2001 planning minutes
.
2.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
.
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00P.M.
MINUTES
NOTICE:
This meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum of Planning Commission Members. Chair Bailey
apologized to audience members for the inconvenience, noting Item No. 1 will be on the February 6,
2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, and Item No.2 will be on the January 16,2001, Planning
Commission Agenda if designated by City Council action taken on January 8, 2001. Chair Bailey also
suggested citizens with concerns regarding this evening's Agenda should contact Planning Director
Nielsen prior to proposed dates of action.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - XXX PLAT
Auulicant: Thomas Tritch and Barbara Toothman
Location: 6060 Strawberry Lane and Adjoining Land
REVIEW BUS LOADING CONFIGURATION (referred bv the City Council)
Auulicant: Our Savior's Lutheran Church
Location: 23290 State Highway 7
DISCUSS DRAFT R.O.W. ORDINANCE (continued from 12/05/00)
DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM 2001
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL SCHEDULE
Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Anderson, Woodruff, Pisula, and Gagne; Council
Liaison Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Woodruff moved, Anderson seconded, approving the December 5, 2000, Planning
Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 3/0/2, with Pisula and Gagne abstaining.
Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, approving the January 2, 2001, Planning Commission
. Minutes as presented. Motion passed 2/0/3, with Pisula, Gagne, and Anderson abstaining.
1. 7:00 P.M PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - XXX PLAT
Applicant: Thomas Tritch and Barbara Toothman
Location: 6060 Strawberry Lane and Adjoining Land
Director Nielsen explained that the applicant was experiencing some difficulty managing the
project long distance and requested that the public hearing be delayed until the next regular
meeting. Nielsen recommended continuing the discussion for one more meeting to give the
applicant a chance to get all of his material together.
Gagne moved to table discussion of the Preliminary Plat, Anderson seconded. Motion
passed 5/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO. FT.
Applicant: Travis and Laurel Murphy
Location: 28110 Boulder Bridge Drive
Chair Bailey summarized the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He noted items approved this
evening could appear on the February 26, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen presented the request by the Murphy's to add a new attached garage to the rear
of their home, as well as, an addition above that and the existing garage area. Because of the
. amount of accessory space currently on the property, in addition to the proposed extra accessory
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting - Page 2 of 6
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
space, they will be exceeding the 1200 sq. ft. RI-A Zoning regulation, thus, requiring a
conditional use permit. The total accessory space will be 1614 sq.ft.
Nielsen reviewed the four criteria required to be met in order to grant this type of conditional use
permit and how this proposal complies with the code.
a) The total accessory space (1614 sq. ft.) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of
the principle structure (5386 sq. ft.)
b) The total area does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the P.U.D./S zoning
district
c) The proposed garage complies with setback requirements .Applicant's builder jogged the
northwest comer of the addition to comply with the 50-foot rear yard setback requirement.
Houses to the west are separated by distance and vegetation. Hardcover will go from
approximately 15 to 20.5 %.
Nielsen noted the applicants' survey will need to be revised to reflect the setback compliance
with the jog in the garage addition once applying for building permits. Drainage and landscaping
are not considered to be issues at this time.
d) The new garage addition will be integrated into the architecture of the existing home, as
well as, the neighborhood.
In light of the preceding criteria, Nielsen felt the applicant's request was consistent with the
requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. He recommended the conditional use permit be
granted.
Mr. Murphy pointed out that the current north side neighbors will see new landscaping. He
added that they have four children and see the need for more space.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Ralph Robinson, 28194 Woodside Road, owns the adjacent lot touching the northwest comer of
the Murphy property. Robinson asked consideration be given to the view his future home might
have in relation to the property.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Director Nielsen noted that based on Shorewood zoning regulations, there would easily be a
minimum of 100 to 200 feet between the two homes even once the future Robinson home was
built.
Anderson asked if the total property square footage of 5300 feet was comparable to others.
Nielsen said there was no question that it would fit in. Bailey also inquired if any additional
retaining wall work would need to be done. Murphy pointed out there is already an existing
retaining wall and small driveway there.
Anderson moved, Pisula seconded, to approve the request as outlined in the staff
recommendation. Motion passed 5/0.
Planning Commission Meeting - Page 3 of 6
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
. 3. DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM 2001
Chair Bailey asked Nielsen to briefly present the 2001 Planning Commission Work Program as
outlined for discussion this evening. He suggested that no real action be taken until the next
Planning Commission meeting, in which they would hopefully gain an additional member.
.
Nielsen identified roughly nine issues to be addressed this year, and a suggested time line.
· Subdivision Ordinance revision - a carryover from 2000, this technical document is out of
date and needs to be updated defining how one divides land
· ChairlVice Chair recommendations - hope to happen in February
· Use of Public Right-of-Way regulation - Engineer Brown has put together a draft but as of
yet it contains no policy. We need to address questions and outline policy.
· Consider organized garbage collection - Back for discussion. Nielsen hopes to seee the
Commission tackle this one in 2001
· Historic Preservation - including redevelopment and additions to existing homes. There is
concern over preserving the character of some of our historic homes and discussion will need
to ensue on how to incorporate this into the comprehensive plan
· Comprehensive Plan - Planning District Area Plans - the current Compo plan contains 12
comprehensive planning districts and it would be useful to focus on one each month
· Comprehensive Plan - SmithtownlCo. Rd. 19 redevelopment plan
- intersection realignment - Hennepin County is making construction drawings
- Gideon Glen - questions of how to manage this open space
- American Legionffotal Gas redevelopment - the Am. Legion plans to redevelop
this comer which could really dress up the intersection
- LRT Trail Crossing - currently a grade crossing, something will need to be done
to include a crosswalk
- Fire Department/Police Department - Site Selection - these departments will probably
be moving out of Excelsior and are looking for a new possible Public Safety Facility
location, perhaps next to Shorewood's public works site
· Study Maintenance of existing housing diversity - address Shorewood's lack of affordable
housing, consider the possibility of limiting the amount of lot consolidation
· Senior Housing needs and site suitability - look at the undeveloped land use map once
again to re-identify those properties that are left
After summarizing the 2001 plan, Nielsen asked for feedback and/or additional issues from the
Commission. Anderson asked if the Metropolitan Council had looked at our Comprehensive Plan
and approved it. Nielsen said that while they have the Comprehensive plan in hand, it does not
contain population projections. The Met. Council has not given any feedback as of yet. Nielsen
acknowledges that Shorewood does not offer much in the way of affordable housing currently,
but the council in turn acknowledges that our amount of "livable and affordable community
space" is limited.
.
Gagne added that the Shorewood Ponds Senior Housing Project, represents a successful
affordable housing effort, that has attracted parents of current residents, as well as, kept our older
residents in the area.
Planning Commission Meeting - Page 4 of 6
Tuesday, February 6,2001
.
Liaison Turgeon presented three more topics to add to the 2001 Work Program; Well Head
protection, Construction Standards and Hardcover Limits as it pertains to the Comprehensive
Plan and the housing diversity issue.
Woodruff questioned how the Commission could further limit what size home people build, in
order to stay within the scale or character of a neighborhood. Nielsen replied that other than the
restrictive ordinances that Shorewood already has, we could look into what Wayzata has done by
limiting the combination of lots and development of them.
Chair Bailey requested additional issues be added, including, the accessory space initiative and
50% renovation ordinance, something he had presented to City Council but had not received any
further comment. Nielsen said Council did turn it back but he needs to further investigate its
whereabouts. The other issue Bailey felt was worth looking into was the cell tower usage. He
questioned whether an informal stance or guideline should be determined on where the City feels
cell towers should be placed before they appear. Nielsen pointed out, that while a great deal of
money will not be made off of cell tower placement, they have helped fund the Gideon Glen
property. Bailey encouraged staff to constantly test where the market is in regard to tower
licensing fees.
.
Anderson questioned whether moratoriums could be placed on the development of certain
properties while the City is examining the redevelopment issue. Nielsen pointed out that while a
moratorium would not prevent the sale of a piece of property they could designate on the
"official city map" the desired use of that space. This designation would tell people looking at
that piece of property what the City has earmarked for that lot and discourage developers from
coming in with something else, an apartment complex for example.
Chair Bailey reported on a recent meeting he had attended with the City Council in which he
addressed several areas of concern. First, he expressed the need for the Planning Commission to
receive their reports in advance. He urged staff to supply packets to the Commission prior to the
weekend before a meeting in order to give the Commissioners an opportunity to review their
materials. Next, Bailey presented his desire to the Council to schedule at least two joint
meetings between the two during the year. The first meeting to be held in the near future.
Liaison Turgeon indicated that Council would also like to get the first meeting on the books as
soon as possible and suggested they determine a date during their work session next week and let
Council know.
.
Finally, Chair Bailey brought up the opportunity to host a Planning Commissioner Education
Workshop available to Commission and Council members. Council member Turgeon stated that
while government services training is available, often it is not conveniently located. With this in
mind, Turgeon mentioned that John Shardlow - one of the training service presenters, is available
to put on just such "road shows". She continued that Mayor Love would also like to see this
training take place and expand it to encompass other City's Councils and Commissions. As host,
Shorewood Planning Commission would need to come up with an agenda identifying the topics
John Shardlow would discuss - i.e. variance, criteria for findings of fact, conditional use permits,
what's allowable and not, legislation over the "60 day rule" etc. The seminar could be expanded
further by identifying the relationships that exist between the different Councils and
Commissions currently, what each other's roles are, and how these connect within the as a
Planning Commission Meeting - Page 5 of 6
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
.
community. This broad of a seminar approach would probably work best on a Saturday at the
Community Center in April or May. Turgeon then requested the Commissions feedback,
including dates. Gagne commented he liked the idea. Chair Bailey suggested members bring
their calendars to the next meeting to identify possible dates.
Turgeon passed out brochures from the Sensible Land Use Coalition, SLUe. Nielsen, a current
member, stated it is an interesting and diverse group of people who deal with land use issues.
The Coalition is made up largely of people in government, builders and developers, attorneys,
anyone with an interest in land use. It is 650 members strong. Nielsen pointed out that, often
times, when a City and developer meet it is almost an adversarial type setting pitting what the
developers plans include against what the City wants, whereas, with SLUC in this forum they are
able to talk without any added pressure of a specific proposal in mind. Each person can listen to
the others concerns and see where they're coming from.
Turgeon made two additional announcements regarding the Chamber of Commerce. The first
was an invitation from the Chamber to attend a luncheon on February 15,2001, 11:30A.M.at the
Bayview Events Center in Excelsior. Keynote speakers, including Mayor Love, among others;
will be discussing opportunities for City's to work more cooperatively together. Secondly, the
Chamber of Commerce will be hosting their annual Fundraising Dinner on February 24, 2001, at
the Bayview Events Center. The theme will be "Back to the 50's", cost $60 per person and offer
a Silent Auction as well. She mentioned that this is the Chambers big fundraiser to raise money
for their Fourth of July fireworks program.
. 4. MATTERSFROMTHEFLOOR
There were none.
s. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Nielsen stated he will provide a time line and work program calendar for next weeks study
session. He will also bring along a map and a few planning districts for them to become familiar
with. Chair Bailey noted that Chair and Vice-Chair recommendations could be made then also.
6. REPORTS
Chair Bailey had two reports from January City Council meetings to pass along. He noted that
the Triple D Properties pole barn was approved. The Conditional Use Permit was granted for
Our Savior's Lutheran Church after reviewing the findings of fact. Mr. Russell, of 26080 Birch
Bluff Road, withdrew his request for a setback variance since his attorney has informed him he
does not need the variance, thus, he will be appealing the Planning Directors previous decision
soon.
Chair Bailey reported that Council decided to begin rotating the liaison position quarterly among
its members.
.
Chair Bailey then shared news that Council will be interviewing a sixth Planning Commission
member at their February 12,2001, meeting. The Commission will still be one member short.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting - Page 6 of 6
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
Chair Bailey asked for Commission liaison volunteers to attend the upcoming City Council
meetings in February. Jim Pisula will attend the February 12,2001, meeting. Chair Bailey will
cover the February 26, 2001, meeting. During the next Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Woodruff suggested they assign monthly liaisons for Council meetings.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Anderson moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
February 6, 2001, at 8:35 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Kristi B. Anderson
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13,2001
SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
NOTICE:
This meeting was cancelled due to lack of a quorum of Planning Commission Members. While no
formal action could be taken at this meeting, various items were discussed as well as issues raised. A
brief summary of these discussions can be found in these Minutes.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. February 6, 2001
STUDY SESSION
1. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2001
2. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FOR 2001
. Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the highlights of the Work Program for Commissioners present this
evening. He noted a timeline had been drafted to help with the completion of these tasks. He also noted
the Smithtown Road/County Road 19 intersection project would become a priority for the Year 2001, as
it dealt with issues of public safety as well as helping to define redevelopment tasks for the year. Also,
constructive reconstruction of the Gideon Glen wetland would be occurring in the future possibly
providing educational opportunities for children of all ages. An Advisory Task Force was being planned
to help plan this reconstruction. A site selection study, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and issues
regarding the trail crossing and pedestrian circulation in this area were slated for discussion as part of
potential plans for the intersection.
Issues related to right-of-way, housing, garbage collection, and zoning changes regarding accessory
structures, historic preservation of homes, and impervious surfaces were also slated for discussion for the
Year 2001.
Commissioners mentioned issues of wellhead protection, lighting plans for subdivisions, and plans for
parks in the City as possible topics for addition to the Work Program.
3. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-DETAILED AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen explained the format for the information Commissioners received regarding this issue.
He noted the text had come from a 1981 study of these areas, and a revised draft would be available for
Commissioners prior to the next Planning Commission Meeting.
.
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Planning Commission Meeting Minntes
February 13, 2001
Page 2 of2
. The next Planning Commission Meeting will be on March 6, 2001.
6. REPORTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
2
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Anderson, Packard, Pisula, and Woodruff; Attorney King,
representing City Atty. Keane of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, and Lindgren, Attys. At Law;
Council Liaison Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gagne
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. February 6, 2001
Woodruff approved, Anderson seconded, approving the February 6, 2001 Planning Commission
Minutes, as amended on Page 3, Item 3, Sentence 2 of Historic Preservation, change "older homes"
to "historic homes," and on Page 4, Paragraph 3, Sentence 6, change "tower space and placement"
to ''tower licensing fees." Motion passed 5/0.
. February 13, 2001
This meeting was cancelled, thus, there were no minutes for approval.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL NECESSITY OF SETBACK VARIANCE
For future reference, a memorandum dated March 1, 2001, from Director Nielsen to the Planning
Commission, Mayor and City Council, referenced as File No. 405(01.02) is on file at City Hall. This
memorandum provides more detailed information regarding decisions made and actions taken regarding
the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Interpretation of the Needfor Variance.
ADDlicant: James Russell
Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. He reviewed the procedures used in a Public
Hearing, noting the Planning Commission was responsible for making a recommendation to the City
Council. Should this application be acted upon this evening, it would appear on the Regular City Council
Meeting Agenda on March 26, 2001.
Director Nielsen reviewed the procedures utilized in an Appeal process. He summarized previous actions
taken by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding this application. Director Nielsen then
provided background relative to this case, noting this was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
Interpretation of the Need for a Variance. He noted the applicant referred to Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.j. of
the Zoning Code as his basis for not needing to apply for a variance.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Page 2 of6
. Director Nielsen explained the Zoning Code sets forth the rules by which property can be used or
developed in the City. Frequently, there are uses of land or structures that existed prior to the adoption of
certain zoning requirements that do not comply with current zoning standards. Consequently, most
zoning regulations establish special requirements as to how certain nonconformities will be treated.
These provisions were found in Section 1201.03, Subd. 1 of the City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code
also makes distinction between nonconforming uses (uses not allowed in the Zoning district) and
nonconforming structures (buildings not conforming to certain performance requirements-e.g. setbacks,
heights, etc.).
Director Nielsen further explained that the applicant stated the construction of a new permanent
foundation would simply be a repair that would make the structure in question more livable by leveling it
and keeping animals from beneath it. Staff maintained that a new foundation would be a substantial
structural alteration to this dwelling that would serve to encourage continuation of the nonconformity.
Furthermore, Director Nielsen stated patching the foundation, shimming the structure level, and
installation of skirting to thwart animals could achieve the same "livability."
Director Nielsen summarized his recommendation, noting that the Shorewood Zoning Code allowed for
the existence of nonconformities with some limitations. Without such limitations, property owners were
granted special privileges not available to other property owners who were expected to comply with
current standards. The zoning requirements relative to nonconformities were considered to be reasonable,
while still furthering the intent of the Code. He noted the applicant was able to repair his roof and enjoy
the use of the cabin as people had done in the past without a variance or need of an appeal
.
Director Nielsen also commented the intent of 1201.03, Subd. 1.j. could seem to modify Subd. Lb.
however, the intent of the Code was to allow for minor repairs, such as changing windows, new roofing,
etc., and not for significant alterations, such as changing the structure from seasonal to permanent year-
round use. He also noted the property valuation by the assessor was low, due to the excessive value of
lake shore lots. The structure itself, on the property was valued as a "teardown" and given a nominal
value. The assessor agreed to reevaluate the property, however, Director Nielsen believed the expenses of
roof and foundation work might exceed fifty percent in spite of that new assessment.
Mr. James Russell, owner of the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road, was in attendance and addressed the
Commission. Mr. Russell explained his father purchased the property in 1950 and owned it until his
death in 1990, whereupon Mr. Russell took ownership. He stated his wife and three sons were also
present in the audience, and a son was videotaping this Commission Meeting.
Mr. Russell stated that the foundation was insubstantial in its purpose as it was made of poured eight-inch
reinforced concrete with wire mesh to a depth of eighteen inches. This was not adequate in making it a
frost-free foundation. Over time, the foundation had cracked causing substantial gaps and leaning, which
allowed vermin easy entry to the space beneath the house. In addition, there was also a wooden skirt to
the rear of the house that also allowed vermin to easily access the crawl space under the house.
.
Mr. Russell also stated he received the valuation of the house and land determined to be approximately
$172,OOO-with the dwelling being valued at approximately $1,000. In July of 2000, a tree fell on the
roof of the dwelling cutting a twelve foot wide hole in the attic space. Mr. Russell stated the Building
Inspector suggested an additional structure be built to fix the situation. In working with the Planning
Commission previously, no recommendation had been made to the City Council, based on a 3-2 vote
denying the variance request. Mr. Russell stated he had asked the City Attorney of Golden Valley to
review the Shorewood Zoning Code pertaining to this matter. It was that Attorney's opinion that a
variance was not necessary, and thus, Mr. Russell decided to appeal the case bringing him to this meeting.
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Page 3 of6
Mr. Russell also stated he believed staff to be well intentioned and the spirit of the law was stated in
Director Nielsen's memorandum, dated March 1,2001. Mr. Russell also stated there would be five issues
presented this evening in his portion of the appeal process.
First, Mr. Russell stated he viewed the foundation work as repair work and correcting something done
incorrectly initially. He stated he could not redo the foundation as it was, but required it to be a 42"deep
in order to construct a frost-free foundation.
He stated he believed the term "livability" had liberal interpretations within the Code, and the livability of
his home was affected in many ways. He had shimmed the foundation in the 1970's and found it to be a
temporary repair at best. His windows and doors no longer work correctly, and raccoons have left feces
beneath his home. He stated he believed a frost-free foundation would cure all of these problems and
would definitely improve the livability of his home.
Also, Mr. Russell took issue with Subd. I.j.. of Zoning Code Section 1201.03 with regard to the
requirement of a variance when significant structural alterations encourage the survival of a
nonconforming structure. Specifically, he referred to the possibility of alterations and expansions being
allowed and questioned when those options would expire.
Furthermore, he referred to Shorewood Ordinance Section 1201.03 Subd. La. and the use of the words
". .. all nonconforming uses..." being singled out for conformity. Mr. Russell asserted since the term
"nonconforming structures" were not specifically stated within the Ordinance, it could only mean the
nonconforming structures were being allowed to remain indefinitely without being brought into
compliance.
Mr. Russell also took issue with the words ".. .from and after the date of said destruction..." found in
Subd. I.g. of Section 1201.03 of the Shorewood Zoning Code. He asserted deterioration of a foundation
over time could not be deemed "destruction," as there was no exact date of destruction.
In summary, Mr. Russell noted he did not believe a variance procedure would be required for a
foundation improvement to a nonconforming structure which in most settings would be considered
ordinary maintenance. He stated the Ordinance regulating nonconforming structures, in his opinion, did
not put restrictions on maintenance being made, and permitted, without a variance, alterations when they
would improve the livability of his home. Also, he stated he believed the Ordinance would permit,
without a variance, an expansion of a nonconforming structure.
In final conclusion, he stated livability of his home would increase with a new foundation, and he asked
the request for the new foundation be approved.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula stated he believed the task of the Planning Commission to be how to interpret the
City Code to identify alternatives permitting Mr. Russell to have reasonable use of his home and property.
Commissioner Woodruff commented she did not believe repairs of materials and replacement of materials
to be the same thing. She also questioned the need for replacement of the foundation now when no
problems had been demonstrated prior to this request.
3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Page 4 of 6
. Atty. King commented, in response to Chair Bailey's question, there appeared to be interesting points to
consider regarding the perception that specific words were omitted from the Ordinance. She also
commented she was not sure the City needed to abide by the wording presented in Mr. Russell's portion
of the appeal process which quoted the Minnesota Statutes Section 645.16 as "... When the words of a law
in their application in an existing situation are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall
not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit..." Furthermore, she stated her legal opinion
was not the critical issue, rather it was whose interpretation of the Zoning Code was more important in
this case. She also commented the intent of the law should be considered. She also encouraged the
Commission to consider the overall picture of the Ordinance in this dispute and try to find an accurate
interpretation, rather than segment various portions for dissection and analysis.
Commissioner Anderson questioned Director Nielsen about what would encourage the survivability of a
nonconforming structure. Director Nielsen responded structural alterations primarily would encourage
the survivability of a nonconforming structure.
Commissioner Pisula stated he believed there were several ways Mr. Russell could enhance the livability
of his home and property, however, these options came with varying restrictions and consequences. He
also explained it was important to be impartial when determining issues related to nonconformities in the
City.
.
Commissioner Anderson stated he believed the question to be whether the foundation request was to be
considered a repair or a structural alteration. He stated the foundation could be patched and repaired,
which would also eliminate the raccoons. However, he was not sure patching the foundation would
improve the use of the windows and doors. He stated the issue regarding the windows and doors related
to an original structural problem. Also, he stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Russell's desire for a
correctly built home, however, the issue before the Commission this evening would be one that required a
variance. Commissioner Anderson commented the replacement of the foundation seemed to be structural
and not a repair. He stated he thought Director Nielsen was correct in his determination that this would
be a significant structural alteration in need of a variance.
Chair Bailey stated he thought there were some surface inconsistencies in parts of the Ordinance;
however, he found the replacement of the foundation to be a structural alteration as well. He also stated
he did not think it necessary to override Subd. Lb. of Section 1201.03 to improve the livability of the
home on this property. With regard to Subd. l.g. of the same Section, he believed the specific date of
destruction occurred in July 2001, and thus, became a nonconformity that should be fixed.
Anderson moved, Woodrnff seconded, accepting Director Nielsen's recommendations requiring a
variance, and the appeal be denied. Anderson moved, Woodruff seconded, amending the motion to
include directing Staff to prepare a Findings of Fact for Mr. James Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff
Road. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission would recess for a five-minute break.
Chair Bailey reconvened the meeting at 8:30 P.M. He complimented the Planning Commission on asking
questions and providing what he believed was a fair hearing.
2. RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2001
. Woodruff moved, Pisula seconded, accepting the nomination of Jeff Bailey as Chair of the Planning
Commission. Motion passed 5/0.
4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Page 5 of6
. Anderson moved, Pisula seconded, accepting the nomination of Donna Woodruff as Vice Chair of
the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5/0.
3. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FOR 2001
Director Nielsen reviewed the Work Program for 2001 with the Commission, noting there were no
significant modifications to be made to the Work Program from previous discussions. He also stated the
Commission intended to review one Planning District a month. Also, he noted the County Road
19/5mithtown Road intersection was an exciting project to be discussed in the upcoming year. He further
explained the Gideon Glen project would be examined for use, protection, and restoration of the wetland
area as well. Also, there was potential for a Public Safety complex, including Police and Fire departments
to be planned just east of the Shorewood Public Works Department building.
4. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-DETAILED AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen reviewed the First Planning District of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the text
used in the City's Comprehensive Plan defined the area's characteristics, current land use, and any
potential plans and/or concerns for the area. He reviewed prior aspects of this District, noting the Upper
Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club had been "grandfathered" in to the Lakeshore-Residential District
designation of the City Zoning Code. Also, the bridge repair work had been completed in this District.
.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested it might be economically efficient to explore shared services with
other neighboring communities for snowplowing of the "Islands" area of this District. The Commission
agreed with this suggestion.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Commission and the City Council will hold a Joint Work Session on March 20, 2001 to discuss the
Work Program for the Year 2001 as well as issues related to historic properties, right-of-way, and housing
diversity.
7. REPORTS
Chair Bailey reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 26, 2001 Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He reported it was imperative that Planning
Commissioners notify Chair Bailey or Director Nielsen if unable to attend Planning Commission
meetings and also receive a confirmation of notification of their absence for any meeting.
In addition, he reported a Government Training Service Workshop would be held on April 21, 2001 with
other Planning Commissioners from surrounding communities. More specific information will be made
available to Commissioners as soon as possible.
.
