements which were developed by the Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center. It was noted there is a provision in the Conditional Use Permit which prohibits the use of alcohol on this site. The following information was provided to the Planning Commission by Mr. Gagne. . Points to discuss at the Park Meeting regarding the request to serve wine and/or beer at the Southshore Center. 1 . People from our community are requesting to use the facility for special parties where they would like to serve wine. Example, the Townhouse Association who wanted to have a Christmas dinner for the group did not rent because they could not serve wine with the meal. 2. We would develop policies regarding the serving of wine and/or beer such as: a. No kegs - beer must be served out of cans or bottles. b. Wine and/or beer can only be served with food. c. Beer and wine (including champagne) may be served at activities must include the serving of food. These beverages must be provided by the organization, group or persons hosting the activity or event. d. No compensation of any nature may be exchanged for beer or wine. This includes donations, advance sale tickets and tips. e. Beer and wine may only be served until 10:30 p.m. on week nights and 12 midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings. f. All parties consuming beer and wine in the Dining Room shall be required to conform to all City and State liquor laws. . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 10 . g. h. Beer and wine may only be consumed within the Community Center. In activities or functions where beer and/or wine is served, it may be required that the organization or group hire a police officer for all or part of the event. Commissioners Champa and Kolstad felt if beer and wine are to be permitted, an off duty police or security officer should be present. Champa moved, Turgeon seconded recommending consideration of the request for beer and wine or liquor for the Southshore Senior Community Center. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 11 :30 p.m. and reconvened at 11 :35 p.m. 6. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON SENIOR HOUSING Commissioner Turgeon felt a study would have to be completed to justify a change in the ordinance relative to senior housing. She felt it to be necessary to have the input of the citizens before a change can be made. . Commissioner Borkon questioned what sort of format the Council would intend to use. Nielsen commented the Council has expressed some basic concerns relative to the ordinance and he was unsure at this point whether a survey will be necessary. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission will receive the Council's concerns along with the current ordinance. It was noted there is Council concern relative to protecting a specific class of people. Density is another area of significant concern. Commissioner Turgeon questioned whether it would be more appropriate to place a moratorium on all development of lot splits of three or more if certain pieces of property are to be considered for specific types of development which may be set aside for more affordable type housing. Nielsen commented the Council discussed affordability and Mayor Dahlberg questioned why seniors are single out as a protected class. Council Liaison O'Neill commented the issue became the fact that any parcel can be turned into higher density. He felt the approach of the current Council may be to designate one or two pieces of land so the affected neighborhood is aware that particular piece of land may some day be a higher density. Borkon moved, Kolstad seconded supporting a one year moratorium, or less if resolved sooner, on senior housing. Motion passed 5/1. (Commissioner Lizee was the dissenting vote.) Commissioner Lizee felt the moratorium should encompass more than senior housing. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Roger Champa addressed the issue of dogs running at large within the City. It was noted dogs must be leashed or under voice command. It was suggested the Commission revisit the ordinance relative to dogs and the use of invisible fence. Nielsen stated this would be an issue for the Council to address rather than the Planning Commission. . 8. REPORTS . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 1997 - PAGE 11 9. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Lizee seconded adjourning the meeting at 11:57 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9,1997 CONFERENCE ROOM 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Turgeon, Lizee, and Kolstad Absent: Commissioners Borkon, Foust and Champa 1. DISCUSSION - RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE REGARDING THE MORATORIUM ON SENIOR HOUSING Chair Pisula noted the resolution had not been available to the Commission at the time the matter was discussed. Upon a review, it became apparent there were some questions which would have affected the discussion. He felt there may be some suggestions which can be made which would align themselves with the goals of the Council. Chair Pisula stated the purpose of the meeting is to review the ordinance and make suggestions to the Council relative to the ordinance and ways which it may be made more effective. Commissioner Turgeon suggested since there is going to be a moratorium, possibly a moratorium on PUDs as a whole should be considered. This would create an opportunity to review and reconsider the existing criteria. Commissioner Kolstad suggested reviewing the zoning ordinance as it relates to PUDs, including senior housing. Chair Pisula noted the major concerns of the community tend to be related to Planned Unit Developments. Commissioner Lizee suggested extending the moratorium to include the remaining large parcels of property within the city. She suggested lots of two or more be included in the moratorium. Commissioner Kolstad stated if the moratorium is specific to PUDs, a plan for a straight subdivision could be requested and the City would have no control over it. Commissioner Lizee felt since the Council is addressing the Comprehensive Plan, the code book and the zoning districts, all of the elements need to be addressed. Commissioner Lizee suggested including subdivisions of three or more. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 9, 1997 - PAGE 2 . Chair Pisula felt there would be community opposition to including subdivisions of two or more. He stated it is possible for people to bring forth development projects on the remaining land which do comply with the ordinance and where the residents surrounding the property are included in the process and then a proposal is presented which satisfies everyone. Chair Pisula felt there to be a common ground on the issue of Planned Unit Development where there is current PUD zoning or a proposal comes forward which requests a PUD. Chair Pisula pointed out the community is almost 90 percent developed. The projects which arise now are likely to be infill type projects. The projects where a PUD is likely to be used will raise the greatest concern and probably be the most challenging. Chair Pisula felt the moratorium should be broadened to include PUD which will serve the interests of the community as well as the City. Commissioner Kolstad summarized the properties currently zoned PUD, tagged PUD, developed PUD or PUD requests would be included in the moratorium. Commissioner Turgeon noted clustering is a major component of a PUD and this issue will need to be addressed. Clustering needs to be defined as well as a determination made when it is appropriate to use it. Commissioner Kolstad stated there may be times when clustering is appropriate. . Commissioner Kolstad suggested the concept of limiting the percentage of the building pad with respect to the lot size. This would preserve green space as well as trees. Commissioner Turgeon reported on the City Council Meeting of December 3, 1997, and discussed various issues which will be referred to the Commission for review and consideration. Turgeon moved, Kolstad seconded adding to the ordinance the issues of readdressing the PUD criteria, further clarifying it, looking at where it is zoned, looking at where proposals would warrant use of PUD, and limiting the building size to a percent of the lot size. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Turgeon will present this recommendation to the Council on December 15, 1997, and request they consider including these issues as a part of the moratorium. 2. ADJOURNMENT Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded adjourning the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary . TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Turgeon, Borkon (left at 7: 15 p.m. and returned at 8:49 p.m.), Lizee, Kolstad, Foust (arrived at 7: 15 p.m.) and Champa; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes - December 2 and 9, 1997 Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 1997, and December 9, 1997 as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 1. PRESENT PLAQUE TO MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5TH GRADE CLASS FOR THEIR WETLANDS WATCH PROGRAM Kathy Timberg, Scientist in residence at Minnewashta Elementary School, provided a presentation to the Commission along with members of the fifth grade class. Ms. Timberg explained the wetlands program and research which has been undertaken by the class. She explained Eureka Road, Sedge Meadow, Howards Point, West Point Road and Minnewashta School were the five sites studied. Ms. Timberg gave a presentation relative to the results of the project which was undertaken. The research revealed the wetlands with the highest amounts of phosphorous had the lowest number of invertebrates. There were 15 to 20 species of invertebrates collected at the sites with the lower phosphorous levels. At the Eureka Road site, given the high level of inorganic phosphorous, only four species of invertebrates were identified. Ms. Timberg explained the school plans to continue this project. She noted the class will plant wetland plants in the springtime to build vegetation into the wetland. The remainder of the grant funds will be utilized to restock chemicals, equipment and supplies for the coming years. Ms. Timberg also intends to set up a wetlands resource library at the school. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 2 The Commission offered their support in the continuation of this project. Chair Pisula presented the class with a plaque expressing the appreciation of the Commission and the City of Shorewood for their work on the wetlands project. 2. DISCUSS 1998 WORK PROGRAM Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the 1998 Work Program and asked that each commissioner provide any comments or additions to the list. He also requested each commissioner number the tasks by priority. Commissioner Champa suggested it would be helpful to make new commissioner training a priority. Commissioner Kolstad suggested, given the number of items on the priority list, that some of the responsibilities be split up in groups of two or three commissioners who would focus on the issues and gather the necessary information. She felt this would move the process along in a more efficient manner. 3. APPOINTMENT OF PRO TEM CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSION LIAISON Chair Pisula noted it will be necessary to appoint a pro tem Chair, Vice Chair and Commission Liaison for the January 6,1998 meeting of the Planning Commission. Chair Pi suI a appointed Commissioner Lizee to the position of pro tem Chair, Commissioner Kolstad to the position of pro tem Vice Chair and Commissioner Champa to the position of pro tem Commission Liaison. 4. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. REPORTS Commissioner Turgeon reported on the December 15, 1997 meeting of the City Council (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). The following Resolution was made relative to the departure of Chair Pisula, Vice Chair Turgeon and Commissioner Foust from the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, this is the last meeting of 1997 and three of the commissioners are leaving at the end of the year, the following resolution is in your honor; WHEREAS, said Commissioner Turgeon, let it be known that Jeff is the only Planning Commissioner ever to have spent as much in other countries as he did within our city limits. I appreciate your perspective, your sense of humor, your outlook on life and your stories. Take care, enjoy and best wishes for much success. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 3 WHEREAS, continued Commissioner Turgeon to Chair Pi sui a, I jokingly, but fondly, refer to you as "Dad." Unfortunately, I fear your early demise had something to do with certain people's misconception of your ability to control the child. You are now able to have a life without those phone calls from administration to disrupt your life. Relax, enjoy, play more golf. In passing, I say to you, Proverbs 10, v. 7-9. WHEREAS, Chair Pisula simply stated, "To all of my Commission colleagues, Psalms 20, vs. 4 and 5." WHEREAS, Planning Director Nielsen remarked, Laura will now have time for her true passion, snowmobiling; and WHEREAS, Jim will now have time for his target practicing and golf; and WHEREAS, Jeff will have time to study his Australian. WHEREAS, Chair Pisula added, Laura will have a chance to learn to be more assertive and learn to express herself more clearly and succinctly. WHEREAS, stated Commissioner Lizee, Twas the night of the meeting when all through my house, every horizontal surface was littered with words to espouse. The plans had arrived marked plainly and clear, with hopes that resolution soon would be near. So I sat down to think with my PC as my quill, and wondered if I would get through this still. I'll begin now with Jeff, our Commissioner with wings, who travels the world over with knowledge of chips, wires and things. Known fondly as "Tech Boy" he seems always to know, not only the "whys" to things working, but how they do so. Our dear Chair Pisula, The Granddaddy anew, whose command of the English language impresses more than a few. Jim is open and caring to consider your view, but once in a while, I just wish he had blew. And now to my faithful field tripper known as Laura to many, was never content to hold feeling over legality. We traipsed and we tripped over berms, fences and terms, 'til the truth was uncovered and justice then served. "And your point. . ." dot dot dot, is a phrase she may favor, because the bottom line is what she sought and from that demand would not waver. These three fine people, both my friends and commissioners, have shared their knowledge, time and laughter and proven their mettle as truth seekers. My eyes may be teary as I end now my song, but please know that I will always respect and admire you as our public hearings are certain to be long. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 4 WHEREAS, stated Commissioner Borkon, Jeff the lone islander is quietly thoughtful and frequently country hopping; and WHEREAS, candy and liquor are very tasty together; and WHEREAS, Jeff has unending insight into antennas and communications laws and ordinances, we thank you, Jeff. WHEREAS, Jim with his halting, hesitant, ever reflective demonstration of his linguistic skills and vocabulary and discourse which can, if necessary, verge on philosophical bantering; WHEREAS, Jim, New York born and bred, weighs all pros and cons and biblical passages prior to decision making; WHEREAS, Jim does his part through curmudgen type letters and e-mails; WHEREAS, Jim is the most able individual with much planning, yes, I do mean planning experience; and WHEREAS, Jim, New York born and bred, is straight, yet always gentlemanly will be sorely missed because it's been a beautiful thing. WHEREAS, Laura, the tall skinny blonde, has an unending tendency toward the pursuit of truth, the grasp of details relating to ordinances, Comp Plans and maps and trail plans and strategic, I repeat, strategic planning; WHEREAS, Laura, the tall skinny blonde, gets her point in when it comes to visiting properties, speaking on behalf of Indian mounds, wetlands, wildlife and vegetation, individual and community rights; and WHEREAS, Laura, the tall skinny blonde, loves tree hugging, things named Gideon, squirrels and Wealthy apples; WHEREAS, Laura is a straight shooting, no nonsense, intelligent woman, she will be sorely missed because, again, it's been a beautiful thing. WHEREAS, remarked Commissioner Champa, Jeff will be missed for his chocolate and sugar highs, the only person to bring alcohol to our meeting disguised; WHEREAS, Jim's style to manage to make people feel good about "Come on down, and speak your mind." Commissioner Champa stated Laura's knowledge and due diligence will dearly be missed by the Commission. He expressed his appreciation for the assistance that has been given to him in making difficult decisions. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 16, 1997 - PAGE 5 . WHEREAS, stated Commissioner Kolstad, Jeff, your insights have been very helpful, even though they came infrequently, they were wonderful for the decision making process; and WHEREAS, Laura, you taught me everything I know about snowmobiles and I am very glad that it's over and your knowledge will be sorely missed on the Commission; WHEREAS, Jim, your leadership this year has lead us to where we are today and we are very appreciative. I wish you all well and thank you for your service. WHEREAS, questioned Commissioner Foust, when were the meetings changed from 7:30 to 7:00?71? BE IT RESOLVED, I will never have to follow Laura again with the same, "She's already asked everything I was going to ask." WHEREAS, to Chair Pi sui a, thanks for never making me go first. 6. ADJOURNMENT Foust moved, Turgeon seconded adjourning the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. .