City Council Liaisons for the following months were scheduled as follows:
March Commissioner Woodruff
April Commissioner Pisula
5
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Page 6 of 6
May
June
July
August
Commissioner Anderson
Commissioner Packard
Commissioner Gagne
Chair Bailey
Chair Bailey stated he would be available for substitutions if given a 24 hour notice.
Council Liaison Turgeon noted there would be a workshop on April 16, 2001, regarding roles relative to a
City Council. More information would be available later.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Pisula seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2001,
at 9:54 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
Respectfullv Submitted
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
6
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, 20 MARCH 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL SCHEDULE
Planning Commission Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Woodruff, Pisula, Packard and Gagne
Absent: Commissioner Anderson
City Council
Present: Council members Lizee, Garfunkel, and Turgeon
Absent: Mayor Love and Councilmember Zerby
Also Present
City Administrator Craig Dawson and Planning Director Nielsen
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. · March 6, 2001
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, approving the March 6, 2001, Planning Commission
Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 7, Sentence 4 changing "due to a tie vote.." to
"based on a 3/2 vote denying the variance request." and on Page 3, Paragraph 10, Sentence
1 removing "best to allow" and changing it to "to interpret the City Code to identify
alternatives permitting" and finally, changing the word "certain" on Page 4, Paragraph 3,
Sentence 1 to "varying". Motion passed 4/0/1, with Gagne abstaining.
1. FINDINGS OF FACT - RUSSELL APPEAL
Appellant: James Russell
Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road
Director Nielsen presented the new Findings of Fact to the Commission, pointing out that based
on City Attorney Keane's recommendation they remove the word "That" from each finding.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Findings of Fact and passing them along to
Council. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey called a five minute recess at 7:10 P.M to set up for the study session.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2001
Page 2 of 4
7:15 P.M. STUDY SESSION
2. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FOR 2001
Chair Bailey referenced the attached Planning Commission Work Program and Calendar for
2001 and asked Director Nielsen to expand on the priorities as outlined therein for the City
Council.
In reviewing the Work Program, Director Nielsen explained that many of the items contained
within the plan were either new, in the process of being addressed or those leftover from last
year. He identified several issues under investigation. The first item was the Subdivision
Ordinance revision. Additional drafting of the technical document is necessary, and a revised set
of standards needs to be completed and included in the manual. The second topic Nielsen
brought up for discussion was the use of the Public Right of Way (RO.W). Although Engineer
Brown has drafted regulations, the questions over "who" gets to use the Public RO.W and what
fees to charge them remain. The third topic Nielsen identified, was organized garbage
collection. He touched on other areas to be addressed as well, such as, historic preservation,
Planning Districts, and the redevelopment plan for Smithtown/County Rd. 19.
Garfunkel noted that after meeting with Tonka Bay last night, he was given the impression that
Tonka Bay would sti111ike to partner with Shorewood and run a new liquor store operation at the
intersection, be it in the strip mall or another location. Administrator Dawson was positive about
this early agreement in principle.
Nielsen went on to recognize other items on the Work Agenda, including, Site selection for a
Fire/Police Department complex, the study of existing housing diversity, senior housing
suitability and needs, and asked the City Council for their input.
3. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL PRIORITIES FOR THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Garfunkel inquired which of the items on the Work Program would give the Commission the
"biggest bang for its buck". He pointed out that even though refuse collection may be a tough
subject to tackle, it could make a big difference. Turgeon asked if the Garbage collection issue
could be moved up on the tentative calendar. Dawson cautioned that many statutes require
certain time elements.
Bailey brought up the issue of the intersection redevelopment as an early priority, as well as, the
RO.W regulations and subdivision ordinances that Engineer Brown hoped to see addressed.
Dawson emphasized the fact that since the subdivision ordinance is almost complete, that project
should be put to bed early on.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Garfunkel noted that senior housing needs and site suitability were brought to the Council last
year and never acted on. He questioned whether the senior housing issue should be addressed
and completed as well. Garfunkel then voiced his opinion that the historic preservation issue
could be moved to the latter part of the year, and focus be put instead on completing the
accessory space amendment by June.
Woodruff pointed out that so many of the issues on the Work Program are interrelated and
cannot be addressed without addressing the others.
Based on discussion, Director Nielsen was encouraged to adjust the calendar to slide the
Subdivision Ordinance to start in July and finish up in October, and instead, move the
consideration of organized Garbage Collection up to mid April. The Commission and Council
set April I? , 2001, at 6P.M. just prior to the joint work session as the first scheduled discussion
of the issue.
.
Lizee distributed information she had put together based on material she had received from the
Minnesota Historical Society. Based on a number of special property requests the Commission
and Council have seen in recent years as it pertains to historic or older properties, she felt it was
important to address the approach we take when looking at these homes. Lizee noted in her
handout that the challenge for the City is to balance the character of existing neighborhoods with
the desire of residents to improve their properties. With this in mind, she identified the housing
goals and objectives in the current Comprehensive Plan. She also pointed to the "This Old
House" home improvement exclusion law enacted by the Minnesota State Legislature in the
early 1990' s as a potential model for Shorewood.
Dawson cautioned that the Commission identify what's valued within the community and not
confuse "old" with "historic". Bailey agreed that the City needs to refer to its own
Comprehensive Plan when determining what and how we preserve the variety and integrity of
our character.
Nielsen took the recommendations from the Council and agreed to tweak the timeline by moving
Senior Housing up to early June, Garbage Collection up to April, leaving Accessory Space for
March! April consideration, and moving back the study of historic preservation and housing
diversity to October. Nielsen noted that the intersection redevelopment will be an ongoing issue
with special attention being given to pedestrian circulation, landscaping, and entryway. Lizee
encouraged Nielsen to promote citizen involvement by incorporating community and public
information meetings into the planning process.
Dawson suggested thought be given to the site selection process for the Police and Fire
Department facility and he recommended a mid year plan including site and architectural designs
be submitted for consideration.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 20,2001
Page 4 of 4
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Commission recognized April 3, 2001, as the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
Nielsen reported a C.D.P. will be up for discussion and added the Accessory Space issue, a
County Road 19 update, and one to two Planning Districts to the agenda for the evening. The
following meeting will take place at 6P .M. on April 17, 2001, just prior to the joint work session,
in order to discuss organized Garbage Collection. Dawson added that John Shardlow will be
presenting a Planning Commission training seminar on Saturday, April 21, 2001, at the Senior
Center.
6. REPORTS
Woodruff reported on the City Council Meeting of March 12,2001. She reported that Eric
Evenson of the MCWD was in attendance and that the Council approved the agreement between
the City of Shorewood and the MCWD, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, in regards to the
Gideon Glen Wetland Preservation Project. Woodruff pointed out that Dan Dickel, the City
Consultant, was also in attendance and shared an outline for the phytoremediation project for the
Gideon Glen property, an outline that will become more concrete when the weather improves.
She announced that the Eddy Station building will soon be celebrating its grand opening and that
the City is currently talking to potential vendors.
Woodruff reported on the recent LCEC meeting, of March 13,2001. During the meeting, Mayor
Love presented the Phosphorous Free Lawn Fertilizer ordinance being considered by the Senate
and gave an update of the potential bills progress. Dawson pointed out that as of yesterday, the
Phosphorous Free Lawn Fertilizer ordinance has become a bill. Woodruff reported that Dan
Dickel shared the Gideon Glen outline, and the LCEC then listened to a presentation on
"Aquascaping" given by Connie Fortin, of Fortin Consulting. Woodruff added that it is the
LCEC's desire to design and showcase several sample "Aquascaping" gardens within the City of
Shorewood for its residents to visit and learn from.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Joint Planning Commission and City
Council Meeting of March 20, 2001, at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 8/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Kristi B. Anderson
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:09 P.M. He noted the resignation of
CommissionerAnderson, effective immediately, from the Planning Commission, and also noted
he would be missed by the Commission.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. March 20, 2001
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey requested an item be added to this evening's agenda regarding a Discussion on
Accessory Space. With the Commission's consent, this item became "Item 4., A Discussion on
Accessory Space" on this evening's agenda.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
ADDlicant: Tom and Cynthia Redmond
Location: 27190 Edgewood Road
Because the applicants were not present for the Public Hearing as part of Item I, the Commission
agreed to begin working on the Study Session portion of the Agenda. If the applicants arrived
later, Item I would be discussed at that time.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-DETAILED AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen reviewed the Planning District Data Sheet distributed to the Commission to be
used in reviewing Planning Districts throughout the year. The Commission agreed upon its use
as a tool for review and requested a section on Open Space or Undeveloped Land be added to
this Data Sheet. Director Nielsen stated Planning Districts 3 and 6 would be reviewed at the next
Study Session.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 3, 2001
Page 2 of 5
.
2.
DISCUSSION ON ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Director Nielsen reviewed the materials presented to the Commission as part of the discussion on
Organized Refuse Collection in the City. Commissioner Packard questioned the relevancy of a
study prepared in 1995 pertaining to this issue. Director Nielsen explained this issue had been
part of the goals for the Comprehensive Plan for the City since that time. Until now, it had not
been listed as a high priority; however, he believed progress had been made through the years.
He noted it appeared from discussions with past Commissions that agreement had been reached
regarding the necessity for a survey of residents regarding the needs related to this service.
He also noted cost did not seem to be the biggest influence upon this issue for residents. There
appeared to be other issues that impacted decisions related to this issue. For instance, the real
cost to residents would come from use of the roads in the City by the refuse collection trucks.
Also, these trucks travel on the most fragile portion of the roads (where pavements meet near the
edge) Furthermore, he described issues of aesthetics, noting trash could be viewed daily on most
City streets.
.
In discussing this matter, he noted a wide variety of options could exist across a large spectrum.
One end of the spectrum could be, as it is now, with uncontrolled garbage collection with
licensed collectors. The other end of the spectrum could be refuse collection as a City service
with residents paying for the service through increased taxes. He perceived the middle of the
spectrum to include bidding out refuse collection through private contract with possibly four
collection districts with the low bid getting a choice on a particular district. He noted with
bidding in this way the "smaller hauler" could be retained. He also noted in recent discussions it
did not appear that this issue was as sensitive for residents as it had been in the past. Further, he
stated the legislative process governing this process noted the refuse collectors be involved when
conducting a study such as this one.
Chair Bailey questioned the "down side" of organized collection. Director Nielsen stated
competition could be eliminated, some types of services could be lost to residents, and
accountability of collectors could be lost if organization occurred.
Director Nielsen then questioned Commissioners about current services and expectations for
refuse collection throughout the City.
Commissioner Gagne stated there were seven trucks plus a recycling truck that went down his
street. He stated he would like to see the process put out for bid with collection all on one day.
He did not see a need for seven trucks on his street for this purpose and stated he would be
supportive of any idea involving less wear and tear on the City streets.
Commissioner Woodruff commented the Islands area had a majority of people using the same
hauler. She had called the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista regarding the possibility of
sharing some refuse collection services and found they had only three licensed haulers with no
control over day-of-the-week pick-up. Both cities had May 19,2001, as a City-wide Clean-up
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 3, 2001
Page 3 of 5
.
Day with refuse to be delivered rather than a curbside pick-up. Also, she noted she believed it
was important to know who really owned each hauling company as customer loyalty could be
attached to a name of a collection service rather than an actual owner.
Chair Bailey noted there seemed to be a wide variety of haulers utilizing the street, with refuse
collection occurring approximately three to four times weekly. He stated he was reluctant to
eliminate competition in one sector of the City economy. He explained other sectors, such as
delivery service trucks or lawn chemical trucks, were not considered in need of elimination of
competition. He stated he was interested in the aspect of refuse collection and its impact on road
repair costs.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated he believed refuse collection was a basic service. Director
Nielsen also commented refuse collection trucks were exempt from road restrictions. Chair
Bailey stated he was always reluctant to leap at any ideas simply due to efficiency or elimination
of competition.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated another option would be to restrict vehicle weight limits as part
of potential contracts for this service. Director Nielsen commented limiting the number of days
of scheduled collections could be another option.
.
Commissioner Pisula stated three haulers seemed to be responsible for approximately ninety
percent of his neighborhood. He also noted he was willing to pay an additional fee to have a
hauler remove anything placed curbside.
Commissioner Woodruff stated it could be prudent to review refuse collection contracts at the
end of each year. Director Nielsen stated it could be possible to contract for varying levels of
service and perhaps residents could have the ability to choose a level of service most comfortable
for them. Commissioner Pisula stated competition for refuse collection services seemed to be
fairly aggressive in his neighborhood, but he did not think people paid much attention to this
recruitment.
Commissioner Packard stated refuse collection occurred every day on the street where she lived
and people seemed to ask their neighbors about refuse collection when they moved into the
neighborhood.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated there was a great deal of refuse collection trucks on the street
where he lived due to the trucks traveling for collection purposes on other streets.
Director Nielsen stated he thought it was important to get input from residents as part of this
process. In addition, he thought there needed to be an explanation of the study and what purpose
the survey would serve as part of that study of refuse collection services. Council Liaison
Garfunkel also agreed.
.
Chair Bailey stated he had heard six issues related to the discussion of refuse collection this
evening. He heard the need for a residential survey to determine what services people were
currently receiving and an expected level of service for future needs. Also, he believed an
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 3, 2001
Page 4 of 5
economic analysis needed to be conducted regarding the damaged roadways and costs of repair
due to heavy use by refuse collection trucks. Also, a consideration of options covering a range
from current uncontrolled practice to a City refuse collection service and logistic practices
related to those options. Also, he thought it important to contact other cities and note their
experiences related to refuse collection. Finally, he noted the legal process covered in the
legislative statutes governing this study process.
Commissioner Pisula commented refuse collection was literally a volume business with huge
economy of scale available.
Commissioner Packard suggested a timeline be established for incorporating all these issues into
the study effectively. Commissioner Gagne stated he would like to have the timeline showing
specific actions to be taken in the study with Spring 2002 as a final date for completion of the
study.
Chair Bailey called a four-minute recess to the meeting at 7:56 P.M. Chair Bailey resumed the
meeting at 8:00 P.M.
3. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
(This item was moved from Item 1 on this evening's Agenda)
Applicant: Tom and Cynthia Redmond
Location: 27190 Edgewood Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Seeing no one present wishing to take part
in the Public Hearing, Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, tabling this matter, due to the absence of the applicant,
until May 1, 2001. Motion passed 5/0.
4. DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Director Nielsen presented an ordinance amending the City Zoning Code regarding
nonconforming accessory structures to the Commission. He explained the history of issues
behind this ordinance amendment and noted the Commission would need to hold a Public
Hearing on this issue.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, holding a Public Hearing to review the proposed ordinance
amendment on May 1, 2001. Motion passed 5/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The April 17, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting will begin at 6:00 P.M. in Study Session
Format. The Agenda will include discussion on Planning Districts 3 and 6 as well as
presentation of the Refuse Collection Study Timeline. A Joint Orientation Session between the
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 3, 2001
Page 5 of 5
City Council, Land Conservation and Environment Committee, Park Commission, and Planning
Commission will follow at 7:00 P.M.
7. REPORTS
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 26, 2001
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. AD,JOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the April 3, 2001 Planning Commission
Meeting at 8:42 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 17 APRIL 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Pisula, and Woodruff; Council Liaison
Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Packard
Chair Bailey reviewed the Agenda. Director Nielsen requested Item 2 be dropped this Agenda
and moved to the May 1,2001 Planning Commission Agenda.
Commissioner Packard arrived at 6:04 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Pisula seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. April 3, 2001
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the April 3, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DETAILED AREA PLANS - DISTRICT 3
Director Nielsen reviewed the Planning District Data Sheet and proposed text for use in the
Comprehensive Plan for District 3. Commissioners commented they liked the data sheet for use
in review and found it quite helpful.
Director Nielsen noted Planning District 3 was bordered by Lake Minnetonka and the
Shorewoodffonka Bay border to the north; County Road 19 and Shorewoodffonka Bay border
to the east; Smithtown Road to the south; and Shorewood's largest wetland system on the west.
Existing land use in this district was widely varied, and zoning in the district was reflective of the
current land use pattern. Shorewood's only apartment complex lies in this district as well as the
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way (the LRT).
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 17 , 2001
Page 2 of 2
. No significant change in the land use pattern was proposed for this district in spite of the fact
there were a number of undeveloped parcels. Since these parcels were characterized by dramatic
topography, heavy vegetation, and pockets of protected wetlands, land conservation and
preservation measures were recommended.
One such parcel, Gideon Glen, had recently been purchased by the City and was recommended
for inclusion when considering planning elements for the County Road 19/5mithtown Road area.
Construction of the proposed realignment of County Road 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club
Road was slated for 2002. In conjunction with the intersection reconstruction and overall
redevelopment of the area, pedestrian circulation patterns should also be considered.
Director Nielsen recommended a separate detailed area plan be developed for the County Road
19/5mithtown Road area addressing commercial redevelopment, vehicular traffic, pedestrian
circulation, as well as the preservation and restoration of the Gideon Glen site.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the Planning District #3 Data as presented
this evening. Motion passed 5/0.
2. ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION STUDY TIMELINE (This item was
removed from the Agenda and moved to the May 1, 2001, Planning Commission
Agenda.)
.
3.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The agenda for the May 1, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting was anticipated to present the
Organized Refuse Collection Study Timeline, Review of Planning District #6, Review of a Plat,
and a Public Hearing regarding Accessory Structures.
5. REPORTS
Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 9, 2001,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
6. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, adjourning the April 17, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting at 7:47 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
.
Sally Keefe,
2
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. April 17, 2001
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the April 17, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes as
presented. Motion passed 5/0/2, with Borkon and White abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - APPLE RIDGE
Applicant: Roy Lecy
Location: 6185 Apple Road
Chair Bailey reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing, noting if this plat were approved this
evening it could appear on the May 28 Regular City Council Agenda for further review.
Director Nielsen provided background information on this matter, noting the property contained
approximately five acres to be subdivided into four single-family residential lots. The lot in the
southwestern comer of the property had an existing home on site. This site was also characterized by a
large hill and was substantially wooded with primarily maple, ash, and oak trees.
All the proposed lots were over 40,000 square feet with the two easterly lots being substantially larger.
The lots would be served by a cul-de-sac street with entrance to the street approximately mid-site off
Apple Road. The applicant proposed creating a storm water retention pond in the northwest comer of the
site, near the existing street. Director Nielsen also noted proposed grading plans would affect
approximately 2.1 acres of the site.
While the plat was consistent with land use designation for the area, there were some concerns regarding
subdivision requirements. Director Nielsen noted the proposed street exceeded the minimum width
requirements by approximately four feet and consideration should be given to reducing the width to the
minimum of 24 feet. He also noted the sight lines for the new intersection of Apple Road and the
proposed cul-de-sac were considered troublesome due to the crest of the hill on Apple Road south of the
subject property.
There were also several issues to be considered regarding grading, drainage, and erosion. The City
Engineer suggested a reduction in slope in the grading plan as well as appropriate sizing for a water
. retention pond. He also suggested the proximity of the proposed pond to Apple Road be reconsidered.
Planning Commission MeetingMinutes
May 1, 2001
Page 2 of 5
.
Since there would be a substantial amount of tree loss on the site, a more detailed tree preservation and
reforestation plan prepared by a registered landscape architect was being required to address the species
of trees to be replanted.
Director Nielsen explained that on paper the plan seemed logical, however, when physically viewing the
site, the hill proposed a significant concern regarding placement of the proposed street. Also, the City
Engineer had substantial concerns regarding ponding issues on site, and was recommending the project be
continued until these matters could possibly be resolved.
Peter Knaeble, of Terra Engineering representing the applicants, noted he and Mrs. Ruth Lecy were
present this evening to answer any questions from the Commission and gather public input on the
proposed project. He also stated he concurred with the comments made by staff and would continue to
work with those comments. No detailed alterations or meetings with staff had taken place, but he stated
he would like to meet with staff if possible to further discuss issues of concern.
Chair Bailey opened the public testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M.
Deb Osgood, 22305 Stratford Place, reviewed a memorandum she had prepared for the Commission. In
it, she stated she and her husband were concerned with the extensive land grading and vegetation loss on
site as well as issues related to access to Apple Road, drainage, and tree preservation. She stated while
she could appreciate the challenges to redesigning the entrance to Apple Road, the safety concerns
seemed significant.
.
Kathi Anderson, 22040 Stratford Place, stated she had concerns with the safety of the proposed street
location as well. She had lived in the area for ten years and had seen cars moving very quickly over the
hill. She also stated she had watched school buses and other vehicles slide past the turn onto Stratford
Place in winter due to the significant slope of the hill. She stated it seemed the proposed street entrance
was impractical.
Basim Sabre, 6125 Apple Road, stated he was a commercial developer in Minneapolis and had enjoyed
working with City staff in the past year on his own site. He stated it was his belief that Mr. Lecy owned
the land and was entitled to develop it, however, he also related to the problems the neighbors were
speaking of regarding the proposed subdivision. Further, he noted he had met with Mr. Lecy and
proposed purchasing approximately one-third of the property that abutted his property. While no final
agreement had been prepared, he wanted to be on record as stating he would retain the purchased property
as "green space." He also proposed this matter be postponed because it would allow street entrance issues
to be solved and would allow more time to define the area. He stated if he purchased the property he
would either give the parcel back to the City, or he would leave it as an undeveloped parcel of land.
John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill, stated he was a developer and owned the parcel of land south of
proposed lots three and four. He stated he was puzzled about the logistics of trying to build on this
property. He noted the topography made the site tough to develop, and he would be interested in
purchasing lot three to build a house with a driveway to be shared with his own. He confirmed private
drive requirements with Director Nielsen and suggested that certain scenarios, such as selling part of the
proposed parcel, selling the existing house, and building on another piece of land altogether also be
considered. He stated, in his professional opinion, it was not a parcel that would support three large
homes.
.
Peter Knaeble then stated he had not examined any of these suggestions prior to this evening. However,
he explained the plat had been drawn based on City ordinances and did meet those standards. He also
2
.
.
.
Planning Commission MeetingMinutes
May 1, 2001
Page 3 of 5
stated he concurred with staff and hoped the options could be considered with a potential for variance as
some considerations would include changes from ordinance.
Mr. Knoblauch then questioned the City's tree preservation requirements as well as issues related to front
setbacks and NURP ponds. Director Nielsen explained these requirements and further explained the
differences between a NURP pond and a retention pond that was proposed for the site.
Mr. Dick Osgood, 22305 Stratford Place, stated his concern for the amount of potential runoff from the
proposed retention pond. He stated the pond should be routed elsewhere or be placed in a different part of
the site.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne commented there were a number of concerns heard this evening that needed
resolution. He suggested tabling the matter until later this year to allow for some remedy of these
concerns.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, tabling this matter until the June 19, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting.
Commissioner Borkon commented she had many of the same concerns as those presented this evening.
She stated she hoped the owner and developer would reconsider the entrance to Apple Road as well as
runoff and location of the retention pond. She also noted this property was a steep beautiful piece of
property, and she hoped there could be minimal tree loss to the site.
Commissioner Woodruff also stated drainage and proposed street concerns heard this evening seemed
phenomenal to her. She thought tabling this matter made sense, and further stated she hoped wise
decisions would be made regarding tree loss and destruction of land.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey acknowledged the remaining audience members. Director Nielsen briefly explained, in
response to a question presented by a member of the audience, Cub Foods had dropped off an application
at City Hall that appeared to be on the June 5, 2001, Planning Commission Agenda for review.
STUDY SESSION
2. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DETAILED AREA PLANS -
DISTRICTS 3 AND 6
Director Nielsen reviewed the Planning District Data Sheet and proposed text for use in the
Comprehensive Plan for District 6. He noted Planning District 3 had been reviewed at the April 17, 2001,
Planning Commission Meeting, however, there was an additional section on the Data Sheet regarding
Telecommunications Opportunities that would be presented with all remaining Districts.
Director Nielsen noted Planning District 6 was bordered by the ShorewoodITonka Bay border to the west,
Lake Minnetonka to the north, the ShorewoodlExcelsior border to the east and Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 to the south. Land uses were generally consistent with the existing zoning configurations.
Nonresidential uses included the City's Public Works facility, a dredging company, and a yacht club.
While little or no vacant land existed within the district, a large parcel located to the east of the Public
Works property was capable of additional development. This site was under consideration as a possible
3
.
.
.
Planning Commission MeetingMinutes
May 1, 2001
Page 4 of 5
location for a future fire department or public safety campus that could include both a fire department and
possibly the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. There were no parks in this planning district,
however, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority trail, also referred to as the LRT, provided
excellent pedestrian and bicycle access to the east and west.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, accepting the text for Planning District 6 as presented. Motion
passed 7/0.
3. ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION STUDY TIMELINE
Director Nielsen reviewed the time line for organized refuse collection.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, recommending the intention of the Planning Commission to
conduct a study on organized refuse collection beginning in June, 2001.
After further consideration, the Planning Commission decided a more specific timeline should be
developed.
Gagne suggested, and Borkon agreed, to withdraw their previous motion.
Director Nielsen stated he would prepare this time line and report back to the Commission at the next
meeting.
4. WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the Work Program for 2001, noting many items had been shifted, and
he would redo the schedule and present the Commission with an updated version in the near future.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no further matters from the floor this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Three items regarding accessory space, a more specific organized refuse timeline, and review of a
Planning District were slated for the May 15,2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
A brief discussion of procedures to be utilized in a Public Hearing followed. Chair Bailey stated he
would draft a potential process and share it with Commission member and staff.
7. REPORTS
Planning Commission Liaisons to the Council were planned as follows:
May
June
July
August
September
October
Chair Bailey
Commissioner Gagne
Commissioner Packard
Commissioner Borkon
Commissioner White
Commissioner Woodruff
4
.
.
.
Planning Commission MeetingMinutes
May 1, 2001
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Pisula reported on the matters considered and actions taken at the April 23, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the May 1, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting at
9:19 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
5
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, MAY 15,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. May 1, 2001
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving the May 1, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes
as amended on Page 5, Sentence 1, change "Chair Bailey reported..." to "Commissioner
Pisula reported..." Motion passed 7/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING
NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing by briefly reviewing the procedures used in the process
of a Public Hearing. Director Nielsen then provided history on the need for this amendment
noting the time limit for the previous Public Hearing on this matter had expired so another
Hearing was necessitated.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Hearing at 7: 14 P.M., as
there was no one present in the audience wishing to speak on this matter.
Commissioner White asked how this amendment could potentially affect a homeowner having
purchased a home that had undergone a remodeling project affecting approximately forty-nine
percent of the gross floor area and who now, after purchase, wished to remodel the remaining
portion of the home. Director Nielsen responded this was a valuable question requiring
consultation with the City Attorney.
Commissioner Woodruff commented the goal of the amendment was to address nonconforming
structures, rather than the remodeling aspect of the ordinance.
Commissioner Borkon questioned the need for such an ordinance. Chair Bailey explained the
goal of the ordinance was to attempt to bring nonconforming structures into conformity when
possible. The Planning Commission had tried to enforce fairness in working with this issue, and
this ordinance amendment was a mechanism that allowed fairness to all when bringing a
nonconforming structure to conformity. Director Nielsen cited several examples where this
amendment could have been helpful in the past in working with nonconforming structures within
the City. He then suggested clarifying the amendment by adding the words "...in any twelve
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 15,2001
Page 2 of 3
month period" to the amendment. Thus, the potential for remodeling would still exist without
penalizing a homeowner, and the ordinance would still be able to be reasonably enforced.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Zoning Code Amendment regarding
Nonconforming Accessory Structures as revised to include the words ". ..or in instances
where the gross floor area of the principal structure is being increased by fifty (50%) or
greater in any twelve month period." Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
2. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DETAILED AREA PLANS -
DISTRICT 7
Director Nielsen reviewed the Planning District Data Sheet and proposed text for use in the
Comprehensive Plan for District 7. He noted this district was located in the center of Shorewood,
and was bounded by Smithtown Road (County Road 19) on the north, Country Club
Road/Yellowstone Trail/Lake Linden Drive on the west, State Highway7 on the south, and the
ShorewoodlExcelsior municipal boundary on the east. This district displayed a complex zoning
pattern, including a mix of residential and commercial zoning. Similarly, there was a mix of
commercial zoning in the district.
The land use patterns were reflective of the varied zoning. Further development in this district
should be consistent with existing zoning for the area. The Proposed Land Use Plan for this area
suggested giving consideration to commercial expansion near the shopping center located in the
southwest comer of the district. Given traffic concerns, access constraints, and existing terrain,
consideration being given to that commercial expansion of the vacant land to the east and west of
the shopping center should be limited to the density allowed under current zoning, and
clarification suggesting appropriate transitional uses be added to the proposed text regarding this
district.
Reconstruction and realignment of the County Road 19/Country Club Road intersection had been
scheduled for the summer of 2002, and was intended in part, to discourage non-local traffic from
cutting through from County Road 19 to Highway 7. Also, the intersection at State Highways 7
and 41 was scheduled for construction in 2001. Drainage improvements planned for that
intersection project were anticipated to reduce flooding problems downstream to the east.
The Commission expressed significant concern for the traffic patterns and speeds when people
were trying to access Highway 7 from County Road 19.
Director Nielsen stated additional text needed to be added to the proposed text presented this
evening, and he would supply this completed draft portion at the June 6, 2001, Planning
Commission Meeting.
3. ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION STUDY TIMELINE
Director Nielsen reviewed the Organized Refuse Collection Study Timeline presented to
the Commission this evening, explaining the rationale and process utilized in planning
this study.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 15, 2001
Page 3 of 3
Council Liaison Garfunkel suggested including the resident survey portion of the study
with City sewer and utility bills as a more visible means of attracting participation in the
study.
The Commission agreed with this suggestion, and complimented Director Nielsen on the
fine work he had done in planning the study.
4. DISCUSS PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES
The Commission briefly reviewed Public Hearing procedures with the addition of written
questions asked by residents and guided discussion by the Commission of those questions, thus,
allowing for meaningful discussion.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There was no one present this evening wishing to address the Commission.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reminded the Commission there would be a meeting on June 5, 2001, to
discuss the Cub Foods proposal, and a second meeting on June 6, 2001, with four Public
Hearings slated on the Agenda.
7.
REPORTS
Commissioner Gagne reported on the May 15, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting. (as
detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the May 15, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting at 9:04 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE SENIOR/COMMUNITY CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Lizee; Engineer Brown; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· May 15, 2001
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the May 15, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes as presented.
Motion passed 7/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CUB FOOD STORE COMP
AMENDMENT/REZONING/PRELIMINARY PLAT/CONDITIONAL
PERMITSN ARIANCE
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc.
Location: 23680 Highway 7
PLAN
USE
Chair Bailey explained the procedures to be utilized in this Public Hearing. He noted the Planning
Commission was a recommending body only that prided itself on being impartial when considering issues
such as this one. He reviewed the goal of the Public Hearing and noted the Commission was interested in
hearing ideas without debate. He requested testimony be directed to the Commission and that courtesy,
respect, and brevity prevail. This matter, if approved, would be reported on at the June 11, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting.
He also explained one Councilmember had recused himself in dealing with this matter, thus approval by
Council required a unanimous vote of support.
Director Nielsen then presented background information regarding this matter. The Avalon Group, LLC,
represented Mr. Stan Taube, owner of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc., had submitted plans
for redevelopment of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center at 23680 State Highway 7. They proposed
demolishing part of the existing Driskill's grocery store and building a new CUB Foods store extending
from the west end of the shopping center onto three parcels of land to the west.
The Shopping Center existed on the largest parcel (8.32 acres) in that immediate area and was zoned
General Commercial. A vacant parcel to the west was zoned similarly, except for a 100-foot wide strip of
land on the north side of the previously vacated Maple Street right-of-way, which was zoned Single
Family Residential and contained 3.52 acres. The site currently occupied by the bank contained .24 acres,
and was also zoned General Commercial. The bank building would be demolished as part of this
proposal. The fourth parcel was occupied by a single-family residence, zoned Single Family Residential,
and contained .72 acres of land. Applicants proposed demolishing the existing house and requested a
rezoning of both of the residentially zoned properties to General Commercial. The applicants also
proposed combining all four parcels for a total of 12.8 acres.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 2 of 12
. Zoning and land use surrounding the site was varied. The land to the north and east surrounding the
property was zoned Single Family Residential. A commercially zoned shopping center existed in
Chanhassan immediately to the south across Highway 7. A single family home, a two-family home, and
two offices, zoned respectively residential and commercial, existed to the west. Much of the site
currently holding the shopping center existed as a gravel mine years ago. A substantial buffer of
vegetation existed along the north side of the property.
The new store, loading and parking areas would be extended onto the residentially zoned land. The new
building would add 67,188 square feet to the shopping center resulting in a total of 109,087 square feet.
This application was quite complex and involved consideration of numerous zoning actions by the City:
. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to expand the commercial area into what is now guided as
Low-to-Medium Residential (2-3 units per acre)
. Rezoning of residential land from R-1C, Single Family Residential to C-3, General
Commercial
. Preliminary plat approval combining four parcels
. Vacation of a portion of Maple Street right-of-way
· Conditional use permit for drive-up facility (pharmacy)
. Variance to hardcover requirement in Shoreland District
. Conditional use-Shoreland Impact Plan .
. Variance to parking requirements (number of spaces)
. Variance to parking requirements (setbacks)
. Conditional use permit (revision to multiple signage permit)
.
These actions were detailed in order throughout the remainder of Director Nielsen's presentation of issues
and analysis.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning requests required evaluation by the Planning
Commission of the land use, transportation, and natural resource policies as they pertained to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Approval of a preliminary, and ultimately final, plat would require the four parcels
be legally combined.
As part of this request, a small triangle of Maple Street would need to be vacated, and consideration
should.be given to the space available for a turn-around at the end of the street. Director Nielsen listed
possible options for consideration. He noted the design chosen would be subject to review by the Fire
Marshal.
In considering the remainder of the applicant's requests, Director Nielsen encouraged the Planning
Commission to make sure all criteria for granting conditional use permits and variances were met.
Criteria for granting conditional use permits included consideration of the relationship or consistency with
the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with future and existing uses, possible depreciation of the area
where the request was located, acceptability of the accommodations with existing City services, and at the
same time, not overburdening those services, as well as the specific conditions listed for each use.
Criteria for granting variances were more specific, notably that the circumstances must be unique to the
property, the applicant must demonstrate "undue hardship," economic conditions alone shall not
constitute hardship, the burden of proof was on the applicant, and the City could attach reasonable
conditions.
.
Director Nielsen then explained eleven conditions relative to the drive-in facilities requested. Concerns
were expressed regarding the architectural compatibility with the existing center. Light standards
seemingly appeared to be located within landscape islands or areas.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 3 of 12
. In addition, the developer proposed a six-foot fence sitting atop a masonry retaining wall of varying
heights, along the west side of the property. While the current vegetation had developed into a significant
buffer to the commercial property, some concern was expressed that the developer proposed a single row
of spruce and aspen trees between the wall and the property line. Director Nielsen explained aspens
would require a number of years before their height would become an effective screening device. The
City placed considerable reliance upon landscaping to achieve compatibility between land uses, and as
such, this plan was not considered ample. Director Nielsen noted this landscaping issue was a concern for
all areas on site.
Another area of concern included the one-way circulation pattern for the drive-in facility. While there
was apparently sufficient room for a car using the drive-in window to make a necessary u-turn as it
approached from the south, it was forced into the lane for exiting delivery trucks and employees parking
at the rear of the center.
Lighting fixtures required a more detailed plan demonstrating how light sources would not be visible to
adjoining properties.
Drainage was of concern as well. The proposed plan relied on a low impact development technique
known as infiltration. Since little information was made available regarding the soil on site, this was
questionable. Also, the plan proposed a fenced-in sunken pond on the northwest corner of the site. In
consideration of the high retaining walls also proposed for that area, safety and maintenance of the area
were cause for concern as well.
.
Significant signage plans had not been submitted, however, it was recommended no signage be allowe~
on the west side facing the residential areas.
All parking and circulation areas were to be paved, and proposed curbing around all parking and
perimeter areas were consistent with the City zoning code requirements.
The applicant's plan indicated approximately two-thirds of the site would be situated within the 1000-foot
Shoreland zoning district for Lake Linden. As such, the site would be subject to the maximum of 25
percent impervious surface requirements. The proposed hardcover for this plan was in excess of 80
percent. Also, variance requirements set forth by City code for the Shoreland district also reference the
". . . preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation, and the marshes and wetlands within the City of
Shorewood." While there was no direct impact to any adjoining wetland, the extent of the tree removal
and the extent of the site alteration being proposed appeared to be in conflict with this code. Similarly,
these concerns were echoed regarding the necessary submission of a Shoreland Impact Plan.
A number of issues surfaced regarding the request for a parking variance. Initially, there appeared to be a
parking shortage on site as part of the proposed plan. After several revisions and varying calculations
required for parking space width, it was determined the plan was short 29 spaces. The applicant had
shown a number of parking spaces to the rear of the building causing concern for the security and
practicality of those proposed spaces. "Cart corrals" were proposed as part of the parking lot islands.
This conflicted with the landscape plan and possibly the infiltration islands. Also, many times these "cart
corrals" ended up in the parking lots further reducing the number of spaces for parking. Finally, there
was no room for snow storage, requiring operational compliance in having the snow transported offsite.
.
In addition, the proposed plan included 25 feet of pavement encroachment behind the new store, and
ultimately, a hardship had not been demonstrated in this request for a parking variance in the setback area.
Director Nielsen reported one of the most significant issues expressed by City staff was increased traffic
on Lake Linden Drive, Yellowstone Trail, and Country Club Road. A traffic study conducted by the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 4 of 12
. applicant's traffic engineer suggested the traffic generated by a CUB store would not be significant. This
seemed to require revision to show more realistic comparisons as well as inclusion of the increase of
traffic related to weekend use.
Engineer Brown briefly summarized his report on this matter providing more significant detail in regard
to each of the requests by the applicant. Specifically, he reviewed the site plan and traffic circulation
patterns; a response to a traffic study provided by Benshoof & Associates; comments regarding
stormwater management plans as well as proposed sanitary sewer and watermain issues; parking
requirements; landscaping and lighting; and general plat comments. This report was submitted as a
memorandum from Dave Hutton, of WSB & Associates, to Brad Nielsen and Larry Brown, referencing
WSB Project No. 1074-59, dated May 18, 2001, and would be made available to the public for further
review at City Hall. This report also included specific conditions and recommendations regarding the
approval of this matter.
Engineer Brown also reported on the impact the Highway 7 and 41 Reconstruction project would have on
this project. Notably, the access to Lake Linden Drive from Highway 7 would be closed, signals would
be replaced in this area, and there was concern for the stormwater pond in front of the SuperAmerica
located on the southwest corner of the intersection. Retention levels for that pond were already being
utilized to full capacity as part of proposed plans for the area and would not be able to withstand
additional drainage as a result of the CUB project.
Chair Bailey complimented City staff on the thoroughness of their reports and thanked them for their
efforts regarding this request.
.
Barbara Van Auken, of the Avalon Group and representing Mr. Stan Taube-owner of the Shorewood
Village Shopping Center, addressed the Commission. She explained there had been significant upgrading
and remodeling completed on site. Further, she noted the Supervalu store was the anchor tenant, owned
by Mr. Scott Driskill. That store would be replaced with the proposed expansion and upgrade of grocery
store use. She stated the bank facility on site was owned by Mr. Taube and leased to the current bank
occupant. She believed the best use of the site included the proposed expansion and upgrade of the
grocery store.
She reviewed past historic meeting information regarding the proposal, noting the meeting of May 1,
2001, where in an effort to work with City staff, the Avalon Group had consistently responded to requests
made by the City throughout the planning process. She stated this would continue throughout the
remainder of the process as well. She further explained a Neighborhood Meeting had taken place on May
18, 2001, at City Hall with twenty-nine citizens in attendance. At a most recent follow-up session on
June 4, 2001, seven citizens were present to hear additional studies, answers to previous questions, and
other concerns.
She then introduced the remaining members representing the Avalon Group this evening. Mr. John
Payton, of the Parsons Transportation Group, and a civil engineer of twenty years, made presentation to
the Commission regarding the proposed fire flow storage tank on site, fencing, entrance drive, alternate
site plan, landscaping plan, site grading plan, lighting plan, sightline study, and potential water usage for
this proposal.
.
He stated there would be a fire flow storage tank on site as part of this proposal. Also, the fence proposed
around the infiltration pond met National Urban Retention Pond (NURP) standards and a safety ladder
would be installed as well. With regard to the entrance to the Shopping Center, he preferred the proposed
entrance rather than the one MnDOT was supporting as part of their Reconstruction Project. He noted the
alternate site plan of one restaurant and convenience store could adequately be situated on the site. He
proposed "shoebox" style lighting with flat lenses.
1~
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 5 of 12
.
He further explained the grading plans for the area. The property was believed to have been a gravel
operation previously, however, all soil tests completed thus far had missed evidence of that form of
operation. The sand and gravel hoped for as an aid to the infiltration process for the NURP pond area had
not materialized. As a result, consideration was being given to running piping to other gravel areas on
site. He also noted this proposal was subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards and
resolution to issues was forthcoming.
The photometrics of the proposed plan were being reviewed to address additional "hotspot" areas
recognized by the topography. A sight line study had been conducted for the proposal. Sight lines had
been examined from a second story height. Findings concluded the use ofa six-foot fence would filter
the headlights from a delivery truck, but would not shelter the truck entirely from view.
With respect to use of semi-trucks on site, a standard semi could access all proposed turns in the
circulation pattern, however, it would encroach onto land and turn lanes with the proposed entrance
suggested by MnDOT. Also, it would encroach onto parking spots to access the drive-through lane of the
pharmacy, but good sight lines were maintained in the pharmacy area.
Water usage noted there would be use of a well for the site. He noted filling the water tank with a garden
hose for twelve hours a day over a ten day period would not cause a significant lowering of the water
table. While he had not been able to identify the neighboring wells in the area, he expected the amount of
impact to the water table in the area to be insignificant.
.
Mr. Bob Knudson, representing Supervalu, presented a review of the architectural plan. He stated CUB
was experiencing new growth throughout the Metro area, and as such, different store designs were
planned. The proposed store for this site was smaller than many of their typical stores, and a new layout
was being proposed at the corporate level. He anticipated a prototype would be finished within the next
month.
Ms. Mary McGlinch, member of the Real Estate department of Supervalu, Inc., introduced Mr. Curt
Craig, District Manager for CUB Foods. Mr. Craig briefly reviewed the proposed interior layout of the
store, noting it would be most similar to the Southdale store.
Ms. McGlinch stated the proposed store would be operational twenty-four hours a day, with fairly
consistent daytime hours for the pharmacy, and ten different departments within the store itself. Security
was not an issue at other stores, she explained, due to the use of the store and lighting on the site. She
then reviewed truck delivery times, explaining the store would attempt to restrict deliveries during the
nighttime hours. She anticipated a number of deliveries throughout the week by semi and approximately
ten panel trucks daily to properly stock the store. In addition, she explained the current Driskill's
employees would be allowed to interview with CUB for continued employment. The bank building on
site would be demolished, and negotiations were underway regarding use of the store space for banking.
.
Mr. Jim Benshoof, a traffic engineer, briefly summarized a traffic report generated by his firm, Benshoof
and Associates. His findings indicated there would not be a perceptible change in the traffic on Lake
Linden Drive, Yellowstone Trail, and Country Club Road. Overall, he found a seven to eleven percent
increase in total daily volume on those roadways. He did not believe this level would alter the basic
function and level of safety currently being experienced on that roadway as well. He further explained he
had received a copy of Staff memorandums and noted a general degree of skepticism and concern from
City staff and citizen comments at various neighborhood meetings. As a result, he provided further
response, specifically focusing on developing alternate traffic scenarios and the effects of weekend traffic
on specified roadways.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 6 of 12
. Mr. Payton again addressed the Commission in direct response to Director Nielsen's memorandum to the
Commission and City Council, dated May 31, 2001. He briefly explained a final plat would be
forthcoming upon approval of this proposal. Work would continue regarding resolution of matters
regarding the vacation of the Maple Street right-of-way. He questioned whether demolishing the current
drive-through on the bank site, resulting in a singular drive-through would enhance the plan. Further, he
stated, according to his calculations, existing hardcover utilized fifty-five percent of the site. He noted
expectations for reductions in the hardcover amount could not possibly be met with an expansion. Any
development in that area would have the potential to impact Lake Linden, and all best efforts were being
put forth to minimize that impact. He also explained short retaining walls would be erected on the north
side of the proposed parking stalls behind the store in an effort to protect the steep slope of the
topography.
Chair Bailey then opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M.
.
Ms. Dione Kahlstrom, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, stated she was. a spokesperson for approximately twelve
people in her neighborhood. She stated her concerns regarding traffic on Lake Linden Drive, specifically
taking issue with the potential for increased speed and number of cars traveling on the road to get to the
proposed store. Also, she had taken photos of other metro area CUB food stores and was concerned about
the tremendous amounts of trash along fencelines. In addition, she noted concern for the use of aspen
trees as part of the proposed landscape plan. She explained these trees lose their leaves in winter and
would drastically reduce the buffering intent of their purpose. She also submitted a petition including
approximately 350 names asking that this proposal not be approved. She stated residents were concerned
it would set a precedent for other large chains, and would like to maintain a rustic, small-town country
charm currently being demonstrated in Shorewood.
Mr. Austin Kraft, 6125 Rampart Court, stated he had met with other neighbors as a community. He
explained it did not seem as though the CUB proposal fit within the Shorewood community. He stated he
believed there were issues related to traffic and the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the traffic on
Lake Linden Drive would seem to increase substantially as a result of the new CUB Foods store. He
further commented it seemed as though the proposed plan required huge exceptions to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Theresa Elsbernd, 5880 Minnetonka Drive, stated she was a professional residential construction
owner and had several questions and concerns regarding the proposal. She stated, as a residential builder,
she was required to observe wetland and tree preservation measures, and believed the Avalon Group
should have to comply with these requirements as well. She was concerned about the land preservation
issues related to this proposal. Also, she expressed concern for the increase in traffic in the area, the
change in historic, rustic character of the area, and she did not see any hardship being presented with
regard to the requests for variances and permits. She stated she adamantly opposed the CUB proposal.
Ms. Denise Koehnen, 6095 Lake Linden Drive, stated she lived directly west of the vacant lot beside
Driskill's. She stated she was concerned about the buffer being planned for the site, noting it seemed
inadequate. Litter posed another concern, as her property would most likely be affected. Lake Linden
Drive was not adequately handling today's traffic let alone an increase, she stated.
Mr. Roger Nestande, 6085 Lake Linden Drive, submitted photos to the Commission regarding the holding
pond in his backyard as part of his property on the vacated land on Maple Street.
.
Mr. Mike Adams, 24234 Mary Lake Trail, stated his concern regarding the traffic on Lake Linden Drive,
Yellowstone Trail, and Country Club Road. He expressed concern for the speeding occurring in the area
presently, noting it was not unusual to see vehicles moving at sixty to seventy miles per hour on this road.
Thus, making them impossible for pedestrian traffic. In addition, he stated the traffic from the CUB
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 7 of 12
. would compound this situation. He noted Shorewood had strict policies governing the use of conditional
use permits and easements, and he hoped that applied to corporate entities as well.
Mr. Kevin Byrne, 6085 Rampart Court, stated he had moved from the New England area to Shorewood
because his family liked the similar character. He stated he liked being able to shop at a family-owned
business because he believed it helped to establish pride in the community. He further stated he shopped
at both CUB and Driskill's, and he understood the motive of a large warehouse style grocery store in
producing efficiently by selling in large quantities. He implored the Commission to think about how the
proposal would affect other businesses in the area. He noted it did not seem like a good fit. Other
proposals worked to make themselves fit into the communit,y and he believed CUB was choosing not to
fit into the community, thus, he was opposed to the CUB proposal as well. .
Mr. Duncan Storley, 5375 Eureka Road, stated he did not see any justification to warrant any changes in
the rules to accommodate this proposal. The project seemed totally out of scale and well beyond need.
He believed this proposal pushed every edge to get the biggest possible store for the site and the store
itself was not need in the community.
Mr. Chris Kahlstrom, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, stated any increase in traffic to Lake Linden Drive would
be detrimental.
.
Mr. Henry Miles, 24035 Mary Lake Trail, stated he had a hard time understanding the impact the store
would make on the area by looking at photos and listening to people. He believed shopping centers to be
ugly, dirty, and noisy, as well as affecting the environment by contributing light pollution and noise
pollution to the area. He stated he liked Shorewood's strategy of protecting the environment and had built
his own home according to these strategies. He requested the Planning Commission consider the
motivations of the people doing their jobs and not be taken in by the process. He further requested the
Commission ponder the future, and try to determine the impact this proposal would have on the area.
Ms. Britta Larson, owner of the Hair Razors Salon at the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated she
had owned the salon for five years and had concerns with the well portion of the proposal. Specifically,
she was concerned with the impact the proposed well activity would have on the businesses in the center.
Also, she expressed concern regarding the parking spaces allotted noting they did not seem at all
adequate.
Ms. Laurie Susla, 26077 Noble Road, stated she was concerned people were not aware of this issue.
Mr. Todd Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, requested the Commission think about how decisions made today
affect the future. He asked the Commission to review criteria for variances and permits and be fair to all.
Mr. Mark Kennedy, 23875 Yellowstone Trail, stated he had owned his property for thirty days. Had he
known there would be a CUB Foods store increasing traffic in the area, he would not have purchased his
residence. He stated his children were already fearful of walking along the street, and he was not in favor
of the proposal.
Ms. Lorraine Johnson, 6060 Riviera Lane, stated she had lived in the area for thirty-two years. She stated
her concern regarding Lake Linden Drive itself, noting it was a curvy, dangerous road. She enjoyed
Driskill's and the "small town" appeal of the area and hoped it could remain.
.
Mr. Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road and owner/developer of the Shorewood Village Shopping
Center, stated he had moved to the area for the same reasons stated by other people in the audience. He
stated he had always tried to maintain pride in his efforts to make a difference. He noted it had taken
several years to improve the Shopping Center, and the Center could not exist without a supermarket. He
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 8 of 12
. thanked the Planning Staff for being cooperative in working on this proposal. He further stated he heard
people with valid concerns and expected many of these same issues would arise with any other proposed
store for that space. It was his belief that a supermarket in Shorewood would not be able to exist unless it
was of similar size to the proposed store. He stated he was proud of what he had developed over the
years, and remained respectfully committed to working with the City staff, residents, and developers for
the area.
Ms. Theresa Elsbernd questioned the Commission about the process of bringing planning issues to the
Commission.
Ms. Bonita Wylie, 5975 Charleston Circle, stated she understood the concerns presented this evening, as
well as the need for people to continue to move further west of the Metro area to experience small town
character. However, she also understood the need for commercial interests in the City. While this
proposal was not perfect, she recommended the Commission at least give it ample consideration.
Mr. Austin Kraft, reiterated his previous concern regarding the lack of "fit" within the community. He
also stated most of the people he had talked with about the matter were opposed to it.
Mr. Bob Picha, 5930 SeamansDrive, expressed his concern for additional traffic in the immediate area of
the Shopping Center. He suggested the CUB proposal be revised to include a smaller store, and the
Commission consider the impact of this proposal on the road systems in the area.
.
Mr. Ed Sheridan, 5160 Club Valley Road, stated he was an older resident of Shorewood. He had seen
many residential areas become very commercial. He stated he liked the small stores and companies found
in this area, rather than the bigger stores. He was opposed to the proposal as well.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:45 P.M. by thanking
residents for their participation in this matter.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 10:45 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 10:55 P.M.
Commissioner Pisula stated he had been directed to write down questions presented by the community
regarding this issue as part of this Public Hearing process. As such, he had generated a small list of
questions, noting that most comments were heard this evening. However, he noted there still seemed to
be questions regarding the traffic in the area of Lake Linden Drive.
Engineer Brown responded the Planning Commission and City Council had tried to take several steps in
the past in decreasing the amount of traffic on that road. He also cited the access closure to Highway 7
and the changes being proposed as part of the County Road 19 intersection project as efforts toward that
end. He also commented the "cut-through"traffic would remain an issue as part of any proposed
development for that area. He stated it was not an "if, but when" situation regarding the development of
the site. The City could only help to guide and control any proposed development in that area. However,
as it pertained to this request, it seemed as though traffic would certainly increase on Lake Linden Drive.
.
Commissioner Pisula then noted skepticism had been raised regarding the traffic study completed by
Benshoof and Associates. He questioned actual traffic increases and where that traffic would originate.
Ms. McGlinch responded the study was conducted utilizing information from a "dot map" developed at
the Driskill's store, and she expected CUB would encourage traffic with origination of approximately five
to eight miles away.
Commissioner Pisula noted questions remained about the water being supplied to the site. Engineer
Brown explained accuracy of the aquifer could be checked using simple calculations. However, he
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 9 of 12
. deferred to Mr. Payton of the Avalon Group for information regarding water pressure. Mr. Payton
responded the well would have continual maintenance and would be reviewed annually. There would be
a two to three thousand gallon tank on top to push water out and provide pressure to the center. With
regard to comments made by Ms. Britta Larsen about the water pressure in her salon, he noted there could
possibly be internal pressure issues. He also suggested if a "draw down" was experienced, it may have
been related to a more regional issue.
Commissioner Pisula then questioned Mr. Payton about the preferred use of aspen trees on the site. Mr.
Payton explained aspen trees were chosen as part of the proposal because they seemed to be similar to
other tree types on residential properties in the area. Other types could certainly be examined for
adaptability and made part of the proposal.
Commissioner Pisula suggested adequate parking requirements be worked out for the Hair Razors Salon
by having Mr. Taube and the Avalon Group work directly with Ms. Larson.
.
Commissioner Pisula then questioned Director Nielsen about the notification standards used in this
particular proposal. Director Nielsen explained all applications, such as this, require Public Hearings and
notification of residents within three hundred fifty feet of proposed properties were required by state
statute. However, Shorewood ordinance stipulated a five hundred foot notification radius would be
utilized. This particular request seemed to require a more extensive notification area since the impact was
greater than the required notification distance. As a result, extraordinary efforts were made in making
notification to Shorewood residents. Hearings were posted in local newspapers as per the process, but
also notifications were made in newsletters, City meeting minutes, additional mailings, and in some cases,
hand deliveries were made in effort to notify residents.
Chair Bailey then opened discussion including all Commission members as part of this process.
Commissioners Borkon, Woodruff, and White questioned members of the Avalon Group about refuse
collection for the site. Various members of the Avalon Group explained refuse collection was contracted
and refuse and recycling were kept in back of the store.
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern regarding the inability of Supervalu to control delivery and
refuse collection times. Commissioner Gagne noted he had personally observed the delivery of trucks,
and it had seemed excessive in the time span observed. He also expressed concern for the lack of
regulation regarding deliveries.
Commissioner Borkon thanked members of the Avalon Group for their friendly presentation and
questioned whether a smaller CUB format could be recommended for this site. Ms. McGlinch responded
the CUB format was premised on efficiencies related to volume and product. She stated it would not
work to utilize a smaller merchandising area. The sixty to seventy thousand foot stores allowed
merchandise to be offered in a certain way, and she did not anticipate things working if made
substantially smaller. Mr. Knudson interjected he would like to .see an exterior that would fit in with the
Center as a whole. Mr. Taube also interjected that aesthetically the Avalon Group could design more
pleasing architecture and landscape plans. Further, he knew there was additional work to be completed
on this proposal, and he would like to try to continue to work with City staff in an effort to make the
proposal compliment the community.
.
Commissioner Packard questioned Engineer Brown whether changes could still be made to the proposed
entrance design being suggested by MnDOT since the project would soon be out for bid. He responded it
would not be an option at this point in time. Ms. VanAuken of the Avalon Group stated the Group
needed to meet to make revisions to their plans regarding the entrance.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 10 of 12
. Commissioner Packard then asked what had been gained by reducing the parking stall widths. Mr.
Knudson responded CUB could operate with a smaller stall width than currently proposed if need be.
Commissioner Borkon stated she had many concerns regarding how this proposal aligned with the
Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen explained the number of requests issued as part of this proposal
was not unusual for a commercial development. However, the proposal seemed contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of compatibility with land use, noting the limited room made landscaping
even more important in establishing compatibility between high-density properties and others less dense.
Chair Bailey then questioned Mr. Chuck Rickart, the City's traffic consultant, for his opinion regarding
the traffic study presented by the Avalon Group. Mr. Rickart noted skepticism regarding the study,
. noting conclusions regarding "cut-through" traffic and "pass-by trips"were not adequately explained or
supported.
Commissioner Borkon stated her concern for the lack of drainage from the proposed infiltration pond.
Engineer Brown explained he was always concerned about drainage ponds without a drainage outlet. He
noted this raised many challenges for drainage as part of the proposal, and suggested the subject site plan
determine a way for water to get from the pond to Lake Linden.
Chair Bailey noted there seemed to be a number of issues regarding stormwater runoff from the site.
Also, he commented he did not know that the "cart corrals" were required to be placed in the parking lot,
but he suspected they would eventually be placed there utilizing more. parking spaces in an already
crowded situation. Mr. Knudson commented the "cart corrals" would probably take up space in the lot.
. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, directing Staff to prepare Findings of Fact that show:
1. The Avalon Group proposal conflicted with specific enumerated Goals and Objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan and so did not warrant adoption of either a Comprehensive Plan
amendment or rezoning.
2. That the proposal did not comply with the following relevant Policies s stated in the
Comprehensive Plan:
A. Land Use General Policy #10 - "Intensification of land use..."
B. Land Use General Policy #11- "Transitions between distinctly..."
C. Land Use Residential Policy #2 - "Low density..."
D. Land Use Residential Policy #3 - "Residential neighborhoods..."
E. Land Use Residential Policy #6 - "Residential development..."
F. Land Use Residential Policy #1- "The City of Shorewood's..."
G. Land Use Residential Policy #4 - "All existing and proposed..."
H. Transportation Parking Policy #1- "No development..."
I. Housing Compatibility Policy #1- "Low density residential..."
J. Housing Compatibility Policy #2 - "The character of ..."
K. Housing Compatibility Policy #3 - "Residential developments..."
.
Commissioner Pisula commented this project did not seem to fit the specific policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. He also commented he was pleased with the changes made at the Shopping Center
over the past five years. In addition, he believed some other development would take place in the
proposed area. Commissioners Borkon and Gagne agreed noting it was a shame the efforts of so many
would tome to fruition. Also Commissioners Packard and Woodruff agreed there seemed a substantial
amount of hurdles to surpass in order to make the proposal compatible with City requirements. Chair
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 11 of 12
. Bailey suggested working with City policies much more closely in the future to determine a positive
response.
The Planning Commission again restated the motion for a vote. Motion passed 7/0.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, not approving the preliminary plat approval combining four
parcels.
Commissioner Woodruff stated to combine the four parcels would go against the premise of their
previous vote.
Motion passed 7/0.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, disallowing the vacation of the Maple Street right-of-way, due to
failure to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 7/0.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, denying the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
drive-up facility as part of the pharmacy. Motion passed 7/0.
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded, denying the request for Variance to the hardcover requirement in
the Shoreland District. Motion passed 7/0.
.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, denying the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the
Shoreland Impact Plan. Motion passed 7/0.
Packard moved, White seconded, denying the request for Variance to the parking requirements
regarding the number of spaces. Motion passed 7/0.
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, denying the request for Variance to the parking requirements
regarding the setbacks. Motion passed 7/0.
The Planning Commission noted the Conditional Use Permit for additional signage would not be needed
at this time.
Director Nielsen state the Findings of Fact would be a part of the Agenda for the July 3, 2001, Planning
Commission Meeting, and would also appear on the July 9, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda,
if approved by the Commission.
Commissioner Borkon commented she was impressed with the way the residents thought the City was on
target regarding the Comprehensive Plan. This was quite gratifying because there had been significant
efforts over time to develop the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Woodruff agreed.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
.
Mr. Duncan Storley, 5375 Eureka Road, questioned whether the Planning Commission, after having
heard the concerns this evening for Lake Linden Drive, would be making any plans to tackle the issues
related to the roadway. Engineer Brown commented he was excited to hear the residents were interested
in change for the road, because in the past that had not been the case. He stated he would ask Staff to
include it on the project list for the year.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 5 2001
Page 12 of 12
Ms. Bonita Wylie, 5975 Charleston Circle, questioned whether this matter had been published in any
previous information formats for City residents. Director Nielsen explained there had been a number of
steps taken above and beyond the norm in an effort to make citizens aware of this proposal.
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
As a Planning Commission Meeting Agenda had been previously drafted for June 6, 2001, there was not a
need to draft an agenda.
4. REPORTS
There were no further reports this evening.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Pisula seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 2001,
at 12:35 A.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 62001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Lizee; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes for approval this evening.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Applicant: M.J. McGregor, Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio
Location: 21195 Minnetonka Boulevard
Chair Bailey reviewed the procedures used in a Public Hearing and noted items approved this evening
would appear on the June 11,2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for consideration.
Director Nielsen explained Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio had been granted a Conditional Use
Permit as an art studio in 1978. The business makes and sells grandfather clocks and clock kits. In
1988, the property was placed in the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district. This type of district
serves as a transitional zoning district between higher intensity land uses or busy roadways and lower
intensity residential uses. The 1988 rezoning included a revision to the original Conditional Use
Permit. Because the owners now proposed scaling back the clockworks operation and leasing some of
their space to another business, somewhat different from the clockworks, a revision to the current
Conditional Use Permit was necessitated. Mr. Mike Moore, owner of Energy Controls, Inc., proposed
occupying 2400 square feet at the back of the existing building, previously used by Kuempel Chime
Clocks as a wood shop area. In addition, the property owner would continue to store personal and
business related items on site.
Director Nielsen further explained the property did not comply with R-C setbacks in the front and in the
rear of the building. Also, there were nonconformities noted with parking on site. These deficiencies
were noted as part of previous Conditional Use permits and were not deemed problematic at this time.
However, it was recommended parking be monitored for two years, and should any problems arise, the
property owner would be required to revise the parking layout for the site. Director Nielsen also noted
he had visited the current business location of Energy Controls, Inc., and found the business to be
consistent with the intent of the R-C district. Also, he requested a signage plan be submitted.
Ms. Mary Jane McGregor, owner of Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio, was in attendance, and offered
to answer any questions. Mr. Mike Moore, owner of Energy Controls, Inc., was also in attendance, and
stated he thought his business would make a good "fit" with the Clockworks. He stated he had four
employees, no retail service or semi deliveries, and generally his business was a quiet one.
Mr. Andre Boon, 4930 Ferncroft Drive, stated he owned the property immediately behind the
Clockworks building. He was concerned with the potential decrease in his property value as a result of
additional businesses on the Clockworks property, issues related to parking, a potential increase in
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 6 2001
Page 2 of 5
traffic, as well as the storage of vehicles on site. He stated it was his understanding the storage of cars
on site was not allowed.
Mr. Konrad Wurm, 6185 Cardinal Drive, inquired about the use of the space to be occupied by Energy
Controls, Inc. Mr. Moore explained he made training videos regarding heating and cooling equipment,
only occasional repairs to those types of materials, and no manufacturing would take place on the site.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M.
Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Gagne's question, confirmed the original Conditional
Use Permit allowed the storage of personal items on site.
Commissioner Packard questioned whether the cars would be moving in and out of the building as part
of their use. Ms. McGregor responded the cars were specially licensed for parades, and had not been
out for use in approximately three years.
Director Nielsen commented Mr. Boon had cited information disallowing the outdoor storage of
vehicles on a site such as this one. However, these cars were stored indoors which was allowed under
ordinance. Ms. McGregor also commented the materials currently stored outside was owned by another
and would be removed soon.
Commissioner Borkon questioned the need for a Conditional Use Permit in this
Residential/Commercial district. Director Nielsen explained offices were considered Conditional Uses
in a district such as this one. Commissioner Borkon also questioned whether he believed additional
businesses would cause a decrease in property values in that area. He responded he did not believe it
would as the Clockworks business had been there prior to a number of subdivisions being built recently
in that area.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned other uses in the Residential/Commercial district. Director
Nielsen explained this to be the only Commercial use in the area.
Commissioner Packard asked if there was any buffer between the Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio
and the property behind it. Director Nielsen stated trees had been planted, rather than utilizing fencing,
at the request of the owner behind the Kuempel property.
Chair Bailey voiced concern for Mr. Boon's issue of increased traffic. Director Nielsen stated he
believed traffic would actually decrease. Also, there had not been any complaints received in the past
regarding noise and dust associated with the present business. Since that space and use would be
decreasing, he did not believe it would be an issue in the future.
Commissioner Borkon stated while she saw no problems with future use of the site, she was concerned
the neighbors were uncomfortable, and suggested Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio should continue
to work with the surrounding neighbors to ensure accurate communication took place.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit Amendment, subject to
staff recommendations, for M.J. McGregor, Kuempel Chime Clocks and Studio, 21195
Minnetonka Boulevard. Motion passed 7/0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minntes
June 6 2001
Page 3 of 5
.
2.
715 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Aoolicant: Minnewashta Church
Location: 26710 W. 62"d Street
Director Nielsen reviewed historical information related to this request, noting the Minnewashta Church
had been granted a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new building in 1993. Originally, the site
plan included a detached, two-stall garage located to the north east of the main building. Since that
garage was never built, and the Church proposed building a slightly larger three-stall garage, a revision
to the Conditional Use Permit became necessary. The proposed building would not compromise
parking on the site, and the existing trash facility would be relocated to the northernmost comer of the
parking lot. Director Nielsen recommended the easterly ninety feet of the site be legally combined with
the remainder of the church property, and the trash facilities be housed in a masonry enclosure.
Mr. Marlow Peterson, 1180 Pleasant View Road, and Mr. Bob Costalano, Chairman of the Trustees of
the Church and residing at 5900 Afton Road, were in attendance and offered to answer questions for the
Planning Commission.
Director Nielsen explained, in response to Chair Bailey's question, that the original Conditional Use
Permit indicated future plans for classrooms that would require an additional Conditional Use Permit
when ready to build.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
Commissioner Packard commented she hoped the garage would be in the same architectural style as the
. church as she really liked that look.
Packard moved, Borkon seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit, subject to legal
combination of the two parcels and a trash enclosure being provided, for Minnewashta Church,
26710 West 62"d Street. Motion passed 7/0.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Aoolicant: Richard Penn
Location: 27825 Brynmawr Place
Director Nielsen provided background information pertaining to this request. Specifically, he explained
Mr. Penn proposed building a two-level addition on the rear of the existing garage. Since the total
square footage for the garage and existing garage would be greater than 1200 square feet, a Conditional
Use Permit was requested. Director Nielsen then discussed how this request complied with current
zoning code criteria. He reported this request seemed to satisfy required criteria, however, since the
west side of the proposed garage would be over forty feet in length, it was recommended additional
landscaping be utilized.
Mr. Penn addressed the Commission this evening explaining he had revised the proposed plans. He
explained he would need to eliminate the door to the lower level storage area of the proposed garage
due to cost. The lower level storage space would then become footings for the new garage. The
existing grade would be maintained and would come straight across the back of the garage. This would
also reduce the total square footage for accessory space to slightly less than 1400 square feet.
.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff
recommendations and the verbal discussion at this meeting by Mr. Penn of the revisions to his
original proposal. Motion passed 7/0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 6 2001
Page 4 of 5
.
4.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Aoolicant: Brian Zeglen
Location: 5960 Afton Road
Director Nielsen reviewed background pertaining to this matter. He noted Mr. Zeglen proposed
converting an existing single-car attached garage into living space and building a new detached garage
to the south of the house. This new detached garage would be 10 feet from the side lot line and
approximately 140 feet from the rear lot line. Since the home and attached garage as well as the new
detached garage and a utility shed on site totaled approximately 1328 square feet, a Conditional Use
Permit was requested.
In analyzing the request, Director Nielsen recommended, the eXIstIng driveway, currently in
noncompliance with the five-foot setback requirement, be corrected with construction of the new
driveway. Also, since the proposed building would be located only ten feet from the side lot line, at
least four arborvitae should be used to make up the mass of the building. If the garage were to be
moved over another five feet, at least two conifers could be used.
Specifically, it was recommended the driveway nonconformity be corrected no later than September 30,
2001. Also, a wall must replace the overhead door on the existing garage by the time a framing
inspection for the new garage was requested. In addition, the applicant must provide a bid for proposed
landscaping. From the bid, a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one half times the amount of
the work must be submitted with the building permit application. The trees should be planted no later
than September 30, 2001.
.
Mr. Brian Zeglen was In attendance and stated he was In agreement with all recommendations
suggested by staff.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned the use of the new garage and expressed concern for the beautiful
trees being removed as part of this project. Mr. Zeglen responded the garage use would not be atypical,
and he would like to move the trees as long as they would fit under the overhead power lines running
through his backyard. He also noted he was moving the garage to its proposed location in an effort to
keep a large tree in his yard.
Chair Bailey stated he had concerns regarding the impact on neighbors' line of view. Mr. Zeglen
responded the neighbors were aware of this proposal and had not come forward with any concerns at
this time.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff
recommendations, for Brian Zeglen, 5960 Afton Road. Motion passed 7/0.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - APPLE RIDGE
Aoolicant: Roy Lecy
Location: 6185 Apple Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had requested this matter be continued to the July 3, 2001,
Planning Commission Meeting as he planned to submit a second application at that time for the site.
. Mr. Jeff Johnson, 1512 Knob Hill Lane, expressed concerns regarding the driveway to the existing
home on the property.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 6 2001
Page 5 of 5
Mr. Basim Sabre, 6125 Apple Road, requested staff consider various options for the driveway being
proposed as part of this plat.
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, continuing this matter to the July 3, 2001, Planning
Commission Meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Agenda for the June 19, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting included a study session regarding
organized refuse collection, planning districts, a new work program schedule, review of the
Comprehensive Plan for the redevelopment of the County Road 19/Country Club Road! Smithtown
Road intersection, and a discussion on ordinances related to right-of-way issues.
Commissioner Gagne initiated a brief discussion regarding safety concerns and options for Lake Linden
Drive.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending to City Council that the Planning Commission
be directed to hold an Open House regarding options and potential solutions to improve public
safety on Lake Linden Drive. Motion passed 7/0.
8.
REPORTS
Chair Bailey reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 29, 2001, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Woodruff reported on the Land Conservation and Environmental Committee Meeting of
May 22, 2001. She reported 254 compost bins had been passed out to interested residents. Also, in the
next two years, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was mapping every wetland in the district over
a quarter acre. She stated she believed this to be a tremendous planning tool capable of providing in
depth analysis on wetland issues.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the June 6, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 19,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7 :00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. June 5th and June 6th, 2001
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the June 5, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended, on Page 2, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1, change "Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use Plan" to "Comprehensive Plan." On Page 4, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5, change "bank on site" to
"bank facility on site," and on Paragraph 7, Sentence 2 of same page, change "Mr. John Parson" to
"Mr. John Payton," and on Page 5, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2, change "the water tank would
potentially" to ''the water tank with a garden hose twelve hours a day over a ten day period would
not cause significant lowering of the water table" and on Page 8, Paragraph 2, change "about how
best" to "about the process of bringing planning issues to the Commission." Motion passed 7/0.
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the June 6,2001, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
Director Nielsen requested Item 4 be removed from the Study Session Agenda and moved to the
July 17,2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DETAILED AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen reviewed the data sheet and proposed text for Planning District 4. He noted this district
was bounded on the south by municipal borders with the Cities of Victoria and Chanhassen. Smithtown
Road formed the westerly and northerly boundaries, and Eureka Road bounded the district on the east.
The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority right-of-way extended diagonally through the district
and was currently being used as a regional trail facility. Most of this fully developed district included
large-lot, Single Family Residential zoning, and existing land uses were consistent with this zoning
pattern. A small parcel of land located on the south side of Smithtown Road, east of Smithtown Way,
was zoned C-2, Auto-Oriented Commercial. Semi-public uses included a small cemetery at Smithtown
Road and Cajed Lane, and a church located on West 62nd Street. A few undeveloped parcels were
scattered through the district. A few of these parcels, including the twenty-acre parcel on the west end,
have potential for development and subdivision in the future.
Future development in this district should continue to be consistent with current zoning patterns. Any
land use decision related to the small C-2 property should favor redevelopment to low-density residential,
and the City should consider the potential for some planned unit development for the large parcel
remaining undeveloped on the west end of the district.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 2 of 3
. The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Trail continued to provide excellent pedestrian and
bike circulation to Freeman Park (Shorewood's largest park) and south to regional park facilities in
Carver County. The State Highway 7 Corridor Study recommended closing off direct access to the south
end of Freeman Park. Park Lane would provide access from Eureka Road to the south end of the park.
Pisula moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the text as amended for Planning District 4. Motion
passed 7/0.
2. DISCUSS ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Director Nielsen reviewed the legal process and work program regarding the Organized Refuse Collection
Study plans. He noted there would be a Public Hearing late summer regarding this issue. At this point in
time, there appeared to be concern for the amount of long-term damage to city streets and the daily
presence of refuse containers curbside. The City Engineer planned to provide a report demonstrating
weight comparisons and cumulative effects of various vehicles utilizing city streets as well as an annual
budget for road repair and reconstruction. In addition, a survey of residents regarding expectations of
refuse collection services was also being planned.
Much discussion ensued regarding the draft survey presented to the Commission. Questions to be utilized
in the survey included issues of service, price, aesthetics, noise pollution, road damage, traffic, and
recycling. Commissioners were encouraged to submit additional questions to Director Nielsen via email
or at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
.
3. REVIEW WORK PROGRAM SCHEDULE
Director Nielsen reviewed the updated work program schedule noting this particular schedule did not
include issues related to Lake Linden Drive. Those issues, however, were brought to the City Council,
and an Open House was being planned to share history and possible options for improvement of the
roadway.
4. DISCUSS REDEVELOPMENT OF CO RD 19/COUNTRY CLUB RD INTERSECTION
This item was removed from this Agenda and moved to the July 17,2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained there would be two accessory space items, one lot split and combination issue,
a request for an amendment to a commercial district, a site plan review, review of an application for a
planned unit development, as well as a presentation of the findings of fact for the CUB foods proposal as
part of the Agenda for the July 3, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting.
7. REPORTS
.
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 11,2001, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Borkon questioned whether plans had been made for implementation of a walkway either
over or under Highway 7 at Old Market Road as she had concerns for the safety of the children crossing
Highway 7 to utilize the new skate park. Director Nielsen responded nothing had been planned at this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 3 of 3
. time. Commissioner Borkon stated she thought the crosswalk area was dangerous for children and some
kind of designated walkway should be considered carefully for the safety of the children in that area.
Chair Bailey noted he had received an invitation for community residents regarding the discussion of
various pollutants by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated he had enjoyed working with the Planning Commission over the past
few months and would now be the Council Liaison for the Park Commission. Councilmember Lizee
would be working with the Planning Commission as Liaison for the next few months. Chair Bailey
thanked him for his efforts of the past months, noting he would be missed.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the June 19,2001, Planning Commission Meeting at
9:15 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDA Y, JULY 3, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALLTO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, White, and Woodruff; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Pisula and Council Liaison Zerby
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 19,2001
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the June 19, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINA TION
Applicant: William Hoh
Location: 19225 Shady Hills Road/5310 Vine Hill Road
.
Director Nielsen provided historical background on this matter, noting that if approved this matter would
appear on the July 23, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. He also noted the lot being purchased
still allowed the remaining property to retain its R-lC zoning conformance. In addition, setbacks were more
in compliance as a result of this purchase.
Mr. Hoh stated he understood all matters being addressed this evening and had no further comment at this
time.
Chair Bailey questioned right-of-way in the area. Director Nielsen responded the property immediately to
the north had ample right-of-way, however, this property was older and subject to metes and bounds
regarding right-of-way issues.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Simple SubdivisionILot Combination, subject to
staff recommendations, for William Hoh, 19225 Shady Hills Road/5310 Vine Hill Road. Motion
passed 6/0.
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLE RIDGE P.U.D
Applicant: Roy Lecy
Location: 6185 Apple Road
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Lecy had requested this item be removed from this Agenda and moved to the
August 7, 2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
. As it was not yet time for the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M., the Commission decided to begin discussion of
Item 7 on this evening's Agenda.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 2 of 6
After a brief review of the Findings of Fact Regarding the CUB Foods proposal, Chair Bailey questioned the
need for specific causes for denial as part of this document. Director Nielsen explained all issues were
related to the Comprehensive Plan. Because reasons were not given during this proposal to vary
requirements outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, they were not relevant as part of the Findings of Fact. He
also noted the City Attorney had reviewed this document, and the City Council could decide to revisit this
issue as part of this process.
3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY (AUTO
SALES)
Applicant: Smithtown Motors (Triple B Equities)
Location: 24470 Smith town Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 20 P.M. by explaining the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. Director Nielsen stated the history regarding this request. He noted a site plan had been previously
approved for this property in January of this year to upgrade the exterior of the building and landscaping as
well as a proposal for indoor auto sales. He further explained the owners were taking a "low key" approach
to auto sales viewing it more as personal storage of recreational equipment. As part of that previously
approved site plan, a dealer's license was required. That license had been obtained, and the owners were
appearing before the Commission this evening with a request to be allowed to place a limited number of
autos outside for sale purposes.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the C-3, General Commercial, zoning district allowed for outdoor auto
sales lots. He also noted Mr. Richard Bury, applicant and part owner of Smithtown Motors (Triple B
Equities), had submitted a letter to the Commission addressing uses, need for parking, and normal hours of
operation for the site. Director Nielsen then reviewed the criteria pertaining to this request. He noted the
letter Mr. Bury had submitted indicated a request for approximately 8 spaces. Legally they were allowed to
have 38, and he suggested 10 be made available. He suggested these spaces be specifically designated on the
lot demonstrating the display area. He further suggested the addition of one spruce tree to be placed near the
southwest comer of the parking lot. As there was no intent to leave the cars out at night, Director Nielsen
stated there was no need to deviate from the originally approved lighting plan.
Regarding issues related to the Comprehensive Plan guidelines for this kind of use in the zoning district,
Director Nielsen suggested making hours of operation uniformly 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays and by appointment, thus, allowing the applicant a bit of
flexibility.
He then noted the issue of signage appeared to be significant. While no problems appeared to be
forthcoming regarding signage, Director Nielsen explained the Conditional Use Permit would travel with the
land, not the owner, thus, it seemed prudent to include strict guidelines regarding signage as part of the
Conditional Use Permit. He stated the applicant requested being allowed to place informative signs on the
car windows as well.
Mr. Richard Bury addressed the Commission. He stated he was one of the owners of the property and had
started a "low key" business on site involving collector cars and more prestigious modem cars for auto sales
purposes. He explained the operation was more of a hobby than a career, and he had previous experience of
this kind operating a classic car sales lot in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. He stated he would like to be able to
place the year and price of the auto on the car and federal law mandated he place an information sticker on
the side of the car windows. He further stated there would not be any balloons, flags or other significant
attention-getting devices used on the site. He believed 10 spaces suggested by Director Nielsen to be ample
for his needs. He would be bringing the cars indoors overnight to avoid the potential for vandalism. Most of
his business occurred by phone unlike a typical used car lot, and he stated he hoped once the work was
complete on site, the City would be proud his business was located in Shorewood.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 3 of6
.
Director Nielsen briefly explained the history of the previously approved site plan as requested by
Commissioners Borkon and Gagne. Commissioner Packard questioned whether Smithtown Road was posted
with "No Parking" signs. Director Nielsen responded he did not believe it to be, however, he had never seen
anyone park on the road in that location.
Commissioner Borkon asked Mr. Bury why he decided to display cars outside at this point in time. Mr. Bury
stated he had not been a part of the plans in January when his son had made application for the site plan. He
further stated, in response to Commissioner Borkon' s question, he would be selling cars ranging in age from
1925 through present day. In addition, he explained he owned two 24-foot trailers that would be used for
bringing cars to the site, rather than utilizing semi-trailers.
Commissioner White questioned what current and future advertising would be utilized regarding this
business. Mr. Bury explained there would be signs by the road as well as advertisements in Old Cars Weekly
and Hemmings News. In addition, he would be attending various car shows in Iowa, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, Maine, and Nova Scotia allowing word of mouth to prevail as part of his hobby.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she had concerns regarding placing appropriate restrictions on a business
such as this one. Director Nielsen explained specific limitations were part of city ordinances governing this
use, and limitations placed on this conditional use permit would be even more restrictive.
Chair Bailey cautioned the Commission to be realistic about potential restrictions placed in the conditional
use permit for this business.
.
Mr. Bury commented the City had requested he obtain a dealership license, and it hardly seemed fair if he
was not allowed to make the license function. In addition, he noted there were lots on either side of his that
would be full of cars far later into the evening, and he was having difficulty understanding the concerns
expressed by the Commission regarding having cars sitting outdoors in that area. He stated he fully expected
his business to be viewed as a positive influence on the City.
Commissioner Gagne commented the cars were considered too valuable to be left outside overnight.
Commissioner Packard commented her concern was for the prestigious newer model cars sitting outside
overnight as well.
Commissioner Borkon stated she liked vintage cars, but could see no reason necessary for going beyond the
requests submitted in the letter by Mr. Bury. In her opinion, there should be absolutely no signage on the
windows of the building, and she would like to see limited information displayed on the cars themselves.
Further, she would request only vintage cars be displayed in the spaces in the front of the building.
Mr. Bury stated he would like to adhere to the laws, but requested realistic expectations be placed on his
business.
.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales and Display
(Auto Sales) for Smithtown Motors (Triple B Equities), 24470 Smithtown Road, subject to the
following conditions:
1) Hours of operation would be 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday.
2) No signs were to be posted in building windows, and all city sign ordinances would
apply to this business.
3) There should be eight spaces in the front of the building to be used for display and were
to be designated as such.
4) All cars were to be stored indoors at night.
5) One spruce tree was to be planted for screening near the southwest corner of the
parking lot in addition to the original landscaping plan.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 4 of 6
.
6)
The information displayed on the cars was to be limited to year and price in 3-inch
letters and legal information only posted on the side windows of the cars.
Deliveries of cars by semi-trailers would not be permissible.
The lighting on site was to remain as was approved in the original site plan.
7)
8)
A brief discussion ensued regarding the sizing of letters and information allowed on the windows of the
automobiles.
Chair Bailey stated there was no reason to limit the number of hours of operation, and he did not want to
micromanage Mr. Bury's business.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, amending the motion to include hours of operation from 8:00 A.M. to
8:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday, as well as the signage on the windshield was to take up no more
than ten percent of the total windshield space and include year, price, and legal information only.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the nightly storage of the displayed autos on site.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, amending the motion by striking Item 4-All cars were to be stored
indoors at night. Motion passed 6/0.
4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - THERAPEUTIC
MASSAGE SERVICES IN C-3 DISTRICT
Applicant: Catherine Fogarty
Location: 19285 Highway 7
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 10 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained an application had been made for a Zoning Code text amendment allowing
therapeutic massage services as a principal use in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district. Presently,
this type of use was only allowed in commercial zoning districts in conjunction with some sort of medical
office or accessory to a salon. Although numerous inquiries have been made over the past years from people
wishing to establish this type of business in the City, this matter would be the first formal application
submitted to the Commission for approval. In addition, he explained the customary mailings had not been
sent to residents within five hundred feet as this was a citywide change, and therefore notification was
published as customary in the newspaper.
Director Nielsen further explained the process used regarding text amendment requests. Other communities
surveyed allowed massage therapy as a permitted use with a license. After discussions with the City
Attorney, it appeared licensing was the recommended approach. The State of Minnesota did not license this
type of activity. Director Nielsen stated a draft ordinance amendment had been prepared defining
"therapeutic massage services" and then incorporating it into the list of permitted uses in the C-3, General
Commercial District.
Ms. Catherine Fogarty was in attendance this evening and addressed the Commission. She explained her
work experience and education involved in providing this service.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:27 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen then provided clarification of issues regarding the licensing aspect of the proposed Zoning
Code Amendment.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Zoning Code Amendment for Therapeutic Massage
Services in a C-3 Zoning District. Motion passed 6/0.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 5 of6
.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, any licensing be applied to all massage therapy services. Motion
passed 6/0.
5. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Applicant: Tracey Weathers
Location: 20025 Vine Street
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:33 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Weathers proposed adding on to an existing detached garage situated on the
east side of the lot to the rear of his home. Because the area of the garage would exceed 1200 square feet, a
conditional use permit was required. He then reviewed the four criteria for the conditional use permit, noting
all areas complied with the criteria except one. Mr. Weathers had submitted a revised proposal that exceeded
the height limit for the garage by approximately two feet. The original proposal did not have this problem
with the height of the garage. For this reason, Director Nielsen recommended in favor of the original
proposal.
Mr. Tracey Weathers was in attendance and explained the original roofline was not as aesthetically pleasing
so a decision had been made to submit a revised proposal extending the roofline approximately two feet
higher so the visual line would not be broken across the top of the roof. Mr. Weathers also stated he would
be willing to work with the original proposal if so directed.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M., as there
were no additional persons wishing to speak to this matter.
. Director Nielsen reminded the Commission a variance notice would need to be published in consideration of
the revised plan, and this had not been completed.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned Mr. Weathers as to whether any significant tree loss would occur on the
property as a result of expanding the garage. Mr. Weathers stated there was approximately 23-25 feet of
scrub brush on which the garage expansion would rest, thus, there would be no significant tree loss.
Commissioner Gagne questioned the need for a five-stall garage. Mr. Weathers explained he liked to put all
of his belongings inside rather than storing things outdoors, and was making an effort to keep his property
neat and uncluttered.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, approving the Conditional Use Permit, subject to staff
recommendations, for the original proposal for Tracey Weathers, 20025 Vine Street. Motion passed
6/0.
6. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO FT
Applicant: Herbert Margolis
Location: 28045 Boulder Bridge Drive
.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M. Director Nielsen reported the applicant proposed
building a studio room addition on the rear of the existing attached garage and a detached gazebo pool house
on the north side of the rear yard of the property. As this property was zoned Planned Unit Development and
the proposal would bring the total area of accessory space to 1629 square feet, a conditional use permit was
being requested. He also explained this request met all criteria necessary for granting a conditional use
permit of this kind, noting the garage addition and gazebo will be 10 feet from the side lot line as required,
and the gazebo would be at least 50 feet from the rear lot line. The applicant had recently acquired additional
land from his neighbor to the northwest in an effort to make these plans work on the property. Architectural
compatibility was not deemed to be an area of concern, nor was there a need for additional landscaping.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 3, 2001
Page 6 of 6
Mr. Herbert Margolis was in attendance and provided extensive photos and detailed plans for his proposal.
He noted he would like to be able to begin construction on July 27,2001, if approved.
Chair Bailey thanked him for his fine presentation to the Commission. He opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:52 P.M., as there was no one present wishing to speak on this
matter.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving a Conditional Use Permit for Mr. Herbert Margolis,
28045 Boulder Bridge Drive.
Commissioner Gagne commented it appeared to be a beautiful site and project for the property.
Motion passed 6/0.
7. FINDINGS OF FACT - RECOMMENDATION TO DENY CUB FOODS STORE
PROPOSAL
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc.
Location: 23680 Highway 7
The Commission agreed there was nothing further to discuss on this matter at this time.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Accepting the Draft Findings of Fact Recommending Denial of
the CUB Foods Store Proposal. Motion passed 6/0.
8.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There was no one present wishing to address matters from the floor.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
There were four items on the July 17, 2001, Planning Commission Agenda regarding the Study Session
issues of County Road 19 Redevelopment Project, Organized Refuse Collection, Planning District 6, and the
Subdivision Ordinance.
10. REPORTS
Commissioner Gagne reported on the matters considered and actions taken at the June 25, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He further noted the Planning
Commission would be responsible for hosting an "Open House" style meeting regarding Lake Linden Drive.
Chair Bailey stated he was concerned that Shorewood residents gain accurate information and history
regarding this matter as part of this format.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the July 3, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:14
P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 17,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gagne
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. July 3rd, 2001
Borkon moved, Packard seconded, approving the July 3, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes as
amended, on Page 5, Item 5, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change "there would be significant tree" to
"there would be no significant tree". Motion passed 5/0/1, with Pisula abstaining due to his absence
at that meeting.
STUDY SESSION
1.
ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION SURVEY
Director Nielsen reviewed the potential survey questions the Commission had submitted for review. All
agreed the survey was an exciting way to gather information from the residents regarding this issue.
Commissioners also hoped many residents would take the time necessary to respond to the survey in an
effort to help guide the discussions that would be taking place regarding this matter over the course of the
next year.
2. REDEVELOPMENT OF CO RD 19/COUNTRY CLUB RD INTERSECTION
Director Nielsen stated there had been a number of projects and issues associated with the planning and
implementation of this intersection. Such topics included the realignment of County Road 19/Country
Club Road intersection, Gideon Glen, a suitable site for a public safety campus, and ultimate development
of the properties controlled by the American Legion. Further, he noted issues were spread among all
elements of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (Natural Resources, Land Use, Transportation, etc.) For
this reason, he explained the wisdom of addressing a "master plan" for the area. He then reviewed the
planning process for this master plan. He stated he believed this would be a fun project for the
Commission with the opportunity to make changes for the future.
He noted that when considering a variety of issues, safety must always remain top priority. He explained
the realignment of the intersection of Country Road 19, Smithtown Road, and Country Club Road.
Country Road 19 would include a more continuous gentle flowing curve with Smithtown Road providing
a "T" style intersection. Country Club Road would also include a "T" style intersection into Smithtown
Road prior to the Smithtown Road/County Road 19 intersection. The current liquor store located on the
northeast quadrant of the existing intersection would be removed with potential for its future existence in
the Shorewood Crossings Shopping Center. He stated this plan hoped to discourage shortcut traffic onto
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17,2001
Page 2 of 3
.
Country Club Road, and a great deal of the future activity for the district could be triggered by the aspects
of this entire intersection and master plan.
Director Nielsen also explained this geographic area included four main issues. The first of these issues
included a discussion of Natural Resources. He noted Gideon Glen contained approximately 6 acres with
the opportunity to preserve and restore wetlands in the Glen. He also noted the City's interest in the area
had evolved from water quantity issues to water quality issues. With regard to Land Use issues, he noted
the American Legion owned a fair amount of land near the intersection. He stated it would be important
to work with members of the Legion to ensure maximum participation and cooperation with potential
growth efforts in the area. In consideration of the Community Facilities portion of the planning process,
he noted the Fire District was in the process of evaluating six acres near the Public Works facility for the
use of a public safety facility. In addition, he explained landscaping should be consistent with the overall
theme of the area. Also, he stated it would be extremely important to consider how best to safely move
pedestrian and bicycle traffic through all areas of the intersection. He noted the City had the opportunity
to make drastic changes for the future in considering the potential for the area. He asked Commissioners
to begin thinking of goals and objectives to correspond with future plans for the area with additional
discussion scheduled for August of this year.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DETAILED AREA PLANS
.
Director Nielsen reviewed the proposed text and accompanying data sheet for Planning District 5. He
reported this district was bounded on three sides by collector streets. Eureka Road bounded the district on
the west, Smithtown Road to the north and Country Club/Yellowstone TraillLake Linden Drive to the
east. State Highway 7 and the Shorewood/Chanhassan municipal border formed the southerly boundary
of the district.
Zoning within the district was primarily residential with the southeast comer of the district commercially
zoned to establish a transition between the shopping center area to the east and the homes in this district.
He also noted the Minnetonka Country Club Golf Course, designated as a semi-public use, was the
predominant land use in the district. The overall land use pattern was consistent with the existing zoning
within the district. The only deviation from single-family residential development in the district included
a two-family dwelling on the west side of Lake Linden Drive and two office buildings located in the
southeast comer of the district. Development of all remaining vacant parcels in this district should be
consistent with current zoning of these properties.
With regard to the transportation and circulation patterns within the district, many of the direct accesses to
Highway 7 through Seamans Drive, Pleasant Avenue, and Wood Drive had been closed off. Access to
Highway 7 from Lake Linden was scheduled for closing in 2001 as part of the Highway 7/41 intersection
project. While there were no parks in this planning district, Director Nielsen stated reasonable access to
Freeman Park to the west was available. This park access would be further enhanced by a required
pedestrianlbicycle trail through the vacant land in the southwest comer of the district to connect Seamans
Drive and Eureka Road.
4. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
.
Director Nielsen distributed State statutes to the Commission regarding this matter, noting it would
appear again on the August 21, 2001, Planning Commission Agenda for additional discussion.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17,2001
Page 3 of 3
5.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Council Liaison Zerby questioned the practice of having Matters From the Floor at the end of the
Commission's agenda. Chair Bailey explained it would be a suitable compromise to have Matters From
the Floor be at the beginning of the Study Session Agendas for the Commission and maintain the standard
format on the Regular Meeting Agendas.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be five items on the August 7,2001, Planning Commission Agenda,
including a Planned Unit Development request, three variance requests, and a preapplication for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
7. REPORTS
Commissioner Packard reported on the matters considered and actions taken at the July 9, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Borkon reported there had been a number of potential accidents on Radisson Road with
one of them resulting in the death of a dog. She stated she was concerned for the excessive speed and
increasing "cut-through" traffic, especially during the school year. She noted these problems also seemed
to increase when construction took place on Highway 7, and people felt the need to cut through residential
neighborhoods, often at high rates of speed, to make up for the hindrance of the construction. She asked
what could be done by the City to help with this matter.
Director Nielsen encouraged her to have concerned residents write letters to the City requesting policing
efforts be increased in that area to help alleviate the problem.
The Commission thanked Director Nielsen for his fine grilling efforts this evening, noting the barbeque
prepared for the Commission was delicious.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, White seconded, adjourning the July 17,2001, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:30
P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner White
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. July 17,2001
Packard moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the July 17,2001, Planning Commission Minutes
as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Gagne abstaining due to his absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLE RIDGE P.U.D
Aoolicant: Roy Lecy
Location: 6185 Apple Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M. noting the procedures utilized the Public Hearings
this evening. He also explained items approved this evening on the Agenda would appear before the City
Council on the August 27,2001, Regular City Council Agenda.
Director Nielsen reviewed the background pertaining to this matter. He noted the applicants were
applying for a conditional use permit approving a planned unit development for the site. The applicants
had previously requested preliminary plat approval for this same site and were directed to respond to
issues raised by City staff and residents as a result of the Public Hearing portion of that approval process.
The revised plan before the Commission this evening still proposed four lots, but eliminated the public
street, clustered those proposed homes on the site and created an outlot over which a conservation
easement in favor of the City would be recorded.
Director Nielsen then explained the applicant had now suggested an alternative driveway location to serve
Lot 3. It was determined by the City Engineer that the previously proposed driveway acting as a shared
drive to Lot 3 and 4 was a better solution. That proposal allowed for maximum sight lines when utilizing
the driveway. If necessary, the City Engineer would allow a widening of that shared drive with a separate
drive branching off to serve Lot 3. In this way, a protective covenant over the driveway serving Lot 4
would still be maintained.
Also, Director Nielsen noted there would be significantly less site alteration with the revised plan. By
clustering the homes on smaller lots on the west half of the property, less grading and tree removal was
necessary, resulting in nearly one full acre less of site alteration.
Director Nielsen explained a Planned Unit Development allowed for some flexibility from traditional
zoning standards in exchange for greater control of natural features. In this case, the developer proposed
granting a conservation easement over Outlot A. This ensured nothing would be built upon nearly two
acres of the site and no alteration or tree removal would occur on the most sensitive portion of the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 20f9
.
property. In exchange, the developer proposed lots smaller and narrower than normally allowed in the R-
IA district. However, the overall density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of property would still be
maintained. Director Nielsen also suggested development agreements and protective covenants submitted
for final plan address the following:
1. Easements and maintenance agreements for the shared driveways.
2. Kind, height, and location of fencing.
3. Restriction of parking in the driveway turn-around.
4. Restrictions on outdoor storage in front yard areas.
5. A revised tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape
architect, focused on landscaping between the proposed homes.
6. Tree protection fencing placed prior to any work on the site.
7. Ownership and maintenance of Outlot A.
8. The driveway for Lot 3 needed to be approved by the City Engineer.
Mr. Roy Lecy, owner and developer of the property, stated he would be willing to work with all requests
by the City and neighbors in the area including the planting of additional trees on the site if needed.
Mr. Peter Knaeble, a civil engineer representing Mr. Lecy, stated the elimination of the street on the site
reduced the impervious surface on site as well. Also, with the use of a private driveway, maximum
infiltration would be achieved rather than having stormwater directed down Apple Road. In addition, he
noted screening to the west could take place as a result of there being no central road on site.
.
Ms. Deb Osgood, 22035 Stratford Place, stated she believed the reduction in grading and the idea of a
shared driveway to be significant improvements to the originally proposed plan. She asked whether
consideration had been given to other options regarding the use of the existing driveway on site. Also,
she stated planting forty trees when so many would be removed seemed inadequate. In addition, it was
her opinion Outlot A would be developed in the future as it was potentially being sold to a developer.
Ms. Suzanne Nesland, 22015 Stratford Place, stated she was concerned that the headlights on cars coming
out of the driveway serving Lot 1 and 2 would be directed toward her home.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Commissioner Packard questioned the possibility of headlights onto the Nesland property. Commissioner
Gagne commented the driveway would be serving two homes and probably would not be many cars
utilizing that drive. Director Nielsen stated he did not believe a problem would exist, as the Nesland
house would be positioned higher than the driveway. Mr. Knaeble also commented the headlights would
be sloping downward as they came out of the drive, rather than upward at the home.
Commissioner Borkon stated she was concerned for the future potential development use of Outlot A.
Director Nielsen explained the amount of land being potentially sold equaled approximately one-third of
an acre, and it would be very difficult to negotiate a driveway onto that site.
Chair Bailey stated he realized the difficulty the concerns regarding the wooded area and neighborhood
presented for the developer, and he complimented Mr. Lecy on going the extra mile to work with those
concerns and minimize loss of vegetation on the site.
.
Commissioner Pisula thanked the residents for bringing issues of concern to the developer as he utilized
his right to develop the property.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and
Development Stage Plan for Mr. Roy Lecy, 6185 Apple Road.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 3 of9
Commissioner Borkon stated she would be more comfortable having final approval of this matter return
to the Planning Commission prior to being placed on the Council agenda for approval.
With the consent of the maker and the seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to include that
final plan approval is subject to review by the Planning Commission.
Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: James Russell
Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Russell had reapplied for a variance considered by the Commission in
December of last year. That request was withdrawn pending an appeal of the need for a variance.
Modifications, based on recommendations of City staff and the Planning Commission were included in
the current application.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant proposed leaving the house in its current location and repairing
the roof. He also proposed extending the gable dormer on the lakeside of the house by six feet. In
addition, he proposed replacing the shed dormer on the street side of the house with a gable dormer
consistent in style to the lakeside dormer. These improvements were all within the buildable area,
consistent with a 20-foot side yard setback, as previously recommended. Further, Director Nielsen noted,
the applicant had agreed to remove the carport. In its place a future detached garage would be located in
the buildable area of the lot and would be connected to the house by a wooden deck. The applicant
proposed removing approximately fifty feet (or forty percent) of the existing driveway at the time the new
garage would be constructed. The applicant also proposed removal of the accessory building near the
house, but requested approval for perpetuation of a storm shelter structure on the property. Director
Nielsen also noted the revised plan resulted in approximately a 23.7 percent hardcover ratio, which
complied with the 25 percent maximum required by Shoreland management regulations. Removal of the
shed near the house, the carport, and nearly forty percent of the existing driveway all helped to bring the
property into better compliance with City zoning standards.
Mr. Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, stated he would be available for questions and introduced Mr. Bob
Schaffer, an architect representing him.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Chair Bailey questioned Director Nielsen about the use of the fire lane as the driveway for the home.
Director Nielsen explained there were two situations in the City where driveways had existed previous to
the ordinance designations and were allowed by the City.
Commissioner Packard questioned whether there were any alternatives for the driveway on the property
other than making use of the fire lane. Director Nielsen explained there were other alternatives, but all
included raised concerns regarding drainage on the site.
Commissioner Gagne questioned Mr. Russell whether the home would continue in its use as a summer
unit only. Mr. Russell responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gagne commented because he liked the
changes being proposed, and the property had been in use so long without hurting anyone, he supported
this proposal.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Woodruff stated she was typically opposed to granting a variance such as this one,
however, she thought it seemed as though the applicant had really worked to incorporate
recommendations made by the City. She stated the driveway issue was still of concern to her and she
suggested Mr. Russell examine possibilities for sharing a neighbor's driveway.
Mr. John Russell, 7900 Halstead Drive, Minnetrista, stated all water from the street would flow onto the
property without the current driveway, as the grade would be lower from the garage.
Mr. James Russell stated the neighbor's driveway was not located on the lot line between the two homes
and he did not believe that neighbor interested in a deal such as that one. Furthermore, he was hesitant to
ask the neighbor, as that neighbor would have to relinquish right to his property. He noted Third Avenue
had been platted as a City street and the neighbors had used it occasionally through the years to access the
lake in that area.
Mrs. Joan Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, stated there was a bank of trees between her home and the
neighbors that would need to be removed for a shared drive, and she did not want those trees removed to
accommodate a driveway.
Council Liaison Zerby stated it seemed more of an impact to remove the driveway than leaving it in its
current location. In addition, the proposed plan had more benefits that outweighed the need for removal
of the current driveway.
Director Nielsen then briefly reviewed the long history of the fire lane study and resulting ordinances, in
response to Commissioner Borkon's question, noting he viewed this proposal as a compromise.
Chair Bailey stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodruff s comments regarding the improvement in
the proposed plans. He then questioned the degree the City would be institutionalizing the sanctioned use
of fire lanes for private use. He stated he was concerned that when the property would eventually be sold
in the future that someone could continue to make use of this inconsistency. Chair Bailey then questioned
Mr. Russell as to whether he would be willing to apply for a right-of-way permit for the use of the fire
lane as a driveway.
Mr. Russell stated safety was a concern for him in having difficulty entering Birch Bluff Road. Chair
Bailey stated it was unfortunate for the City that people had been using this fire lane for a driveway for a
long time. He noted the intent of current ordinances would be enhanced as a result of the revised proposal
and in this way, the applicant would be allowed to continue the use of the driveway as had been for the
past fifty years.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving a Setback Variance, subject to staff recommendations,
and a request for a Right-of-Way permit for Mr. James Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road. Motion
passed 6/0.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicants: Gaylord and Monica Pahl
Location: 5100 Anthony Terrace
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 15 P.M.
Director Nielsen reviewed information pertaining to the background of this request as well as how the
property complied with the City's variance criteria. He also noted there was no need to require additional
greenspace for this lot as it was heavily wooded.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 5 of9
.
Mr. Gaylord Pahl, 5100 Anthony Terrace, stated the lot was heavily wooded and he saw the changes as a
benefit for his property and the surrounding area.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M.
The Commission briefly discussed consideration of lack of a deck as a hardship and as a reasonable use.
Borkon moved, Packard seconded, approving a Setback Variance, subject to staff
recommendations, for Gaylord and Monica Pahl, 5100 Anthony Terrace. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:28 P.M.
4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCES
Applicants: Scott M. Olson
Location: 6125 Ridge Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen reviewed background regarding this request noting the applicant had received setback
variances in 1999 to replace his home. The property was quite substandard with respect to shore land
management regulations, and anything done to the lot would require a variance of some sort. The
applicant wished to simply enclose the lower level of the existing home, replace existing decks and build
a new porch. The house was currently being supported by a masonry wall on its west side and a series of
posts, beams and footings that formed a sort of stilt construction. This structure was considered stable,
however, it was difficult to heat and the lower level was wasted space. Except for the porch all work
would be done within the existing footprint of the building. In addition, this revised request required
minimal site work. Approval was recommended with the following conditions:
1. Prior to any construction activity, construction limit fencing and erosion control barriers must
be erected.
2. The site plan needed to be revised to include a combination parking space/pullout on the
north end of the site.
3. Site grading and drainage would be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Mr. Olson was in attendance and remarked he had been having difficulty insuring his dwelling due to the
lack of continuous foundation. If approved, this request would allow continuous foundation to occur and
insurance to be gained.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the Setback Variance, subject to staff
recommendations, for Scott Olson, 6125 Ridge Road. Motion passed 6/0.
5. PREAPPLICATION FOR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
Applicant: Z.B. Companies (Arnie Zachman)
Location: 6090 Chaska Road
.
Director Nielsen explained that the applicant proposed building four, two-family residential dwellings on
the subject property. That property was currently zoned R-2A and in order to plat the desired number of
dwellings on the property the applicant needed to secure a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a
rezoning from R-2A to R-2B. This would also change the land use classification for the site from 2-3
units per acre to 3-6 units per acre. The subject property currently contained approximately 2.5 acres of
land. Through an old agreement with the City, the property owner was allowed to use the area of a wedge
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 6 of 9
.
of land to the south, for zoning and density purposes. That area would bring the total acreage for the site
to approximately 2.87 acres. The property was surrounded on all sides by single-family residential
homes.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the amendment process and the five goals of the preapplication stage of
this process. He also noted the applicant's proposal would result in a density of four units per 40,000
square feet. Further, he stated a requirement of the preapplication process included a written description
of the amendment showing its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and including factual information
supporting the request to change the plan. This description had not yet been completed. Furthermore, he
explained there were a number of development issues regarding this site aside from the density and
zoning issues previously discussed.
He explained the applicant had tried to purchase a number of properties in the same vIcImty for
development purposes. Having not been successful, this parcel was the only consideration for this
evening, and rezoning of the site would result in "spot zoning" in that area. Secondly, there was concern
regarding the use of "density transfer" issues such as this one. Further, any development of the property
would need to include the relationship of a new street intersection and its proximity to the existing
intersection. Tree preservation and reforestation also needed to be addressed, especially working to create
an effective buffer from Highway 7. While a N.U.R.P. pond was not required, measures of rate control
needed to be provided so post development rates would not exceed predevelopment rates. Sanitary sewer
was available and adequate to the site, however, a need for a private well remained.
.
Mr. Zachman stated his company was proposing a Planned Unit Development for the site. He strongly
believed the site would be developed, noting his company was primarily a condominium and townhome
builder for sites on the west and southwest side of the metro area. He also stated he was trying to get
eight units overall on the site in an effort to reduce costs for building and association fees.
Chair Bailey stated he thought the Commission was being asked to change the rules without significant
benefit to the City and at detriment to the people immediately surrounding the proposed development. At
this time, he commented he did not see anything imperative in the request to create "spot zoning" for the
site. The Commission agreed.
Mr. Zachman questioned the ramifications of building six units on the site. Commissioner Pisula stated it
would come a bit closer to the zoning regulations and may be received more favorably because of that.
Mr. Zachman stated he would try to work within the zoning regulations and thanked the Commission for
its time.
6. DISCUSS INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF
BUILDINGS OVER 30.000 SOUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
.
Director Nielsen explained this matter appeared on the Agenda due to a question presented by the City
Council as to whether a commercial development moratorium was needed for the City at this time. He
explained CUB Foods had withdrawn its application and intended to reapply with the efforts of a new
consultant. The issue was not exclusively related to CUB Foods, rather at large-scale community
development and whether this large-scale land use fit with the "community-scale" defined in the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan). Another issue requiring consideration included the effects of
transportation between two commercial districts and use of over-burdened collector streets. He noted the
County Road 19 Intersection project would not be started until 2002, and consideration would be given to
these various issues during the Community Visioning Process the City would be undertaking over the
course of the next year. He was hopeful that outcomes would be determined regarding future use of
commercial areas as a result of the Visioning Process. Further, he stated it was important not to be
reactionary and to consider the impact of new construction or additions over 30,000 square feet and/or
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 7 of9
over two acres in size prior to an application being submitted. In addition, he believed it important to
examine the standards for commercial development, such as landscaping, which were not current with
other municipalities. A moratorium could be ended at anytime he noted.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was totally against moratoriums, as he believed either an application met
the requirements set forth in the Compo Plan or they did not as happened with the CUB Foods proposal.
He stated he thought the use of moratoriums restricted the opportunity a property owner had to develop
his or her land. Further, he commented he believed this issue could continuously be studied without
resolution as other issues had been in the past.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she believed a moratorium had been briefly discussed when considering
the potential for growth in the County Road 19 Intersection project, however, she believed it important to
plan and effectively deal with the area now rather than waiting and studying it for a year.
Chair Bailey questioned what was the expected result in declaring a moratorium on large-scale
commercial development for the City. Director Nielsen responded at minimum, he believed certain
standards, now somewhat lacking, could be examined with possible positive revision. He noted these
standards were well designated for residential conditional use permits, variances, etc., however, were at a
minimum for commercial d(~velopment. Also, he thought it important to define the term "community-
scale" and work to define what kinds of development should be taking place in the City as a result of that
definition. He noted a moratorium would afford the City the opportunity to review and examine portions
of its Comprehensive Plan used for guiding development throughout the City.
Commissioner Borkon stated she understood Director Nielsen's opinion, but wondered if other
mechanisms in the planning process could be utilized to garner similar results. Director Nielsen stated
without a moratorium the City was bound to the current planning process as written. He thought it
important to preserve the integrity of the planning process and the Community Visioning Process was
quite timely in providing information pertaining to that process. Furthermore, he stated he heard residents
speaking frequently about what they do not want as part of the City's growth, and little about what was
wanted. He hoped a moratorium over the course of the next year would afford residents an opportunity to
consider what was wanted in terms of development within Shorewood.
Commissioner Gagne stated he believed it a bit conceited for the Commission to define "community-
scale" as he thought it would be defined over time through the course of normal commerce. He stated
personally he thought it more important to deal with each application individually as it met criteria
already set forth in the Compo Plan. Commissioner Packard agreed, however, she noted the community
had been through a painful process in considering the CUB Foods application and it was important to
guide development in the future.
Commissioner Borkon also commented she was not sure a moratorium was a good idea as it would not
appear to be very effective and it looked as though the City was scrambling to block current applications,
even though that would not be the case. She thought it very important to deal with this matter in the near
future and give it due consideration.
Commissioner Pisula questioned what issues of concern could not be addressed through specific
conditions placed on individual applications to remedy areas found lacking. Director Nielsen explained
the definition of community-scale could be dealt with effectively in that manner. Commissioner Pisula
then stated it was his belief that property would develop as needed by the community. He explained that
economic factors of the area would designate apt locations for various kinds of goods and services based
on the needs of the community. He further explained that as the population would move west from
Shorewood, commerce would follow. In addition, property in Shorewood would develop based on the
activity, services, and demands of the population a specific business would draw upon. In this way,
property owners would try to install services to meet the needs of the community. The market would then
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7,2001
Page 8 of 9
.
determine what kind of businesses would develop. He stated he believed the property next to the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center had not been developed because it had not been needed yet. He
further stated he thought it wise to consider possibilities for different uses of that specific undeveloped
property, and he thought a moratorium would simply postpone the inevitable.
Commissioner Packard considered aloud the possibility that a developer could potentially purchase both
the Village Shopping Center property and the undeveloped property next to it and combine them to build
something even larger than the previous CUB Foods proposal. She noted she was having difficulty
understanding the idea of "community-scale" and she was uncertain how to manage it in the future
without stopping to consider the definition and its implications for future use.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission seemed to have clearly identified faultlines within the understanding
of the Compo Plan and he would have no problems with a moratorium as issues that raised concern had
shown themselves in this evening's discussion. He further noted it seemed the timing was appropriate in
coinciding with the Community Visioning Process.
Commissioner Borkon stated she had heard many issues that caused her to reconsider her previous line of
thinking regarding moratoriums, and she believed it important for that reason to support the idea.
Borkon moved, Packard seconded, recommending a moratorium for development of buildings over
30,000 square feet of floor area to the City Council.
Chair Bailey questioned whether a time period should be designated.
.
With the consent of the maker and the seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to include
a moratorium of twelve-months.
Commissioner Packard stated she wished there was another way to accomplish the goals of a moratorium,
but noted it was hard to get ahead of the issue as applications were always being submitted.
Motion passed 4/2, with Gagne and Pisula dissenting.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:43 P.M.
Director Nielsen commented this decision would give the Commission a chance to review current
standards and not be placed in the position of having approval with reluctance. Further he noted it would
be important to dovetail the notion of what was wanted as well as what was not wanted by the
community.
Councilmember Zerby commented some community standards had been raised at the CUB Foods Public
Hearing, and it was important to consider the implications of those standards.
7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
.
The August 21, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda would include a Study Session giving
consideration to the Organized Refuse Collection Study, the County Road 19 Redevelopment Project, a
Senior Housing Study, as well as a review of proposed text for the Comprehensive Plan regarding a
Planning District in the City.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 7, 2001
Page 9 of9
9.
REPORTS
Commissioner Gagne reported on the Gideon Glen Advisory Committee Meeting of July 12th, noting the
purchase of Gideon Glen was clearly an asset to the City in its beauty. He also stated he hoped the
dumping in that area would be discontinued.
Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 27, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Woodruff stated she had recently attended a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meeting
where approximately $250,000 had been budgeted for wetland restoration.
The Commission determined the Commission Liaisons to the City Council would be as followed for the
remainder of the year:
August
September
October
November
December
Commissioner Pisula
Commissioner Borkon
Chair Bailey
Commissioner Woodruff
Commissioner Gagne
10. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the August 7,2001, Planning Commission Meeting at
10:06 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:09 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. August 7, 2001
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the August 7, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with White abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
STUDY SESSION
Without objection from the Commission, Chair Bailey moved Item 6, Reports to the top of the Study
Session Agenda for the evening.
1. REPORTS (This item was moved from No.6 on this evening's Agenda.)
Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 13, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Director Nielsen also reviewed the moratorium discussion from that same Council meeting. He noted
there were areas of review in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan) that could be completed by the
Planning Commission by year-end. One of those areas included a discussion to define what was meant
by the term "community-scale." Another area in the Compo Plan requiring clarification was the area of
landscaping in commercial development areas.
Director Nielsen also said it was important to review areas of concern heard from the residents as part of
previous proposals for consideration and clarification within the Compo Plan for future development
within Shorewood. No matter what would develop on that site, many issues heard by residents during the
Public Hearing process would remain, and would need to be addressed by the City.
A brief discussion by the Planning Commission included elements of size, traffic, appearance, hours of
operation, lighting, and use of delivery vehicles on the roadways as well as times of deliveries being made
within the City.
Commissioners agreed many options for development could unfold regarding commercial development
within the City, and it was important to remember the Compo Plan defined Shorewood as a "bedroom
community." In addition, it was equally important to consider many possibilities for future businesses as
a result of decisions being made at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 2001
Page 2 of 3
.
With regard to other meetings, Commissioner Gagne reported on the Gideon Glen Advisory Committee
Meeting of August 6, 2001, noting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was reviewing
concept plans. Also, approximately $350,000 was being designated for improvements to land along
County Road 19 as part of this project.
Commissioner Woodruff explained the MCWD had designated approximately $254,000 for the Budget
Year 2002, and again for the Year 2003 for use with wetland restoration and preservation in the Gideon
Glen project. She stated this was the first time the MCWD had budgeted for a restoration project and
liked the proposed project a great deal. She also noted the City should be very proud of its
accomplishments regarding that project.
2. ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Director Nielsen explained thus far, the organized refuse collection survey was one of the most successful
surveys completed in terms of response from residents. He stated there were approximately 300
responses so far.
Commissioner Pisula commented, in review of responses received thus far, there definitely seemed to be
polarization of viewpoints regarding refuse collection service. After a brief discussion, the Commission
supported the idea that there were many options still available for consideration as part of this study, and
it was important to consider the impact of those options on the City's roadways.
.
Chair Bailey asked if information could be quantified regarding the amount of money spent on roadway
repair as a result of refuse collection trucks traversing the streets daily. Director Nielsen responded it
would be difficult to quantify information related specifically to refuse collection trucks versus other large
vehicles using those same roadways. Director Nielsen then explained the next steps in the process of the
organized refuse collection study for the Commission, noting there would be a ninety-day period of time
where interested parties could discuss, submit ideas, or debate this matter before the Planning
Commission and/or City Council.
3. COUNTY ROAD 19 REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen explained this project was a bit like a miniature Comprehensive Plan for the County
Road 19 redevelopment area as it included elements related to natural resources, land use, redevelopment,
transportation, the County Road 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection itself, and
community facilities for police and fire. He stated he had an idea of tying the corridor together through a
streetscape design in an effort to make an "entrance" to the City of Shorewood.
He then began reviewing potential sites as part of the streetscape design. He stated much of a themed
idea in the streetscape design could be achieved through landscaping details, such as at the northerly
boundary to Shorewood near the LRT trail on County Road 19. He also stated an identity could be
created at this location that could act as a common entry design for other entrances to Shorewood. In
addition, he noted the Xcel Energy site, the Gideon Glen historical monument, Gideon Glen itself, the
intersection of County Road 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road; an area near the Smithtown
Crossings Shopping Center, the South Shore Community Center; and the proposed new public safety
facility site as other areas where streetscape elements could enhance the area.
.
Director Nielsen next reviewed elements of a streetscape in Wayzata, Minnesota, for the Commission. In
review of an issues map of the redevelopment area, he noted concern for pedestrian circulation,
streetlights, and land use as ideas for consideration in planning the future in that area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 21, 2001
Page 3 of 3
.
The Commission expressed unanimous support for designing a streetscape for the County Road 19
Redevelopment project. Director Nielsen noted this project had the potential to be very exciting and fun
in its design.
4. PROPOSED TEXT FOR COMP PLAN PLANNING DISTRICTS
Director Nielsen reviewed the data sheet for Planning District #8. He noted the geographic boundaries
for this district to include Galpin Lake, and the Shorewood/Excelsior municipal border to the north; Mill
Street to the east; the Shorewood/Chanhassan municipal border to the south; and State Highway 7 to the
west. He also noted certain areas within the district were characterized by steep terrain as well as wetland
basins. With regard to land use and zoning, the district was predominantly comprised of single-family
dwellings, a few commercial properties, and scattered vacant parcels. A considerable portion of the
district was located within the 1000-foot Shoreland area of Galpin Lake.
Director Nielsen noted a continuation of land use patterns would most likely occur with a bit of
redevelopment possible over time in certain areas. Further consideration should be given to subdivision
of larger parcels in the area as well as "back-lot development." In addition, he noted the intersection of
Highways 7 and 41, currently under construction, could be considered as an entry point to the city and
may benefit from some of the elements discussed with regard to a new streetscape. He noted, some sort
of turn-around should be considered for Murray Street with any redevelopment of properties in that area.
Sanitary sewer was available throughout the district with water being made available in small areas from
the City of Chanhassan. The W oodhaven well was being considered for connection to the Excelsior
water system. There were no parks in this district, existing or planned.
.
Director Nielsen stated proposed text for this district would be available at a future meeting for further
reVlew.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted there would be three items, a request for Conditional Use Permit, and two variance
requests, as part of the Agenda for the September 4,2001, Planning Commission Meeting. He also noted
a Study Session would most likely be part of the Agenda to maximize efforts toward completion of the
work plan for the year.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 21,
2001, at 9:16 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gagne and Council Liaison Zerby
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. August 21, 2001
Pisula moved, Packard seconded, approving the August 21, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Borkon abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
AImJicant: James Klecker
Location: 4675 Lakeway Terrace
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. He explained the procedures utilized in the Public
Hearing process, noting items recommended for approval this evening would appear on the September 27,
2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen reviewed information regarding the applicant's request for a setback variance. He noted
the applicant proposed replacement of a ten-foot by sixteen-foot deck on the rear of the house with a
three-season porch. He stated the existing house was not in compliance with the thirty-five foot rear yard
setback, and the proposed porch would be twenty-three feet from the rear lot line, requiring a variance of
twelve feet.
Director Nielsen also explained the applicant had offered two alternatives-one a twelve-foot by sixteen-
foot porch and the other a fourteen-foot by fourteen-foot porch. The applicant had submitted a letter
explaining his request, which Director Nielsen summarized for the Commission. He went on to explain
the applicant's lot was one of the shallowest on the street, and the lot physically curved with the bend in
Lakeway Terrace. Also, the boundary between zoning districts occurred at the applicant's rear lot line.
Further, he noted the land was developed, and the house built, under different standards in 1967. In
addition, Director Nielsen explained there were a number of surrounding buildings closer to the rear lot
line than the applicant's, and the proposed addition would not be out of character with the existing
neighborhood. He noted the Zoning Code stated that variances were to be minimized to the extent
possible. Based on this, he recommended the variance be granted, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The depth of the addition should be limited to comply with the twenty-four foot average
setback of the buildings on the properties to the north and south.
The resolution approving the request should include a provision that the house should not
be extended any closer to the street than it currently was.
2.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Page 2 of 4
James Klecker, 4675 Lakeway Terrace, explained his request for the proposed fourteen-foot by fourteen-
foot porch as being an effort to extend the roofline straight out from the structure. In addition, he stated
an eleven-foot by sixteen-foot porch would mean he would lose a kitchen window. He stated there was a
shed on the property he would be willing to demolish in an effort to remain under the hardcover
requirements. Further, he stated he had spoken to the neighbors, and none were opposed to the situation.
Tom Bodin, 20755 Garden Road, stated he was the neighbor immediately east of the Klecker property
and would be the most likely to view the proposed porch from his home. He commented he had
examined the configuration of the porch with regard to the view of the house construction, and he
believed the proposed porches would be more aesthetically appealing than a porch measuring eleven-foot
by sixteen-foot as a result of using the average setback requirements.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M.
The Commission briefly discussed details of clarification regarding the proposed request.
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approval of the Setback Variance, subject to
staff recommendations, for James Klecker, 4675 Lakeway Terrace. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Daniel Plaziak
Location: 448 Lafayette A venue
Director Nielsen explained the applicant was remodeling his home and proposed expanding the northeast
comer of the house approximately one hundred-sixty feet and filling in a two-foot "jog" in the front of the
house. He noted the property was located on a peninsula of land abutting the ShorewoodlExcelsior municipal
border on its east side. He noted the applicant proposed alternatives to the expansion of the northeast comer
of the house. Alternative 1 exhibited the entire northeast comer of the structure filled in, requiring a four-foot
variance toward the lake. Alternative 2 showed the addition being cut back at a forty-five degree angle in
compliance with the average setback of the two houses abutting the applicant's property. Either alternative
required a variance to the ten-foot side yard setback requirement.
He then reviewed variance criteria, noting the small size and unique configuration of the lot, resulting in no
buildable area on the lot, were considered "special conditions" as described in the Zoning Code. He also
noted the applicant attempted to mitigate the variance as much as possible by removing existing decking and
sidewalk area. In comparison of the alternate proposals, Alternative 2 complied with the average lakeshore
setback and minimized the extension into the required side yard as well as reducing the hardcover slightly
more than Alternative 1.
Dorothy James, 450 Lafayette Avenue, stated she lived to the west of the applicant and believed the variance
should be granted.
Ben Faus, 452 Lafayette Avenue, commented that aesthetically either alternative would not be a bother to the
neighborhood. However, he stated serious consideration should be given to Alternative 1, rather than being
overly concerned with the exact ratios and percentages of zoning policies. He stated Mr. Plaziak knew how to
construct things very well. Further, he did not anticipate any runoff issues being of concern as the soil
content was sand and clay in that area. He advocated Alternative 1 as he thought the applicant knew what he
was doing with regard to construction of the house.
Director Nielsen commented the applicant had chosen Alternative 2 for consideration as it gave four
additional feet of space to the house.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Dan Plaziak, owner of the property at 448 Lafayette Avenue, stated another neighbor was the City Attorney
for the City of Wayzata and was unable to attend this meeting, however, that neighbor had stated he had no
problems with either alternative.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M.
Commissioner White questioned the difference in alternatives with regard to construction of the house. Mr.
Plaziak stated an angled line was more difficult to build, and an angled cut did not exist anywhere else on the
house.
Chair Bailey commented this request for consideration outside the normal parameters seemed to be standard
especially when considering older lakeshore properties. He commended Mr. Plaziak for his ingenuity in
developing plans, but noted it was important to remain with the policies of the past to avoid conflict in the
future.
Director Nielsen reminded the Commission aesthetics could not be considered a reason for favor or denial of
a variance, as aesthetics were highly subjective.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of the Setback Variance for Alternative 2,
subject to staff recommendations, for Dan Plaziak, 448 Lafayette A venue. Motion passed 6/0.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: James Miller
Location: 5860 Hillendale Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant proposed adding approximately eight hundred forty-eight square
feet to his existing garage. Since the resulting garage space would exceed one thousand, two hundred
square feet, a request for Conditional Use Permit was necessitated. With regard to various criteria for a
conditional use permit, Director Nielsen explained the proposed addition would not exceed the floor area
above grade of the existing home, nor ten percent of the minimum lot size, complied with the R-IC
setback requirements, and architectural compatibility was not considered to be an issue. However,
Director Nielsen stated consideration should be given to planting two evergreen trees to break up the mass
on the west side of the garage.
James Miller, owner of the property, stated the lot was lined with trees twenty feet or higher. He supplied
a photo for the Commission to examine regarding the west side of the garage area. Director Nielsen then
stated he did not believe evergreen trees were needed on the site as it was more heavily wooded than he
originally thought.
Mr. Miller explained, in response to Commissioner Pisula's question, that the garage would be used for
storage purposes only.
Chair Bailey closed the public testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M.
Packard moved, Pisula seconded, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space over 1200 square feet, subject to staff recommendations without the proposed
landscape changes, for James Miller, 5860 Hillendale Road. Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
4.
PROPOSED TEXT FOR COMP PLAN PLANNING DISTRICTS
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 4, 2001
Page 4 of 4
Director Nielsen stated the proposed texts required further refinement and would be available for
consideration at the September 18,2001, Planning Commission Meeting.
5. DISCUSS ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
Director Nielsen provided an update on surveys submitted to the City thus far. In addition, he explained
the procedures to be utilized in the next portion of the Organized Refuse Collection Study noting there
would be a ninety-day period where interested parties, including licensed refuse haulers, could submit
plans, ideas, etc., for input into the process. Also, he anticipated a joint meeting of the Planning
Commission and City Council at the end of the ninety-day period to discuss findings.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen reminded the Commission an Open House style meeting would take place on September
18, 2001, from 5:00-7:00 P.M. regarding the proposed ideas for straightening Lake Linden Drive. He
stated mailings would be sent to residents in that area notifying them of the opportunity to attend that
meeting. He also briefly explained various options to be considered when undertaking this type of
project. He hoped significant consideration would be given to pedestrian circulation as part of plans for
the area.
Commissioner Borkon raised the question of priority given to certain streets, such as Lake Linden, noting
similarities in the physicality of roadways throughout the City that would seem to benefit from like plans.
In addition, Commissioner Packard questioned whether this project had the potential to be completed
prior to the County Road 19 project. Director Nielsen stated results would be available due to completion
of the County Road 19 project prior to completion of the Lake Linden Drive project.
In addition, Director Nielsen stated the September 18,2001, Planning Commission Meeting, beginning at
7:00 P.M., would include Study Session Agenda items related to planning districts 8 and 9, as well as
initial discussions of subdivision ordinances, affordable housing, and impervious surface regulations.
8. REPORTS
Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 27, 2001, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Borkon requested a traffic and pedestrian count during the morning and afternoon for
Radisson Road. Director Nielsen stated he would make the City Engineer aware of this request.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4,
2001, at 8:52 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. September 4, 2001
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving the September 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1, with Gagne abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
STUDY SESSION
1.
DISCUSS LAKE LINDEN DR.NELLOWSTONE TR.lCOUNTRY CLUB ROAD. AREA
OPEN HOUSE
Engineer Brown reported the Open House from 5:00-7:00 P.M. at City Hall regarding Lake Linden Drive,
Yellowstone Trail, and Country Club Road had been successful in his opinion. He then introduced Mr.
Chuck Rickart to the Commission, noting Mr. Rickart was a specialist in the area of studying traffic. He
was largely responsible for masterminding the proposed plans for the area's roads, and Engineer Brown
credited him with a tremendous amount of work in providing the impetus behind the traffic study of the
area recently completed.
Mr. Rickart stated, in response to Engineer Brown's question, that he had heard extremes from
Shorewood residents regarding proposed ideas for these roadways. He stated he heard residents comment
that closing Lake Linden altogether would be a good idea while others stated it would be better to widen
and improve that roadway. He also stated he had heard comments from a majority of residents in
attendance requesting accommodations for pedestrians, either through creation of a sidewalk or widening
of the shoulder, along the roadways in the area. Further, he noted he heard many positive comments for
the proposed changes involved in the County Road 19 project. He had also heard concern for how to
funnel traffic effectively through the Trunk Highway 7 and 41 intersection as part of that ongoing project.
Engineer Brown reported there had been a fatality and a near fatality at Highway 7 and 41 recently. As a
result, a decision was made by highway workers and supervisors that appeared to have a negative impact
on the community. He then explained the history of that decision. He explained the signals were
operating correctly at this intersection, however, when motorists traveling eastbound from St. Bonifacius
came upon the tapered area at Highway 41, they often sped up and would proceed directly through the
intersection, with little regard for changing traffic signals. Engineer Brown stated, in a ten-minute
observation period of the intersection, he personally witnessed two semi-trucks speeding through the
intersection with complete disregard for the changing signal lights. As a result, he noted this could not be
allowed to continue as more fatalities would most certainly occur, and thus, a decision was made to taper
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2001
Page 2 of 4
.
the lane further in a purposeful effort to back up and slow down traffic in that area. The contractor stated
the work on that comer should be completed within the next three to four weeks. Engineer Brown noted
residents, consequently, were taking Smithtown Road, Eureka Road, and Yellowstone Roads in an effort
to avoid Highway 7 construction. He stated he believed this to be a worthwhile decision in spite of the
consequences generated.
Engineer Brown also reported there was concern for a situation involving the "red bridge" allowing
access to Enchanted and Shady Islands. He explained Hennepin County inspected the bridge for the City
of Minnetrista recently and found the soundness of the support beams to the bridge to be inadequate. As a
result, any vehicles larger than a sport utility vehicle were not anticipated to be able to safely access the
area. He noted the Minnetrista City Council took action at the September 17,2001, City Council Meeting
on this matter requesting Shorewood maintain its responsibility in helping to fund repairs. Engineer
Brown noted a great deal of communication had taken place with Minnetrista at emergency meetings
related to the matter. Of particular concern was accessibility to the island for public safety vehicles. He
reinforced the idea that in spite of the weight restrictions currently in place, public safety vehicles could
and would be allowed to access the island if need be. He requested patience from city residents in that
area, noting it would take approximately nine months to design and construct a bridge. Further, he stated
he knew Hennepin County was acting swiftly with emergency service providers to provide resolution to
the situation, and he would be extremely disappointed if resolution would not be attained this week. He
also commented a dumpster would be placed at the boat landing in an effort to provide continued refuse
collection.
.
Commissioner Borkon asked the approximate cost of a new bridge for that area. Engineer Brown
explained the anticipated cost was approximately $1.1 million of which Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) was expected to put forth approximately $645,000 through Minnesota State Aid
Funds maintaining a bridge width of thirty-two feet. He stated this was also cause for concern as the road
width in that immediate area was only twenty-four feet as requested by Shorewood residents in past
history. He further explained a pedestrian walkway was not available to make up the eight feet of
additional space as per Minnesota State Aid requirements.
Engineer Brown thanked the Commission for attending the Open House this evening, noting it was a
wonderful opportunity for Commissioners and residents to meet and interact in an effort to find solutions
for City roadways. He further stated it was rare and wonderful to hear the neighborhood support for this
project. The Commission also thanked Mr. Rickart for his dedication and hard work regarding this
project for the City.
Commissioners noted interest from residents in providing pedestrian circulation in the County Road 19
intersection project potentially slated for construction in 2002. Engineer Brown stated he had encouraged
residents in the Lake Linden area to petition for plans for pedestrian circulation linking that area to the
LR T trail.
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded, recommending to the Park Commission that options for a
pedestrian walkway along Lake Linden Drive, extending to Country Club Road, northward to the
LRT, be explored as soon as possible. Motion passed 7/0.
Engineer Brown also commented plans for straightening Yellowstone Road appeared to be met favorably
by residents. In addition, he noted it seemed residents were receptive to neighborhood entry monuments
as well as curb and gutter in the vicinity of entry points to the Lake Linden neighborhood area.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 18, 2001
Page 3 of 4 .
2.
ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION-LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
Director Nielsen explained that although the City Council had chosen not to adopt a moratorium on large-
scale commercial development, there had been consensus that certain aspects of Shorewood's
development regulations were in need of updating. Most significantly, the section on landscaping and
screening requirements contained in the Zoning Code were in need of review. He explained the City had
been successful in recent years in obtaining additional landscaping efforts to those required by the Code,
primarily in conjunction with planned unit developments, conditional use permits and variances. He then
briefly explained the Code to be inadequate where only a simple site plan review was required. Noted
areas of concern included scope, specifications, design, maintenance, security, parking lot landscaping,
and submission requirements relating to landscaping efforts by owners and developers. He then briefly
referenced areas where changes could be incorporated into the City Code, noting a public hearing would
need to be scheduled in late October or early November of this year to gather input from residents
regarding those proposed changes.
The Commission supported the proposed changes and briefly discussed concerns regarding the potential
for businesses to operate on a twenty-four hour basis within the City.
Commissioner Pisula stated the use of conditional use permit process could possibly be helpful in
regulating hours of operation between 1:00 -6:00A.M. noting conditions and restrictions could be utilized
to address concerns heard previously from residents.
3. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen stated this item required further enhancement and would be available for review at the
next meeting of the Planning Commission.
4. DISCUSS SUBDIVISIONORDINANCE
Director Nielsen reviewed a subdivision ordinance in place for the City of Wayzata, Minnesota.
Commissioners expressed interest in goals and objectives portion of this ordinance as it could be adapted
to the City of Shorewood in an effort to maintain lot size minimum standards, preserve character of
existing neighborhoods, and continue affordability of housing in the area. In addition, the Commission
expressed interest in having Director Nielsen set up an informational meeting between the Commission
and the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen indicated there would be three setback variance items on the October 2, 2001, Planning
Commission Meeting Agenda.
7. REPORTS
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 10, 2001,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Borkon asked Director Nielsen if a traffic study had been scheduled for Radisson Road.
Director Nielsen responded a date would be made available soon as the necessary equipment was now
working properly.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minntes
September 18, 2001
Page 4 of 4,
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the September 18, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting at 9:16 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7 :02 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon (arrived 7:10 P.M.) and Council Liaison Garfunkel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. September 18, 2001
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the September 18, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Christine and Alan Lizee
Location: 27055 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey reviewed the procedures to be utilized in this evening's Public Hearings, noting any
items recommended for approval this evening would be on the October 22,2001, Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for consideration.
He then opened the first Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the history
regarding this request, noting the applicants requested setback variances to build a detached
garage and addition to their home. The garage would be built in the southwest comer of the lot,
10 feet from the rear lot line requiring a variance of 40 feet. They also proposed extending the
rear of the house approximately six feet into the 50-foot rear yard setback area.
Director Nielsen explained the most significant factor in this request was in the size and
topography of the property. By placing the garage at the rear of the lot, the applicants would take
advantage of the most level portion of the site and would also allow for a turn-around
configuration allowing cars to pull onto Smithtown Road going forward, rather than backing out
of the drive. Further, he noted, the proposed garage was in keeping with the character of the
existing house and surrounding neighborhood. No additional landscaping was being suggested,
as the site would have adequate screening in the garage area.
With respect to the addition of the rear of the house, the amount of encroachment was a triangle
containing 84 square feet of area that would extend over an existing patio area, thus adding no
additional hardcover to the site. A provision in the Zoning Code stated where setback variances
were to be granted, the City might wish to make up the setback area on the opposite side of the
lot. In this case, he explained, imposing a 57-foot setback on the property for future work would
mitigate the variance at the rear.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 2001
Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:10 P.M.
The Lizee' s were present and offered to answer any questions asked by the Planning Commission
this evening.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 12 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned the location of the future driveway on the lot. Mr. Lizee
explained it would be along the eastern side of the property, following around to the rear side of
the house, with a turnaround on the southeasterly side of the lot.
Commissioner Packard questioned Director Nielsen as to whether it was unusual to create a
setback as being suggested in this case. He explained there had been other instances where
similar setbacks had occurred in the City allowing trading of greenspace to occur for property
owners.
Mrs. Lizee asked for clarification regarding any future plans for the front of the house. Director
Nielsen stated it would not preclude any work from being completed on the porch, however, there
could be no further expansion of the home toward the street as the setback was very close to the
house currently.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of a Setback Variance, subject to
staff recommendations, for Christine and Alan Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road. Motion
passed 7/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Thomas Strand
Location: 24845 Smith town Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Director Nielsen reviewed the request, noting the applicant had requested a setback variance to
build a deck on the southwest comer of the house. The existing house was currently located
entirely within the required 50-foot setback from Club Lane. The proposed deck was described
as measuring 11' by 16' and approximately 30-36" in height. It would also extend toward
buildable area of the lot. The deck had been designed to avoid requiring a setback variance from
Smith town Road, and it could not be seen from Club Lane. Director Nielsen noted the request
satisfied all criteria for granting of variances.
Mr. Strand was in attendance and stated he would be available for any questions the Planning
Commission had of him.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
Mr. Strand explained, in response to Chair Bailey's question, that the concrete area on the site
would become asphalt.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of a Setback Variance for
Thomas Strand, 24845 Smith town Road. Motion passed 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 2001
Page 3 of 5
.
3.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Martin and Kerri Hawk
Location: 5680 Christmas Lake Point
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants proposed a significant remodeling project for their
home. He noted the property to be substantially nonconforming for the zoning district in which it
was located, and variances would be required for nearly any kind of improvement to the site. The
applicants proposed adding a new level on top of the existing two-story walkout, resulting in a
two and a half story building. In addition, they proposed converting the south end of the house
that was previously a garage, back into garage space. They would then demolish the existing
detached garage on the north side of the lot. The house was currently located 18 feet from the
ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake and only 11.7 feet from Christmas Lake
Point, which was a private road. Also, the applicants proposed removing or reducing the amount
of impervious surface as part of this application.
.
In reviewing the proposed site plan, Director Nielsen explained, the property would be
unbuildable under current standards, as the setbacks from the street and OHWL for Christmas
Lake would overlap. In converting the old garage space back into a garage, the applicants were
proposing an extension of four feet to the south and two and one half feet to the west. In addition,
the applicants were attempting to reduce the nonconformity of one of the decks by cutting
approximately six feet nearest the shoreline. In addition to removing the existing detached
garage, the applicants also proposed removing a substantial portion of the driveway on the north
side of the house. The amount of impervious surface at present was 47.8%. Upon completion of
the project, the site would have only 37.4%.
Although the building height was anticipated to increase, the height would remain allowable
under the R-1 CIS district requirements. The height of the proposed roof would also be visually
diminished by incorporating the upper level within the roof structure. The existing trees on the
lake side of the home further softened the view of the home from the lake. As a result, Director
Nielsen suggested approval of any variance should be conditioned upon saving and protecting
those trees throughout the construction process. He also suggested that when removing part of
the deck closest to the lake, earth-tone colors be used, rather than white, in rebuilding that area.
Also, he recommended consideration be given to landscaping treatments to hide the deck
structure. In light of all preceding information shared, the applicants' request was considered to
meet the criteria for granting a variance.
Martin Hawk, owner of the property, stated he and his wife had been working on the plans for
their home for two years and had tried to be very sensitive to surroundings and the lake. He
stated they were feeling good about their proposed plans for the site and all the hard work that
had gone into designing them.
.
Kerri Hawk, owner of the property, stated with regard to removing the deck, they were trying to
make the patio have more of a "green look" in addition to utilizing the riprap for the lakeshore.
She also clarified the hardcover percentages as being 39% versus the 37.4% percent originally
reported this evening. In addition, she shared letters from three neighbors supporting the
proposed project.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 2001
Page 4 of 5
Patti Feeney, 5630 Christmas Lake Point, stated, in her opinion, the improvements to the site
would make it perform much better for the Hawks.
Ellen Johnson, 5695 Christmas Lake Point, stated she thought the proposed plan was great as it
would beautify the lake as well as preserve the character of the site and neighborhood, thus,
making it nice for everyone.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon stated she liked the proposed plans, but she had concern for roof height
and coloration. Director Nielsen stated the added roof height was still well within restrictions for
that zoning district. Commissioner Borkon suggested consideration be given to the use of earth
tones in the roof area in effort to further soften and diminish the view of the roofline from the
lake.
Commissioner White questioned potential landscaping plans around the new patio area near the
lake. Mrs. Hawk explained they would like to preserve the shoreline in that area as the water was
very shallow and erosion of the dirt currently underneath the deck was of concern. Director
Nielsen suggested a resource book on natural plantings from the Department of Natural
Resources. Also, Commissioner Borkon suggested contacting the Christmas Lake Homeowners
Association for potential references on shoreline plantings.
Borkon moved, Packard seconded, recommending approval of a Setback Variance, subject
to staff recommendations, for Martin and Kerri Hawk, 5680 Christmas Lake Point. Motion
passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
4. PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen stated this item would be deleted from this evening's Agenda and would be
placed on the October 20, 2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated review of text items for three planning districts and discussion of a
subdivision ordinance were slated for the October 16,2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda.
Chair Bailey expressed concern for potential arbitrariness that could occur when considering
variances on substandard lots within the City. Director Nielsen explained there were many
factors that could affect variances because each case is different. A brief conversation ensued
regarding the characteristics and expectations of the variance process for the Planning
Commission.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 2, 2001
Page 5 of 5
7.
REPORTS
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 24,
2001, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
8. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Borkon seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
October 2, 2001, at 8:40 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Woodruff, acting as Chair for this evening, called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
Present:
Acting Chair Woodruff; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, and White;
Council Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Chair Bailey; Commissioner White (arrived at 7:08 P.M.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. October 2, 2001
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the October 2, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1.
PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen explained there would be three planning district area plans for review this evening. He
noted the first one, for Planning District 5, was the proposed text for the Comprehensive Plan. This
Planning District had been reviewed at a previous meeting; however, he explained a meeting had taken
place between representatives of the City and the owner of the Minnetonka Country Club since the last
meeting of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner White arrived at 7:08 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the City viewed the Country Club as a tremendous asset to the City and was
hoping it could continue in its present use into perpetuity. As such, he recommended the City make every
attempt to work with the owner to develop a master plan for the site upon which future land use approvals
could be based.
There were no other developments since the past review of the proposed draft text for Planning District 5.
Gagne moved, White seconded, approving the final draft of the text for Planning District 5 to be
utilized in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 6/0.
Director Nielsen reviewed the data sheet for Planning District 12. He noted the district to be bounded by
the ShorewoodlGreenwood municipal border; Manor Road, and Minnetonka Boulevard on the westerly
side; the ShorewoodlDeephaven municipal border and Minnetonka Boulevard on the northerly side; the
ShorewoodlDeephaven municipal border on the easterly side; and State Highway 7 on the southerly side.
A mixture of residential zoning districts, including Single-Family residential, Planned Unit
Developments, Two-Family Residential, Shoreland District for Lakes Minnetonka and William as well as
Residential/Commercial were found in this planning district. The land use pattern reflected the current
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October16, 2001
Page 2 of 3
zoning. He eXplained the most significant nonconformity in the district to be the auto salvage yard
located in the southwest corner of the district, noting it to be more industrial than commercial in nature.
With regard to proposed land use, he explained the land use should continue to reflect the current zoning
of the district. Should the current Kuemple Chime Clock property continue to be zoned Residential-
Commercial, attention must be paid to maintaining low intensity uses that would not adversely impact the
surrounding residential area. In addition, parking for the site would require further consideration. Also,
the auto salvage yard was highlighted as an area of further study. While the neighborhood was currently
satisfied with the existence of the site, and the owner was complying with state pollution regulations,
Director Nielsen stated this had not likely always been the case, and the City might wish to conduct a
Phase I Environmental Assessment as part of the further study for that area.
There were no changes proposed to the current circulation pattern for the district. , He also explained,
efforts should continue to interconnect the Amesbury water system to the southeast area system to
enhance reliable water efforts to the Amesbury area. In addition, he noted a master plan for the remainder
of the wayside rest area should be incorporated in to the work program for the Park Commission. Manor
Park and the Southshore Community Park, home of the recently built Skate Park, existed in this planning
district as well.
Commission indicated consensus, and no necessary changes, for the data sheet for Planning District 12.
Next, Director Nielsen reviewed the data sheet for Planning District 9. He explained this district to be
dominated by Christmas Lake and Silver Lake. The district was bounded on the west by Mill Street and
the ShorewoodJExcelsior municipal border; on the north by State Highway 7; on the east by Old Market
Road and Silver Lake; and on the South by the Shorewoodl/Chanhassan municipal border.
While most of this district was currently zoned Single-Family Residential, Director Nielsen explained,
there were also areas zoned Neighborhood Convenience Commercial and Planned Unit Development.
Except for a narrow band along Mill Street, most of this district was subject to Shoreland District
regulations. Similarly, most of the land use was reflective of the current zoning pattern. There were a
few scattered vacant parcels remaining in the district. The district should continue to develop based on
current zoning patterns and continued strict adherence to the Shoreland Management Regulations should
be part of proposed land use for the future.
Director Nielsen stated there was little opportunity remaining for upgrading the roads in this district as it
was almost fully developed. However, the City should continue to take opportunities to create parking
and pullout spaces as lots were divided on Ridge Road. In addition, traffic on Radisson Road would need
to be monitored and studied to determine if non-local trips could be reduced without compromising
emergency response time to the north side of Christmas Lake.
This district was entirely served by sanitary sewer, and city water was available to the west side of Old
Market Road and to the northerly end of Ridge Road. While park property was limited to the public
access on Merry Lane, consideration should be given to wayside rest property as some sort of recreational
area in the future.
The Commission indicated consensus for the proposed data, without change, for Planning District 9.
2. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Director Nielsen stated this item should be removed from this evening's Agenda and placed on the
October 30,2001, Planning Commission Agenda.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October16, 2001
Page 3 of 3
3.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
A number of Commissioners expressed concern for the recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and semi-
truck car carriers being housed at the Triple B Equities site on Smithtown Road as there were prohibited
conditions for the site as part of an agreement with the owner.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a preapplication for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; public hearings for
changes to amendments regarding landscaping on commercial development sites as well as 24-hour
operations within the City; and review of the subdivision ordinance, were scheduled for the October 30,
2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
5. REPORTS
As Chair Bailey was absent this evening, Council Liaison Garfunkel reported on matters considered and
actions taken at the October 18, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that
meeting) .
6. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the October 16, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
at 9:08 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners, Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Lizee, Engineer Brown and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. October 16, 2001
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the October 16, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1, with Bailey abstaining due to his absence at that
meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ESTABLISH A C.U.P
PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL HOURS OF OPERATION AND
LANDSCAPING/SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. and briefly reviewed the procedures utilized in the
Public Hearing process. Any items recommended for approval would appear on the November 26,2001,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for consideration and review.
The Planning Commission decided to review the zoning code amendment information as two separate
matters, noting the Commercial Hours of Operation would be considered first.
Director Nielsen explained the history for consideration of a zoning code amendment establishing a
Conditional Use Permit process for Commercial Hours of Operation within the City of Shorewood. He
noted in the past, the Commission had limited authority regarding issues of regulation for twenty-four
hour operations. Director Nielsen presented a draft regulation that had been reviewed by the City
Attorney. This regulation defined Twenty-four Hour Uses as:
Any commercial use, except those businesses with a valid bar, wine, or intoxicating liquor
license, that is regularly open for business or involves other significant, outdoor activity during
any hour between ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the proposed regulations pertaining to business hours found in Zoning
Code Section 1201.03, Subd. 2t. These regulations contained restrictions pertaining to off-street loading,
movement of many vehicles, including delivery vehicles, outdoor speaker systems or public address
systems, and lighting. Director Nielsen stated the City Attorney had reviewed this draft regulation and
noted conditions to be reasonable and enforceable. In addition, the Commission noted few properties that
would be affected by these regulations, however, the gas station to the north of City Hall would certainly
qualify for consideration should there be cause for any additional permits in the future. Until such a time
existed, that property, and other relevant properties, would be "grandfathered in " regarding these
proposed regulations.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 2 of 8
.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
In response to Commissioner Gagne's question, Director Nielsen explained that many gas stations, such
as the Holiday station on Old Market Road, would be operating without violation of this proposed
regulation until future approval was requested through the City permitting process.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of the draft regulation pertaining to
twenty-four (24) hour use, subject to recommended changes made this evening. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing related to screening and landscaping requirements.
Director Nielsen explained there had been consensus from Staff, Commission and Council, that certain
aspects of Shorewood's development regulations regarding screening and landscaping were in need of
updating. He noted the Zoning Code pertaining to these issues had not been updated in over 15 years, and
was inadequate in the areas of scope, specifications, design, maintenance, security, parking lot
landscaping, and submission requirements. Further, he explained the suggested landscaping/screening
provisions applied to General Residential as well as Semi-Public and Income-Producing Property Uses in
the City.
Chair Bailey opened, and hearing no requests from the audience to speak on this issue, closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
.
After a brief discussion regarding the concern for enforcement of such requirements, and clarification
pertaining to the Nurseryman's Industry Standards for tree height and size, the Commission reached
agreement on this issue. Director Nielsen noted a draft ordinance of these proposed requirements will be
presented at the November 20,2001, Planning Commission meeting.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - TRITCH ESTATES
Applicant: Dave Alan
Location: 6060 Strawberry Lane and adjoining lots
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M.
Director Nielsen presented information from a report regarding File No. 405(00.35), referencing Tritch
Estates, dated October 23,2001. He then explained Mr. Tom Tritch had submitted an application for a
preliminary plat of approximately 2.9 acres of land located at 6060 Strawberry Lane. The Planning
Commission had tabled that request pending resolution of a number of items described in the December
28, 2000, staff report regarding this matter. The owners of the property had now agreed to sell the
property to Mr. Dave Alan, Inc., acting as buyer, subject to receiving approval of the subdivision of the
property. The buyer had submitted a revised preliminary plat for the property. Background information
for this request was contained in an earlier attached staff report, dated December 28, 2001, and was used
as the basis for review.
.
Director Nielsen then reviewed recommendations pertaining to Street Right-of-Way, Lot Area and Width,
Drainage and Utility Easements, Plat Name, Tree Preservation & Reforestation, Lot Numbering, the
Existing House, City Property as well as issues of Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. The Grading,
Drainage, and Utilities required further consideration, as soil information and a grading plan were
considered critical to the approval of the plan. In addition, he noted there were concerns for demolition
plans of the existing house, and payment for the City property included in the plat. Also, final plans
needed to include a tree preservation and reforestation plan. He stated Engineer Brown was in attendance
this evening to review the engineering concerns for the site.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 3 of8
.
Engineer Brown provided background on the geography of the site, noting the property existed currently
as three lots with one single-family dwelling and two accessory structures near the northeast comer of the
site. He noted Mr. Tritch had submitted a preliminary plat to subdivide the parcel into 6 single-family
lots. Topography was very flat with 1 foot of relief across the site. He then reviewed concerns regarding
right-of-ways and easements. He explained the easterly four lots abut, and would directly access
Strawberry Lane. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 would have public access via the Church Road cul-de-sac.
Engineer Brown also explained the City's subdivision standards required residential streets to have a
minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet, with 25 feet being obtained from both sides of the right-of-way
centerline. The plat was in conformance with this requirement, except for Lot 3 Block 1. While the
proposed combination of widths from the right-of-way centerline in that area totaled 50 feet, it did not
lend itself to a straight roadway alignment. Therefore, a 25-foot minimum right -of-way width was
recommended, thus, allowing alignment to remain should construction need to take place on Strawberry
Lane in the future.
In accordance with the City's Water Implementation Plan, a 12-inch diameter watermain was to be
extended along Strawberry Lane, as development permitted to provide municipal water service to the site
within the Maple Avenue right-of-way. He noted the recommended 25-foot minimum right-of-way
combined with the standard lO-foot drainage and utility easement was adequate for the installation and
maintenance of this utility. He noted the sanitary sewer service provided issues for the development of
the site as the sewer main was quite deep, and only one single-service line extended from the main to the
right-of-way line. Due to the excessive depth of this utility, consideration of a lateral main should be
given to service these lots. Also, he recommended the sanitary sewer within Maple A venue be extended
to the boulevard area of the Church Road cul-de-sac.
.
With regard to grading and drainage, Engineer Brown explained, the site was very flat. While this might
minimize the site alteration necessary, the slow grade created significant drainage issues for the entire
site. The City's Stormwater Management Plan required calculation of rate retention. Therefore, the
applicant's engineer was required to provide grading and hydraulic calculations that maintained the
predeveloped runoff rate, and met requirements for the 100-year frequency event. In addition, the
applicant would be required to provide adequate soil borings that clearly documented current groundwater
levels, or indications of past dynamic groundwater levels for the site. Once elevations of groundwater
were documented, the lowest floor elevations would need to be coordinated and shown on the final
grading plans for the subject site.
Mr. Dave Alan, applicant for 6060 Strawberry Lane and adjoining lots, stated he agreed with the
recommendations made by Director Nielsen and Engineer Brown and planned to follow those
recommendations to move the project forward.
Mr. Mark Morford, 6150 Church Road, expressed concern for drainage in that area. Engineer Brown
encouraged Mr. Morford to meet with him to discuss those concerns at a later date.
Ms. Barbara Toothman, 4350 Trent Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota, stated there would be no construction on
Lots 1 and 2 as her brother owned those lots, and there were no plans for building at this time.
Engineer Brown reminded all parties involved that if the proposed plat was approved, public
improvements would be installed in accordance with the plat.
.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M.
Commissioner White questioned whether it was possible to save the large trees on the site. Mr. Alan
responded his firm had a history of attempting to preserve large trees if possible, however, he was not
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 4 of8
. anticipating many trees being able to be preserved in this case as a result of the grading and drainage
areas of concern.
Chair Bailey re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M.
Mr. Butch Zelinski, 320 Turner Road, Orono, Minnesota, stated his firm wanted to build great houses on
wooded lots, however, compliance with the engineering aspects of drainage would need to take place
before any trees could be preserved.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8: 10 P.M.
Commissioner Borkon stated she had concerns about the details of the plat still requiring resolution and
would like to see the final plat prior to review by the City Council.
Engineer Brown commented, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, the drainage on the site
would be challenging, and the developer would need to balance all necessary building requirements in
order to comply with regulations.
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat, subject to Staff
recommendations, and review of the final plat prior to Council consideration. Motion passed 7/0.
3.
PREAPPLICATION PHASE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
RE: PROPOSAL FOR CUB FOODS STORE
Applicant: John Uban, DSU, Inc.
Location: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23680 Highway 7
.
Director Nielsen explained representatives of CUB Foods had submitted a proposal to expand the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center to include a new CUB Foods grocery store in May of this year. At
that time, the application submitted involved an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, a
rezoning, conditional use permits, and variances. Following a public hearing and a negative
recommendation from the Planning Commission, CUB withdrew its application before it was considered
by the City Council.
The owners of the Shopping Center had now hired the planning consulting firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow,
and Uban, Inc. (DSU) to submit a revised proposal for the project. This proposal included the need for a
preapplication phase of Shorewood' s Comprehensive Plan amendment process, requesting the land use
designation of the property at 6095 Lake Linden Drive be changed from "Low to Medium Residential" to
"Commercial" .
Director Nielsen then explained Shorewood had established a two-step process for consideration of
proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan: 1) preapplication; and 2) formal application. The
preapplication phase of this process was intended to allow an applicant to meet with City officials on an
informal basis to explain the proposal. City officials then should identify any issues needing to be
addressed and what additional information might be required as part of any further review. No formal
decision would be made at this stage, and the applicant needed enough information to determine whether
a formal application would be worth pursuing.
.
Numerous issues were identified in the previous application, and attempts had been made to resolve those
issues as part of the revised application. Director Nielsen also explained issues of drainage, traffic,
landscaping/buffering, 24-hour operation, Shoreland District overlay, and size/character of the proposed
structure were of significant concern in the previous application.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 5 of 8
. With favorable consideration, the next steps in the process would include consideration of a formal
Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat, and any other zoning actions that may be
necessary. With willingness to proceed shown by the applicant, the preapplication would appear on the
November 26,2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for consideration with possible formal
application planned for January or February of 2002.
Director Nielsen then noted Mr. John Uban was in the audience and would like to address the
Commission this evening on behalf of Mr. Stan Taube, owner of the Shorewood Village Shopping
Center.
Mr. Taube stated upon reflection of the past application, the Planning Commission had been correct in its
recommendations. As a result, he had hired the DSU consulting firm in effort to resolve some of the
issues of concern. He stated he had tried to listen, address, and improve the plans from the previous
application.
.
Mr. Uban, consulting land planner for DSU, Inc., stated he was involved in the project in effort to address
the areas of concern. He explained the firm had started over in the project and made changes in trying to
eliminate all variances, and meet requirements as requested. He explained the overall design being
presented this evening had decreased from the original application. He also stated this was the smallest
new store CUB Foods would be considering for the site. With regard to the residential zoning change to
commercial, Mr. Uban stated CUB Foods wanted the proposed store to be attached to the existing
Shopping Center. The site being requested for rezoning was 0.7 acres with approximately 40-45% open
space remaining as green space. Only a corner of that acreage would be taken up by the CUB store and
parking spaces. He stated he thought this would be much preferred with additional berming around the
site. In addition, he explained the overall site had been assembled to make the overall commercial pattern
work better for the community. Issues of ponding had been examined and innovative underground
drainage had been proposed. A second traffic study had been prepared with issues of traffic calming
measures being proposed to help offset the anticipated increase in traffic. He noted this proposal tried to
help screen and soften the edge of the building facing the residential areas. In addition, evergreens could
be planted in neighboring yards. He stated a meeting would be planned with the neighbors on Lake
Linden Drive to hear concerns prior to meeting with the City Council. He then introduced Mr. Ron
Krank, of KKE Architecture.
Mr. Krank stated he had begun working on the project in July of this year to address concerns from the
owner regarding the proposed building's size and character. He encouraged the Commission to visit the
Rosemount, Minnesota, CUB Foods store as he had used it as an example for this store's architectural
design. He noted the fa<;ade treatment had been reduced and changed to incorporate more visual interest
than in previous proposals in effort to create a village concept or character for the store.
Mr. Gordon Ferrington, Vice-President of CUB Foods West, explained CUB Foods had originated in the
Twin Cities 33 years ago. Since that time, CUB Foods had constantly been changing the store design and
layout to fit the needs of its consumer. He then reviewed the "split store" layout, noting that it appeared
to act as a store within a store. He also noted the store was very "user friendly" and included a pharmacy,
and in-store bank. He stated the delivery bays were planned for loading at the back of the store with a
sawtooth design for parking. He also commented the produce would be on one side of the store, and the
checkouts at the front of the store, so a shopper could quickly maneuver the store and depart efficiently.
.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission appreciated all efforts made to address concerns, and he thought the
presentation of new information well done.
Commissioner Pisula then asked Mr. Taube why he thought this property required a CUB Foods store as
opposed to some other smaller retailer. Mr. Taube responded there was a market for a warehouse style
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 6 of 8
. store, such as CUB Foods, in this area. He stated Driskill's was not able to be competitive, and a store
was needed that offered more to the consumer. CUB Foods was interested and had improved its proposal.
He noted this was the latest generation of grocery stores to include a series of groceries within a store.
Commissioner Pisula state he could see the logic behind this plan, but asked that attention be paid to the
neighbors comprised of people in Shorewood that considered a smaller store to have value. Mr. Taube
stated he was also a Shorewood resident, but the site was a regional site also serving other communities.
He thought he had a responsibility to provide service to all regional communities in addition to
Shorewood. Commissioner Pisula stated he appreciated the efforts made in terms of improving the
externalities on the site.
Commissioner Borkon stated she had a number of questions, noting she appreciated the great presentation
and time spent in explanation this evening. She then questioned Director Nielsen and Engineer Brown as
to the accuracy of the designation label of the intersection near the store with regard to the newly
submitted traffic study. Engineer Brown stated any time additional trips per day were added to an
intersection there would be concern. However, the improvements being proposed would help as well as a
new signal system that would be in place next spring. He did not believe any potential increase in
accidents could be attributed to CUB Foods directly, as he believed the site would develop regardless of
whether CUB Foods occupied the site, and the traffic increase of 6% was considered minimal by industry
standards. He also anticipated peak periods of traffic would generate the increase rather than traffic being
spread evenly throughout the day to explain the increase. In addition, he stated the City had made
significant efforts to minimize traffic on the already overworked collector roads in that area. He viewed
the traffic issue as a balancing act that the applicant would have to work with in the proposal.
.
Commissioner Gagne thanked the applicant for the information presented this evening. He stated he had
real concerns regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan as a general rule. He questioned whether the
store could be built without the 0.7 acres and rezoning. Mr. Uban stated, without the additional acreage
the CUB Foods store could not exist on the site. In addition, the CUB Foods store would provide a
grocery anchor that would help to make the tenants of the Shopping Center more prosperous. He noted
the City's Comprehensive Plan encouraged upgrading of potential commercial areas, and this proposal
was trying to do that. Also, to be able to orient the entire Center to the south attempted to minimize the
impact upon the three houses facing the Center.
Mr. Taube stated he was trying to make the development work and function nicely by balancing all
aspects, including proper landscaping efforts. He could propose other options, but those options would
not work as well and still protect the people in the immediate area.
Commissioner Pisula commented he appreciated the efforts to keep the current tenants and not remove
them in order to enlarge the Center. He then asked for an explanation of the traffic pattern study as it
related to trade areas. He also stated there were significant concerns remaining regarding the traffic to
and from the site. He noted a store of less magnitude would decrease the potential traffic and would still
continue to serve the people of the community. He asked why there had been no discussion of utilizing a
County Market format in this site, as it was also owned by Supervalu.
Ms. Mary McGlynch, CUB Foods Real Estate Manager, explained that County Market stores were
individually owned stores and not part of the CUB corporate format. She noted that this property still had
the potential for corporate opportunity. Mr. Ferrington also commented this proposed CUB Foods store
had been downsized as much as possible. He stated consumers want more, but to drive less.
.
Commissioner Packard questioned whether the additional acreage would be needed if the pharmacy
would be removed. Mr. Ferrington stated all the CUB Foods stores had a pharmacy within the store as
consumers wanted to be able to "one-stop shop".
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 7 of 8
. Commissioner White questioned Engineer Brown as to whether the detention pond on the south side of
Highway 7 would accommodate any additional drainage from this site. Engineer Brown explained that
pond accommodated all currently proposed and accepted site plans, but would not support the additional
drainage from this proposal. He further noted the applicant would need to meet predeveloped runoff rates
as part of the application process, and as such, it appeared the engineering regarding the proposed
underground drainage would be adequate.
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern in that the City had typically tried to buffer residential areas
from commercial zoning areas by utilizing a higher density residential zoning area. She stated she was
concerned for the proposed buffer and thought it needed to be done properly in this case. In addition, she
stated while the proposed plan was greatly improved from the original, the proposed plan need to make it
so the people living next door would be as happy as the people living five miles away from the site.
Chair Bailey stated, upon review of this application, specifically the area detailing how the proposal
would comply with the Comprehensive Plan's land use policies; he thought all areas of concern seemed to
arise from the issue of neighborhood versus community scale. While he thought the proposal had been
greatly improved, there were still key items of concern needing to be addressed before he could support
the project.
.
Mr. Uban thanked the Commission for its time spent in review of this matter. He stated the applicant was
very serious about making this a successful center, and the Shopping Center needed a successful strong
grocery anchor to thrive. Impacts would need to be mitigated to balance and succeed. He stated there
would be a neighborhood meeting before the City Council Meeting in late November of this year as the
applicant team wanted to listen and try to resolve issues with area residents. He noted it wouldn't be
possible to mitigate all concerns entirely, however, best attempts were being made to answer all concerns.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a draft ordinance regarding the landscaping zoning code amendment, discussion
of a subdivision ordinance, and review of various Planning Districts would be slated for the November
20,2001, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Agenda.
6. REPORTS
Commissioner Woodruff stated she would be the Planning Commission Liaison to the City Council for
the second meetings in November, 2001, and January, 2002. Commissioner Borkon stated she would be
the Planning Commission Liaison to the City Council for the first meetings in November, 2001, and
January, 2002.
Chair Bailey reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 22, 200 l, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
Council Liaison Lizee commented she would ask the Commission to consider adding the identification
and eradication, where possible, of buckthorn as part of the landscaping requirements considered in Item
1 of this evening's Agenda.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 30, 2001
Page 8 of8
7. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 30, 2001,
at 10:18 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners, Gagne, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison
Lizee, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon and Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. October 30, 2001
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the October 30, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE - LANDSCAPING/SCREENING REOUIREMENTS
Director Nielsen stated this item would appear on the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda.
2. REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE - 24 HOUR BUSINESSES
Director Nielsen summarized the draft ordinance regulations for 24-hour businesses. The Commission
clarified the intent of the proposed ordinance regarding loading and traffic circulation patterns for large
delivery vehicles on sites having continual hours of service.
3. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Director Nielsen reviewed the first half of the proposed subdivision ordinance including elements
regarding procedures, rules, and definitions. In addition, he stated, the draft ordinance included use of a
sketch plan element in which the applicant would demonstrate awareness of procedural requirements and
minimum standards of the ordinance prior to submission of a preliminary plat. He further explained the
working subdivision ordinance was approximately thirty years old. With the new draft ordinance, all
purposes, definitions, and procedural requirements were consistently aligned with current practices and
zoning code requirements of the City.
The Commission briefly clarified various points in the proposed draft ordinance regarding procedures for
filing and review, and gave consensus for approval of this portion of the draft ordinance. Director
Nielsen noted the second half of the proposed design portion of the subdivision ordinance would be
available for review as part of the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2001
Page 2 of2
4.
PLANNING DISTRICT AREA PLANS
Director Nielsen stated this item also would appear on the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained Public Hearings regarding issues pertaining to hardcover and review of a
landscaping ordinance were slated for the December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda, as
well as a request for variance and continued discussion on the remainder of the proposed subdivision
ordinance.
7. REPORTS
In Commissioner Borkon's absence, Councilmember Lizee reported on the matters considered and
actions taken at the November 5,2001, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that
meeting).
8. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the November 20, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
at 8:24 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4,2001
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff;
Council Liaison Lizee, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· November 20, 2001
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the November 20, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/02, with Borkon and Packard abstaining due to absence.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Aoolicant: D. Carter
Location: 26330 Noble Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. He explained the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing process, noting any items on the Agenda garnering approval would be reviewed in January, 2002.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Dewey Carter, representing Tradewinds Concepts/Design, Inc., had
requested a setback variance to construct a home on the property at 26330 Noble Road. He noted the
applicant proposed the location of the house to be 20 feet from the right-of-way of Noble Road requiring
a variance of 30 feet from the required 50-foot front yard setback. The proposed house was a split entry
design with a footprint area of 2250 square feet, of which 724 square feet would occupy a three-car
garage at the front of the house. Also, nearly one-half of the lot was within a Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) wetland. As a result, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District required a 35-foot buffer setback
from the wetland. A significant drainageway existed on the easterly 30 feet of the lot.
The applicant had submitted a set of plans that were in compliance with Shorewood's R-IA zoning
regulations. However, upon applying for a Watershed District permit, the applicant had been advised that
the Watershed District would require a 35-foot wetland setback. The wetland setback, combined with the
City's 50-foot front yard setback requirement would render the lot virtually unbuildable within the rules.
Director Nielsen believed a "compromise setback" would need to be determined between the City and the
Watershed District, and appropriate variances determined. In spite of this compromise, there were issues
still requiring resolution regarding to the proposal.
First, Director Nielsen explained redesign of the house to extend the garage from the east end of the
house, would reduce the depth of the house by 18 feet, and would help to mitigate the need for a variance.
Also, he recommended soil testing be conducted for the lot, given the close proximity to the wetland. He
also noted the proposed driveway exceeded the maximum driveway width allowed by Shorewood's
zoning regulations. He recommended the proposed plans be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer, and the survey should include the 100-year flood elevation. Director Nielsen also suggested the
applicant give some consideration to placement of a deck structure in a redesign of the house as the only
Planning Commission Meeting Minntes
December4, 2001
Page 2 of 5
. location available on the proposed plans would orient the deck to the neighbor's property rather than to
the subject property's own yard area. Lastly, Director Nielsen explained a Tree Preservation and
Reforestation plan was submitted, but required further modifications. Because of these unsolved issues,
Director Nielsen recommended tabling this request pending redesign of the house.
Dewey Carter, owner of the property, stated he had designed this house in this manner in trying to work
with the WCA guidelines. He stated he would examine the feasibility of redesigning the house as a
rambler, anticipating with this redesign in style, a difference of 15 feet in depth from original plans. He
believed the MCWD would be willing to compromise with the City on setback issues, but he encouraged
the City to enhance its communication process with the MCWD in matters such as this one.
Mike Histon, 26220 Wild Rose, questioned whether the property had been purchased in February of this
year, and whether the current owner was aware of the severe flooding taking place every spring in that
area. He also questioned the rationale for a 50-foot front yard setback. Director Nielsen explained the
purpose of the setback was to create a minimum amount of green space throughout the City. Mr. Histon
then commented should the variance be granted with the originally proposed plan, the house would stick
out into the front yard area from the other houses on the street, and he would no longer be able to see
children playing down the street as was possible now.
.
William Rudolph, 23365 Noble Road, stated the drainage system in the area had recently been upgraded.
In spite of this upgrade, the drainage system on that corner had crested last year, and he requested serious
consideration be given to the drainage in that area. He also stated he was surprised to learn the lot had
been sold after being on the market for so many years as a result of poor drainage on the lot. He also
expressed concern for the current design of the house. He stated he viewed the corner as an entrance to
the Noble Road neighborhood, and he thought the house being located so close to the road would detract
from the entrance to the neighborhood. He also expressed concern for the potential effect on property
values in the neighborhood should approval be given to this original design. He further encouraged
maintaining a consistent design style of homes in the area. In addition, he commented the house would be
positioned where the majority of mature trees were located on the site. He encouraged the Commission to
consider the need for maintaining this area for aesthetics and wildlife.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M.
Commissioner White stated she had visited the site and wondered the amount of fill required for building.
Direct Nielsen responded he anticipated it would require approximately two feet of fill on the site to
alleviate the drainage.
Mr. Carter, in response to Commissioner Borkon's question, responded he did not presently intend to
reside in the house being built on site.
Commissioner Woodruff commented she was concerned with the anticipated amount of fill being
required on the site to alleviate any drainage, as it was so close to a wetland area. She also was concerned
with potential flooding on the property for any future property owner, and she did not believe the design
was fitting for the property as presented. She also thought efforts should be made to preserve and
enhance the wetland as there was neighborhood concern for it as well.
.
Commissioner Gagne stated he had visited the site and knew there had been significant drainage concerns
for the area as water rapidly moved through the lot in springtime. He also noted the lot had not been built
upon previously for a reason, and he had difficulty changing the rules to accommodate this building plan.
He suggested the proposed house should be able to be built within the current regulations or other
alternatives should be examined for the lot.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December4, 2001
Page 3 of 5
. Commissioner Pisula agreed with Commissioner Gagne stating he believed it would be best to table this
matter. He sited issues with water and design as issues to be remedied.
Commissioner Gagne stated as people had built over the years, prime buildable space had been utilized
leaving questionable sites for potential development. He cautioned the Commission to be aware of setting
precedents in matters such as this one.
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded, tabling a Request for a Setback Variance until the second meeting
of the Planning Commission in January, 2002, for D. Carter, 26330 Noble Road.
Mr. Carter stated he had currently possessed soil tests, and he knew where the water table was on the site.
In addition, he believed interior and exterior drain tiling efforts would alleviate potential drainage
concerns for any future homeowner. He requested approximately 30-45 days to complete the redesign of
the home and provide the City with requested information.
Motion passed 7/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - MAXIMUM
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REGULATIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen distributed and reviewed a draft Zoning Code Text Amendment regarding the
Impervious Surface Limitations for Lots Not in the Shoreland District. He explained the maximum ratio
of impervious surface to lot area for all lots not in the "S", Shoreland District, would include residential
uses in the R-IA through R-3B zoning districts as being 33%. In governmental and various public and
semi-publicly used buildings, the maximum was recommended as being 66% provided two criteria
pertaining to structures, practices, and measures for storm water runoff were met. In addition, the
recommended maximum for Commercial districts was 66%, provided four criteria pertaining to proposed
site development setback requirements and structures, practices, and measures for storm water runoff
were met. The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area was not to exceed 75% in Commercial
districts as well. Planned Unit Developments (PUD's) were to be regulated based upon the various uses
designated within the PUD, with appropriate provisions for uses detailed in respective sections of the
amendment.
Director Nielsen also commented the City had been requesting hardcover calculations over the past few
years, and upon review, he noticed a majority of the properties met the 25% hardcover limitations even
though the properties were located outside the "s" district. He also stated should a "mixed use" property
be in this district than both restrictions would apply respectively.
Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:41 P.M., as there
was no one present wishing to address the Commission on this issue.
Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Pisula's question, explained the recommended maximum
of 33% for impervious surface was approximately mid-range when compared with other neighboring
communities limitations in this district. He stated most commercial land in Shorewood had been
developed and in some cases, redeveloped. He believed these limitations to be reasonable with regard to
potential development in the future.
. Commissioner Woodruff stated she thought the proposed text amendment was significant, as many
members of the community had expressed concern for maintaining green space within the City.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December4, 2001
Page 4 of 5
. Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the Draft Zoning Code Text Amendment regarding
the Impervious Surface Limitations for Lots Not in the Shoreland District. Motion passed 7/0.
3. APPLE RIDGE P.U.D. - FINAL PLAN STAGE
Applicant: Roy Lecy
Location: 6185 Apple Road
Director Nielsen reviewed the history of the proposed plans for the Apple Ridge Planned Unit
Development, noting there were significant concerns expressed from the public and Commission
regarding concept and development plans for this site in August of this year. As a result, the final
plan/plat was to be referred back to the Commission in advance of the Council's review of the final
documents. He then noted the Final Plat; Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan; Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; Declaration of Driveway Easement and Maintenance
Agreement; and Conservation Easement were submitted for the Commission's review. He also noted the
developer would be able to connect to the W oodhaven water system, eliminating the need for the fire
access turn-around, resulting in considerably less site alteration. In addition, he complimented the
applicant on his efforts to include plantings that would supply aesthetic separation between the buildings
as well as along the driveway and beside Apple Road. Also, he stated a Conservation Easement was
being granted over Outlot A, and Outlot B was anticipated to be purchased and combined with another
neighboring lot to the north of the proposed development. He further noted this item was scheduled for
review as part of the December 10,2001, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
.
The Commission agreed the final plans had been greatly enhanced from the original proposal. Council
Liaison Lizee stated she appreciated the efforts by the Commission to review plans prior to Council
review if the Commission had concerns.
Mark Themig, 21705 Lilac Lane, asked for clarification regarding the potential sale and combination of
Outlot B. Director Nielsen explained he anticipated the property would be sold and conveyed with a
neighboring property within 90 days. As the Commission had requested a final review only, there was no
formal action required on this matter.
STUDY SESSION
4. REVIEW DRAFT ORDINANCE - LANDSCAPING/SCREENING REQUIREMENTS
Director Nielsen reviewed suggested changes by the Commission from a previous meeting in which the
Commission requested clarification regarding the need for seeding and sodding within disturbed
landscaping areas. In addition, references to the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen
would be included in the ordinance to provide residents with additional help regarding planting materials.
Also, submission requirements for residential properties would include a plan submitted identifying
aggressive, invasive, exotic plants for management and eradication. He also encouraged the Commission
to notify him prior to December 10,2001, with any additional proposed changes to the ordinance.
5. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
.
Director Nielsen next reviewed the remainder of the subdivision ordinance for the Commission. This
portion of the ordinance included proposed regulations regarding various issues relating to design
standards; public land; required basic improvements; non-platted subdivisions; variances and Planning
Commission recommendations; and violations and penalties to this ordinance.
...
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December4, 2001
Page 5 of5
The Commission made additional suggestions for change and Director Nielsen stated a final draft would
be available to the Commission in January, 2002.
Because the first meeting of the Planning Commission for the Year 2002, would fall on a holiday, the
Commission agreed to meet on January 8, 2002, in Study Session format, and on January 15,2002, in
Regular Meeting format.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Victoria Blaylock-Schmitt, 24295 Yellowstone Trail, requested information on the outcome of the
neighborhood meeting regarding a potential trail along Yellowstone Trail. In addition, she suggested the
implementation of two "No Left Turn" signs along the route from the County Road 19/Country Club
Road intersection to Highway 7 as possible deterrents for cut-through traffic in that area. Director
Nielsen explained the outcome of the neighborhood meeting and thanked her for her suggestions.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a request for Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space, a Lot line
Rearrangement, and review of the final draft for the subdivision ordinance were slated for the Planning
Commission Meeting Agenda of January 15,2002.
8. REPORTS
__.. Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 26,2001,
...... Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
Council Liaison Lizee stated the Visioning Project was progressing on schedule. As part of this project, a
survey for all family members was available on-line and linked to the City website. She encouraged all
residents to complete this survey.
Chair Bailey shared a brief historic profile of variance requests heard before the Planning Commission
and Council in the past few years. The Commission thanked Chair Bailey for his hard work in preparing
this information.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 4,
2001, at 9:16 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary