Loading...
2003 planning minutes . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2003 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. Roll Call Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:08 P.M.), Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · December 3, 2002 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, approving the December 3, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 3, Sentence 5, change "area wanted to live" to "areas like to live," and on Page 2, Sentence 1 of same item, change "would be sold to mortgage" to "would be sold to owner," and on Page 2, Paragraph 2, omit the sentence "Also, a homeowner was expected to pay taxes on the property and could make certain improvements to the home, however, if the homeowner could not pay the property taxes, the Land Trust would get involved to recoup the taxes." And on Page 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, change "a realtor to pay market rate for a home, and the Land Trust would then own the property" to "a realtor to assess market rate for a home, and the Land Trust would then purchase the property," and on Page 4, Item 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, add "(frontage road for Highway 7) immediately following "for an arterial street, " and on Page 4, Item 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3, change "requirements as" to "requirements, as." Motion passed 6/0/1, with Packard abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR OUTDOOR AUTO SALES Applicant: Shorewood Auto Sales Location: 19245 Highway 7 This item was deleted from the Agenda prior to the beginning of the meeting. 2. NOMINATE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR FOR 2003 Commissioner Pisula nominated Chair Bailey for another term as Chair in 2003. Chair Bailey accepted the nomination, stating he was honored and appreciated the continued support. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending the Reappointment of Chair Bailey for the Year 2003. Motion passed 7/0. Commissioner White nominated Commissioner Pisula to act as Co-chair for 2003. Commissioner Pisula accepted the nomination, noting he would graciously serve the Commission for the next year. White moved, Packard seconded, Recommending the Reappointment of Commissioner Pisula as Co-chair for the Year 2003. Motion passed 7/0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 2 of 5 3. DISCUSS HORSE AND PONY REGULATIONS Director Nielsen explained the City Council had requested the Commission revisit this ordinance and make a recommendation on the matter. He thanked Commissioner Woodruff for all her efforts in obtaining background information from other municipalities and agencies for discussion this evening. He also noted examination of this issue this evening would most likely require a second discussion, as there were no specific regulations obtained regarding miniature horses. Director Nielsen also explained review of the ordinance was necessitated, as a resident had requested two miniature horses be allowed on his property, and concerns for appropriate setback areas had been expressed in the review process. Director Nielsen then summarized information presented in the table below. City Number Confinement Shelter Shelter Minimum Lot Allowed ArealPasture Required Setback Size Shorewood 2 (3 wlCouncil .5 acre per Yes 50 feet from NIA approval) head prop. Line Chanhassan NIA 2 with 1.5 Yes 100 feet from a 1 acre acres residential 3 with 2 acres structure 40r more with .33 acre per head Chaska 5 depending on 1 per acre NIA 100 feet from 2.5 acres zoning district residential structure Independence 11 (More with 2 per Yes ? 5 acres (Proposed additional "grazeable" reeulation approval) acre or CUP onlY} Orono NIA 1 acre NIA 150 feet from 2 acres exclusive of 1 prop. line acre for house, 2 acres per 150 feet from horse residence 2+ with 2 acres 75 feet from plus 1 acre per property line horse He noted special notes had been made for the City of Chanhassan where horses needed to be maintained at a distance of 100 feet from a well. Special notes had also been made for the City of Orono, which allowed horses through the Conditional Use Permitting process in residential areas. The City ofWaconia allowed horses in agriculturally zoned areas only. Commissioner Woodruff stated she had also contacted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Hennepin Conservation District, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies either had nothing specific to small numbers of horses in their regulations, or left regulatory information to the cities comprised in the districts. Director Nielsen stated some City ordinances did address units of animals, but many of the ordinances had their own distinctions and ratios. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 3 of 5 . Commissioner Woodruff stated Drew Fitzpatrick, of the Hoofed Animal Rescue Service for the Humane Society, had provided information specific to miniature horses. Two classes of miniature horses existed classified according to height and weight. The first class allowed horses up to 32 inches in height, with horses typically weighing from 175 to 200 pounds, and the second class allowed horses up to 38 inches in height, with weight from 200 pounds up to 500 pounds. Commissioner Woodruff reported miniature horses needed to be allowed to graze, and would make manure at least three times daily. These horses would often live between 30-40 years, and were bothered by bugs, especially mosquitoes, as well as possibly harboring communicable diseases, such as ringworm. Further reporting noted concerns related to disposal of manure and bedding, as well as appropriate storage of feed and bedding materials. Ms. Fitzpatrick had indicated her opinion that miniature horses needed 2.5 acres to graze, per horse, and would also need hay in the winter when foraging was not available. Chair Bailey asked Jerry Cutts, resident of Shorewood, for his knowledge on the subject of miniature horses. Mr. Cutts stated his knowledge, gleaned from people owning miniature horses for 25 years, was not in agreement with the information shared by Ms. Fitzpatrick. He stated information obtained from the Miniature Horse Association stated approximately three miniature horses would equate to a single equine unit. He stated further information could be gained from the Association's website, however, he was concerned about issues related to the number of horses allowed per acre, food, shelter, and other needs specific to the miniature horses. He noted his information from miniature horse owners in Dassel, Minnesota, indicated these horses could be fed hay as a way to control output. Communicable diseases were easily handled as they were with other domesticated animals and horses. . Commissioner Borkon questioned the environmental impact of the waste produced by the miniature horses. No specific information was available to be shared on this topic at this time, and Director Nielsen stated it could be made part of a later discussion with further research. Chair Bailey stated Mr. Cutts's interest in this issue included two parts, including issues of setback and the allowable number of horses per acre. Chair Bailey suggested the issue be discussed at this point in time with regard to those two areas. Commissioner White stated she could understand the rationale in distinguishing between miniature horses and full-size horses. Commissioner Gagne stated order was being maintained through current regulation in this matter, and he saw no reason to change them at this point. Director Nielsen stated Mr. Cutts was requesting the City distinguish between miniature horses and full- size horses, regulate standards to allow for provision of these animals through the Conditional Use Process, and consider large animals in the ordinances for other individuals. Mr. Cutts expressed concern for common sense in the regulation in terms of equine units. He noted, while information specifically related to miniature horses was difficult to locate, it did not make sense to compare and classify an animal slightly larger than a St. Bernard dog to that of a full-size horse. Commissioner Pisula stated there was no information presented thus far in the discussion to change the equine distinction. He suggested the burden of that distinction should fall to the applicant in this matter, as the material presented in other municipalities indicated equine units were considered the same. . Mr. Cutts noted certain municipalities had made distinctions for other animals, such as a 3:1 ratio for llamas, and he believed that distinction indicated differentiation between species in regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 4 of 5 . Chair Bailey stated, when considering the information presented by Commissioner Woodruff, and the applicant's request for two miniature horses, where allowances for horses on the site could be found in the regulations, indicated to him that there was no compelling need to change current ordinances. The applicant's request was more an issue of setback regulation than distinction between equine units. The Commission indicated there was no need to change the number of equine units in the current ordinance. With regard to setback issues, Director Nielsen stated there had been no complaints regarding any of the residential horse properties in the City. Also, the same kinds of issues discussed earlier would be present in discussion of the appropriate setback, and he would not recommend decreasing the setback area for a full-size horse for the applicant in this case. Mr. Cutts stated he was in agreement with the 50-foot setback in the ordinance, but asked the Commission to consider each request on an individual basis, as some properties were better configured to handle the horses and were not in compliance. In his case, he was not certain it made a great deal of sense to move the current barn to the allowable setback area due to the nature of his property. Chair Bailey commented that if the 50-foot setback was considered by all to be appropriate in a residential neighborhood, and the surrounding lots were developed, a potential problem could exist by allowing less than 50 feet in the setback area. . Mr. Cutts stated he greatly appreciated all the people involved in this matter in trying to find a workable solution to his situation. He thought Shorewood had a semi-rural character, and was a good place to raise a family. He stated he could understand the Commission's hesitation to change the regulations for an individual, and he would be happy to consider working on this issue with the Commission as well as other future landowners. He further stated he did not think the Commission would be getting a large number of requests regarding this issue, and for that reason, asked that each case be considered on an individual basis. He appreciated all the time spent on this issue, and thanked the Commission for working with him this evening as well. Director Nielsen stated further discussion on this ordinance would need to take place at a later date. He suggested the Commission and Staff take a closer look at the site in question, obtain more information regarding miniature horses, and then hold a discussion to further examine the issue of allowing exceptions to the horse and pony ordinance at a later date. The Commission agreed. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:40 P.M. 4. DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM FOR 2003 . Director Nielsen reviewed the Work Program goals presented by the Commission for 2003. The Commission briefly reviewed the possible time line for discussion of the proposed goals for the remainder of the year. Ideas presented included the Horse and Pony Ordinance Study, Historic Preservation Study, County Road 19 Corridor Study, issues related to the Comprehensive Plan, Housing, Zoning, and the Annual GTS Seminar. Commissioner Woodruff requested further discussion ofthe Right-of-Way Ordinance, and a Study ofNURP ponds in the City be added to the list as well. The Commission was in agreement with inclusion of all ideas presented this evening for the Work Plan for 2003. Commissioner White departed the meeting at 9:08 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 7, 2003 Page 5 of 5 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the Agenda items for the January 21,2003, Planning Commission Meeting remained to be determined with final implementation of the Work Plan goals for 2003. He noted a review of the Park Master Plan would be on the Study Session Agenda for that meeting. 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 16, 2002, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Gagne requested feedback from the Commission regarding the proposal submitted by St. John the Baptist Church for a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Text Amendment. The Commission recommended the City revisit the idea of acquiring the strip of land adjacent to Highway 7, currently owned by Minnesota Department of Transportation, for conservation open space, and recommended unanimously against the City participating in discussions regarding a previously discussed "land swap" between MNDot, the City, and St. John the Baptist Church and Cemetery as recommended by the neighbors at the most recent Council Meeting. · Liaison to LCEC There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting. · SLUC There would be a meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition on Wednesday, January 29,2003, at the Doubletree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, from 11 :30 A.M.-2:00 P.M. The topic of discussion was titled "New Governor, 60 New Legislators, and a $4.5 Billion Deficit- What's Next?" All interested parties were invited to attend, and encouraged to register early, as seating was limited. · Other No other business was presented for discussion this evening. 8. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 7, 2003, at 9:28 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4,2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived 7: 10 P.M.), Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES . January 7, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the January 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 1, "Roll Call, remove Council Liaison Lizee from the Absent portion of the Roll Call." Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTIREZONE- CAPESTONE P.U.D. Applicant: Location: Capestone Builders 20775 Manor Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public Hearing process. He further explained any items recommended for approval would be slated for the February 24, 2003, Regular City Council Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained Capestone Builders proposed building 12 twin-homes on the property located at 20775 Manor Road. In order to accomplish this type of development they had requested an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation for the property from "Minimum Density Residential (0-1 units per acre)" to "Medium Density Residential (3-6 units per acre)". They also had requested concept stage approval for a rezoning from R-IA1S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland to a P.U.D. district. The property was comprised of four parcels of land, one of which was originally thought to have been located in Greenwood in error, but was actually designated as part of Shorewood. There were 11.1 acres of land, of which 3.4 acres existed as wetland. Director Nielsen also noted the rugged terrain, with dramatically changing topography and elevation. The elevation of the wetland area was approximately 934 while the steep, cliff-like embankment forming northeast comer rose to an elevation of 1015, a difference of over 80 feet. Director Nielsen also went on to review the distribution of trees on the property, most of which were located around the perimeter of the property and on the higher ground near Excelsior Boulevard. Historically, Director Nielsen stated, the site was originally mined as a gravel pit prior to the establishment of the site as an automobile salvage yard. Director Nielsen believed both these designations occurred prior to the formation of Shorewood as a City. The subject site was presently occupied by Carmichael's Auto Salvage, with the home of the current owner situated in the northwest comer of the site. Four outbuildings associated with the salvage operation were situated in the center of the site. The subject property was currently zoned R-IA1S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland. Land uses and zoning to the north included single-family residential zoned R-IA1S; to the east single-family residential and two-family residential, zoned R-IA1S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 2 oflO . and R-2A1S, Single and Two-Family Residential, respectively; to the south Excelsior Boulevard and State Highway 7; and to the east single-family residential (in Greenwood). The developer proposed building 12 twin-homes (24 units) on the property, leaving the existing single- family home in the northwest comer of the site. The twinhome units in the proposed plan were intended to be conceptual, but were patterned after the new twinhomes under construction on County Road 19. Access to the development would come from Excelsior Boulevard with the proposed road being privately owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. A pond, designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards, was proposed near Manor Road to address site drainage. Director Nielsen stated there were two issues present in this case that must be considered. The first was a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He explained the subject property was designated as an "area of further study" and was also originally designated for higher density in an earlier edition of the Comprehensive Plan. The intent in that plan was to provide for a variety of housing choices, with higher densities near major roadways. Also, it was intended to create an incentive for the redevelopment of a nonconforming and potentially environmentally problematic site. Staff suggested the Commission review the goals and policy sections of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Natural Resources and Land Use sections. . Environmental conditions were a key concern relative to any redevelopment of the site. The present owner had stated he had worked with the Pollution Control Agency over the years, however, the developer's engineer had stated a Phase I environmental study had been completed, and a Phase II study was nearing completion. Preliminary soil testing confirmed the presence of some soil contamination. Director Nielsen noted any redevelopment of the site would be subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA) standards and requirements. The second issue to consider in this request was the rezoning needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Director Nielsen noted the developer had requested the designation be changed from "Minimum Density Residential) 0-1 units per acre" to "Medium Density Residential (3-6 units per acre)" to accommodate the proposed development. Staff had calculated the density of the project as 3.2 units per acre, based upon the net area of this site after wetland and road areas were subtracted. In consideration of the how best to establish the implementation of the amendment, Director Nielsen stated the developer's request for establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district would prove the most beneficial for all parties concerned. He then reviewed the process utilized in the formation of a PUD district, noting the standards established in a development agreement would serve as the zoning requirements for the project, and would allow the City to retain a great deal of planning control over the area. Director Nielsen also noted correspondence had been received from a number of residents, most located in the City of Greenwood, noting concern for increased traffic onto Manor Road. Director Nielsen stated the developer had agreed to use Excelsior Boulevard as a main entrance for the project, with only the owner's single-family home accessing directly onto Manor Road, thus, quelling those concerns. Also, a request had been received asking the cities of Greenwood and Shorewood to work together to request the developer provide a pedestrian walkway near the edge of the property. Director Nielsen stated it would be very difficult to request the developer provide work offsite, especially in another city, as the result of this request. He stated this concern could better be handled through the Park Commission trail policy as well as asking the Park Commission to examine possible options for park dedication fees for this project. . Director Nielsen went on to state there were several issues requiring further consideration in this matter. Specifically, he stated, there were issues to be considered should the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning be favorably considered, such as a 35-foot wetland buffer and l5-foot setback from the buffer, consistent with Shorewood's wetland protection requirements. Also, it was recommended that PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 3 of 10 . future reforestation and landscape plans for the project provide for protection and restoration of wetland vegetation, particularly on the developed side of the wetland. The rear yard setback at the perimeter of the site was shown as 30 feet. The Zoning Code provided this setback should reflect the zoning requirement of adjoining properties. As a result, the setback adjacent to the south 265 feet of the easterly lot line (abutting the R-2A district) should be 40 feet. The setback for the rest of the property should be 50 feet, reflective of R-IA standards. While this would require some modification of either the building design for units 23/24 or possibly the site plan, the remainder of the site easily accommodated the suggested 50-foot requirement. Assuming that the existing home would have its own lot, its setback from the north property line would be 10 feet. Considerable separation would exist between the proposed development and existing homes, by virtue of topography, distance and vegetation. Buildings must be set back at least 20 feet from the proposed road, and traffic projections were considered light. Design of the private road should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the local Fire Marshal. In addition to the two parking spaces required for each unit, the developer had wisely provided additional guest parking areas in strategic locations. Director Nielsen went on to explain it was expected that the twinhomes would be subdivided for individual ownership. With respect to the wetland area, he noted a protective covenant should be required to ensure this parcel remained undeveloped and legally tied to the rest of the project. Furthermore, Director Nielsen stated the developer had expressed an interest in extending municipal water to the project. If the increased density was to be approved, this should be a requirement, as it was important to realize such an extension would provide a very valuable piece of the connection between the Amesbury and Southeast Area water systems. . The City Engineer had reviewed the proposal and found the sanitary sewer system adequate to handle the proposed development of the property. In addition, the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed request with regard to right-of-way, roadway, and easements, as well as grading drainage, and erosion control. Concerns remained regarding the proposed retaining walls planned for the property. Specifically, the City Engineer had suggested approval be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant should continue to work with the City to resolve issues regarding the extension of municipal water service to the site. 2. All retaining walls over 4.0 feet should be designated and certified by a registered professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 3. The applicant's engineer should demonstrate, as part of the preliminary plan submittal, positive drainage around all of the proposed unites. A 2.0 percent longitudinal slope was to be maintained from the rear yard areas, or inclusion of stormwater leads. 4. Preliminary grading plans should denote proposed floor elevations and the lowest allowable floor elevation on the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans. 5. The retaining wall adjacent to the proposed NURP pond should be located a minimum of 10 feet from the pond slope. 6. The applicant's engineer should also provide documentation regarding the ability to replace the retaining wall on the north side of the road once the proposed units were in place. 7. The applicant's engineer should provide the City with two copies of the Phase I and Phase II environmental studies as part of the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans. . Director Nielsen then reviewed the stages utilized in the planning process for a proposed project such as this one, and noted the Commission might wish to continue the discussion of the proposed plans, pending receipt of the completed environmental studies for the site. He also noted final plans for the project would be incorporated into a development agreement and declaration of protective covenants. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 4 of 10 Director Nielsen introduced Brian Harju, owner of Capestone Builders, and Roger Anderson, the applicant's engineer, to the Commission. Brian Harju, owner of Capestone Development, stated his grandfather, Stan Carmichael, had always thought the site a prime location for a residential community, as he thought the existing buffer isolated the piece from other properties. Mr. Harju also noted he had spoken to Bruce Carmichael, and the timing was right to move forward with the project. He stated he was aware there were concerns regarding the soil contamination as it had been an auto salvage yard for the past forty-two years, and he knew the contamination on site would have to be dealt with as part of this project. He stated he was currently working on a project in Deephaven with similar soil contamination issues, thus, he believed he could adequately handle the soil problems on this project as well. He noted the architectural design of the garages had been moved forward, however, the width and depth of the lots were left intact as planned. He explained the target market for these twinhomes, and noted he believed there was a market in Shorewood for housing such as was planned. He also explained the plans included a change to a new driveway location proving beneficial for traffic as movement to two major intersections could be gained without having to utilize Manor Road. Roger Anderson, the applicant's engineer, stated the Phase I environmental study was considered a necessary first step for anyone pursuing redevelopment of this site, and the Phase II testing currently nearing completion included soil sampling, which he anticipated would include diesel range oils and volatile organic compounds, including elements found in gas, such as naphthalene. He noted these organic compounds could percolate to the groundwater, and the site could also potentially contain asbestos and PCB's. The initial results of the testing showed one main area utilized in the past to disassemble engines and seemed to be limited to an area behind the outbuildings where fuel was drained and then was reused on the site. Results also showed some diesel range fuels in the upper areas of the site, but he indicated this was manageable and would require soil scraping and further remediation. He stated tests would continue to be conducted in a test pit once the ground thawed. Further results also indicated there were small amounts of chemical present in the water on site; however, these were believed to be under the threshold set forth by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). Mr. Anderson indicated further steps included review of the findings and development of a work plan specifying findings, clean- up, and further remediation of the site for the PCA. The PCA then determined if the proposed work plan and subsequent site plans could be accomplished. Mr. Anderson further stated this process was a progressive event, and until findings were conclusive and the work plan approved, nothing would be done to the site. With regard to other areas of concern, he noted there were inconsistencies shown on various maps of the municipalities of Greenwood and Shorewood, however, final determination indicated the wetland area, once believed to part of Greenwood, was actually located in Shorewood. He further thought the proposed plan included a workable site layout, as no building would occur near the wetland area, and the NURP pond was being designed to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) guidelines. He stated the design team for the project would like to continue negotiations regarding the watermain. Mr. Anderson also stated a representative of Capestone Builders had visited neighbors that had given favorable reactions to the project. While Director Nielsen had recommended waiting for the findings from the PCA, Mr. Anderson proposed having the Planning Commission indicate some consensus for the project prior to moving forward. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 7:57 P.M., and departed until 8:11 P.M. Vice-Chair Pisula reconvened the meeting at 8:03 P.M. Wayne Heinz, 5270 St. Alban's Bay, questioned what opportunities would be present for him should the watermain be located in his area. Director Nielsen stated it was unlikely the watermain would be located close enough to his house for him to take advantage of the situation. Mr. Heinz also stated he favored the project and did not see any detriment to the area from the proposed plans. Mrs. Heinz, of the same PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 5oflO . address, agreed stating she thought property values would increase as a result of the proposal, and thus, she was also in favor of the project. Tom Talmo, 5290 St. Alban's Bay Road, stated he was in favor of the project, but requested evergreens be implemented into the landscape plan for the border along the steep embankment on the property to provide year round screening for the site. Suzanne Busta, 5300 St. Alban's Bay Road, questioned the amount of mature tree loss for the project. Director Nielsen explained most of the tree loss would occur around the perimeter of the site. Kevin Wehrmann, of Capestone Builders, stated he had visited 18 of 22 surrounding households with no opposition for the project. The main concerns stated in those visits included concern for tree loss and fencing. He noted Capestone was willing to work with the neighbors to find a satisfactory solution for all parties. Vice-Chair Pisula closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M., and Chair Bailey returned to the meeting assuming his role as Chair. Director Nielsen explained, in response to Commissioner Gagne's question, that the process of providing municipal water to surrounding neighborhoods would best be requested through a petitioning process, as it would not be feasible for the majority of the surrounding neighbors to obtain municipal water as a result of this project at this point in time. . Director Nielsen also reviewed the timing of the planning process as it coincided with the environmental pollution studies for the site. He noted the actual rezoning would take place in the final stage of the PUD approval, and if there were problems with the pollution studies, the zoning would revert back to its original designation if the project were not to take place as planned. Commissioner Borkon questioned the ramifications of the groundwater contamination over time for residents. Mr. Anderson stated the problems with contamination had occurred over time long ago, and the only action to be taken as an immediate solution was to stop the contamination. He also noted the findings were considered small, and efforts would need to be made to work with PCA to authorize the water for the highest acceptable use. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern for the loss of trees on the site as well as issues surrounding the proposed retaining wall. Mr. Anderson stated all mature trees would be lost in the center of the site to provide level grading area for the twin-homes. With regard to the retaining wall, he also explained the intent was to provide a boulder retaining wall approximately four feet in height. Should the boulder wall not be appropriate for certain areas due to constraints in topography, he anticipated a keystone retaining wall system would be utilized. He also stated he would be willing to work with design team and City Engineer to find an appropriate solution to the retaining wall concerns outlined by the City Engineer. The Commission then clarified issues regarding street width, fencing atop the proposed retaining wall, and amount of traffic appropriate to Excelsior Boulevard. . Chair Bailey questioned whether a trail had been considered through the project to provide links to local neighborhoods and parks. Mr. Anderson stated nothing had been considered for the interior of the site at this time, and to place a trail along the perimeter of the site would further remove vegetation and require additional grading in an already tough topographical area. Director Nielsen suggested referring the issue to the Park Commission for further discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 6 of 10 . Commissioners Borkon and Woodruff both requested final conclusions of the Phase II Environmental Study prior to making a final recommendation on these requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Chair Bailey stated members of the Planning Commission seemed sympathetic to the ideas presented this evening, but were not willing to make a final recommendation on the matter pending outstanding environmental issues. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing on this matter to the March 4, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion. Motion passed 7/0. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Directing Staff to route this application to the Park Commission to review exploration of utilizing a trail in this project. Motion passed 7/0. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SPRUCE fiLL 2ND ADDN Applicant: Strategic Holdings, Inc. Location: 25110 Yellowstone Trail Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:40 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained representatives of Strategic Holdings, Inc. had purchased the lot at 25110 Yellowstone Trail and proposed subdividing it into two lots. The property was zoned R-IA, Single- Family Residential and contained 81,400 square feet of area. A single-family home and two outbuildings currently occupied the site. The driveway serving the home would be rerouted from Spruce Hill Court to Yellowstone Trail. Since it will cut across the corner of the newly created lot, an easement would need to be established in favor of the westerly lot. There was no indication on the preliminary plat as to where a driveway would be placed for the new lot; however, it was anticipated to be located on Spring Hill Court. It is worth noting that the subject property was originally shown as two lots on the plat of Spruce Hill, and at the time the final plat was approved, the developer decided to keep the southerly two lots as one. Director Nielsen further explained both of the proposed lots contained 40,700 square feet in area, meeting the minimum area requirement for the R-IA zoning district. The lots also complied with minimum width and area requirements. He also noted that the setbacks for the easterly lot had been shown incorrectly. The north side of the lot was, by definition, the rear of the lot. Consequently, the setback from the north lot line was 50 feet, instead of 10. The westerly lot then would become a side lot line, where only a 10- foot setback would then be required. Sanitary sewer service for the existing home came from Yellowstone Trail. A second service existed on Yellowstone Trail that could serve the new lot, or it could be served by a service installed as part of the original Spruce Hill plat. Existing trees on the lot were not affected by the subdivision; therefore, tree preservation and reforestation could be addressed at the time of application for a building permit. . Staff recommended the preliminary plat be approved subj ect to the following: 1. The final plat must include the description "Block 1". . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 7 of 10 2. Drainage and utility easements must be provided, 10 feet on each side of the newly created lot line. 3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for the property. 4. The two accessory buildings on the lot must be moved to the westerly lot or removed from the site. The plat indicated that they would be removed. 5. Prior to release of a final plat for the subdivision, the applicant must pay $1500 in park dedication fees and $1200 in local sanitary sewer charges. Credit had been allowed for the lot with the existing home on it. 6. The applicant must submit the final plat within six months of the Council's approval of the preliminary plat. Once a final plat would be approved, the applicant must record the action within 30 days of Council approval. Matt Cookson, of Island View Road, stated he was the developer for the project, and he would be available to answer any questions the Commission may have had of him. Nina Slattery, 6100 Spruce Hill Court, questioned the setbacks for the project, the maintenance of grounds throughout the Planning process, and the timing of the removal of the garage, gazebo, and outbuildings on the site. Director Nielsen explained a 50' setback would be imposed; the owner of the property was responsible for the continued maintenance of the property throughout the Planning process; and the structures typically would be removed with six months of application for a building permit. He further explained he was not aware of any additional covenants and restrictions required by the City for this site. Curt Ahart, 6090 Spruce Hill Court, clarified issues regarding the original platting and replatting of the project. He also questioned the ownership and potential future sale of the property. David Thorpe, of Deephaven, Minnesota, responded he had purchased both the newly created lot, and the existing lot and house, with the intention of presenting the idea of potential sale and redevelopment to builders. Ron Hume, 6064 Spruce Hill Court, clarified issues pertaining to ownership of the current property. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing. Council Liaison Lizee departed the meeting at 8:57 P.M. Commissioner White questioned why the easement to the driveway was necessary. Director Nielsen explained the topography of the site was of concern, and it became more practical to rearrange lot lines to include a new driveway with the westerly parcel and still maintain minimum width requirements. Pisula moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to Staff recommendations, including a six-month limit from the date of final plat approval, for removal of all outbuildings on the site. Motion passed 7/0. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: David LaRose Location: 5965 Chaska Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 8 oflO Director Nielsen explained the applicant had requested a five-foot side-yard setback variance to build an attached garage and room addition on his home at 5965 Chaska Road, located in the R-IC/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district, and contained approximately 40,667 square feet of area. Director Nielsen also explained a partial survey of the property. There appeared to be a discrepancy between the submitted survey and Hennepin County records According to the County, the applicant also owned the area where his current driveway entered the property from Chaska Road. The applicant had marked the survey with features such as sewer, gas and overhead power, however the survey did not show an existing accessory building on the site and should be updated to include this structure. Nor did the survey show what appeared to be a small wetland area in the northwest corner of the site. Finally, the applicant's request letter references encroachment on an easement area. The easement does not appear on the survey. According to the survey the existing home contained approximately 1040 square feet of area on what appeared to be one level. The plans submitted were not adequate to show if additional basement area existed. The home was located on a level area originally cut from a steep embankment on the eastern half of the property. The applicant proposed building a 24' x 40' (960 square feet) garage on the south end of the house that would be connected to the house by a dining room, mud room and foyer addition, containing 400 square feet. A 1360 square-foot second story was proposed over the garage, and would contain a bedroom/loft area. Upon analysis, Director Nielsen reviewed the setbacks in this zoning district as being frontyard setbacks- 35'; rear-yard setbacks-40'; and setbacks for a sideyard abutting the street-35'. The applicant was proposing building his new addition approximately five feet from the south property line. Director Nielsen then reviewed the criteria for a variance, noting the basic test for a variance included whether the proposed work could be accomplished without a variance. He noted, in this case, with some simple redesign, the garage and room addition could be easily accommodated within the buildable area of the lot. Furthermore, in consideration of a moving the garage/addition forward, the addition would comply with the minimum ten-foot sideyard setback. Site alteration could also be reduced, and adequate space to accommodate drainage around the building would be supplied. He went on to state the redesign should include the location and size of the existing accessory structure in the front yard area. Assuming the redesign was less than 240 square feet in area, the total accessory space on the site would not exceed 1200 square feet and would not require a conditional use permit. It is important t the survey be updated to show all existing structures, the wetland and the current boundaries of the land as well. A tabulation of existing and proposed hardcover areas must be included on the survey, as the lot was limited to 25 percent impervious surface. David LaRose, 5965 Chaska Road, stated he had redesigned the home numerous times in preparation for this request, and to bring the design forward would require additional walls and fill to avoid drainage problems. He also stated with a "garage forward" design, he would lost his driveway and would be forced to make his house one unit pushed into the hilly area of his lot. He stated the proposed plan would allow better access to the backyard and hill area for his family. Mr. LaRose submitted a letter into record from Mr. Jim Mahoney, adjacent neighbor to the south located at 5985 Chaska Road, stating Mr. Mahoney was in support of the proposed plans. Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9: 12 P.M.. Upon hearing no one wishing to address the matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:12 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 9 oflO Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed with Director Nielsen and suggested the applicant examine options for redesign of the proposal to include construction in the buildable area of the lot. Commissioner Pisula concurred. Mr. LaRose stated he was aware it could be done, however, he was spending a considerable amount of money on this addition, and wanted to be aesthetically appealing for resale purposes. Chair Bailey reminded the applicant of the criteria involved in a variance, that specifically prohibited the Commission from considering the issue from an aesthetic or economic standpoint. Commissioner Borkon stated she was not completely in agreement with the interpretation of the variance criteria, as she believed reasonable use in variance issues to be a philosophical discussion. She questioned the applicant as to whether any other designs were appealing and workable within the lot area. Mr. LaRose responded other options had been considered, however, there were options that worked and options he preferred. He stated the frontyard of the property was valuable to his family, as the backyard was not useable due to the steep grade. Commissioner Borkon stated she believed these issues were arguments for reasonable use, and options presented by the Commission were not options as they were quite difficult to accomplish. Chair Bailey stated difficult plans were not the same as unworkable plans. While many redesigned plans might be different than what was wanted by the applicant, they could still be doable and thus eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Borkon stated she believed providing an attractive building to the community was valuable, and she did not see reasonable use being able to be made as result of redesign. Commissioner Gagne agreed. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Approval of a Setback Variance for David LaRose, 5965 Chaska Road. Motion failed 2/5, with Chair Bailey and Commissioners Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff dissenting. Director Nielsen reminded the applicant of his right to present this matter before Council to request this application be carried forward through the Planning process. He noted, with Mr. LaRose's consent, this matter had been placed on the February 24, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. Mr. LaRose thanked all parties present for time spent on the matter this evening. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M. 4. MET COUNCIL REVIEW COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Director Nielsen shared comments from the report authored by members of the Metropolitan Council (Met. Council) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued regarding expectations related to providing productivity in the Met. Council review portion of the February 18, 2003, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting, and how comments presented could be developed into additional potential items for inclusion on the Commission's Work Plan for the year. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 4, 2003 Page 10 oflO 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated items tentatively slated for the February 18,2003, Planning Commission Meeting included, a report from Tom Goodrum, of Met. Council, a status report on the Metro Transit Opt-Out Study being conducted by Lisa Raduenz, as well as continued discussion on the horse/pony ordinance for the City. 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 13 and January 27 Regular City Council Meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). He congratulated Commissioners Borkon and Pisula on reappointment to the Planning Commission for another term. · Liaison to LCEC There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting, thus, there was nothing new to report. · SLUC No report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition was available this evening. · Other There was no other business presented this evening. 8. ADJO~ENT Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 4, 2003, at 10:00 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS Date: C)~ - 0 Lt- 0 ~ Name: Address: Topic: QKo,A/O G~/V\lC~~ (I ~1 ~cA \\QOS\~~~ , ()Od L""'- v- v- ~ c.. "" \ ~ )} cf if '1 It Q \. . . OC:;l-~~ "-......0 ,L -" J " "\ r" C'1 '" V' -.,\ ~ 0" ~ '" yVl ~ '1-+ ")~ ~ -0 '... '\ ~ , .reo \" ---~ .. - '" ~ -:J:'f" <::J 0 -'?J ""t "\.j ~ v' ...,.., o? -...,... <> ~.,.,.,,, 5 -.r '" '1 z: · JOOt! -""-yT- ~<:!o V<~ Y"~"'J . \ ~~~ c>~ Q)~ . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 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, and White; Council Liaison Lizee, Planning Director Nielsen, and City Administrator Dawson. Absent: Commissioner Woodruff APPROVAL OF MINUTES · February 4, 2003 . Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the February 4, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended, on page 3, paragraph 2, combine sentences 5 and 6 by replacing period with a comma, and on page 9, Item 3, Paragraph 6, replace entire sentence "Chair Bailey stated difficult plans were different from..." with "Chair Bailey stated difficult plans were not the same as unworkable plans.' While many redesigned plans might be different than what was wanted by the applicant, they could still be doable, and thus eliminate the need for a variance." Motion passed 6/0. STUDY SESSION 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - REVIEW COMMENTS BY MET COUNCIL- TOM GOODRUM Director Nielsen introduced Tom Goodrum, and Robin Kaufman, representatives of Met Council to the Commission. Director Nielsen then reviewed the comments presented by Met. Council regarding housing density. He noted Met. Council had a goal of three units per acre, and the Capestone project was meeting that goal. He also referenced potential redevelopment sites with regard to mixed housing, and the need for rezoning adjustments to accommodate this type of housing. He believed the City should consider these rezoning issues for the future Mr. Goodrum explained the density and affordability goals for housing in the City. He was encouraged by the efforts put into the Comprehensive Plan in that the City had four sites for further consideration. He liked the L-R provision, Gideon Woods, the Capestone project, and the potential mixed use of the Xcel site for any future redevelopment. Chair Bailey questioned whether the Met. Council was suggesting higher densities for all remaining redevelopment. Mr. Goodrum explained no formal plans had been made for these housing issues, but Met. Council was encouraging Cities to examine the possibility for higher densities in housing, but ultimately it would remain a local decision. . Commissioner Borkon questioned how would transportation relate to future development issues. Mr. Goodrum explained Highway 7 would likely be more developed as well as along other transportation corridors. Local transit would likely change according to need. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 2 of 4 . With regard to historic preservation and solar access issues, Director Nielsen noted these items could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plans in appropriate sections. Others would be listed in the appendix chapter and sent to Met. Council. Mr. Goodrum commented Met. Council was encouraged and pleased with changes planned to the Comprehensive Plan. . . Director Nielsen then reviewed comments regarding the CIP, sewer issues, surface water management plans, water supply, transportation, tree preservation and reforestation, land use, maintenance of fire lanes, adoption and modification of the Lakeshore- Residential zoning districts, noting these items were being included in the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated he appreciated the efforts of Mr. Goodrum and Ms. Kaufman with regard to the review, and stated they had both been very helpful in moving these issues forward for implementation. With regard to affordable housing, Mr. Goodrum stated "affordable" was now considered $170,000. He stated Met. Council liked the idea of the Xcel site being utilized as a mixed-use housing development designated in the Compo Plan. He suggested the Commission consider this issue as it moved forward in hearing requests for changing the housing of certain sites. Commissioner Borkon questioned what incentive existed for homeowners to retain smaller affordable homes on properties instead of removing the house and building a larger more expensive home, thereby wiping out the affordability. Director Nielsen commented land prices were so expensive, that it was difficult to provide incentives as a City for this issue. Chair Bailey stated setbacks were one avenue to retaining smaller home sizes, and it continued to be a difficult problem to resolve. 2. HORSE AND PONY CODE DISCUSSION Director Nielsen reported discussion continued from the January Study Session regarding the Horse and Pony Section of the City Code pending additional information. Director Nielsen reviewed the request by Jerry Cutts, 23930 Smithtown Road, to house two miniature horses on his property. Director Nielsen noted Mr. Cutts was in attendance this evening, and then went on to review the site location, neighborhood setting and topography of the site, noting current Code requirements could allow Mr. Cutts to sustain two horses, if the entire dry area on site were fenced and used as the confinement area. By comparison, there was approximately 30,000 square feet between the front building line of the house and the wetland area. This area had already been fenced, and if this were to be considered the confinement area, one horse would be allowed under the current Code. Director Nielsen also asked Mr. Cutts about the amount of fencing existing on the property as it related to confinement area. Chair Bailey stated the issue was essentially that of setback requirements, and how best to work with these requirements. Director Nielsen then presented possible options for consideration regarding how best to work within the requirements of the horse and pony code. Commissioner Packard questioned whether the building could be moved. Mr. Cutts stated it was built recently upon a cement block foundation, and would be difficult to move. Chair Bailey stated it was difficult to understand why the barn shouldn't be located 50 feet from the property line, as that was the law, and he could not understand why the setback requirement should not be met. In response to Commissioner Borkon's question, Mr. Cutts stated the original intent of the current barn was not to house animals. Commissioner Packard questioned whether another structure could be built to accommodate the horses. Mr. Cutts stated a small shed could be located in the center of the property, however, the current structure would make more sense logically as it would house stalls, feed, etc. He went on to state he appreciated the time spent on this matter, and he did not think many requests of this PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 18, 2003 Page 3 of 4 . nature would present themselves to the Commission in the future. Thus, he believed his needs could be met through a Conditional Use Process. Commissioner Pisula stated no additional information was made available on mini-horses to indicate a difference from regular horses with regard to the Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether the building was originally intended as a barn. Mr. Cutts responded negatively. Commissioner Borkon stated, while she had no problem with having miniature horses in this case, she was concerned for the direction of the horse and pony code for the future. Chair Bailey stated the question appeared to be whether the Code should be amended to allow this case to occur. Commissioner Gagne stated the issue seemed to be that of setback, and the applicant should consider another structure that would meet the standard, as it would allow the applicant to have the horses without having to amend the ordinance. Commissioner Borkon stated she agreed with Commissioner Gagne and did not want to amend the ordinance. Commissioner Packard also agreed. Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending to Council the existing the Horse and Pony ordinance was not in need of revision. Motion passed 6/0. 3. TRANSIT OPT-OUT STUDY - STATUS - LISA RADUNZ . Director Nielsen stated Ms. Raduenz was not able to be present this evening. A status report would be made available at the next Study Session Planning Commission meeting. The Commission expressed concern about meeting the June deadline for the study, and suggested an Open House Public Meeting in May of this year for public consideration in the matter. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen noted Public Hearings on a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Multiple Signage and Concept and Development Stage Plans for P.U.D.; also development stage plans for High Pointe P.U.D.; and a C.U.P. for Accessory Space over 1200 Sq. Feet were slated for the March 4,2003, Planning Commission Agenda. The Commission requested the March 18, 2003, meeting be moved to March 25, 2003, and should possibly be held at the Senior Center. 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 10,2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . · Liaison to LCEC There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee meeting, since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 18,2003 Page 4 of 4 · SLUC The next Sensible Land Use Coalition program is February 26th and the topic is entitled "Redevelopment, Where Do We Go From Here?". · Other There was no other business reported on at this time. 7. ADJOURNMENT Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:50 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M., apologizing to the audience for the delay. He noted legally the meeting could not begin with a quorum, and a Commissioner had returned from out-of-town for the meeting to take place, Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Pisula, and White; Council Liaison Lizee; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Gagne, Packard, and Woodruff APPROVAL OF MINUTES · February 18, 2003 Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving the February 18, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 5, add the word "the" to become the phrase "for the future." and on Page 2, Item 1, Paragraph 1, change the word "appendage" to "appendix." Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AMENDMENT FOR MULTIPLE SIGNAGE AND CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS FOR P.U.D. - SHOREWOOD VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER/CUB FOODS ADDlicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc. Location: 23680 Highway 7 Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 P,M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Matters recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the March 23, 2003, Regular City Council Agenda for further consideration. Director Nielsen explained construction had begun on the CUB Foods Store at the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. As part of the financing for the project, lenders required the grocery store occupy its own parcel of ground. Staff had directed the developer to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), as a P,U.D, contained the mechanics for the proposed "zero lot line" arrangement necessary for the site, as well as the joint use of parking and drainage areas. It also ensured the development agreement executed in conjunction with the original CUB Foods store addition would continue to apply to both parcels. The issue was essentially a legal matter of drafting an addendum or amendment to the original development agreement that tied both parcels to the requirements imposed on the property. It was recommended the City Attorney be directed to draft such an addendum for recording the final plat (replat). Upon approval of the resolution approving the final plat, the developer must record it and the development agreement with the County within 30 days of Council approval. Director Nielsen went on to explain the second issue involved a request for multiple signage for the Shopping Center. He noted this request was not part of the original plans approved, as signage was not ready at that time. Signs for the existing Shopping Center were regulated under a CUP approved in October of 1999. He also explained the regulations and allocated signage, based upon the square-footage of the building silhouette. He stated the addition of the CUB Foods store increased the amount of signage PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 4,2003 Page 2 of6 . allowed for the property. He reviewed the design and measurements of the proposed signage, noting the Zoning Code limited the sign to 20 feet in height, where a 30-foot height had been proposed. He also recommended the sign be shifted west as far as possible to maintain adequate sight triangles for the main entry in to the property. Director Nielsen also recommended the allocation for interior tenants be increased accordingly with the regulations based upon the 10 percent requirement. Also, he noted the new C.U.P. would contain the same language from the development agreement for the project, which stated the City might remove unauthorized signs at any time. John Uban, representing the developer for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated he agreed with the recommendations of Staff, and would stand for further questions. There was no further public testimony on these matters, and thus, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. In response to Chair Bailey's question, Director Nielsen noted more flexibility would be given to the developer as part of a PUD, and the City would be granted more control of the project through its use. Pisula moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of the Concept and Development Stage Plans for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc., 23680 Highway 7. Motion passed 4/0. . Pisula moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment for Multiple Signage for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc., 23680 Highway 7. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS - mGH POINTE P.U.D. ADDlicant: Lecy Construction Location: 23520/23570 Highway 7 Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed the history of the project, noting in November of last year the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a three-lot subdivision called High Pointe. The Commission recommended the City Council approve the concept stage plans, but continued discussion of the development stage plans pending resolution of certain issues raised by staff. These issues had been addressed, and were ready for further consideration this evening. Regarding the issue of ponding, the preliminary grading plan for the project showed a small detention pond on the northwest side of the proposed street. The City Engineer must approve the location of the pond, and the size of the pond was also subject to the Engineer's approval as part of the final plat. He also explained runoff calculations should be submitted with the final plat to verify pond sizing. Director Nielsen noted the northerly portion of the site had been designated as an outlot, and as such, would not be buildable until formally replatted. He also noted all proposed lots met the standards of the R1-C Zoning District. . With regard to access to the site, Director Nielsen reviewed the comments by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) regarding the project, noting Staff had, uncharacteristically in this situation, recommended direct access from Highway 7 to the site. He noted this unusual recommendation from the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 4,2003 Page 3 of 6 . City was due to the devastating situation that would be created with trying to extend a cul-de-sac through the site from the northeast as proposed by MNDOT. Issues of maintenance of the strip ofland the project shared with the Church could be resolved as part of the final plat. Director Nielsen also noted the developer had provided a reforestation plan for the project, including a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. The final plan must be signed by a landscape architect. Director Nielsen stated it was recommended the development stage plans, including the preliminary plat, be approved. Peter Knaeble, representing the project, explained he was present to answer any further questions the Commission may have had of him. Doris Mierendorf, 6065 Burlwood Court, stated she was present as a trustee of the Our Saviors Lutheran Church, adjacent to the property. She stated she was concerned for how the site would access Highway 7, and was concerned about the closing of the entrances to the service road, as well as median cuts along Highway 7. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained the site would not be easy for new residents to get into from Highway 7, as MNDOT, while having no direct control over the property being developed, would most likely close the median cuts on Highway 7 that would have allowed easy accessibility. This access had also been addressed in a Conditional Use Permit with the neighboring church in recent years, so that the church and associated school would still be able to function. Commissioner Pisula questioned the recourse of the church should residents of the property choose to utilize the private roadway to the church rather than follow the designated traffic patterns of Highway 7. Mr. Knaeble stated representatives of MNDOT had indicated the center median cut would be closed should the project be approved as planned. However, he noted the project included the addition of three homes, and would not likely cause a great deal of traffic in the area. Discussion ensued regarding the potential traffic patterns residents of the project could take to access main roadways in either direction. Mrs. Mierendorf questioned whether responsibility could be established to repair the entrance to the original condition should it be damaged by construction vehicles. Director Nielsen explained this issue could be remedied in the development agreement and construction vehicles should be directed to access the site only from Highway 7 and not through the Church entrances. Mrs. Mierendorf also questioned the impact of the retention pond planned for the site. Director Nielsen explained the retention pond for this project was designed to prevent downstream problems. . White moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the High Pointe Development Stage Plans, subject to Staff recommendations, including conditions that the construction traffic be advised not to utilize the Church service road, and following construction of the new road the westerly entrance to that service road be restored to its original condition. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 4,2003 Page 4 of 6 . 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CU.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Steve Hanson Location: 28105 Boulder Bridge Drive Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) to construct an attached garage and room addition on his property, located at 28105 Boulder Bridge Drive. The property was zoned P.U.D./S, Planned Unit Development/Shoreland and contained 33,060 square feet of area. He went on to explain the existing house combined with the new additions would contain approximately 6142 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. The existing garage currently contained 960 square feet of floor area, and the proposed garage contained an additional 400 square feet, which brought the total area of accessory space on the site to 1360 square feet, and thus, necessitated the request for a C.U.P. He noted the new garage would be an extension of the existing garage, and the second level living space would be built over both the existing garage as well as the new garage. . With regard to the criteria for granting this type of C.U.P., Director Nielsen stated the project did not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure, and also did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the P.U.D./S Zoning District. He noted while the property complied with the setback requirements of the P.U.D./S Zoning District, the property was currently nonconforming with respect to hardcover. The applicant proposed reducing the amount of hardcover by eliminating one of the driveway entrances and necking down the existing driveway to bring the hardcover from 26.7 to 25.9 percent. Additionally, the new garage addition would be integrated into the architecture of the existing house, and no additional landscape was required at this time. Todd Knutson, architect for the owner, was present to answer any questions the Commission may have had of him. Seeing no further public testimony, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:24 P.M. Chair Bailey requested clarification on the Zoning Code requirements regarding the practice of reducing the nonconformity, and Council Liaison Lizee requested clarification on proposed retaining walls for the project. Borkon moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval for Granting a Conditional Use Permitted for Steve Hanson, 28105 Boulder Bridge Drive. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:30 P.M., and reconvened at 8:35 P.M. 4. PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONE CAPESTONE P.U.D. (continued from 4 February 2003) Applicant: Capestone Builders Location: 20775 Manor Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:36 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained this matter had been continued from the February 4, 2003, Planning Commission meeting, pending receipt of the environmental studies ordered for the site. The City had received the Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, prepared by Liesch Associates, Inc. Director Nielsen also noted the site boundary issue had been resolved, noting the entire site was located within the Shorewood City limits. Director Nielsen recommended the Comprehensive PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 4,2003 Page 5 of 6 . Plan be amended, revising the Proposed Land Use map from "Minimum Density Residential (0-1 units per acre) to "Low to Medium Density (2-3 units per acre). Also, the area plan for Planning District 12 should include language tying the increased density to the provision of city services (i.e. municipal water). He further recommended that the Concept Plan be approved subject to the recommendations included in the Planning and Engineering staff reports distributed for the February 4, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting, and the Park Commission's recommendations should be incorporated into the Development Stage approvals for the project as well. Roger Anderson, engineer for the applicant, stated the applicant wanted to move forward to the next step of creating a Work Plan with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MnPCA), which would include a test pit for further testing of the site. He anticipated the test pits for heavy metals could not be conducted until at least the second week in April. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. Commissioner Pisula questioned whether monitoring wells had been dug as part of the environmental study, or if existing wells on site were utilized for testing of groundwater. Mr. Anderson stated monitoring wells had not been dug on site. However, the Phase I Environmental Study had been conducted in coordination with soil testing to determine the contaminants in the soil and groundwater. He noted the Work Plan may recommend monitoring wells be placed on site following groundwater identification of contaminants. . Director Nielsen questioned the timeline for the Work Plan and its impact on the project moving forward this year. Mr. Anderson stated he believed, based on experience, that the contamination of the site was localized, and he would have a better timeline available after the beginning of May this year. He went on to explain the process of the Work Plan and potential impacts upon it from the MnPCA. Commissioner Borkon questioned the use of test pits versus soil borings for the site. Mr. Anderson explained the soil borings were used to determine structural support and groundwater levels for the site. He further explained soil borings were used to get a preliminary look at contaminants in the soil and groundwater. Logs of the site indicated contaminants were mainly localized in the upper 2.5 feet of the soil and groundwater. Test pits would show localization of soil contaminants and samples could be taken. Heavy metals did not percolate into the soil very far, and were most typically found in the upper horizon of the soil. The test pits would define a limit of contamination for removal. He stated the applicant would like to see an indication that moving forward with the expense of testing would be in the best interest of Shorewood in this project. Commissioner Borkon asked what kind of support the City would be providing. Mr. Anderson stated the City's support would simply be support for the clean-up efforts, rather than financing the efforts, as the applicant would most likely be investigating grant opportunities for clean-up of the site. Mr. Anderson went on to state he believed the clean up would be fairly routine, and would involve identification of the problem, cleaning up the soil, and moving forward with the project, thus, he was not anticipating difficulty through the permitting process. He also noted removal of the soil would likely be the most cost effective measure of removal. . Commissioner Pisula questioned whether testing for impact to the existing aquifer would be conducted in the next phase of study. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant did not intend to sink a test well to test the water any further than had already been completed, as it was anticipated that effort might become part of the Work Plan. He also stated to cut off the source of the hazardous materials would stop further contamination. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 4,2003 Page 6 of 6 . In response to Commissioner Borkon's question, Director Nielsen explained the City's responsibility in the long term included assurance that the agencies responsible for the clean-up process were moving forward appropriately, and the process was adhered to as part of the clean-up. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Plan, subject to Staff recommendations, and that the project be served by municipal water. Motion passed 4/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the March 25, 2003, Planning Commission Agenda included a Study Session format regarding the Metro. Transit Opt-Out Study, and review of the Parks Master Plan. 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 24,2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . · Liaison to LCEC There had not been a meeting of the Land Conservation and Environment Committee since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting, thus, there was nothing to report. · SLUC No report was given on the Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting. · Other No other business was reported at this time. 8. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, White seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2003, at 9:14 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 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 (arrived at 7:40 P.M.) and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · March 4, 2003 Pisula moved, White seconded, Approving the March 4, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0/3, with Gagne, Packard, and White abstaining due to absence at that meeting. STUDY SESSION 1. METRO TRANSIT OPT-OUT STUDY Ms. Lisa Raduenz, of LJR, Inc., summarized a draft presentation of her "Opt-Out Study Final Report" with the Commission. She noted there were no recommendations for action as part of her study, as that was the role of the Commission and Council. Ms. Raduenz then went on to explain the rationale of the "Opt-Out" Study as well as legal requirements of the City in the "opt-out" process. She noted should Shorewood choose to "opt out" of Metro. Transit, any new or replacement services must be subsidized at a rate at or below the regional level, if at all, for the area. Next, Ms. Raduenz summarized existing transit services to Shorewood, local transportation facilities, current regional transit fares, regional transit performance standards the City would need to adhere to should the City decide to "opt-out" as well as a summary of performance costs for providing various types of service to the City. She went on to explain the questions, methodology and findings of the Transit Needs Assessment undertaken as part of this Study. In the next portion of her presentation, Ms. Raduenz explained the financial and operational issues in "opting out" of a regional system of transit, noting Shorewood's portion of distribution dollars by the transit system would result in less than 0.3% of Met. Council's funding. She also stated Shorewood would not be eligible for any debt levy funds, but would be eligible to compete in future federal funding solicitations as well as selling its own municipal bonds to help fund the "opt-out" process. Next, she shared options to consider for new transit services in Shorewood, and reviewed the "Opt Out" alternatives available to the City as part of this process. In her final conclusion, she recommended the Commission balance all ideas presented as part of the Study, with how any alternative would affect relationships with other local communities and Met. Council for the long-term. The Commission thanked Ms. Raduenz for her efforts in providing the information in the Study. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2003 Page 2 of3 . Commissioners requested clarification on various alternatives for "opting out" of Met. Council transit for the area. Chair Bailey stated he thought there needed to be a great need expressed for providing additional infrastructure such as the one proposed by "opting out" of the current transit situation. Commissioner White stated she thought buses were being utilized for trips to downtown Minneapolis by City residents, and it would be important to keep that level of service working. Commissioner Gagne agreed, adding the Dial-A-Ride services were vital for local seniors to be able to access vital needs outside of the City of Shorewood. Commissioner Woodruff commented it did not seem a worthy exercise for the amount of time and money that would be needed to 'opt out." Commissioner Pisula stated he could see value in retaining local service for various groups of users, but did not see a demand for expanding the service to the point necessary to "opt out." Also, he did not anticipate being able to identify all needs of residents within the next three months as part of the process allowed by the legislature. In response to Chair Bailey's question, Ms. Raduenz stated the suburb-to-suburb transit needs were high for residents, but no transit system would be able to adequately address those needs and remain cost effective. . Ms. Raduenz stated she would be present at the April 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion of this matter. The Planning Commission indicated consensus, that at this point m time, "opting out" would be questionable. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated an item from the Planning Commission Work Plan would be determined for the April 8, 2003, Planning Commission Agenda. 4. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 24, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). As part of this report, the Commission asked that the Park Commission consider investigating the possibilities of placing a trail along Excelsior Boulevard in front of the Capestone Ponds project at 20775 Manor Road. . Borkon moved, Packard seconded, recommended the City require additional right-of-way in the preliminary plat for the Capestone Ponds, P.U.D., 20775 Manor Road. Motion passed 7/0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 25, 2003 Page 3 of 3 · Liaison to LCEC Commissioner Woodruff reported on the March 24,2003, Joint Meeting with the Land Conservation and Environment Committee and City Council, noting a presentation of the LCEC Final Report had taken place at that meeting, and all members of the LCEC had agreed to remain as an ad hoc committee should their assistance be requested by residents or City Staff. · Other There was no other business to report on at this time. 5. ADJO~ENT Borkon moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:27 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sallv Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 8 APRIL 2003 SOUTHSHORE SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Lizee, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · March 25, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the March 25, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 7/0. STUDY SESSION 1. METRO TRANSIT OPT-OUT STUDY Director Nielsen again introduced Lisa Raduenz to the Commission, noting Ms. Raduenz had supplementary comments to the final report of the Metro Transit Opt-Out Study shared with the Commission at the last meeting. Ms. Raduenz reviewed the use of Senior Community Services within the City of Minnetonka and its financial impacts to that City's transit plans. She also reviewed potential options for negotiated enhancements to the current system should the City of Shorewood choose to "opt-out" and negotiate for additional services or enhancements to a proposed system of transit. Chair Bailey stated he did not see pressing need for the "opt-out" option offered in legislation to the City. Commission Packard agreed, noting there did not appear to be sufficient time to determine needs of residents with regard to "opting out" of the current transit system. Ms. Raduenz stated, in response to questions from the Commission, that it was her professional judgment that there was not a need for "opting-out" of the current transit system in this community at this time. She stated she anticipated "opting-out" would only further exacerbate the budget shortfall that would most likely impact the seniors utilizing the transit system currently in place. Commissioner Gagne stated he did not see the benefit to "opting-out" at this time. He noted the struggles of the Dial-A-Ride services in allowing passengers to be able to traverse the communities needed for medical care. He also explained there were volunteer drivers through the ICA program for transportation to medical appointments for individuals in need of those services. Commissioner Woodruff stated the problem affecting many residents in need of transportation to vital appointments and destinations was larger than one city could solve through the "opt-out" process. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 8, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending the City not "opt-out" of the current Metro. Transit system at this time. Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to state the Commission recommended Alternative A of the "Opt-Out Study Final Report" prepared by LJR, Inc. Motion passed 7/0. The Commission thanked Ms. Raduenz for her efforts in preparing the report and meeting with the Commission to answer questions about this matter. 2. COMP PLAN - REVIEW PARKS MASTER PLAN Director Nielsen reviewed the changes proposed to the Parks Master Plan that differentiated from the current text found within the City's Comprehensive Planning document. Council Liaison Lizee stated the Park Commission had reviewed the historic use, current use, and future potential for each park within the City. She stated she greatly appreciated the efforts of the Park Commission in this matter. Commissioner Packard also agreed, noting the Parks Master Plan would be helpful to planning in the future. Chair Bailey reviewed the procedures that would allow the Parks Master Plan to be placed into the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Commissioner Borkon questioned the deficiencies associated with the Skate Park near Highway 7. Council Liaison Lizee questioned the status of fencing along the end of the park for safety purposes. The Commission agreed the Parks Master Plan should be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan, and thanked the Park Commission for its efforts in preparing the Plan. 3. SENIOR HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT Director Nielsen stated this matter would be placed on an Agenda in the future for additional discussion. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Gagne questioned the status of pedestrian walkways and landscaping proposed as part of the Cub Foods redevelopment taking place in the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. Director Nielsen provided a status report on these matters of concern, noting the walkways and landscaping were to be installed by October of this year as part of that project. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen explained there was a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit as well as a Simple Subdivision slated for the April 15, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council There had not been a City Council Meeting since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting; thus, there was nothing to report on at this time. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 8, 2003 Page 3 of 3 · Liaison to LCEC There had not been a meeting of the LCEC since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting; thus, there was nothing to report on at this time. · SLUC The Sensible Land Use Coalition was hosting a program titled Regionalism: Does Form Dictate Function? on April 30, 2003 from 11 :30 A.M. to 1 :30 P.M. at the Double Tree Park Place in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Director Nielsen requested interested participants contact him prior to April 22 to reserve spaces for this presentation. Other There was no other business to report on at this time. 7. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 8, 2003, at 8:20 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 15 APRIL 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Borkon, Packard, White, Pisula, and Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Council Liaison Lizee APPROVAL OF MINUTES . April 8, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the April 8, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CU.P. FOR FENCE HEIGHT IN FRONT YARD ADDlicant: Thor and Denise Holmgren Location: 23880 Smithtown Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Nielsen reported that the applicant, Thor Holmgren, had requested a conditional use permit to construct a six-foot high wood fence across the front of his property at 23880 County Road 19. The property is zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential and contains approximately 32,132 square feet of area. County Road 19 is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street. The proposed fence would be located, extending from the existing driveway to the east lot line of the applicant's property. While Nielsen explained that Shorewood's fence requirements typically limit fences in front yards to four feet in height. An exception was established several years ago for properties abutting arterial street. In order to mitigate the impact of these busier roadways, the Code now allows fences up to six feet in height, by conditional use permit. The criteria for such a c.u.P. is set forth in Section 1203 Subd. 2.f. of the Zoning Code. Following is how the applicant's request complies with the criteria: 1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the property line. This is intended to provide space for landscaping. The applicant's fence will be situated behind a line of dogwood shrubs that currently exist on the property. . . . Planning Commission Meeting Aprill5, 2003 Page 2 of6 2. The applicant must submit a landscape plan for the street side of the fence. This is intended to lessen the visual impact of man-made structures so close to the roadway. In this case the applicant proposes to maintain an existing row of dogwood shrubs that already exist on the site. 3. The proposed fence has no effect on traffic visibility. Between the right-of-way for County Road 19 and the required setback, there is ample room for cars on the County Road to see cars exiting the site. In light of the preceding, Nielsen indicated that it is recommended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be approved, subject to the existing buffer row of Dogwood' s/landscape screen being maintained. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony at 7: 14 P.M. White inquired whether there would be sufficient ROW if a sidewalk were ever proposed along this stretch of County Road 19. While the City should consider its trail projects further out, Nielsen stated that this is a County Road and maps show ample room for a trail. White questioned whether the fence should be moved back. Nielsen explained that the County requires a 66' ROWand that the applicant's fence already falls 8' inside of his property to allow for landscape etc. White asked if the Commission should make other suggestions with regard to the landscaping. Nielsen stated that the Commission could make additional recommendations if they felt the proposed landscaping was not adequate. Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit permitting construction of a six foot high wood fence across the front of the property, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. 2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - SMITHTOWN ESTATES Aoolicant: Roger Anderson Location: 23625 and 23675 Smithtown Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M., reiterating the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Nielsen explained that the applicant, Roger Anderson, proposes to combine the two properties at 23625 and 23675 Smithtown Road and resubdivide them into three single-family residential lots. The properties are located in the R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district, and contain a total of 71,976 square feet. The two existing lots both have homes on them. Mr. Anderson proposes to create a third building site between the two homes. Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 2003 Page 3 of6 . Nielsen continued that the land ranges in elevation from 955.0 in the southeast corner, down to 939.0 in what appears to be a fairly well defined drainage swale between proposed Lots 2 and 3. From there it rises back up to 945.0 in the northwest corner. Scattered trees on the site appear to be as large as 18 inches in diameter. An IS-inch reinforced concrete sewer pipe, owned by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services cuts through the site, between proposed Lots 2 and 3. Nielsen stated that, with regard to: A. Zoning Requirements. The proposed plat complies with the lot area, width and depth requirements of the R-2A zoning district. The preliminary plat shows the required setbacks for the R-2A district. Both of the existing homes will comply and there appears to be ample buildable area on the newly created lot. . B. Subdivision Requirements: 1. The plat needs to have a label - Block 1. 2. Grading, drainage and utilities will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The plat shows only five-wide drainage and utility easements between the lots. These must be increased to 10 feet - wider if recommended by the City Engineer. Also, there is no indication of an easement for the existing MCES sewer line. If none exists, the final plat should include such an easement, in a width recommended by the City Engineer. The final plat should also include a drainage plan, with a proposed house pad elevation for the new lot. The developer, must also address sanitary sewer service. If it is intended that the lot would connect to the MCES line, plans will have to be approved by them. 3. The developer must obtain approval from Hennepin County for any new driveway on Lot 2. C. Tree Preservation and Reforestation: The subdivision by itself does not appear to require the removal of any trees, in which case tree replacement can be addressed with the building permit for Lot 2. If, however, grading drainage or utilities dictate site alteration, a tree preservation plan should be submitted with the final plat. Nielsen reported that it was recommended that the preliminary plat be approved, subject to the resolution of issues raised herein, plus any that may be raised by the City Engineer. These issues should be addressed in the final plat, which must be submitted within six months of Council approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Anderson indicated that he had purchased the parcel at 23675 Smithtown Road a year ago with the intent to subdivide the property, only to find out that the property wasn't big enough to be divided. In the interim, Mr. Anderson purchased the second parcel at 23625 Smithtown Road. . While he pointed out that the sewer intercept was not shown on the original surveys, Mr. Anderson stated that now that it had been located, it could be accommodated. Finally, although Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 2003 Page 4 of6 . the applicant had not submitted a formal request for a driveway to Hennepin County, informal conversations with County representatives indicate that they don't foresee this to be an issue. Chair Bailey closed the Public testimony at 7:40 P.M. Nielsen indicated that, even in the worst case scenano, the County might reqUire a shared driveway. Chair Bailey inquired about the ROWand shoulder. Nielsen stated that the County requires a 66' ROWand often times tries to acquire additional right of way. Nielsen reiterated that the ROW consists of the traveled surface of the roadway, plus boulevards for maintenance measure. Mr. Anderson commented that he would not object to granting additional easement or ROW if the County found it necessary. Nielsen indicated that the City would defer the ROW decision to the County, however, if the pedestrian way was shown on this side ofthe street, the City could ask for additional ROW. . Chair Bailey recommended that, in a future work session, the City define the terms sidewalk, trail, and pedestrian way. Since one of the southerly neighbors had expressed concern with regard to runoff, Woodruff questioned how the drainage issues might back up onto that neighbor's property. Mr. Anderson indicated that he would use grading to ensure runoff flows towards the culvert, and work with Engineer Brown as he reviews any plans. Nielsen explained that the neighbor was concerned that the water runoff might be redirected to the south and back up on her property. Woodruff suggested that the Commission consider recommending additional trees to offset any drainage issues. Mr. Anderson stated that the lot would accommodate additional trees. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending preliminary plat approval, subject to staff recommendations and resolution of any issues raised by the City Engineer. These issues should be addressed in the final plat, which must be submitted within six months of Council approval of the preliminary plat. Motion passed 7/0. 3. DISCUSS SENIOR HOUSING CODE AMENDMENT . Chair Bailey stated that, after posing the senior housing amendment this evening during the joint Council and Commissions meeting, there was little comment from the Council. In his opinion, this indicated that the City had grown more comfortable with the recommendation. . . . Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 2003 Page 5 of6 Woodruff pointed out that, while density would be reduced throughout the City, the future development of the NSP site could accommodate senior housing. Nielsen agreed that the NSP site would provide an excellent mixed use area. He reminded the Commission that any potential plans would need to include a public hearing. Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, to recommend approval of the Senior Housing Code Amendment, and recommend that the Area Plan discussion include a reference to the potential use of the NSP site for senior housing. Motion passed 7/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Nielsen explained that there would be four Public Hearings and two Simple Subdivisions scheduled for the May 6, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. With regard to item 1 of the draft agenda and the numerous variances already granted the applicant, White questioned at what percent or what point a remodel becomes a rebuild. 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Packard reported that the Cross', owners of the Shorewood Yacht Club, want to be allowed to offer powerboat access forever. Nielsen indicated that the Yacht Club is currently in violation of Code and has no license to operate at all. He questioned whether the City should even review the application while the Yacht Club is in violation. He stated that he would clarify this issue with the City Attorney. Packard reported that John Grube, of Hennepin County, relayed his confidence to the Council that the County Road 19 intersection was moving forward. While time was slipping away for 2003, he indicated that the County continues to work with Tonka Bay and the strip mall owner. White asked if the Smithtown Crossing mall name change would make this name an option for the intersection or corridor. She asked if the mall owner supported the intersection and or undergrounding of power lines along the corridor. While the Shorewood City Council is in favor of undergrounding lines, Nielsen indicated that Tonka Bay is reluctant to underground. In his opinion, Nielsen felt it was in the mall developers' best interest to underground lines as well and this position would go a long way in moving the City of Tonka Bay towards a resolution. Nielsen stated that undergrounding power lines along Smithtown Road was also desirable and noted that the small section along the corridor would cost an estimated $90,000 for Shorewood. Planning Commission Meeting April 15, 2003 Page 6 of6 . Chair Bailey asked if the Commission was in a position to evaluate the corridor for County Road 19. Nielsen stated that he would support the Commission's efforts to develop a plan, in advance, that would be ready for approval by the City Council in order to get the Council to commit to the additional funding upfront. Gagne asked how the Cub building was progressing. Nielsen indicated that the building was coming along and commented that his sense would be that the Cub Foods developers would support the proposed water system extension ordinance. He stated that Seifert, of the Linden Hills development, was satisfied with the proposal change. Gagne inquired how the costs of the water extension would compare to construction of the Cub Foods water tank. Nielsen noted that developers would be responsible for either the cost of the project or the connection fees, whichever is greater. This change benefits the developers overall and would be significantly less for Cub Foods than the estimated $300,000 plus water tank. · SLUC . Nielsen requested interested participants contact him by April 22, 2003, to reserve space for the Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled: Regionalism: Does Form Dictate Function? slated for April 30, 2003 from 11 :30 AM. to 1 :30 P.M. · Other Woodruff confirmed that she would serve as City Council liaison for May. Borkon suggested that the Commission add a discussion over the use of recreational water toys to their 2003 goals. Due to safety concerns, she wished to determine whether the City had any jurisdiction over these recreational items. Nielsen indicated that he would investigate whether the City holds any control over stationary items, such as tramps, icebergs, etc. 7. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Pisula seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 15,2003, at 8:15 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. . Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Borkon, White, Pisula, and Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Lizee Absent: Commissioner Packard APPROVAL OF MINUTES . April 15, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the April 15, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: John O'Donnell Location: 27100 Edgewood Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing and reviewing the criteria for granting variances. Nielsen reported that the applicant, Mr. John O'Donnell had requested variances to enlarge his home and build a new garage at 27100 Edgewood Road. The property is located in the R-IA1S, Single Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains only 12,141 square feet of area. As explained in his request letter, Mr. O'Donnell proposes to raise the existing home approximately seven feet, converting what is currently crawl space into habitable space. He also proposes to demolish the existing detached garage and attach a new garage to the home, adding a second level above the new garage. Nielsen noted that access to the new garage would necessitate extending the driveway approximately 36 feet further into the lot. Nielsen pointed out that the subject property is substantially nonconforming with several of the R-IA1S zoning requirements. As mentioned above, the lot area is only 12,141 square feet, whereas 40,000 is required. The lot is only 40 feet wide instead of the 100 feet required by the Zoning Code. The side yard setbacks for the R -I AlS zoning district are a total of 30 feet with no one side being less than 10 feet. At present the existing home is less than one foot from the west property line and three feet from the east lot line (not including a small deck on that side of the house. Nielsen explained that the impervious surface on the property amounts to 41 percent, while 25 percent is the maximum allowed in the Shoreland overlay district. Nielsen stated that it was worth noting that the previous owner of the home was granted two variances in 1986 to build the existing two-car garage and to add a second level to the house. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 2 of 13 . With regard to issues and analysis, Nielsen stated that most zoning ordinances contain provisions that address nonconforming structures. These are structures that were built before current regulations were in place. Shorewood's original zoning requirements simply prohibited the expansion of nonconforming structures, for example, they were not allowed to be expanded or extended in any fashion. In the mid 80's, the City relaxed these provisions for single-family dwellings. Nonconforming, single-family dwellings were allowed to be enlarged or extended, provided that the new construction complied with zoning requirements. This included upward expansion as well as outward expansion. Nielsen maintained that the applicant's request involved expansion of the nonconformity of the property in several ways. The entire house would be raised approximately seven feet to accommodate a new third level of living space. Which, Nielsen explained, brings up the question of floor elevation. If the addition of the raised lower level extends from the ground over 6', it would be considered a full third story of living space, thus requiring another variance to the 2 Yz story height restriction. In addition, in order to accommodate the proposed expansion of the home, the applicant has requested variances from the requirements of the Zoning Code. Specifically, the new garage and the second story above it require a variance of 15.2 feet on the east side of the lot. Instead of a total side yard setback of 30 feet, the total will be 14.8 feet. . Although the drainage issue deserves some discussion, Nielsen pointed out that this issue was not raised in the previous request. Both the Building Official and the City Engineer have looked at this property and agree that the problem is more of a landscaping issue at best, an engineering problem at worst. Without addressing it as such, relocating the garage may simply relocate the problem area as well, either on the applicant's property, or to someone else's. Drainage is not considered justification for increasing the nonconformity of this property. If drainage is to be considered a factor in this request, it is recommended that the applicant have the property examined by a professional civil engineer who could discuss alternatives for resolving the problem. Nielsen continued that, while the applicant indicated that impervious surface on the site will be reduced, despite the lengthening of the driveway and the construction of the new garage, this does not appear to be the case. The hardcover calculations prepared for the original survey do not appear to reflect the proposed site plan. It is recommended that a very detailed breakdown of hardcover be prepared by the applicant's consultant. For example, our review of the survey suggests that there is closer to 40 square feet of retaining wall area, not the 400 square feet suggested by the surveyor. Before the applicant was directed to elaborate on his plans, Nielsen urged the Commission to give serious consideration to the issue of reasonable use. While it is not unreasonable to want 3200 square feet of living space, not all lots can accommodate that much house. It is just as reasonable to expect that a house of that size be place on a proportionately sized lot. The Planning Commission has stated in the past that there is such a thing as a lot being full. Nielsen maintained that this would appear to be such a case. Mr. O'Donnell approached the podium stating that while the central issue is his reasonable use, he wished to focus on other parts of the application to begin with. He believed the assumption of the 'lot being full' was an arbitrary and subjective supposition. He maintained that if he were to use a ratio of 30% floor to lot calculations, he would be maintaining his coverage at 22%. With regard to the 1986 discussion of 'no further expansion' permitted on the parcel, O'Donnell questioned why this language was not incorporated into the resolution if that was the intent at that time. . O'Donnell argued that the narrowness of the lot itself was the true hardship, and by definition this meets the State Statute hardship classification, since this is unique to the property. He believed the narrowness was sufficient hardship to warrant approval of his application. He did not feel it was necessary to go to the Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 3 of 13 . additional expense of consulting a civil engineer and maintained that his proposal reduced, or at least sustained, hardcover levels. With regard to the objections posed by Mrs. Lovrien and her attorneys, O'Donnell maintained that his home was not out of character of its locality nor would it obstruct neighboring views of the lake. He stated that the majority of his neighbors support his request and have signed a petition to that affect. He indicated that his wish to provide maximum living space for his family would not cause unreasonable interference to Mrs. Lovrien enjoyment of her property. George Lovrien, son and representative of Mrs. Lovrien, stated that her 20' parcel of the lake is very important to her and that they do not wish to see the O'Donnell's infringing on her reasonable use. He indicated that, currently, it is almost impossible to walk around the O'Donnell home without trespassing or stepping on adjacent properties. It was their belief that the proposed home was just too much house for the narrow lot and would be an even larger presence 4.8' from the property line. Mr. Lovrien felt the construction alone would damage the surrounding areas due to the proximity of adjacent properties. Mark Nesset, Architect for the O'Donnell's, stated that raising the roof would not require any additional excavation. Since crawl space exists, additional wall space would be added to raise the height of the lower level. He pointed out that others in the area could do the same and the trend in Lake Minnetonka is to build up and, potentially, out, similar to homes in Mound. By attaching the garage, he believed the impact of the total residence is decreased. In addition, the use of stone around the lower level would create the illusion of a smaller scale cottage. . Dave Layton, 27150 Edgewood Road, adjacent neighbor to the Nelson's, stated that, while they are fortunate to have a larger lot for the neighborhood, the variety of homes varies. With regard to the issue of hardship, he questioned if Mrs. Lovrien was really being hurt by this development. In fact, he argued that he and the Nelson's believed the improvement would benefit their properties as well. He felt these issues would continue to come up as Shorewood lake shore is redeveloped and asked what could be done to reasonably consider O'Donnell's request. Paul Nelson, 27120 Edgewood Road., voiced his support for the project and desire to keep good neighbors in Shorewood. Having worked in commercial construction, Mr. Nelson believed there was much that could be done to limit the impacts on neighbors during construction. Kelly Snodgrass, 27135 Edgewood Road, pointed out that the project would vastly improve the aesthetics of the home and reminded the Commission that many of the homes in the area would be redone in upcoming years. She rejected Mrs. Lovrien's concern of interference with her reasonable use. Mr. O'Donnell added that, based on recent approvals he'd obtained on similar properties across the community, he believed that his hardcover figures were in line with those he'd compared. Nesset pointed out that Mound allows residents up to 40% hardcover allowances. Mrs. O'Donnell explained that the road elevation is higher than at the lake; therefore, the sight elevations for Mrs. Lovrien would be higher. . Mike Newberg, 26045 Birch Bluff Road, indicated that neighbors are never happy to see construction or progress moving in next door, however, City's do grow. He believed, in this area oflake cabins, the City may be forced to give a little bit. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony at 7:48 P.M. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 4 of 13 . White asked why the language stating that no additional variances be granted this property did not make it into the resolution. Nielsen stated that this type of language cannot be included in the resolution, since it is the right of any resident to make an application. Also, Nielsen indicated that it would be difficult to tie the hands of future City Councils in this way. Gagne stated that, in 1986, the City went thru this process with the applicant and made the house usable, which it has continued to be since that date. He agreed that it was difficult to traverse around the applicant's property without stepping on neighboring properties. He could not support the application and felt it would make the situation worse. He likened the request to putting' 50 pounds in a 10 pound bag' . Gagne added that, Mound, and other lakes communities, have different building requirements, and pointed out the monstrosity Tonka Bay had allowed to be built along County Road 19 which is built lot line to lot line. Woodruff asked if the address file reflected any restrictions on the property when the applicants purchased it in 1995. Mr. O'Donnell indicated that the title search had been clean. . Pisula stated that if the issue is of reasonable use, to him, an 1800 s.f. home is reasonable for this parcel. While the Commission recognizes that there will be continuing expansion in the Shoreland district, Pisula stated that it is their job to take into consideration the size of the lot. He indicated that Shorewood does not support building homes lot line to lot line. Pisula pointed out that, while the applicant's family situation had changed since they first purchased the property, the home has been put to reasonable use for many years. He agreed with Gagne, and could not support the application. Chair Bailey questioned the accuracy of the impervious surface figures. Nielsen indicated that the impervious surface calculation from the survey was 41 %, while he had trouble finding the 400 s.f. of retaining wall the applicant referred to in the existing hardcover calculations he provided. Chair Bailey asked what the impact of the proposed height would have on the application. Although he had not been supplied with floor elevations, Nielsen stated that if the lower level protruded 6' above ground level it would be considered a full story. Chair Bailey further commented that it was a new argument to him, that an applicant could consider the undeveloped unbuildable parcel to the east as a buffer to meet one's own open space requirement. Nielsen stated that an applicant can not use someone else's land for consideration as part of their application to meet their own open space requirement. In addition, Nielsen questioned whether the 20' parcel would remain that way indefinitely. Although unbuildable as it stands, the parcel could be legally combined at a later date. . Chair Bailey felt the reasonable use hardship did not adequately support the application. While the fact remains that the applicant would like more space, it does not mean this home cannot be put to reasonable use. He was not comfortable that bigger families should warrant bigger spaces or buildings. Bailey could not support the variance requests. Woodruff concurred. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 5 of 13 . Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending denial of the setback variance request to enlarge the home and build a new garage at 27100 Edgewood Road. Motion passed 6/0. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 S.F. Applicant: Mark and Kim Welty Location: 5330 Howard's Point Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M., reiterating the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Since the following three applications were all requests for CUP's for Accessory Space over 1200 s.f., Nielsen reviewed the criteria for Conditional Use Permits for Accessory Space over 1200 s.f. one time. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) ofthe Zoning Code describes four criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet: a. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed the floor area above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the zoning district c. The proposed accessory space complies with zoning setback requirements. d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and roofing will match the house. . The criteria being said, Nielsen explained that the applicant, Mr. Mark Welty had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 5330 Howard's Point Road. Mr. Welty proposes to build a new detached garage to the north of the house. Since the area of the garage, combined with an existing attached garage on the property exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. is required. The property is zoned R-1A1S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contains 67,801 square feet in area. Nielsen pointed out that the site is occupied by the owner's home and attached garage, and a small 10' x 12' shed which would need to be moved to a conforming location. The new garage contains 1290 square feet. Combined with the existing garage, the amount of accessory space on the site will total 1839 square feet. The proposed garage will be on the north side of the existing home, 48-53 feet from the side lot line, approximately 65 feet from Lake Minnetonka, and 200 feet back from Howard's Point Road. Nielsen reported that the proposed accessory use meets the four criteria as follows: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1839 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (3700 square feet - main floor) above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1A1S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with R-1A1S setback requirements. Despite the size of the proposed structure, it is relatively hidden from adjoining properties. A large hill and existing vegetation buffer the new building from its nearest neighbor to the north. . Nielsen felt it was worth noting that the proposed hardcover for the site would be 24.99 percent, including the shed, the maximum allowed in the "S", Shoreland overlay district. d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 6 of 13 roofing will match the house. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject to the relocation of the existing shed. Mr. Welty had nothing further to add. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony at 8:10 P.M. Woodruff asked what the hardcover percentages were. Welty stated that the previous owners had gone to great lengths to narrow the driveway and remove the landscaping plastic in an effort to comply with hardcover requirements. He indicated that they fall just under the 25% maximum. Mr. Welty indicated that they would move the shed to a conforming location and hoped to do so after construction of the new garage was complete if the City allowed. He stated that the existing garage would likely be converted to a workshop. Chair Bailey asked when a garage becomes an accessory space versus a garage, especially, if the current garage is changed into a workshop. Nielsen indicated that a smaller door would convert a garage to a workshop rather readily. Pisula moved recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing construction of an accessory space in excess of 1200 s.f. on the property located at 5330 Howard's Point Road, Gagne seconded amending the motion for approval subject to the relocation of the shed to a conforming location no later than October 31, 2003. Motion passed 6/0. 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 S.F. Applicant: Michael and Susan Newberg Location: 26045 Birch Bluff Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 17 P.M., once again reviewing the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Having already reviewed the criteria for granting a CUP for Accessory Space over 1200 s.f., Nielsen explained that the applicants, Michael and Susan Newberg had submitted plans for a significant, two-level addition to their home at 26045 Birch Bluff Road. The lower level of the addition consists of two garages, a workshop and a potting room, totaling 1945.5 square feet of area. The property is zoned R-IC/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 49,266 square feet of area. The existing house contains approximately 2728 square feet of floor area above grade. Nielsen indicated that the existing house is nonconforming with respect to the rear yard setback. Instead of being 40 feet from the south property line, the house is less than one foot from the line. The proposed addition, however, is over 85 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed addition contains 1905 square feet. Including the workshop area and the potting room, the lower level contains 1945.4 square feet of area. Nielsen detailed how the applicants' proposal complied with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1945.5 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (4633 square feet). Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 7 of 13 . b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- 1 CIS zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with the setback requirements of the R-IC/S zoning district. Hardcover on the property will go from approximately 13.2 percent to 16.6 percent, remaining in compliance with the 25 percent maximum. Nielsen felt it should be noted that there are two large evergreen trees in front of the existing house. One of which will be removed. Since the lower level will only show three garage doors, he indicated that it would be considered unnecessary to add landscaping in front of the house. There are already several evergreens on the east side of the lot that help to break up the largest elevation of the building as viewed from the home to the east. d. The new accessory space will be integrated into the architecture of the existing home. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garages are consistent with the principle dwelling. In light of the preceding, Nielsen stated that the applicant's request is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested. Mr. Newberg commented that 50% of the proposed addition would be built over existing hardcover. Mrs. Newberg added that the City should have received letters from neighbors in support of their application. . Since the letters were received just today, Nielsen apologized for failing to include them in the packets. He indicated that the City had received letters from Leo Meloche and Fremont Gruss in support of the application which would be attached for public record. Chair Bailey closed Public Testimony at 8:23 P.M. White asked if the driveway location would adversely impact the hypothetica13rd Street. Since 3rd Street has not been constructed, and may never be, Nielsen indicated that the plans for the road do allow this and one other residence to gain access off 3rd Street. Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit permitting construction for Accessory Space over 1200 s.f. for a two level addition consisting of two garages, a workshop, and potting room. Motion passed 6/0. 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 S.F. Applicant: Peter and Joan Purcell Location: 23735 Gillette Curve Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 P.M. . Nielsen stated that the applicant, Mr. Peter Purcell, had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 23735 Gillette Curve. Mr. Purcell proposes to demolish an existing detached garage on the property and replace it with a new, larger detached garage to the southwest of the house. Since the area of the garage, combined with a small utility shed on the site, exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.D.P. is required. The property is zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential and contains 23,168 square feet in area. The site Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 8 of 13 . is occupied by the owner's home, the existing garage, and a 12' x12' shed. The new 1490 s.f. garage, combined with the utility shed, increases the amount of accessory space on the site to a total of 1634 square feet. The proposed garage will be located southwest of the existing home, ten feet from the side lot line and approximately 47 feet from the rear lot line. The existing home contains 1692 square feet of floor area in one and one-half stories above grade. Nielsen explained how the applicants' plans comply with the Code as follows: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1634 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (1692 square feet) above grade of the existing home. Nielsen mentioned that a discrepancy exists between the survey calculations and what appear to be the calculations of the applicant's architect. As part of the final approval, Nielsen indicated that this discrepancy must be resolved. The calculations must be prepared by a registered land surveyor, engineer, landscape architect or architect. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1C zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). . e. The proposed garage complies with R-1C setback requirements. Nielsen felt, given the size of the proposed structure, the City may wish to require some additional landscaping, especially on the west side of the building. Since the proposed building is located only 10 feet from the side lot line, it is recommended that some sort of tall Arborvitae or dense deciduous shrub (at least three) be used to break up the mass of the building. Trees should be at least four feet in height. Shrubs should be at least five gallon potted. f. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding will match the house. The roof will be metal, but little detail has been provided; therefore, the applicant should provide details as to the style and color of the roof. Based upon the preceding analysis, Nielsen noted that staff recommends that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide a bid for proposed landscaping. From the bid a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one halftimes the amount of the work must be submitted with the building permit application. The trees should be planted no later than 30 September of this year. 2. Details of the roof must be provided, noting that the upper level cannot be used as habitable space or the home would exceed story requirements. 3. The applicant is advised through this memo, and ultimately through the Council resolution approving the C.U.P. that home occupations require a separate permit. This permit does not include any kind of home occupation permit. Mr. Purcell indicated that he was unaware that the survey and architect's calculations did not match. Nielsen stated that they will need to revise the numbers for the record. Mr. Purcell stated that he had just received further details from the manufacturer with regard to the roof. . Chair Bailey closed Public Testimony at 8:30 P.M. Gagne stated that the existing garage must have been demolished, as there is no longer an existing garage on the site. He asked ifthe applicant ran a business from the residence and why the equipment was lined up in the yard. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 9 of 13 . Mr. Purcell indicated that the equipment was present merely as part of the demolition process and that he did not run a business from the home. Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 s.f. on the property for a new larger detached garage on the southwest side of the house, subj ect to staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Aoolicant: Mark Kawell (representing Richard Bowman) Location: 20025 Manor Road As Mr. Kawell was present and Mr. LaRose was not, the Commission heard item #6 prior to item #5. Nielsen reported that Mr. Mark Kawell, on behalf of Richard Bowman, has proposed to subdivide the property located at 20025 Manor Road. Nielsen pointed out that the subject property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains 186,794 square feet of area (4.29 acres). The property is occupied by Mr. Bowman's single-family residence. The site changes elevation somewhat dramatically, rising from a 955.0 elevation at the north lot line to the high point where the house sits at approximately 988.0 feet. He shared a site plan of how the new lot configuration would look. As proposed the subdivision would result in one lot (with the house on it) containing 141,251 square feet of area, and the other lot with 45,542 square feet. . Nielsen reminded the Commission that the R-1A zoning district requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet in area, 120 feet wide at the building line, and at least 120 feet deep. He noted that both lots would comply with the setbacks of the R-1A district. Despite the existing topography, the new lot has a sort of natural shelf on which a new house could be situated. There are two issues that Nielsen felt needed to be addressed with regard to this request: 1) lot configuration; and 2) a development agreement that currently burdens the property. 1. Lot Configuration. Although the proposed new lot complies with the dimensional requirements of the R-1A zoning district, it has an unusual configuration along the southerly boundary, where it jogs drastically to the south. Ordinarily, this would not be viewed favorably. However, it has been done in this case to allow for the proposed driveway to take advantage of the existing terrain. There is an old cut into the hill where a previous access to the Bowman property had been located. In this location, the grade of the new driveway could be kept to no more than eight percent. 2. Development Agreement. Nielsen explained that several years ago the Bowman property, which straddles the boundary between Deephaven and Shorewood was subdivided to create two building sites on the Deephaven portion of the property. Since, access and utilities were through Shorewood, the two cities and the land owner executed an agreement stating that no additional development of the property could occur until such time as the road was built. This was consistent with Shorewood's policy of allowing two lots to share a common driveway. . That development agreement was intended to address future lots on the Deephaven side of the property. As proposed, this lot would not use, nor would it necessitate the construction of the street. Nielsen indicated that it is therefore recommended that the development agreement be amended, subject to the approval of the City of Deephaven, and subject to the City Engineer's review and comment regarding the location of the proposed driveway. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 10 of 13 . Nielsen pointed out that although the property is relatively wooded, the proposed subdivision would not require the removal of any trees. Any tree removal necessary for the construction of a house on the new lot could be addressed with the building permit for that lot. Nielsen reported that staff recommends that the proposed minor division be approved subject to the following conditions: e. f. . g. h. 1. a. The applicant's surveyor should prepare legal descriptions for the property as it exists today, as well as for the two newly described lots. b. The applicant's surveyor must prepare legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements which are required 10 feet on each side of each rear and side lot line. c. The applicant's attorney must prepare deeds to the City for the drainage and utility easements referenced in 2. above. d. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney. The items listed in a.- d. above must be completed prior to the preparation of a resolution approving the subdivision. Prior to release of the resolution approving the subdivision, the applicant must pay a park dedication fee ($1500), and a local sanitary sewer connection charge ($1200) for the new lot. Credit is given for the lot with the existing home on it. Grading and drainage plans for the new home on the new lot must be approved by the City Engineer. Once the applicant has received the Council resolution approving the subdivision, he must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days or the approval is void. The resolution approving the minor division should state that any future division of the property must be done by a formal platting process. Mr. Kawell indicated that he would be present for questions. Woodruff questioned the odd configuration for the proposed driveway jog. Nielsen stated that the grade at that location is far better for a driveway than elsewhere on the site, and pointed out that the old driveway accessed the property via this right of entry. In addition, Nielsen noted that no easements would be necessary to place the driveway in this location. Mr. Kawell stated that this access would provide a natural low impact placement for the driveway, versus elsewhere along Manor where he would be forced to disturb a row of white pines on the side. Pisula questioned whether the property should be staked due to the irregular shape of the lot. . Nielsen believed this could be done, however, noted that the entire tip of the lot would be set within the 50' setback where nothing could be built. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 11 of 13 . Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of the proposed minor subdivision of the property located at 20025 Manor Road subject to the staff conditions as outlined above and in the staff memorandum dated May 6, 2003. Motion passed 6/0. 5. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Applicant: David LaRose/Jim Mahoney Location: 5965/5985 Chaska Road Nielsen explained that he had excused the applicant from attending this evening and would review the application for the Commission. As the Commission was familiar with the application, Nielsen reminded everyone that the applicant had appeared before the Commission in February of 2003 looking for a 5' setback variance. The Commission denied his request and suggested he speak to his neighbor. Mr. LaRose took the Commission's advice and the neighbor has agreed to give him the 5' necessary to get his required setback. While other issues with regard to the survey and driveway easements exist, Nielsen felt these could be worked out at a stafflevel with Commission support. He apologized for not providing a staff report and recommended approval of the Simple Subdivision subject to the resolution of existing survey Issues. Woodruff questioned how the drainage issue would be resolved. Nielsen pointed out that, given the additional 5', the applicant had been able to carve a swale into the proposed landscape. . Woodruff asked if they could put a condition on a simple subdivision. Nielsen affirmed they could do so. Woodruff moved, Pisula seconded, recommending approval of the Simple Subdivision for the properties at 5965/5985 Chaska Road, subject to staff recommendations, resolution of the drainage, survey, and driveway easement issues. Motion passed 6/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Nielsen explained that there would be a Planning Commission Work Session Meeting scheduled for May 20, 2003, with dinner provided beginning at 6:30 P.M.. 9. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Chair Bailey, on behalf of Commissioner Packard, reported that the Hennepin County representative, Jim Grube, was far less optimistic that the intersection at County Road 19 would begin this year. While committed to make it happen, Grube felt the project would need to be slated for 2004. . Chair Bailey reported that the City Council approved the Holmgren fence application, while at the same time questioning how the City would monitor the maintenance ofthe Dogwood landscape buffer. Planning Connnission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 12 of 13 . While true enforcement would not happen, Nielsen indicated that the City could contact the owner to remind them to keep up their maintenance commitment if the hedge becomes unattractive. Chair Bailey continued, stating that the Council accepted the Opt-Out report submitted by the Planning Commission. · SLUC Nielsen had nothing to report. · Other With regard to the O'Donnell application, White further questioned why the City could not incorporate language which reflects that no variance ever ought to be approved for this or similar parcels. Nielsen reiterated that it should be added, however, it could tie the hands of future City Councils and limit residents' rights to be heard. Nielsen found the comment by one of the neighbors that the proposed construction didn't really hurt anyone rather interesting. In reality, Nielsen pointed out that the gradual erosion of the building codes affects everyone in the long run. . Gagne suggested the City check into the status of the Eureka Road/Smithtown Road building removal from a previous application. He encouraged staff to keep abreast of these follow-up conditions put on applications. He questioned the status of the Cub Foods Lake Linden trail progress. Nielsen stated that they have been negotiating with Cub Foods with regard to City water. Although controversial, he noted that Cub claims their cost for connecting to City water would be higher than their constructing their own water tank. He indicated that Cub had even gone so far as to ask whether they could be forgiven the construction of the trail, if they connected the City water. Staff said absolutely not. Gagne inquired over the status of the trail near the public safety facility. Nielsen indicated that he felt City Council was pretty supportive of that initiative. While it would not likely be complete until sometime after the development of the County Road 19 corridor, Nielsen stated that it could be included in the plans. Finally, Gagne asked staff to investigate the open space located to the north side of the cemetery off of Highway 7. He wanted to ensure the area remained an open greenspace for all time. Nielsen stated that he would investigate the status of the site. Borkon asked how the ingress/egress was left for the recent construction in Christmas Shore. She also had noticed that a garage on Club Lane had been constructed very near the road. . Woodruff stated that the applicant had been told to build the garage anywhere in the buildable area of the lot, preferably west of the home. However, she too noticed that the garage seemed to be built on the road, which would be the south side of the house. Nielsen stated that the garage was to be built to the west and 50' from the ROW. He indicated that he would follow-up. Planning Commission Meeting May 6, 2003 Page 13 of 13 . Pisula questioned the rationale for striping the westbound lane just west of the intersection at Highways 41 and 7. He pointed out that the merging lane is marked 4' too far over in one spot which causes enormous backups as people attempt to merge going westbound. Nielsen stated that he would address this inquiry as well. Council liaison Lizee reported that she and the Mayor had attended the TUSA board meeting in April in an attempt to recruit the organization to run the concessions on Monday and Thursday evenings. TUSA's response was, basically, what was in it for them, and indicated that they would provide volunteers to run the concessions provided they receive $80-$120 per night, all of the profits for the evenings, and got exclusive rights to run it next year if they chose to. Lizee indicated that the City told them no thank you, and that she, personally, was offended when the board stated that the recreational parent volunteers are too unreliable, untrustworthy, and irresponsible to rely on them showing up on their designated night. She pointed out that this response would be taken under advisement next year when consideration for concession operations is reviewed. Chair Bailey reported that it was the inaugural night for the Concessions at Eddy Station this evening and that it was extremely well received by the public. He had volunteered to work from 5:30-7:00 P.M. and, from his perspective, the evening seemed to be very lively and successful. Lizee complimented girls softball, and Chair Bailey, for 'stepping up to the plate' to take over a good portion of the concessions operations. . 7. ADJO~ENT Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning eommission Meeting of May 6,2003, at 9:23 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPEeTFULLYSUBNUTTED. Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary . . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 20 MAY 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Late Arrivals Chair Bailey and Commissioner Borkon; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, White, Pisula, and Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen, and Council Liaison Lizee APPROVAL OF MINUTES . May 6, 2003 Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the May 6, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1, Packard abstaining. 1. SIGN REGULATIONS Nielsen asked for comments with regard to signage regulations. He presented slides from the Snyder Pharmacy and questioned how many signs the Commission felt comfortable with and how many they saw represented. The overall consensus of the Commission was that the Snyder Pharmacy constituted one message, whereas, the One Hour Photo gave the appearance of a second message due to its different font and style. Chair Bailey arrived at 7:12 P.M. Although the applicant had disputed the claim, Nielsen stated that staff also believed there to be two distinct signs or messages represented. He asked the Commission to consider whether clarification should be made in the regulation regarding the number, font, size, etc. Chair Bailey indicated that his concern focused generally on free standing signs versus micromanaging strip mall signage. Nielsen indicated that the City does limit the number and size of signs, and lighting of signs, to a certain degree. Pisula suggested Nielsen compile data on free standing signs in order for the Commission to review the limitations imposed on those for future discussion. Nielsen indicated that he would bring back this data for discussion focusing on visual clutter caused by free standing signs. . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 2 of5 2. RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT AND USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Nielsen pointed out that two issues brought this discussion to the forefront, first, an applicant who built a massive skateboard ramp in her front yard, and second, another resident who built a swimming pool in their front yard. Nielsen shared a number of slides depicting different recreational equipment, ranging from swing sets, trampolines, tennis courts, skateboard ramps, to free standing basketball hoops. He explained that there was an important distinction between the front yard and the required front yard. The required front yard was the yard within the required front yard setback, in which nothing could be placed; whereas, the front yard constituted the yard area between the house and the required front yard, in which residents could legally place their recreational equipment. Whereas swing sets, trampolines, etc. could not be placed within the required front yard, Nielsen questioned whether the Commission felt further limitations should be imposed onto the front yard or whether they supported structures placed there at all. He pointed out on several slides that both screening and visual distance help to obscure views of items in the front yard. Woodruff questioned whether regulating by height would help eliminate some of the issues. Nielsen explained that, based on a study performed several years ago, the Ordinance states that boats and RV's can be stored on the buildable area of the lot or on an improved driveway, no closer than 15' to the street. White noted that the big boats, as the one shown on the slide, are not trailered back and forth, once they are put in the water they remain there for the summer. Woodruff asked if the recreational equipment are regulated primarily on a complaint basis. Nielsen confirmed that regulations are enforced on a complaint basis. He pointed out that, typically, the City has allowed boats since that is the nature of the Lake Minnetonka area. Nielsen continued, sharing slides of canopies, tennis courts, sheds, and pool within resident's front yards. He reiterated that, beyond the street ROW, there is a required front yard setback line, which is regulated and meant to be kept green, followed by the usable front yard. He acknowledged that, typically, residents prefer their pools in their back yards, and pointed out that many of the recreational pieces of equipment are self regulating, used merely for a short time while kids are at a certain age. Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:52 P.M. Nielsen reviewed the yard requirements, including front yard and back yard requirements ofthe Ordinance. He noted that the City does not, typically, enforce item #7, limiting storage of one recreational vehicle that is licensed and operable without a complaint to begin with. He indicated that the questions remains, what, if anything, would the Commission like to do to further limit recreational equipment. . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 3 of5 Gagne stated that he would be inclined to allow people to use their front yards for recreational equipment and was hesitant to be to invasive, or 'big brother' like by imposing certain limitations. Nielsen stated that, in his opinion, after driving around, he did not believe Shorewood had a big problem with the use or placement of recreational equipment in its community. While he did not wish to police the Ordinance, Pisula reiterated that he believed the City could address the misuses on a complaint basis. Although she agreed it was not a huge issue for Shorewood, Borkon believed the Commission should provide neighbors with the ability to file a complaint and have regulation to fall back on that does not allow big unsightly things in front yards. She felt no recreational structures should be placed in resident's front yards. Chair Bailey asked the Commission if they felt there should be some further form oflimits placed on front yards. White, Gagne, and Woodruff disagreed that limits should be imposed by the Commission. Chair Bailey indicated that he could support certain limitations in order to ensure neighbors sightlines were not infringed upon. He also understood the hesitation to tell people how to run their lives via their recreation. Nielsen stated that the City does have control over pools as a permit process. He discouraged the Commission from attempting to define permanent versus temporary structures. Borkon moved, Packard seconded, to address the issue of permanent recreational structures in front yards, and come up with some language to add to the Ordinance. Borkon amended her motion to remove the term permanent, Packard seconded. Borkon asked whether they should define recreational equipment. Members of the Commission believed that to be an impossible task. Nielsen, again, advised the Commission against pursuing the temporary versus permanent structure debate. Motion failed 3 to 4, Pisula, Gagne, Woodruff, and White dissenting. Borkon questioned the status of discussions regarding the use of recreational structures on the lake. Lizee suggested the Commission invite Tom Skramstad, representative to the LMCD, to discuss the issue. . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 4 of5 Nielsen pointed out that the DNR has jurisdiction over the lakes and that he could check into their regulations, as well as, LMCD requirements to present at an upcoming meeting. Woodruff commented that it appears no one regulates the use of recreational water equipment, such as water trampolines and other large floatation devices. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Nielsen distributed the upcoming June agenda for review. He indicated that the Cross' would be attempting to make changes to the text language made regarding the CUP. He explained that the City did take the Cross' to court last year on two issues, to which they pled guilty, and were given a suspended sentence. He added that the Yacht Club has applied for a 2003 license and is in compliance currently. With regard to the O'Donnell variance request on the May 6th agenda and the numerous variances already granted the property, White questioned at what percent or what point a remodel becomes a rebuild. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Woodruff reported that the City Council heard an eloquent update from Hennepin County Representative Jim Grube regarding the progress of the County Road 19 intersection. Although it will not be constructed this year, Mr. Grube indicated that the County is making progress in its negotiations with the shopping center owners and Tonka Bay. She reported that Grube stated that the strip mall owners voiced their support for a sidewalk near the center. Woodruff noted that the City is in the process of reexamining the joint powers agreement to establish a structure for mediation between the joint cities regarding the public safety facility. · SLUC Nielsen requested interested participants contact him to reserve space for the Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled: Transportation and the Regional Growth Dilemma slated for May 28, 2003 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. · Other Borkon indicated that she believed she was to serve as City Council liaison for June. Gagne asked when the home was to be demolished on Eureka Road and Smithtown. Pisula stated that he had seen a crew and dumpsters at the site earlier that day. . . . Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 2003 Page 5 of5 7. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 20,2003, at 8:47 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary . . . SC~~al CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 3 JUNE 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Pisula; Commissioners Gagne, White, and Woodruff, late arrivals Chair Bailey and Commissioner Borkon; Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Lizee Absent: Commissioner Packard APPROVAL OF MINUTES . May 20, 2003 Gagne moved, White seconded, Approving the May 20, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 S.F. Applicant: Todd Hermann Location: 5915 Afton Road Vice-Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing and reviewing the criteria for granting C.D.P.'s. Nielsen explained that the applicant, Mr. Todd Hermann, had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 5915 Afton Road. Mr. Hermann was proposing to build a new detached garage to the north and east of the house. Since the area of the garage, combined with a small utility shed on the site and an existing attached garage, exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.D.P. was required. Nielsen reported that the property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 42,092 square feet in area. The new garage contains 720 square feet. Combined with the utility shed and the existing garage, the amount of accessory space on the site will total 1538 square feet. The proposed garage will be 50 feet from the rear (east) lot line and approximately 27 feet from the northerly lot line. Nielsen added that the existing home contains 1560 square feet of floor area in one and one half stories. With regard to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribing criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet, Nielsen explained how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 2 of 10 . a. The total area of accessory buildings (1538 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (1560 square feet) above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-IA zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with R-IA setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will be only nine percent. Nielsen felt it was worth noting that the applicant does not propose to construct a driveway to the new building, as it will be used primarily for storing his boat, and for workshop space. Since the structure will be tucked into some rather large evergreen trees, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. Nielsen pointed out that the garage was placed on the site in this location in order to avoid a rather significant drainage swale that extends through the middle of the site. d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and roofing will match the house. . Based upon the preceding analysis, Nielsen stated that staff would recommend that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject only to the standard warning that such structures are for residential use only, and that any type of home occupation conducted within an accessory building must obtain a separate permit. Mr. Hermann had nothing to add. Woodruff moved, White seconded, recommending approval of the C.U.P for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet for the property located at 5915 ACton Road. Motion passed 4/0. Woodruff moved, White seconded, to revise the Agenda, moving item three before item two. Motion passed 4/0. 2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Dewey Carter Location: 5655 Fairway Drive Nielsen explained that, Mr. Dewey Carter, representing Tradewinds Concepts and Design, has requested a minor subdivision of the property located at 5655 Fairway Drive. The property is a vacant lot that is part of the Country Club Meadows plat containing 86,515 square feet of area and is zoned R -1 C, Single-family residential. . Nielsen indicated that the applicant proposes to divide the property into two parcels, as was originally platted, however, when the final plat of Country Club Meadows was approved, the developer chose to combine the two parcels in order to avoid having to establish a homeowner's association to own and maintain the southerly parcel. The southerly parcel, previously platted as an outlot, is predominantly wetland and ponding area for Country Club Meadows. . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 3 of 10 Nielsen explained that the reason for putting it back to two parcels is that when it was combined, the required setbacks, by definition, changed to make the northerly parcel unbuildable. Rather than apply for a variance, the applicant has chosen to separate the parcels With regard to the recommendation, Nielsen stated that staff would recommend the division be approved. He pointed out that the application was very much a "housekeeping" measure that should have been caught in the original platting of the property and reminded the Commission that no buildable area exists on Parcel B. As such, Nielsen recommended that the applicant's attorney prepare protective covenants for both parcels containing the following provisions: 1. The parcels shall not be conveyed separately from one another. 2. Parcel B shall not be built upon. 3. The owner of Parcel A shall remain responsible for the maintenance and taxes for Parcel B. Mr. Carter had no further comments. The Commission was comfortable with the proposal. White moved, Gagne seconded, to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision for the property located at 5655 Fairway Drive, subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 4/0. Nielsen stated that this, and other resolutions, would likely appear on the City Council's June 9, 2003 agenda. Upon receiving the paperwork and wording from Nielsen, Mr. Carter indicated that he would have their attorney handle the required documentation. Chair Bailey and Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:22 P.M. 3. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO L-R DISTRICT/C.U.P. AMENDMENT FOR SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB. Applicant: John and Judy Cross, Minnetonka Moorings, Inc. Location: 600 West Lake Street Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M., reiterating the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Nielsen explained that he had received quite a bit of response from neighbors with regard to this application over the past week and had distributed copies of those contacts to the Commission for review. Nielsen explained that Mr. John Cross, representing the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC), located at 600 West Lake Street, had requested an amendment to the provisions set forth in the L-R zoning district that restrict multiple dock facilities in Gideon's Bay to sailboats only. He also Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 4 of 10 . was requesting that a similar requirement contained in his present conditional use permit, be amended as well. SYC was rezoned nearly three years ago to be included in the L-R, Lakeshore Recreational zoning district, and was granted a conditional use permit to operate a multiple dock facility. Although Nielsen noted that there was considerable background associated with those previous actions, they would not be reiterated this evening, rather, the resolution, staff reports, and minutes from related meetings were included for the Commission's review. With regard to the current requirements, Nielsen stated that the SYC operates under a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.24 of the Shorewood City Code. Section 1201.24 Subd. 10.d., which states: . "d. Issuance of a license shall take into consideration the historic use of the site under consideration with respect to the use of power boats. With the exception of power boats necessary for the operation of the facility, water harboring of boats on any site located in Gideon's Bay shall be limited to sailing boats only. " Nielsen continued, stating that the conditional use permit contained the following references to sailing boats: Pg.3 "1. That based upon theforegoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club at 600 West Lake Street. " (emphasis added) . "2.c. The permit shall be limited to the docking of sailboats. except for three power boats used by the management of the Yacht Club. In addition, the dock located at the westernmost end of the subject property shall be limited to one boat owned by the residents of 5585 Timber Lane. Weed harvesting equipment shall not count against the allowable number of power boats. " (emphasis added) Since a number of restrictions accompanied the latest Resolution, the applicant was requesting a language change in order to allow him to house powerboats. Nielsen pointed out that these were the provisions that the applicant proposed to change, which would eliminate any distinction between power boats and sailboats. Section 1201.04 Subd. 1.d.(1) of the Zoning Code sets forth the factors to be considered in evaluating zoning text amendments and conditional uses: "(1) The Planning Commission shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgment shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: (a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. (b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Planning Connnission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 5 of 10 . (c) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (d) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. " Nielsen reported that it would be staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission and City Council review policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Natural Resource section and the Land Use section of the Plan, in conjunction with this request. Section 1201.04 Subd. I.d.(2) goes on to say: "(2) Upon consent of the City Council, the Planning Commission and City staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors, said information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this Ordinance. " . One of the most significant concerns raised during the redrafting of the L-R District requirements and in the review of the SYC conditional use permit, was the potential for environmental disturbance. Specifically, people were concerned that power boats may stir up phosphates suspended in the silt in Gideon's Bay from the old Excelsior sewage treatment plant, which discharged through the SYC site. While no studies were available when the SYC application was being considered, it was suggested that the MPCA was going to be conducting soil sampling of various parts of the lake in the (then) near future. Nielsen noted that staff could not determine if such a study was ever done. Nielsen pointed out that the applicant's request letter mostly references an increasing demand for power boat slips, but fails to address the market for sailboating. In discussing this with a member of the Wayzata Yacht Club, they apparently have a waiting list of people who want sailboat slips. In this regard the City may wish to require a market study of boat slip demand on Lake Minnetonka. With regard to the current zoning status, Nielsen explained that the City cited the Yacht Club last year for operating without a license and in violation of the existing conditional use permit. The violation was resolved in the City's favor in District Court. At this time, Nielsen stated, the SYC has a license for 2003 and does not appear to be renting slips for power boats. There are, however, two items which need to be addressed at this time: 1) the access to the property was to have been "gated and locked" except for occasional maintenance; and 2) not all of the required landscaping appears to have been installed. He felt that these matters should be resolved prior to any official action being taken on the present application. John and Judy Cross, of SYC, gave a brief history ofthe marina, explaining that over a four year CUP process the SYC was finally built in 1979 to accommodate a need for sailboating. While the SYC used to have a waiting list for its 125 slips, Mr. Cross explained that, in recent years, after adding 35 more slips, the demand had declined. . Mrs. Cross pointed out that the SYC has provided many services to the community over its life span, including, a sailing school, slips, kids camp, boat rentals, etc. She indicated that 98% of the calls they'd received over the past two years had come from powerboat owners; whereas, demand for sailboat rental slips had been declining. She explained that, due to the economy and since 9/11, the discretionary spending of sailboat owners has declined. Mrs. Cross urged the . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 6 of 10 Commission to enable them to keep the SYC a viable business by allowing them to rent to powerboat owners. With regard to a market survey, Mr. Cross indicated that they had performed an unofficial study of their own based on the number of contacts they received off of two newspaper and trade journal ads. He passed out copies of the ads and stated that they received little or no calls from the advertising. In addition, Cross stated that he contacted other marinas in the area and found that most of them had experienced a decline in sailboat slip rentals. He distributed an LMCD boat density study of the surrounding marinas, a 1999 Lake Minnetonka Water Quality Study performed by Hennepin Parks, and an aerial photo of the SYC, its neighbors and bay. Relative to the phosphates being stirred up that sit on the bottom of the bay, Mr. Cross argued that the sailboats probably stir up the bottom even more than powerboats would due to their deep berth and motors pushing them out of the marina. He pointed out that the Wayzata Bay Marina was the only marina with a small sailboat wait list, due in part to their inexpensive slip rates, and that only racers can slip there. Mr. Cross maintained that their lake access directs patrons to head directly out straight past Frog Island and into Gideon Bay, without disturbing neighbors. He added that their street access, off County Road 19, does little to disturb neighbors either. Mr. Cross acknowledged that their preference would be to continue to rent to sailboats; however, he explained that alone was not working for them. Steve Haskins, 5455 Timber Lane, indicated that, as representative for the 9 houses along Timber Lane, they felt the proposed changes were in an effort to revise their business plan. He pointed out that many of the same questions Mr. Cross raised were also examined in 1979 by the Supreme Court in its original permitting plan. Although Mr. Haskins enjoyed the SYC's presence and agreed to allow them the additional 35 slips several years ago for more sailboats, he and his neighbors this time around would fight any effort to allow powerboats. He pointed out that the neighbors were the ones who informed the City of the SYC's C.u.P violations and number of powerboats last year. In addition, Mr. Haskins stated that, with the water level at 1.8', there would be no question that powerboats would churn up sediment and phosphates at the bottom. He pointed out that Frog Island itself would be in danger of falling back into the lake due to erosion ifmore and more powerboats were allowed to access the lake from the SYC. He explained that, in 1953, Frog Island was elevated to 8-10' above water level and the boy scouts went to great lengths to plant trees on the island. Since 1953, because the LMCD and Watershed has done little to preserve it, the island has been eroding and is in danger of being lost. Mr. Haskins urged the Commission to deny the C.U.P., adding that his business, too, had suffered great losses since 9/11; however, the City did not see him asking for help in revising his business plan. Nick Reuhl, 456 LaFayette Avenue, stated that, as a resident ofthe peninsula, he supported the original c.u.P for sailboats, not powerboats or a gas station, in 1975. In the early years, Mr. Reuhl indicated that he had written numerous letters to the City and Mr. Cross regarding their marina, and believed them to be a good neighbor for many years. In March of 1999, Reuhl Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 7 of 10 . stated that, once again, he supported the addition of 35 sailboat slips, and read a letter from that time. Over the past 2-3 years; however, Mr. Reuhl stated that things had changed and issues had come out which upset and bewildered him, including the change in use of the marina facility by the Cross', even after being reassured by the Cross' over the years that this would not happen. Reuhl, too, stated that his business had been down since 9/11, and indicated that he had no plans to approach the City to ask to be rezoned. He believed the addition of 125 powerboats would be a disaster for the neighborhood and encouraged the Commission to deny the expansion. Harry Ryan, 430 LaFayette Avenue, echoed the comments of the two previous residents and emphasized his concern with regard to the negative impacts the stirring up ofthe phosphates would have on the lake. He argued that the impacts felt by a 250 horsepower motorboat would far outweigh those of a 5 horsepower motor guiding sailboats to the bay. He stated that, to his knowledge, financial hardship alone was not grounds for granting a variance or C.UP request. While he loved the sailboats at SYC, he indicated that powerboats would altogether give a different feel to the neighborhood, and be detrimental to property values. . Chris Maller, 446 Lafayette Avenue, in addition to the earlier comments, she stated that, although she enjoyed the atmosphere provided by the sailboats at SYC, she was concerned most about the safety of children in the area who swim and play to and from Frog Island if powerboats were allowed to race out of the marina. MaIjorie Yaeger, 5445 Timber Lane, indicated that, indeed, Mr. Haskins was speaking for the residents of Timber Lane. James Hancock, 23800 Lawtonka Drive, as a member of the Yacht Club, he felt the SYC had been a good neighbor and needed to be allowed the ability to remain viable by bringing in more powerboats. He stated that the SYC did an excellent job of enforcing the quiet hours from 10PM-8AM and would impose fines for excessive noise. Ben Faust, 452 LaFayette Avenue, stated that, having lived at this address for 55 years, he believed the sailboats had added a pleasant New England feel to the neighborhood. He was against the addition of the powerboats for this, and earlier reasons mentioned. Cindy Faust, Ben Faust's daughter, stated that having grown up on the water here, she was frightened for the safety of the children by what the additional powerboats might cause. Dorothy James, 450 Lafayette Avenue, disagreed with Mr. Cross, stating that the powerboats and sailboats do cruise by LaFayette. Steve Haskins added to his original comments, asserting that it was the business decision to add 35 more slips that had caused the Cross' this difficulty. . Mr. Cross maintained that the original Supreme Court case recognized that the residents of the area did not wish to see anything, sailing or powerboats, in this area of Shorewood. He indicated Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 8 of 10 . that they do encourage their patrons to avoid cruising past LaFayette, ,adding that he believed the area should be changed to a no wake zone altogether. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 P.M. Woodruff indicated that she was present when the Commission granted the initial C.U.P changing the lake shore district to the L-R zone, she pointed out that she objected to it then, and would so now again. She stated that her concern continues to be environmental. With regard to the clarity of the bay, she stated that the water is filtered as it passes through the upper bays traveling downward. She was hesitant to allow the SYC to stir up the phosphates present near the marina since there would be little way to filter the water. Borkon stated that she, too, echoed W oodruffs thoughts and believed the Commission had been through this process back and forth in an effort to examine the applicant's request. She was concerned how the addition of powerboats would impact the lakeshore. . Pisula stated that he had not heard anything with regard to the how the public purpose would support this change. In fact, Pisula maintained he had heard more evidence against turning the marina over to powerboats than that supporting their request for changing the public purpose. He felt it was inappropriate for the Cross' and SYC to come back to the Commission merely three years after helping shape the very rules they wished to see changed because they may have made a poor business decision. Gagne agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners, adding that, in his many years with the City, he had learned that a Commissioner should never make a decision based solely on economic conditions. As a sailing enthusiast, White stated that the SYC is a desirable location for Minneapolis powerboat or sailboat owners, since their marina is the most conveniently located to the City. Although it did not help their case, White complimented the Cross' on providing the Commission with the aerial photo which easily shows the shallow areas surrounding Frog Island. Chair Bailey agreed with the Commission's comments, stating that, he too, approved the L-R zoning change in 2000. Today, however, Chair Bailey indicated he would not support changing the code once again and upsetting the covenant or balance that exists between the SYC, its neighbors, and the City. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, to deny the Shorewood Yacht Club request for an Amendment to the Provisions set forth in the L-R zoning district that restricts the number of multiple dock facilities in Gideon's Bay to sailboats only. Motion passed 6/0. Nielsen indicated that he would compile a findings-of-facts to be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. . Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, to deny the Shorewood Yacht Clubs request to revise their C.U.P to reflect the proposed amendment change based on the findings-of-fact. Motion passed 6/0. . . . Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 9 of 10 Recess taken from 8:29 - 8:35 P.M. 3. Discussed before item #2. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Nielsen indicated that the next Planning Commission Meeting would be a Work Session scheduled for June 17,2003. He stated that items for the agenda would include the findings of fact from the Shorewood Yacht Club discussion this evening, an additional element from the recreational lake use discussion of the last work session, above-ground pool fencing regulations, and one other 'planners choice' item. 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Woodruff reported that the Council continued the variance request for the Edgewood property and approved the three accessory use applications from the last meeting. She stated that Hennepin County Commissioner Linda Koblick also spoke to the Council with regard to the County Road 19 intersection assuring the Council that the project would be completed at 'some point' . · SLUC Nielsen encouraged Commissioners to contact him by mid June if they wished to attend the SLUC meeting of July 30,2003, titled Storm water; Are we all Wet Yet?, A lookfrom the storm clouds at Water Regulatory Issues. · Other Gagne pointed out that the Blue two-story at Eureka Road/Smithtown Road was demolished and removed. In addition, Gagne questioned the status ofthe Cub Foods Lake Linden trail construction, reminding the Commission that the group, technically, has just 90 days to complete the trail and landscaping before the intended store opening. He asked if the store opening would be held up if the trail and landscaping weren't complete. Nielsen stated that the Cub Foods developer was required to complete the trail and landscaping before the store opening. He indicated that it would be in their best interest to complete these things, so as not to hold up the grand opening. Nielsen added that the Cub Foods development has agreed to hook up to City water. . . . Planning Connnission Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 10 of 10 Lizee reported that during the recent City Council meeting, they reviewed bids for the Smithtown Road reclamation project, after a delay due to a misprint by the newspapers. She indicated that she was recruiting volunteers for the 4th of July Fireworks celebration, including parking attendants, people to man information booths, etc. She stated that she would send out a blanket memo to everyone requesting assistance. With regard to the reclamation project, White suggested Nielsen relay to Brown the suggestion that they complete the middle phase, near Minnewashta School, prior to either outer edge, in order to avoid any conflicts with the start of school in the fall. 7. ADJOURNMENT White moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 2003, at 8:50 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary . . . SCNtttEO CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 1,2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Pisula; Commissioners, Gagne, Packard, White (arrived 7:04 P.M.), and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Chair Bailey and Commissioner Borkon APPROVAL OF MINUTES · June 3, 2003 Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the June 3, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 9, Item 6, Sentence 1, change "examined" to "continued." Motion passed 4/0/1, with Packard abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. FINDINGS OF FACT - L-R DISTRICT AND C.U.P. AMENDMENTS - SHOREWOOD YACHT CLUB Director Nielsen reviewed a previous motion made by the Planning Commission at the June 3, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting regarding the applicant's request for an amendment to the provisions set forth in the L-R zoning district that restricted multiple dock facilities in Gideon's Bay to sailboats only. He then went on to briefly review the history of the case regarding this request. Director Nielsen then reviewed the findings of fact associated with this case for the Commission. Commissioner Woodruff commented she had reviewed findings from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding high phosphate levels in Gideon's Bay as a result of the historic use associated with a sewage treatment plant in the area near the Shorewood Yacht Club. Vice Chair Pisula stated he would like to request a "Conclusion C." be added to the Findings of Fact as follows: C. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's request for an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit be denied, since the applicant failed to demonstrate a compelling public purpose for changing an agreement freely entered into three years prior to this request, and the justification presented appeared to be economic in nature. Vice Chair recognized the applicant's desire to speak and allowed further testimony in this case. John Cross, representing Minnetonka Moorings, Inc., located at 600 West Lake Street, stated he had contacted Mr. Bob Keiser, Vice President of American Engineering Testing, Inc., located on Cleveland Avenue in St. Paul, Minnesota, to request testing be conducted on the soil content of the lake floor near PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 2 of5 . the Shorewood Yacht Club. Mr. Keiser was present this evening to present his findings of this study to the Commission. Mr. Keiser stated he had more than thirty years experience in working with water quality issues and soil cleanup projects. Mr. Keiser stated he had taken samples off the lake bottom at the end of each of the four piers located at the subject property and had sampled in two different places on the fourth pier located on the westernmost side of the property. He noted these samples were obtained with a hand outer core sampling device operated in approximately 8 feet of water and shallower depth closer to shore collected at 0 to 10 inches below the surface of the lake bottom. He then reviewed the testing procedure and metallurgy that could be identified as part of this testing. He stated there was not a great deal of lake sediment data available, but he had compared the findings to a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) report from March, 1996. According to his research, his findings indicated the metals found were consistent with those identified in the MPCA study. The single aspect found to be significantly different included the total phosphorus findings detailed in the MPCA report as being 1000 milligrams per kilogram and the Shorewood Yacht Club findings were listed as 100 milligrams per kilogram, thus there was little concern necessary for phosphates in the sediment in the water near the Shorewood Yacht Club. He also commented total sediment did not demonstrate any correlation with poor quality. He went on to comment the phosphorus available to algae could only occur in certain soluble phases. . Mr. Keiser stated he had spoken with John Barton of the Three Rivers Park District regarding a report released in 1999 regarding the stratification of lakes that stated phosphorus would be located naturally at the bottom of the lake stratification, and would be distributed through the water column in an event such a storm. He also summarized data from 200 I which noted that phosphate would most likely be discharged into water as it passed through treatment plants unless tertiary treatment had taken place. He stated the phosphorus was likely considered not to have been distributed near the Shorewood Yacht Club, but more realistically distributed throughout the lake near the plant. Judy Cross, applicant, stated attempts had been made to address concerns heard in the Public Hearing on this matter. She stated the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) map shared with Commissioners indicated the speed in the area as being 5 miles per hour, and requested the help of the Planning Commission, Council, and neighbors to sign a petition regarding the designation of a No Wake Zone in the area utilized by the Shorewood Yacht Club. She noted there had not been any reports or complaints received by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department Water Patrol regarding activity at this location, and noted the dredging company did not object to this change in designation, and she could not imagine residents of Timber Lane would object either. Mr. Cross presented an aerial photo of the area from 1945, and reviewed history of the area of the Shorewood Yacht Club. He stated the LMCD had been designated by the State to study matters on the lake, and he believed it would be most appropriate for the LMCD to decide the designation on this matter. Mrs. Cross stated she thought Items 1-4 listed in the Findings of Fact Conclusion Section Item A were ambiguous and subjective. Mr. Cross stated he was not sure why this issue was posing a problem, as other uses near the Shorewood Yacht Club were more intensive. He also stated the Shorewood Yacht Club had worked hard to be good neighbors and provide a necessary business to the lake shore residents. . Mrs. Cross expressed concern for a gap in the minutes from the June 3, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting as the recording machine was not working properly. Vice Chair Pisula stated that was not the case, as the recording secretary was taking notes this evening in the same way the recording secretary had done at the last meeting, including the use of a recording PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 3 of 5 . machine and scripting of notes as the meeting transpired. He stated the Commission had reviewed the minutes previously in this evening's meeting and found them to be in order and accepted them as accurate. He requested Mrs. Cross share the perceived missing information with the Commission. Director Nielsen stated the use of the recording machine was not required by law, but was utilized as a tool by the recording secretaries for the transcription of minutes. Vice Chair Pisula then requested any additional comment by the Commission, and thanked the Crosses for sharing information with the Commission this evening regarding the case. Commissioner Gagne stated he was pleased the quality of Lake Minnetonka was better than anticipated in this case. Commissioner Woodruff stated she had heard no evidence to change her mind in this matter. She stated she remained concerned for the phosphorus in the sediment at the lake bottom as it would be impossible for power boats not to disturb it much the same way storm wave action would as boats moved through the area. Commissioner Packard stated, while she was absent at the June 3, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting, she did not see a reason for amending the Conditional Use Permit at this time as she did not think it would benefit the environment and there was not a compelling reason for change. . Commissioner Gagne agreed, noting he thought the request was economic in nature, and there was no need to change an agreement entered into with the applicant only three years prior. Commissioner White stated she was curious whether the testing would prove the same findings had samples been taken closer to the island. She did not see a reason to change as the phosphates were clearly in the water, and the powerboats would stir it up. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Acceptance of the Findings of Fact for the L-R District and C. U.P. amendments for the Shorewood Yacht Club, with the inclusion of Conclusion C. as: C. The Planning Commission recommends the Applicant's request for an amendment to its Conditional Use Permit be denied, since the applicant failed to demonstrate a compelling public purpose for changing an agreement freely entered into three years prior to this request, and the justification presented appeared to be economic in nature. into the Findings of Fact for this matter. Motion passed 5/0. Vice Chair Pisula noted this case would appear on the July 14, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO SECTION 1201.03 SUBD. 2.f. (FENCE REGULATIONS) Vice Chair Pisula opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. . Director Nielsen explained revisions were need to Section 1201.03 of the City Zoning Code that governed fencing regulations. He stated clarification was needed with regard to Subd.2.f. to allow fence caps and posts to extend beyond the previously designated maximum height of fencing since many manufacturers . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 4 of 5 and installations resulted in posts that extended over the top of the plane of the fence. Staff recommended the following amendment for consideration. "(12) Fence Height: The height of fences prescribed herein shall be considered to be the maximum height allowed. Fence posts may extend above the specified height b no more than eight inches (8 "). " Director Nielsen also explained Section 1201.03, Subd.2.f.(7) had as its primary intent, the safety of small children and occasional stray pets from falling into unattended swimming pools. He noted clarification was needed regarding the need for a self-closing gate and screening. Setback issues regarding aboveground swimming pools also were in need of clarification due to concerns for the ultimate height of the structure. Subd.3c.(6) could be modified as followed: "(6) The minimum rear year setback for swimming pools shall be sixty percent (60%) of that which is required for the zoning district in which the pool is located. No oart of any such 0001. including guardrails. shall exceed six feet (6') above grade in height. Decking. patios. and oools aprons shall not encroach into the required rear yard setback area. Rear yard setbacks for lakeshore lots shall be as provided in Section 1201.26 of this Ordinance." Commissioners Gagne, Pisula, and Woodruff stated they liked the idea of having a fence remain around the pool area. Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Fence Ordinance Amendment Regarding Height and Aboveground Pool Setbacks as proposed. Motion passed 5/0. 3. DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON TO CITY COUNCIL ROTATION The Liaison schedule for Commission Liaison to City Council was established as follows: July August September October November December Commissioner Gagne Commissioner White Commissioner Pisula Commissioner Woodruff Commissioner Borkon Commissioner Packard 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR The Commission requested information on the potential for milfoil compost, a trail on Lake Linden, and the "Opt Out" plan for the City. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen noted issues regarding the Sign Ordinance Amendment, Review of Lake Uses (Recreational Equipment), and review of the City's Dog Ordinance were slated for the July 15, 2003, Planning Commission Agenda. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 1, 2003 Page 5 of5 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Council Liaison Zerby reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 23, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC Commissioner Woodruff reported on the Sensitive Lane Use Coalition meeting regarding NPDES Phase II Stormwater Management Plan. · Other Commissioners reported concern for a property on County Road 19 where dogwood trees were dying and landscaping had not yet been completed. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 1, 2003, at 8:37 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7: lOP .M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, White and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Pisula and Council Liaison Zerby APPROVAL OF MINUTES · July 1, 2003 Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the July 1, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 4, Sentence 3, change "He stated it was thus considered likely that no phosphorus had been distributed near" to "He stated the phosphorus was considered likely not to have been distributed near." Motion passed 4/0/2, with Bailey and Borkon abstaining due to absence at that meeting. STUDY SESSION 1. REVIEW SIGN ORDINANCE The Commission agreed to discuss this item after Item 2 on the Agenda for this evening. Director Nielsen provided history on the current sign ordinance and noted its ambiguity. He requested the Commission consider clarifying the ordinance to make its interpretation and application more useful to residents. Chair Bailey stated he thought there was a difference between freestanding signage and those signs found on a building. He went on to state he believed the City should avoid micromanaging signage, and thought the sign ordinance should be related to the area the sign would utilize on a building rather than the number of signs. Director Nielsen strongly encouraged the limitation of the number of signs allowed to be placed on a building to avoid repetition in signage in the City. He also reviewed temporary signage permits and stated the City Code encouraged the use of a "message board" type sign where the sign would remain, but the wording could be changed as needed by the owner. Director Nielsen stated he would review sign ordinances from other municipalities and report back at a later time to bring distinction to the definition of signage and further clarity to this issue. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 15,2003 Page 2 of2 2. DISCUSS RECREATIONAL LAKE USES Director Nielsen explained information had been obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) website regarding docks and structures along the shore and necessary permitting for these structures. He also explained he had contacted the Hennepin County Sheriff s Department for further information on the issue. Findings indicated permits were not required for docks, but were required for temporary structures, such as a swim platforms or inflatables anchored to the lake bottom, if left out overnight. Also, Director Nielsen noted a representative of the Sheriff s Dept. stated it seemed as if many owners of inflatables were unaware of the necessity of the permit. Director Nielsen stated the City's ordinance counted mooring devices the same as dock structures with regard to the number of watercraft that could be docked at a pier. Commissioner Woodruff suggested ordinances and permitting requirements be explained in the City's newsletter in the future so residents could be made aware of the requirements. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated a Revision to a Conditional Use Permit, a Variance Request, a Minor Subdivision, a Request for Special Home Occupation Permit, and a Site Plan Review were slated for the August 5, 2003, Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner White noted the lack of landscaping on a property along County Road 19 that had previously been approved by the Commission. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 14,2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC No report was given this evening regarding the Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting. · Other No other business was reported on this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 15, 2003, at 8:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAYAUGUST 5, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Bailey Commissioners, Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula; and White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · July 15, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the July 15, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 1, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, change "...was micromanaging signage in this way," to ".. . should avoid micromanaging signage," and" .. . context of the sign." to "...number of signs.". On Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 3, change "Also, a representative of..." to "Also, Director Nielsen noted a representative of...". Motion passed 6/0/1, with Pisula abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Fred and Ellen Johnson Location: 5695 Christmas Lake Point Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing, as well as the criteria for granting a variance. He also noted cases recommended for approval would be placed on the August 25,2003, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration. Director Nielsen explained the applicant had proposed a significant remodeling project for their property at 5695 Christmas Lake Point that included the addition of another story of living space over portions of the existing structure. He went onto explain the house was nonconforming with respect to the standards of the R-1C/S zoning district where it was currently located. The lot was very shallow and tapered from 160 feet on the north end of the lot to 64 feet on the south end of the lot, resulting in an extremely limited buildable area. The lot also dropped 30 feet from the northwest corner to the shoreline of Christmas Lake. The existing house contained approximately 1840 square feet on the main floor, with another 1536 square feet in the basement level. The applicants were attempting to achieve additional living space within the confines of the existing footprint of the house. To do so, they proposed a significantly steeper pitched roof capturing most of the expansion area of the second story with the new roof structure. They also hoped to correct drainage problems associated with the nearly flat pitch ofthe existing roof. In order to improve vehicular access to the site, the applicants also proposed reorienting the garage doors to the south end of the building. At present, there was barely enough room to park a car in the driveway without having some portion of the car extending into the roadway of Christmas Lake Point. Hardcover reductions had already begun to take place, Director Nielsen-noted, with the impervious surface totaling 22.3 percent once the project was completed. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 2 of9 With regard to issues of concern, Director Nielsen noted the applicant's had originally submitted plans much different from those presented to the Commission this evening. He stated the architect had worked to redesign the project based on the advice of Staff to focus the expansion on the end of the lot with the most buildable area, correct existing nonconformity to the extent possible, and minimize expansion toward the lakeside of the property. He noted a recent variance, similar in regard, had been granted recently to the property directly across the street. He noted the applicant's property differed in that some buildable area was on the north end of the lot, where unfortunately topography on the site was most severe. He noted the applicant's would be reducing the impervious surface on the site by removing two accessory structures and approximately 420 square feet of concrete patio area near the lake. Setbacks from the lake were also improved through the removal of these items. Reorientation of the garage doors was viewed as improvements to the safety and operation of Christmas Lake Point. The driveway would be relocated further south on the street allowing the garage to be accessed from its south end. Director Nielsen recommended the landscaping on this end include at least one evergreen tree that would break up the increased mass of the south end of the building. He also recommend the driveway configuration be modified to include a small pullout on the street side of the driveway to facilitate backing out of the new garage, and the driveway in front of the garage should be at least 20 feet in depth in front of the garage to allow for parking in front of the garage door. Additionally, should the variance be recommended for approval, he stated it was extremely critical the large trees between the house and the lake be well protected and maintained. Also, he suggested the City obtain a conservation easement over the north 25 feet of the site to ensure the future owners of the property do not propose to extend the building into the steep slope. Director Nielsen then stated the City Attorney had recommended a stipulation regarding the future potential for building into the steep slope be restricted as part of the resolution associated with this matter, as it would need to be recorded in Hennepin County. Fred and Ellen Johnson were present this evening, and Mr. Johnson stated he was in agreement with Director Nielsen's recommendation regarding this case. Timothy Rainey, 5660 Christmas Lake Point, stated he was the adjacent neighbor and commended the Johnson's on submitting excellent plans for the project. He stated he was in favor of the project. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. Various members of the Commission requested clarification of certain parts of the applicant's plans. Commissioner Gagne stated he thought the proposal made good use of the property and the land. Commissioner Borkon stated she also liked the plans and appreciated the conservation efforts associated with the proposed plans. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance and a Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure, subject to Staff Recommendations, and Recording the Stipulation of the Conservation Easement on the Resolution, for Fred and Ellen Johnson, 5695 Christmas Lake Point. With the approval of seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion amended the motion to include tree protection measures as part of the project. Chair Bailey stated he supported the variance because the site clearly had a limited buildable area that would serve to generate the hardship and uniqueness required in the criteria for consideration of this case. He also stated the other conditions for granting a variance were met in this case, and he liked the idea of reducing hardcover especially near the lake. Commissioner Gagne called the question. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 3 of9 . Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CU.P. FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION Applicant: Eileen Hickey Location: 5320 Shady Hills Circle Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting the applicant requested a conditional use permit to teach group music lessons in her home at 5320 Shady Hills Circle. Her property was zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential. As stated in her request letter she currently taught music lessons for one student at a time. Her group lessons would include 3-8 students, taught between the hours of9:00 A.M. and 1 :30 P.M. The lessons would be conducted in the basement of her home. He noted the primary consideration in this type of request was parking. The Code required all parking associated with the home occupation must be accommodated within an existing driveway, with no cars parked within 25 feet of the street. The applicant's property had a circular driveway that appeared capable of holding six cars. He also stated he believed the limited hours proposed by the applicant should pose no problem for the neighborhood with respect to clientele coming to or going from the site. He stated it was imperative the applicant limit her clients' parking to the driveway. Subject to this condition, it was recommended the request be approved. . Eileen Hickey, applicant, stated she planned to teach 1-2 classes one morning per week. She explained each session would last approximately 45 minutes lasting 1.5 hours total. She stated approving the request would allow her to teach group lessons as part of her business. These group lessons would include ideally 6-8 students with students over the age of 3 being dropped off and picked up as part of the schedule for her program. Steve Hickey, 5320 Shady Hills Circle, stated his wife had already tried to organize classes for future planning, and was having difficulty recruiting a class of more than three students. He noted the driveway could easily hold 6-8 cars. In response to Commissioner Borkon's question, Mrs. Hickey stated she would not be having recitals for her program. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing. Commissioner White questioned the days of the week Mrs. Hickey hoped to be teaching classes. Mrs. Hickey stated she hoped to teach on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays with two sessions at the most on any given day. . Commissioner Woodruff stated she was quite concerned about approving this request, as the Commission had reviewed similar request in past history and she remained concerned for the potential parking problem this situation could create for the streets in the neighborhood. Mrs. Hickey stated her driveway would hold a single lane of parked cars within the driveway. She stated the parents of her students could be informed of a parking configuration that would not allow them to park on the street and would establish an order of departure. In response to Commissioner Packard's question, Mrs. Hickey responded, there would not be an overlap of class times as part of her program. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 4 of9 . Commissioner Borkon questioned the options for providing the applicant with a probationary period associated with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in this case. Director Nielsen explained the laws had changed and no longer allowed for a probationary period. He also reminded the Commission the CUP would remain with the land should the property be sold in the future. He stated the CUP could be revisited or revoked with complaint. He stated guidelines could be established through the CUP to regulate the parking and hours associated with the business. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Hours of business would be from 9:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. 2. There would be no overlap of class times. 3. The CUP would not be transferred to the new owner of the property should the property be sold. 4. Class size would be limited to six students to allow a maximum of six cars in the driveway at one time in the driveway during business hours. With approval ofthe seconder, the maker ofthe motion amended the motion to read as followed: 1. Hours of business would be from 9:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Monday to Friday only. 2. Half-hour intervals of time would need to take place between classes. 3. Should the property be sold, the same business would need to operate under the time stipulations as specified in approval of the CUP. 4. The number of cars should be limited to six in the driveway at one time during the days classes would be held. . Director Nielsen then reviewed the actions taken should complaints arise as a result of granting the CUP. Mrs. Hickey questioned how the complaints were verified to ensure fairness and accuracy as part of the due process associated with such a complaint. Motion passed 5/2, with Gagne and Woodruff dissenting. Commissioner Gagne stated he was concerned for setting a precedent in this case that had the potential to expose the situation to additional problems associated with parking. Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed, noting she thought this situation could represent a potential problem for the future. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - R-C DISTRICT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Applicant: M.J. McGregor Location: 21195 Minnetonka Boulevard Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained the applicant was one of the owners of the former Kuempel Chime Clock Studio building located at 21195 Minnetonka Boulevard. A prospective tenant currently doing custom woodworking out of his home wished to locate his business in her building. Since this was not a permitted or conditional use in the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district, the applicant had requested a Zoning Code text amendment to include it into the Code. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 5 of9 As explained in Ms. McGregor's letter, dated June 30, 2003, Mr. Rick Johnson made one-of-a-kind furniture and woodwork, and would occupy the northerly wing of the building. The property contained approximately 28,455 square feet of area. The building contained 11,112 square feet and was currently occupied by a manufacturer's video recording studio and office. The south wing of the building was used for storage. Upon meeting with Mr. Johnson and Ms. McGregor, it was found that the nature of Mr. Johnson's business was not unlike a home occupation that might ordinarily be allowed in a residential district. Nor was it inconsistent with the former use of the property, the Kuempel Chime Clock shop. It may in fact be somewhat lower in intensity of use than the previous tenant (i.e. no mass production, fewer employees, etc.). Director Nielsen stated Mr. Johnson and Ms. McGregor had studied the special provisions in the R-C district and indicated they would have no problem complying with the requirements. If the City were to consider a change in the Code, Director Nielsen recommended the proposed activity be narrowly defined and regulated based upon Mr. Johnson's proposed use of the property. In addition to the special provisions already listed in the Code, an amendment to in Section 1201.19 of the City Code might look like the following: "f. Custom woodworking shop, provided that: (1) The total number of employees working in the shop shall not exceed three (3). (2) The use shall not have a predominant retail character. Any retail sales conducted on the premises shall be limited to products produced on the premises. (3) Products made on the premises shall be limited to custom, one-of-a-kind woodwork items. (4) Noise, dust and odor shall comply with the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and shall not constitute a nuisance to adjacent residential uses. (5) Adequate off-street parking shall be provided in compliance with Section 1201.03 Subd. 5. of this Code. (6) All work shall be performed entirely within the building. There shall be no outdoor display or storage on the property." The provisions suggested above would apply to any property zoned R-C and would be listed under conditional uses. In addition, Director Nielsen stated, a c.u.P. for the subject site should include a provision that any loading or unloading of materials or products must occur between the north and south wings of the building. Finally, Ms. McGregor and Mr. Johnson were reminded that the hours of business in the R-C district are 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. Ms. McGregor stated she thought this business would provide great use of the building, and would serve the historic use of the site. She stated Mr. Johnson did fine work and was an artisan with exceptional work. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 6 of9 Commissioner Borkon questioned the other tenants' uses of the building and related noise levels. Ms. McGregor responded the equipment utilized by other tenants was typical of that found in someone's home that would serve precise woodworking skills. Ms. McGregor also commented it was not easy to find occupants for her building as not many business owners were able to wait for the planning process needed for approval. She stated this requirement had become a hardship for her, and she requested the Commission consider remedy for this hardship in the future. Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern for delivery times taking place in the evening hours. She suggested any approval include a stipulation that deliveries only be allowed between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for Section 1201.19 of the City Zoning Code as proposed by Staff. Motion passed 7/0. Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, subject to Staff Recommendations, including a Stipulation of Delivery Times allowed between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. for M.J. McGregor, 21195 Minnetonka Boulevard. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8: 19 P.M. 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Rich Anderson and Ted Hanna Location: 20995 Forest Drive Director Nielsen stated the applicants had arranged to purchase the property located at 20995 Forest Drive. They proposed removing the existing house on the property and subdividing the lot into two building sites. He noted the property was zoned R-1D/S, Single-Family Residentia1/Shoreland and contained 22,649 square feet in area. The proposed lots would be 11,928 square feet and 10,721 square feet in area. Director Nielsen went on to state both of the proposed lots complied with the requirements of the R-1D/S zoning district. The building pads also complied with setback requirements. Director Nielsen noted two issues were worth raising relative to the proposed building pads: 1) the lots were to be limited to a maximum of 25 percent hardcover; and 2) driveway grades should not exceed eight percent. The hardcover limitation included driveways, decks, sidewalks and patios. Further, he recommended applicants be advised that the size of homes on these lots would need to be modest. According to the applicants' survey, sanitary sewer services were available to each lot. It was thus recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. 2. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 3. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. Items 1-3 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no later than 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 70f9 . 5. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($1500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). 6. Since the division itself did not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation could be addressed at the time of application of building permits. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8L30 P.M. Commissioner Gagne stated the lot was quite beautiful and he noted it was disappointed to see it split into two lots as the applicants could put a nice house on the lot in its current size. Chair Bailey encouraged the applicants to consider preparation of plans for modest houses without the need for variance requests. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of Minor Subdivision, subject to Staff Recommendations for Rich Anderson and Ted Hanna, 20995 Forest Drive. Motion passed 7/0. 5. COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: John Sulcinar and John Deters (Dimensions in Floors) Location: 5660 County Road 19 . Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting John Su1cinar and John Deters owned the carpet store at 5660 County Road 19, and had requested site plan approval for a proposed warehouse addition to the rear of their building. The property was located in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district and contained approximately 38,329 square feet of area. Land use and zoning surrounding the site included Gideon Glen conservation open space; zoned C-3 and R-IC to the north; Tonka Bay Shopping Center, zoned commercial, to the east; a motor fuel station/convenience store, zoned C-3, to the south; and the American Legion club; zoned C-3, to the west. The existing building was one story in height (12') and contained approximately 2769 square feet in area. The proposed structure was also one story, although taller in feet (18'), and would contain 2004 square feet of area. The new addition would be used for warehousing of flooring products. According to the applicant, Director Nielsen explained, the new structure would be either concrete or masonry construction with a stucco finish that would extend onto the sides of the existing building. The proposed new addition would extend 16 feet further to the north than the existing building in order to make room for an overhead loading door for the addition. Director Nielsen went on to explain the parking lot would be extended back along the north side of the building, with eighteen spaces proposed. He stated it was worth noting that the entry to the site would change at such time as the County Road 19/Country Club Road intersection was done. Access to this site would then come in through the southeast corner of the Gideon Glen site and would not adversely affect the site plan. . In evaluating the applicants' plans, Director Nielsen explained the proposed use was consistent with the C-3, General Commercial zoning district, and building and parking setbacks complied with the Zoning Code. The required parking for the proposed use was 13.8 spaces for the retail portion of the store and four for the warehouse area for which the applicant had provided 18 spaces. Director Nielsen noted these parking spaces must be at least nine feet wide and 20 feet deep and the parking lot and driveway must have perimeter poured concrete curbing and striping. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 80f9 . He also noted grading, drainage and erosion control were subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He recommended the connection of this property to the drainage system in Gideon Glen should be explored. Hardcover calculations had not yet been provided, however the applicants' had stated they would be able to stay within the allotted 66% allowed by the commercial zoning district. Director Nielsen went on to explain the applicant had stated the dumpster area would be enclosed with a masonry enclosure and some sort of gate system across the front. With regard to lighting, it was assumed what existed currently would remain, however, Director Nielsen noted the continued use of low wattage lighting should be utilized in the front of the building. Director Nielsen stated some trees would be lost to accommodate the addition and new parking. However, the larger trees on the north side of the property would remain intact, providing a buffer between the parking lot and the Gideon Glen site. He also suggested that some additional evergreen trees be spread across the rear of the lot in lieu of, or in addition to, the deciduous trees that had been proposed, as this was consistent with the recommendations of the Co. Rd. 19 corridor study being prepared by the Planning Commission. It was also suggested that the turf area between the road and the parking lot be built up into a berm, upon which salt-tolerant landscaping should be placed. The applicants should address how the landscaping will be maintained (i.e. irrigation). He went on to state the proposed concrete or masonry construction was consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Finally, the applicants had not indicated any change in signage. Director Nielsen recommended the applicants' plan be approved, subject to these recommendations. . Commissioner Woodruff stated she would like to encourage the applicants to utilize as many landscape elements as possible as this store would be part of the new "entrance" to Shorewood. She stated she would prefer to review the proposed landscape plan for the site prior to Council approval, as part of the planning process. Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Commercial Site Plan Review, subject to Staff Recommendations, and Review of the Landscape Plan, for John Sulcinar and John Deters (Dimensions in Floors), 5660 County Road 19. Motion passed 7/0. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated a discussion of an ordinance pertaining to barking dogs, and continued discussion of the proposed sign ordinance were slated for the August 19,2003 Planning Commission Meeting Study Session Agenda. 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne reported on the July 28,2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the . minutes of that meeting). . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2003, Page 90f9 · SLUC Director Nielsen stated the topic of the Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting slated for August 27, 2003 from 11 :30 A.M. to 1 :30 P.M. at the Double Tree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was The High Cost of No Growth. · Other There was no other business presented this evening. 8. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 5, 2003, at 9:12 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2003 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 Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby (arrived at 7:09 P.M.) and Planning Director Nielsen Also present: Administrator Dawson and SLMPD Deputy ChiefNieling Absent: Commissioner Borkon APPROVAL OF MINUTES · AUGUST 5, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the August 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 4, Paragraph 1, Sentence 4, change "CUUP" to "CUP." Motion passed 6/0. STUDY SESSION 1. DOG NUISANCE REGULATIONS Administrator Dawson explained the City Council had received a petition in June of this year regarding an on-going issue of barking dogs at specified residences. At the direction of the Council, Staff had studied the issues of concern and noted that the primary issue was how the nuisance could be abated. As a result of Staff effort and Council discussion, several suggestions were made to amend the dog nuisance regulations. Council wished to have the Planning Commission comment on the proposed changes, specifically clarification of the word "untimely" and the "three-strikes rule" prior to amending the City Code. He noted the Code allowed for civil and criminal prosecution on the issue, but the proposed wording would help to strengthen the civil nuisance violation regulations. He also noted the attendance of South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Deputy Chief John Nieling. Administrator Dawson encouraged the Commission to consider a definition of what untimely barking would represent, and also to consider the implications of a "three-strike rule" whereby with or after a third citation, the owner(s) would be prosecuted criminally. He also noted legal counsel had advised such a provision could potentially limit the City's flexibility to take appropriate enforcement actions. Administrator Dawson went on to explain a draft ordinance had been prepared for the Commission to discuss, and noted the inclusion of untimely hours as 12:00 AM. to 5:00 AM. Director Nielsen stated the use of the word "untimely" allowed for subjective determination in the ordinance, and also noted th~ Commission might want to consider utilizing the standards set forth by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 AM. for noise issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2003, Page 2 of 4 . Commissioner Gagne stated he was a former dog owner, and as such, noted this to be a difficult issue for residents. He stated language utilized in the ordinance needed to be sensible as an enforceable regulation. Deputy Chief Nieling stated the perception by residents might have been that nothing was being done by the SLMPD. He stated the officers were not empowered to seize the dog in recent complaints, as it was considered private property. He noted the actions of the officers were limited to issuing citations for a nuisance as a result of City ordinance. He stated that action had been taken by police officers as part of the due process in this case. Deputy Chief Nieling recommended strengthening the City's civil nuisance laws as a way to work toward abatement of any barking dog nuisance issues. He also noted use of the "three-strike" rule could limit the discretionary power of the City and police officers. Administrator Dawson explained, in response to Commissioner Pisula's question, other cities included performance standards in their regulations as an enforceable tool for police officers to work with in trying to abate the situation. Commissioner Woodruff stated she was concerned for the amount of time police officers spent in trying to deal with this issue. She also stated it would be important to strengthen communication between the police officers and City Staff regarding issues such as this one when citations were issued. Administrator Dawson noted steps were being taken to provide for better communication in civil nuisance cases that were to be enforced by the SLMPD in the future. He also explained citations issued offered an objective measure of enforcement in a case that would be appearing before a judicial official. . Discussion ensued regarding clarification of the current ordinance ramifications for both civil and criminal procedures regarding this issue. Administrator Dawson explained some communities, such as Minnetonka, have a City Court option as part of the procedures for property nuisances, which might make sense for a City to be able to take expedient action for cases such as the one described by Deputy Chief Nieling. Tom Schneider, 5000 Suburban Drive, stated he agreed with the Commissioner that stated issues such as this one were not a dog problem, but an owner problem. He stated the Council had encouraged the neighbors to work together to remedy the situation, and this was not possible in this case. He asked the Commission to try to establish times to define "untimely" barking events and also to consider residents that would work a third shift or have young children when considering establishing time periods for the proposed ordinance. He suggested use of hours associated with construction regulations, as a precedent had been set previously. Deputy Chief Nieling stated the courts had requested the use of performance standards within City ordinances. Without them, he noted, the ordinance would be vague, and it would be difficult to hold people accountable. Should the City pursue a case such as this one through a criminal route of prosecution, the pattern would often become circular; however, with the use of civil nuisance laws, regulations would provide resolutions that would stop the problem. In response to Commissioner White's question, Deputy Chief Nieling stated surrounding South Lake Minnetonka cities had similar ordinances in place to the proposed ordinance before the Commission this evemng. . Commissioners Packard, Pisula, and White agreed 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 AM. would be considered specific untimely hours for barking dogs. Commissioner Pisula commented these hours were consistent with other noise regulations within the City Code and also were consistent with MPCA standards for noise. The remainder of the Commission also agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2003, Page 3 of 4 . Chair Bailey suggested the use of a two-tiered definition whereby excessive and continuous barking during a five-minute period of time was considered as one part of the regulation; and then a different measure of excessive and continuous barking between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. with a narrower scope was utilized. For example, including the use of 1 or 2 minute intervals as part of the language used to provide enforcement from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. The Commission agreed. Commissioner Woodruff stated she liked the idea of a City Court as long as it would prove to be expedient for all parties involved in a barking dog situation and would resolve the problem. The Commission indicated little support for the three-strike rule suggested. Administrator Dawson noted the proposed ordinance would appear on a Regular City Council Meeting Agenda in September of this year. 2. WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen reviewed the Work Program adopted by the Commission earlier this year, and noted excellent progress had been made thus far. Items remaining for discussion included issues pertaining to housing trusts, sign ordinances, historic preservation, and review of the chapters to be included in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. He also noted there were elements of the County Road 19 Corridor Study that could be discussed prior to year-end. . The Commission agreed to discuss the elements of the County Road 19 Study and sign ordinance issues at the October Study Session Meeting of the Commission and discuss housing trust issues, review the Comprehensive Plan chapters, as well as an annual Variance Review at the November Study Session Meeting. Director Nielsen reminded the Commission there would be a Joint Meeting of the Park and Planning Commissions and City Council on October 6, 2003. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Woodruff thanked Engineer Brown and Public Works Crew for an exceptional effort in fixing the roadways on the Islands portion of Shorewood recently. Commissioner Gagne requested reports on matters pertaining to sign requests, landscaping, and trail plans for the Shorewood Village Shopping Center. He also requested updates on the County Road 19 project and the Public Safety Facility construction. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated Public Hearings related to three separate Preliminary Plats and a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet were slated for the September 2, 2003, Planning Commission Agenda. 5. REPORTS . · Liaison to Council Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 4, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes ofthat meeting). . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 19, 2003, Page 4 of 4 · SLUC No report was given this evening regarding the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) Meeting. The next meeting of the SLUC was scheduled for August 27, 2003 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. at the DoubleTree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The topic for discussion was "The High Cost of No Growth." · Other No other business was reported on this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, White seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 19, 2003, at 8:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 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. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:33 P.M.) Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · August 19,2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the August 19, 2003, Planning Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SEAMAN'S ESTATE 2ND Applicant: Kim Koehnen Location: 6115 Seamans Drive Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He also noted the cases recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the September 9, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration and discussion. Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting that in late 1999, the City approved a plat called Seaman's Estates. At that time, the owner of the property, Kim Koehnen, chose to only submit a final plat for four of the five total lots that were shown on the preliminary plat. The development agreement for the subdivision required that any future resubdivision would be done through a formal platting process. Ms. Koehnen now proposed to split Lot 4 into two lots thus, necessitating the request. Director Nielsen went on to explain the platting of the property was addressed in a previous staff report, dated 3 November 1999. The only thing that had changed since that time was that Ms. Koehnen has built a new house in place of the original farmhouse that previously occupied the property. Consistent with the earlier report, approval of the preliminary plat was recommended, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat must be submitted within six months of the Council's approval of the preliminary plat. 2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for the property at the time the final plat was submitted. 3. The final plat should include drainage and utility easements 10 feet wide around the perimeter of each lot. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 2 of7 4. The applicant must pay $1200 in local sanitary sewer access charges and $1500 in park dedication fees for the new lot. Credit would be given for the lot with the house on it. Ms. Koehnen, applicant, was present this evening, and stated she would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have had of her. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M. Commissioners clarified issues regarding the size of the lots after subdivision, drainage patterns of the lots on the site, as well as a stormwater retention pond that would continue to accommodate all five lots should the preliminary plat be approved. Woodruff moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Seamans Estates 2nd Addition, subject to Staff Recommendations, for Kim Koehnen, 6115 Seamans Drive. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7: lOP .M. Given the time was not yet 7:15 P.M., the Commission agreed to move to Item 6 on the Agenda for the evening, until the Public Hearing in Item 2 could be heard. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - JOHN P ASTUCK ADDITION Applicant: John Pastuck Location: 6080 Strawberry Land This item was discussed after Item 6 on this evening's Agenda. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 18 P.M. Director Nielsen explained that late in 200 1 the City approved a preliminary plat called Tritch Estates that consisted of three parcels of land located between Church Road and Strawberry Lane, immediately north of Maple Avenue. The original plat proposed six, single-family residential lots. Since then the parcels were broken up and the northerly portion of the original property was divided into two building sites. Mr. John Pastuck had purchased the southerly portion of the property and proposed to plat it into four lots that would be called John Pastuck Addition. Director Nielsen noted that although the project had been divided and reduced in scale, most previous issues of concern remained pertinent. He recommended the plat be continued to the October 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting, pending resolutions of the issues raised. He stated the issues of concern included the following: 1. The applicant had provided 16.5 feet of right-of-way for Strawberry Lane. The City Engineer has recommended 25 feet. With respect to this issue, Director Nielsen explained the City had agreed to sell the excess property from the Church Road cul-de-sac project to the developer for the amount of two street and utility assessments. Pursuant to staffs directions, the developer had incorporated the Church Road cul-de-sac property into the plat and then dedicated back the amount of land necessary for the street. 2. All lots met or exceeded the area and width requirements of the R-ID zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 3 of 7 . 3. Drainage and Utility easements had been provided around the perimeter of each of the lots. 4. Although the developer had shown proposed grading for the building pads on each lot, there was no indication of a detention pond as previously recommended. 5. Sanitary sewer was available to the property in Strawberry Lane. Since City water was available to the property and the plat had more than three lots, it was required to connect to City water. The connections fees ($10,000 per lot) would be reduced by the developer's expense in getting the water main to his property lines. Prior to release of the plat, the developer must pay $4800 in local sanitary sewer access charges. 6. A tree preservation and reforestation plan must be submitted with the revised grading plan showing a detention pond. 7. Lot numbering was consistent with the Shorewood Subdivision Code. The plat must include a "Block I". 8. The applicant must provide soil test reports showing the water table under the plat. Mr. Pastuck, applicant, was present, and expressed concern for the placement of the retention pond on the property as it would necessitate tree removal on the site. . Chair Bailey explained he recalled drainage was considered a concern by residents when hearing this case in previous years. Mr. Pastuck stated the house would be place as high as possible on the site, and grading would take place around it in an attempt to mitigate drainage in the area. He stated he was not opposed to the idea of placing a retention pond on the site, but wanted the Commission to be aware it would come at the cost of several mature trees. Chair Bailey suggested Mr. Pastuck speak with the City Engineer to further discuss the drainage issues associated with the land in this case. Director Nielsen explained the purpose of a retention pond in this case. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on the case, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Continuing the Request for a Preliminary Plat for John Pastuck Addition, for John Pastuck, 6080 Strawberry Lane, until the October 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion passed 6/0. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - ALDENWOOD P.U.D. Applicant: Mark Kawell Location: 20585 and 20675 Minnetonka Blvd. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:33 P.M. . Director Nielsen provided history of the case, noting the applicant had arranged to purchase the properties at 20585 and 20675 Minnetonka Boulevard. He proposed combining the two parcels, demolishing the existing house on 20585 and subdividing the property into four building sites. Due to the physical PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 4 of7 . characteristics of the property, Mr. Kawell had requested a conditional use permit for a planned unit development (P.U.D.). The easterly of the two parcels was occupied by a single-family residence and detached garage, while the westerly parcel remained vacant. The property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential, and contained approximately 4.3 acres. Lots to the west and south of the subject site were also zoned R-IA, and were occupied by single-family homes. The land to the east had been developed as twinhomes and rownhomes in the Amesbury West P.U.D. Land to the north (in Deephaven) had been developed as single-family homes. Director Nielsen went on to explain the site was heavily wooded with mature maple, basswood and oak trees, and rolling topography with a significant depression in the middle of the site near Minnetonka iBoulevard. Natural drainage, for the most part, flowed toward this depression. An existing 18" storm drain extended from the low area, under the street and to the north. The applicant proposed to construct a private looped street, with the four lots oriented to the loop, rather than to Minnetonka Boulevard. The center of the loop would be kept in its natural state as much as possible to serve as a buffer from Minnetonka Boulevard and to handle drainage from the development as a dry ponding area. Director Nielsen noted although it would be easier and cheaper to simply cut the subject property into four lots, fronting on Minnetonka Boulevard, the site lent itself very well to the use of P.U.D. He then reviewed how the proposed development complied with zoning requirements. . With regard to lot size and density requirements, the plat was consistent with the Minimum Density Residential designation for the property prescribed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. With regard to building setbacks, he noted, a P.U.D. would allow flexibility with respect to setbacks within the plat. The applicant had suggested that a 40-foot rear yard setback for Lots 2 and 3 would help reduce the number of trees lost to development. While this may be true, the P.U.D. provisions specifically state that setbacks at the periphery of the site shall comply with the underlying zoning district requirements. In this case, the rear yard setback was 50 feet. The earlier suggestion of shifting the lot line between Lots 3 and 4 should easily provide an additional 10 feet necessary to comply with the Code. Some consideration should also be given to shifting the south end of the looped roadway somewhat to the north. This, and moving the house on Lot 2 toward the road, should provide the required 50-foot setback. With respect to the issues of access and private roadway to the site, Director Nielsen recommended consolidation of access points via the private road was recommended over four individual driveways. The design of the private roadway was also subject to the City Engineer's review and comment and since it must accommodate large fire trucks, the Fire Marshal must also approve of the design of the road. Also consideration should be given to flattening the curve on the road, even if a bit more site alteration would be required. Furthermore, the driveway for Lot 1 was considered too close to Minnetonka Boulevard. It should be located at least 40 feet from the public right-of-way. Additionally, there was no indication on the plans that the private road would have a name. The private road also would necessitate the establishment of a homeowner's association for maintenance of the road. A provision should be incorporated into a declaration of covenants for the project, stating that the road was private and that the City would not be responsible for its maintenance or upkeep. . Director Nielsen explained the City Engineer had expressed some concerns about excessive driveway grades for the two westerly lots. The plat indicated there would be a drainage and utility easement over Outlots A and B (the drainage area and road, respectively). The final plat must also include easements, 10 feet wide around the inside of all four lots. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer needed to pay local sanitary sewer access charges for the three new lots, with credit being given for the lot with the existing house on it. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 5 of7 . Although a list of trees that will be removed had been provided, there was no illustration the location of these trees. Presumably tree protection fencing will be installed at the construction limits. A complete tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, must be submitted prior to development stage approval. It was suggested that, to the extent practical, some of the replacement trees should be evergreens, located along the southerly boundary of Lots 2 and 3. Since the Comprehensive Plan did not call for additional parkland in the vicinity of the proposed development, the developer must pay park dedication fees for the three new lots, with credit given for the lot with the existing house on it. Regarding further analysis by the City Engineer, Director Nielsen reported issues of concern remained with regard to an erosion permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) including Best Management Practices. He noted this permit must be obtained prior to construction, in addition to providing a NPDES Phase 2 construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to construction as well. In addition, Engineer Brown noted stormwater runoff drainage calculations needed to be provided as well as a suggestion to consider inclusion of a drainage culver approximately 140 feet west of the west end driveway to further mitigate drainage from the site. . Director Nielsen then reviewed the stages of Planned Unit Development process necessary for approval, noting the proposed development was considered to be conceptually consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Although the applicant had requested concept and development stage approvals, it was recommended that only the concept plan be approved at this time. The development stage review should be continued, pending the applicant submitting revised plans addressing the issues raised by Staff. Mark Kawell, applicant, stated he was in agreement with almost all of Staff recommendations. He then reviewed areas of concern, noting the driveway grades would be handled through further design of the project. He noted his firm would be providing an entire design for the project in effort to be sensitive to the surrounding area, including preserving the topography, trees, and providing minimum access points to the roadway. He noted many issues would be amended as part of the individual site plan designs. The name for the private roadway was to be Spencer Lane. He further stated he intended to include evergreen trees on the southern border of the project. Mr. Kawell also stated he resisted the idea of moving the south end of the private driveway further to the north as he thought recommendations could be handled adequately without moving the driveway. He stated he would be happy to answer any other questions the Commission may have of him as the project moves forward. Bob Brown, 20680 Garden Road, stated he owned the property south of the proposed Lot 3 in the plans. He stated he was primarily concerned for the drainage from this project as the proposed lot was approximately 10 feet higher than his lot. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Chair Bailey questioned the drainage patterns on the site. Director Nielsen stated the majority of the site would drain to the south, and noted there would be less drainage to the south from Lots 2 and 3 than with all four lots fronting on Minnetonka Drive. . Director Nielsen explained, in response to Commissioner Gagne's question, the dual access points on Minnetonka Drive were believed to work better with the topography and would help alleviate drainage to the site. Further, he commented the design was well done, and Mr. Kawell's firm had provided designs sensitive to difficult topography in the past. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 6 of7 . Director Nielsen explained the City had no obligation to providing water to the site, as the capacity of the nearby Amesbury system prohibited further connections at this time and in the distant future. Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Concept Stage Plans for a Preliminary Plat for Aldenwood P.U.D., subject to Staff recommendations, including the City Engineer's recommendations, for Mark Kawell, 20585 and 20675 Minnetonka Blvd. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. 4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.u.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO.FT. Applicant: Ken Riedel Location: 5995 Cathcart Drive Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the applicant had applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 5995 Cathcart Drive. The applicant proposed building a new detached garage to the east of the house, behind his attached garage Since the area of the garage, combined with the existing garage, would exceed 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. was required. . The property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential and contained 91,875 square feet in area, with the site being occupied by the owner's home and attached garage. The new garage contained 1008 square feet. Combined with the existing garage, the amount of accessory space on the site would total 1776 square feet. The proposed garage would be ten feet from the side lot line approximately 435 feet from the rear lot line. The existing home contains 2104 square feet of floor area in one and one-half stories. Director Nielsen stated the request complied with the criteria established as part of the Zoning Code with regard to this matter. He also recommended the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit be granted, subject to putting the owner on notice that the accessory space was not to be utilized for any type of home occupation. Ken Reidel, applicant, stated the space would be used for boat storage. Kerry Mullen, 6035 Cathcart Drive, stated he was supportive of the project, and only questioned the access to the new garage. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:06 P.M. In response to Commissioners' questions, Mr. Reidel stated there would be tree removal needed for the driveway planned near the edge of the house. The only trees that would need to be removed would be those located behind the house on the site to be occupied by the new garage. Borkon moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditioinal Use Permit for Ken Riedel, 5995 Cathcart Drive. Motion passed 7/0. . 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 2, 2003 Page 7 of7 This item was discussed after Item 1 on this evening's Agenda. Director Nielsen stated there were be a possible continuation of the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat for John Pastuck Addition, Development Stage Plan Review for Aldenwood P.U.D., as well as a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Feet, and a Wetland Setback Variance Request slated for the October 7,2003, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 25, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC There was not a report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting. · Other There was no other business to report. 8. ADJOURNMENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2003 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 Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White (arrived at 7:05 P.M.) and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Council Liaison Zerby APPROVAL OF MINUTES · September 2, 2003 Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the September 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Nancy Osgood Location: 4640 Lakeway Terrace Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public Hearing process. Items recommended for approval would be placed on the October 27, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda unless indicated otherwise. He the reviewed the criteria utilized in consideration of a variance. Director Nielsen explained the applicant had requested a setback variance to expand her existing garage at 4640 Lakeway Terrace. Her property was a comer lot, located in the R-1D/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district. The existing house and attached garage were nonconforming with respect to the north side yard setback. Instead of the required 30 feet, the garage was 24 feet. Ms. Osgood wishes to expand the garage 4.3 feet further into the setback. He also noted the property contained 18,634 square feet of area and was approximately 80 feet wide. The house was built before the current zoning requirements and the garage was less than 20 feet wide. The variance would provide a standard 24-foot, 2-car width for the garage. Director Nielsen further explained the City had an unwritten policy that the inability to have a two-car garage in Minnesota constituted a hardship. While there was no specific size for a "two-car garage", 24' x 24' was considered standard. He also. noted Ms. Osgood had initially planned on more space, but reduced it to 24 feet at staffs suggestion, keeping the variance to the minimum necessary. As a result, the proposed garage would measure 22.7' x 24'. Staff considered alternatives to the variance, such as building additional detached space on the back of the lot. However, a garage located on the rear part of the lot would necessitate another driveway entrance from Minnetonka Boulevard. He stated good planning avoided direct access to collector streets to the extent possible. Approval was recommended. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 2 of8 . Nancy Osgood, 4640 Lakeway Terrace, stated there was a gully on the property off Minnetonka Boulevard that would make a detached garage even more difficult to access properly. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 12 P.M. Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Setback Variance, subject to Staff Recommendations and the stipulation there be no future access to the property off Minnetonka Boulevard for Nancy Osgood, 4640 Lakeway Terrace. Commissioner Woodruff stated she did not see a hardship in this case, as reasonable use could be made of the property, as was currently experienced. She stated there was enough room on the property to be able to build a garage elsewhere and still access it appropriately. Chair Bailey stated the Commission had accepted the policy that the lack of a two-car garage constituted a hardship in the past, and he was willing to accept that policy in this case as well. Motion passed 6/1, with Woodruff dissenting. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Jon Rohs Construction Location: 5965 and 5975 Lake Linden Court . Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 15 P.M. Director Nielsen stated the Mike Seifert, owner and developer of the Linden Hills residential development project, located on the south side of Yellowstone Trail, east of Lake Linden Drive had requested relief from the City in the form of wetland setback variances for Lots 4 and 5. As part of the platting process, Mr. Seifert contracted with Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. to have any wetlands on the property delineated. The obvious wetland on the property was the basin historically referred to as Lake Linden. Mr. Robert Merila, the wetland scientist performing the work also addressed two other low areas on the property, determining that they were not wetlands. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) insisted that one of the basins, located between Lots 4 and 5 be shown as a Type I wetland, from which they require a 16.5 buffer. Since this did not appear at the time to adversely affect the two lots, a drainage and utility easement was included on the plat for Linden Hills. In the process of laying out building sites for the project, Mr. Seifert became aware that the City's wetland buffer and setback requirements were more stringent than those of the Watershed District. Shorewood required a 35-foot natural buffer and a 15-foot setback from the buffer, a total of 50 feet. Director Nielsen stated it was worth noting that Shorewood's wetland regulations were not included in the Zoning Code, but had been adopted as part of Chapter 1100 of the City Code. As such, the criteria for considering variances were different than the "hardship" test found in the zoning regulations. The following information detailed how the applicant's request complied with the criteria. . Subd. 1. The proposed site plans result in no artificial obstruction being placed within the wetland. In fact, the development project provided a positive outlet for the low area in question as a steep-sided, graded ravine between the subject lots would be replaced by a storm sewer pipe, as per direction by the City Engineer. This outlet addressed a concern expressed by a neighboring property owner to the east of the site who was concerned about increased drainage onto his property. Neither of the proposed homes would encroach into the wetland itself, or for that matter, into the City's required buffer. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 3 of 8 . Subd. 2. The proposed homes do not result in incompatible land uses that are detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies. Staff has examined the site plans and the subject lots and determined the proposed homes of similar ones could be "forced" onto the respective lots without a variance. To do so, however, would result in substantially greater alteration of the upland area, and would push the structures closer to the homes to the east of the project. Subd. 3. By minimizing site alteration as noted in 2. above, the proposed plans were more consistent with Shorewood's planning objectives than forcing the homes onto the lots in a different configuration. Subd.4. The proposed site plans fit the site better than if they were required to be modified. Having walked the site with the City Engineer, Director Nielsen stated it was difficult to understand how the low spot in question can be considered a wetland. Staff had asked the applicant to have his wetland scientist to elaborate on the initial wetland delineation report. To that end, Director Nielsen introduced Mr. Rob Merila, of Aquatic Ecosolutions, Inc., to speak on the matter. . Mr. Merila, wetland delineator for the project, stated he had examined the spot on the site assumed to be wetland, and in this case, he found a lack of hydric soils and hydrological data. He explained the criteria utilized to classify wetlands and stated this classification was subject to three conditions-hydric soils as evidenced through chroma ratings, hydrology evidence, and hydrophytic vegetation. He stated he had visited the site in May of 2003, and found a chroma rating of 2 in the hydric topsoils. The MCWD had briefly visited the site, determined evidence of hydrology, and had thus necessitated a second delineation from Mr. Merila. Upon subsequent delineations, Mr. Merila had observed little of the three conditions necessary for wetland classification. Mr. Merila also questioned the validity of the assessment conducted by the MCWD and offered the opportunity to work on behalf of the applicant to overturn their recommendations for the project. Jon Rohs, owner of the property, reviewed the history of the project, noting he had not anticipated the wetland designation on the property that now made it so difficult to build on the property. He stated there were numerous complications due to the topography of the site that would make the variance a necessity for construction. Hearing no one present wishing to speak on the matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portio~ of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. Commissioner Borkon questioned whether Mr. Seifert had considered reconfiguring the subdivision with fewer lots. He stated he had not as he did not believe a wetland existed on the site. In response to Commissioner Pisula's question, Director Nielsen explained a drainage and utility easement currently existed over the portion of the property being designated by the MCWD as wetland. Rather than ask the MCWD to reconsider its ruling, Staff had suggested working out the issues as part of the variance process. . Mr. Merila stated the proposed plan would not hurt the "wetland" area on the site. He stated the matter could be debated with the MCWD, with the lack of any buffer needed should the Watershed District overturn its designation. He stated he believed granting the variance would bring relief to all parties, as the properties could be utilized as proposed, the MCWD designation remained, and the City would received a buffer around the wetland that would allow for some protection of this low area. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 4 of 8 . Commissioner Woodruff stated she was concerned this area would become a place that people would dispose of their debris, and over time the "wetland" area would be filled in. She stated she was not opposed to the 16.5 foot buffer, but did not believe that was a distance that would keep the low area from being abused by residents wishing to dispose of unwanted grass clippings, and tree limbs. She favored a larger buffer for the proposed site. Director Nielsen suggested staking the wetland area with city verbiage at the property line and where the wetland changed direction. He also suggested shrubs be utilize to demarcate where the buffer area would begin. Discussion ensued regarding the square footage of the proposed homes for the site, and reconfiguration of the plans to include movement of the garage to the opposite end of the plans. Chair Bailey stated he was concerned that if the Planning Commission rejected the application, and the applicant returned to the MCWD for further discussion, the area might not be declared a wetland, and then the proposed buffer could be lost. Commissioner Woodruff stated she thought granting the variance made the issue more clouded as it would appear the applicant would gain the economic value of the area with loss to the valuable drainage that the "wetland" would allow. Director Nielsen stated he believed staking and demarcation through the use of shrubbery would sufficiently handle the concerns discussed. . Pisula moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Wetland Setback Variance, subject to Staff Recommendations, as well as wetland designation markers and vegetation be placed at the wetland delineation line set forth by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Commissioner White stated she would like to see a 35-foot buffer as a compromise. Motion passed 4/3, with Borkon, White, and Woodruff dissenting. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: T.J. Maurer Const (rep. Gary and Elaine Jarrett) Location: 5315 Howard's Point Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M. Director Nielsen stated Timothy Maurer, T.J. Maurer Construction, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jarrett, had applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an attached garage and room additions on their property located at 5315 Howard's Point Road. The floor area of the new garage, when combined with the existing attached garage brought the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet, and thus necessitated the request. The property was zoned R-1A1S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contains 52,421 square feet of area. . The existing house plus the new additions would contain approximately 4929 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. The existing garage contained 832 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage contained an additional 468 square feet, which brought the total area of accessory space on the site to 1300 square feet. The new garage would be an extension of the existing garage. As part of the project, a second level living space would be built over both the existing garage as well as the new garage. Director Nielsen stated the request complied with all criteria for the City Code. Hardcover on the property would increase from 22.1 to 23 percent. Verification of the total hardcover would be required as PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 5 of8 . a condition of approval as part of the building permit review. He also noted that although five garage doors would be visible on the east elevation, existing cedar trees to the east would mitigate the view. Mr. and Mrs. Jarrett were present, and offered to answer any questions the Commission have had. Hearing no one present wishing to speak to this matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8: 14 P.M. Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to Staff Recommendations, for T.J. Maurer Const (rep. Gary and Elaine Jarrett) 5315 Howard's Point Road. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M. 4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Water Street Homes, LLC Location: 5935 Lake Linden Court Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 16 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained Water Street Homes was in the process of constructing a new home on the property located at 5935 Lake Linden Court. The applicant had chosen to include space under the attached garage for additional storage. The total floor area of the two garage levels would be greater than 1200 square feet in area and the applicant therefore had requested a Conditional Use Permit. The property was zoned R-lC, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 27,200 square feet in area. The garage areas were located on the northwest end of the home and contained 890 square feet of area on the upper level, and 808 square feet on the lower level. The proposed home contained 3566 square feet on two floors (not including the basement). He noted the applicant's request met all criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, and approval was recommended. Rick Carlson, 2508 Cherrywood Road, Minnetonka, owner of the subject property, was present and offered to answer any questions the Commission had of him. In response to Chair Bailey's questions, Director Nielsen explained that should the request be denied at this point, the lower level would be a basement rather than a garage. White moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet, subject to Staff recommendations, for Water Street Homes, LLC, 5935 Lake Linden Court. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - JOHN P AS TUCK ADDITION Applicant: John Pastuck Location: 6080 Strawberry Lane . Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. Director Nielsen explained this Public Hearing was a continuation from the September 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting on this matter, pending resolution of issues of concern. He then reviewed previous areas of concern and their resolutions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 6 of 8 . 1. The City Engineer has recommended 25 feet of right on Strawberry Lane that should be shown on the final plat. 2. A revised grading plan had been submitted. The City Engineer expressed concern about the size and lack of control structure of the proposed dry pond shown on the plan. 3. The City Engineer had met with the developer and his engineer to resolve issues relative to municipal utilities. Water service was being extended north to serve the new home being constructed on that property. 4. The applicant has submitted a tree inventory and a calculation of the number of replacement trees required for the plat. In this case the eight trees per acre requirement would be imposed. A reforestation plan had been received earlier in the day. Director Nielsen recommended the majority of replacement trees be placed along the southerly border and along the trail boundary. 5. The applicant had submitted soil tests that were commissioned by the previous property owner. These will be used to evaluate building plans for the future lots. The City Engineer had also reviewed the request, and recommended approval of the request, contingent upon the following engineering conditions: 1. 2. . 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The Final plat should clearly indicate a 25.0-foot right of way west of the centerline of Strawberry Lane along lots 3 and 4 of Block 1. The developer shall obtain a letter of petition from the property owner to the north, petitioning the installation of municipal water service, in addition to an executed right of entry onto the property for installation of the service. The applicant shall submit to the City of Shorewood a letter of petitioning connection to the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services sanitary sewer facility. In return the City shall forward said petition to the Metropolitan Council. The plat for Lot 2 shall be revised to indicate a 10- foot utility easement on each side of the sanitary sewer extension. The grading and drainage plan shall be revised to reflect rate control for the 24 hour-1 00 year-frequency event. A Registered Professional Engineer shall submit drainage calculations demonstrating the rate control as part of the final plat. Soil boring logs shall be submitted with the final plat that indicates the elevation of groundwater. The grading plans shall be revised to indicate the lowest acceptable floor elevation accordingly. The grading, drainage and erosions control plans shall be revised to include proper erosion controls. Mr. Pastuck was present and offered to answer any questions the Commission may have had of him. Hearing no public testimony on this issue, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 P.M. Commissioner White expressed concern for additional drainage as a result of the construction on this site that would impact residents on Church Road. Director Nielsen explained this would not be an issue, as the water from the site would flow to the south, rather than the north in this case. . Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to all Staff Recommendations, for John Pastuck, 6080 Strawberry Lane. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:37 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 7of8 . 6. PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN - ALDENWOOD P.U.D. Applicant: Mark Kawell Location: 20585 and 20675 Minnetonka Blvd. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M. Director Nielsen explained this Public Hearing had also been continued from the September 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting, pending issues of concern and resolution of said issues. He stated the applicant had done all that Staff had requested and more to bring resolution to issues of concern, and the applicant was to be commended for these efforts. Director Nielsen stated the lot lines had been adjusted between Lots 3 and 4 of the project, as well as an increase in the setback for Lot 2. The landscape plan submitted had focused on reforestation along the southern boundary of the property. Director Nielsen complimented the landscape architect for the plan submitted. Mr. Kawell was present, and questioned why the City Engineer's recommendation to extend sanitary sewer to all lots from the front of the houses could not be mitigated by use of existing sanitary sewer lines to the existing home on Lot 1 as it would be remaining in its current position. Chair Bailey recommended this question be addressed to City Engineer Brown directly via telephone, as the Commission was not prepared to be able to answer that question. It was noted Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the following: 1. Sanitary sewer shall be extended up the east and west portions of the loop to adequately serve the proposed lots off the front of each lot. Plan and profile sheets shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. The applicant's Engineer shall submit plan and profile sheets demonstrating the centerline grade for the roadway to the City Engineer for review and approval. Plans shall be revised to increase the entrance exit radii that will support a WB-50 design vehicle. The grading and drainage plan shall be submitted, along with soil borings, indicating the lowest permitted floor elevation. This based upon a 2-foot separation between the lowest floor and any know high groundwater table. . 2. 3. 4. Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Recommending Approval of the Development Stage Plans for Aldenwood P.U.D., subject to Staff Recommendations, for Mark Kawell, 20585 and 20675 Minnetonka Blvd. With permission of the maker and seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to denote a change in Staff Recommendation 1. indicating the sanitary sewer access on Lot 1 be served by the existing service, and Lots 2,3,and 4 be served by a new line accessed from the front of the properties along Minnetonka Boulevard. Clarifications were made regarding the need for plan and profile sheets, and curvature of the proposed roadway. Gagne called the question. Motion passed 7/0. . Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:56 P.M. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 7, 2003 Page 8 of8 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. DETERMINE NOVEMBER MEETING DATE The Commission agreed to hold a Planning Commission Meeting regularly scheduled for November 4, 2003, on November 5, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall, City Council Chambers. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study and a portion of the Work Program would be slated for the October 21, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 10. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 8, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC The next Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting was slated for October 22,2003, at the Doubletree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota at 11 :30 A.M. The topic for discussion at this meeting was scheduled to be Impact Fees: Who Needs Them? · Other No other information was reported this evening. 11. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 2003, at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White (arrived at 7:05 P.M.) and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Council Liaison Zerby APPROVAL OF MINUTES · October 7, 2003 Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the October 7, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 4, Item 2, Paragraph 4, change "that if the applicant return to the MCWD..." to "that ifthe Planning Commission rejected the application and the applicant returned to the MCWD for further discussion, the area might not be declared a wetland, and then the proposed buffer could be lost." Motion passed 7/0. 1. COUNTY ROAD 19 CORRIDOR STUDY Director Nielsen explained the purpose of the review of this item this evening was to begin to consider all the parts of the whole as if considering a "mini-Comprehensive Plan" for the County Road 19 Corridor area for the City. He noted more information would be presented later as the work in the area progressed, but this would provide an overview of issues and goals for the project in its entirety. Director Nielsen then reviewed issues pertaining to natural resources and environment; land use; transportation; and community facilities and services. He also reviewed the goals of the project as upgrading and improving all aspects of the segment of County Road 19 that extended through Shorewood, between Tonka Bay and Excelsior, and enhancing the identity of Shorewood and the South Lake community by giving the County Road 19 corridor a sense of place as the northerly entrance or "gateway" into the community. Next, Director Nielsen reviewed a brief outline of the plan as it related to natural resources/environment, including Gideon Glen, the Gideon Historic Monument, Land Use, Transportation, and potential for Community Facilities/Services. Upon review of these elements found in the Corridor Study, the Commission discussed the options for a trail along the easterly portion and behind the Public Safety Facility located 24140 Smithtown Road. Director Nielsen stated the Park Commission needed to review the potential for the trail as part of the City's trail planning process. Commissioner Borkon stated she could understand the viewpoints shared by the City Engineer and the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Chief regarding concerns for safety and potential for vandalism in these areas. As a result, she stated she would like to hear more input from these two persons regarding the potential trail prior to any recommendation being made on the subject. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 21, 2003 Page 2 of2 Discussion ensued regarding the language to be utilized in the Corridor Study pertaining to Item B7 under the Land Use portion of the Corridor Plan shared this evening. Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Endorsing the Concept Outline Plan for the County Road 19 Corridor Study as presented and changing the wording found in the Concept Outline Plan Item B7 from "Consider pedestrian bicycle trail on east of site" to "Build pedestrian bicycle trail on east side of site." Motion passed 7/0. Commissioner Borkon stated she was not opposed to the trail concept, however, she would like to retain the word "consider" until the views of City Engineer and the SLMPD Chief could be heard as they related to the Concept Plan presented this evening. 2. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTERS Director Nielsen stated the Commission would review this Item at the next Planning Commission Meeting. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the Comprehensive Plan Chapter Review, as well as a Conditional Use Permit request, and three Minor Subdivision/Combinations were slated for the November 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. He reminded the Commission this meeting would be held on a Wednesday, as the normal meeting day was Election Day. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 13, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC No report was given. · Other No other business was presented this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Pisula moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 21, 2003, at 8:52 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bailey (arrived at 7:49 P.M.); Commissioners Borkon (arrived at 7:51 P.M.), Gagne, Packard, White, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby, and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Pisula APPROVAL OF MINUTES · October 21, 2003 Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the October 21, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - c.u.P. FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive Chair Woodruff opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Director Nielsen explained Dr. Kelly Bosworth owned the two lots at 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive. He proposed to expand the existing office building on the southerly lot in order to locate his dental practice there. Since offices were conditional uses in the R-C district, Dr. Kelly had applied for a Conditional Use Permit. Director Nielsen noted the properties were zoned R-C, Residential Commercial, and were both just over one acre in size. Surrounding land uses and zoning were single-family residential; zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to the north; CUB Foods/Shorewood Village Center; zoned C-3, General Commercial to the East; an office building; zoned R-C to the South; and single-family residential; zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential to the West. He went on to explain the subject properties ranged in elevation from 1006 on the south end to 974 on the north side, a difference of 32 feet. An empty office building occupied the southerly parcel (formerly Resource Recovery Services) and its two parking lots. The upper parking lot did not conform to zoning requirements. The building contained 2940 square feet of area. The north lot was vacant, covered by brushy vegetation with scattered with large deciduous trees, primarily cottonwood and ash. The applicant proposed to renovate and expand the existing building to 10,126 square feet of office space in two and one-half stories, plus an additional 1340 square feet of garage space in the rear. Since the applicant owned both lots, he had attempted to show how the entire site might be developed in the future. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 2 of 8 . The site plan also showed a second building, containing approximately 9200 square feet of area on two levels. Parking, access and drainage were shown for both sites. The applicant also proposed maintaining the residential character of the existing building, with pitched rooflines, lapped siding and fieldstone accents. Director Nielsen noted the applicant had submitted the application demonstrating the overall development of both sites. While this had merit, he noted, it was not clear how much of the development would take place as part of a first phase of construction. As a result, he stated he would analyze both sites with regard to issues of concern. Director Nielsen explained the R-C zoning district was established to create land use transitions between higher intensity activities (e.g. highways or commercial development) and lower intensity uses such as single-family residential. He noted the district to be quite restrictive, allowing two family dwellings as permitted uses, with other uses categorized as conditional. He also noted there were specific conditions set forth in the Zoning Code regarding offices in this district. Director Nielsen explained the applicant had submitted a revised site plan, however, there had not been ample time to provide adequate review prior to the meeting this evening. He stated he believed the revised plans had attempted to remedy many areas of concern for the project, and he would note these areas where appropriate in his explanation this evening. . Upon analysis, he went on to explain, the site plan showed 96 parking stalls, plus the six garage spaces. The required number of spaces for the two sites was 93. It was difficult to understand whether the south parking lot had adequate parking spaces when constructed on its own, thus, it was recommended that the parking lot configuration be redesigned to address the following issues: a. The proposed entrance to the site has been moved approximately 20 feet to the south of its current location. Presumably this is to minimize grade and create some separation from the westerly entrance to CUB, across the street. b. The pullout "tail" at the south end of the southeasterly parking area was inadequate in depth. c. With the exception of the common lot line between the two parcels, parking complied with zoning setbacks. The setback for the side lot line between the parcels was five feet. d. There were inadequate curb islands to control parking. The spaces in the westerly parking area simply "float"; relying only on striping that would become covered with snow in the winter. e. The 12 angled spaces in the north half of the westerly parking area dictated a one-way design. One of the spaces (#76) conflicts with the direction of the rest of the spaces. If angled parking is to be maintained, the direction should be reversed so that traffic entering the west lot goes in a counterclockwise direction. This directional flow was reversed in the revised plan. f. The two spaces adjacent to the north entry to the building required either backing in or a trip around the parking lot to go in forward. This was eliminated in revision, however, one-way signage was still needed. . g. The dimensions of parking spaces and driveways were extremely tight, with many of the parking spaces not complying with the 18-foot depth requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 3 of 8 . h. Driveway grades were shown at seven percent. The Zoning Code maximum for parking lots was five percent. Correction will undoubtedly require additional grading. This item was corrected in the revision submitted. 1. The north side garage door conflicted with the doors on the west side of the building. J. The northerly parking area required an extremely extensive retaining wall system. The plan suggested a grade separation of as much as 18 feet. The grade separation was changed to ten feet in the revision submitted. k. Parking appeared to be commingled between the two parcels. With regard to issues of access, as mentioned above, the proposed driveway had been relocated 20 feet to the south of its current location. The driveway was shown at 24 feet. Consideration should be given to widening it to 24 feet. Joint access for the two parcels should be encouraged. Director Nielsen noted this item had been addressed in the revision submitted. . With regard to providing buffering and landscaping of the site, the applicant proposed maintaining existing vegetation on the west and north sides of the site. Beyond that, he noted, very little additional landscaping had been proposed. This was one of the most important elements in maintaining compatibility between higher and lower intensity land uses. It was recommended the applicant hire a registered landscape architect to prepare a plan consistent with Shorewood's landscaping requirements. Fencing along the residential boundaries should also strongly be considered. Director Nielsen noted there were several areas related to special provisions of the Code that impacted the site plans. He stated hours of operation for commercial activities were limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M and 9:00 P.M. With regard to noise, the applicant's plans did not indicate where h.v.a.c. equipment would be located. Consideration should be given to locating the equipment on the south side of the building, as far east as possible. The equipment should be contained/screened so as to minimize noise. Signage plans had not yet been submitted. Upon analysis, Director Nielsen stated, there remained a number of design elements of concern regarding the submitted site plans. He stated he liked the design of the building as it had a north woods lodge appearance that maintained a residential character. While the applicant had submitted hardcover calculations for the site that were within the allowable hardcover range for the Code, the calculations were based on a previous site plan that had since changed. Additional site lighting was proposed for the rear parking areas. He went on to explain a detailed plan showing light levels in compliance with the Zoning Code should be required, along with details of the fixtures. Lighting should be low in height, downcast and hooded from neighboring residential properties. Lighting should be shut off between 9:30 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. With regard to drainage, Director Nielsen explained the City Engineer had indicated that the plans for drainage for the site were generally on the right track, although runoff calculations have not yet been received. The majority of runoff was being conducted to the southeasterly pond, and ultimately to the highway. Director Nielsen also noted the applicant had cooperated with the Shorewood Village Center to extend municipal water service to his two lots. . Overall, Director Nielsen explained, the site plans submitted for consideration of the Conditional Use Permit, seemed to be appropriate, however, there were too many details of the project needing remedy or revision. For that reason, he stated, he recommended the matter be continued to the December 2,2003, Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion and review. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 4 of 8 . Director Nielsen also stated he had met with several of the neighbors in the area that were concerned with the color of the exterior of the building, the service activities associated with the operations of the building, as well as the maintenance of the site, throughout construction and operation. He also noted the conformity to the American Disability Act that dictated the inclusion of an access ramp to the building. Dr. Kelly Bosworth, owner of the sites, stated he had submitted revised plans to Director Nielsen and had also brought the plans with him this evening, should anyone care to view them firsthand. He briefly reviewed the highlights of the changes to the originally submitted plans, noting he had tried to address areas of concern. He stated the HV AC equipment was being placed away from the neighbors; he had addressed issues of grade, road access, and parking spaces. He stated the exterior colors were to be neutral, including dark red, brown, and possibly a green roof with a log exterior. With regard to landscaping, he was planning to add more landscaping that would be considered more than adequate. He also stated he would be amenable to discussing fencing the site, if it was desirable to the neighbors. Dr. Bosworth also stated there were options available to him regarding the development of the northerly site. He had decided to share potential plans for both sites at this time in order to receive feedback fro the Council and neighbors, however, he was only asking for the Conditional Use Permit to be considered for the southerly site to allow construction to begin on that phase of the project. He stated he would return with plans for the northerly site after more discussions with neighboring property owners and Director Nielsen. . Karen Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, stated she thought the plans demonstrated a beautiful building, however, she would like to see fencing and landscaping added to the site. She stated many of the trees on the site currently were deciduous. Furthermore, she stated she would like to see maintenance plans for the site. Carl Bost, 6090 Lake Linden Drive, stated he was the property owner adjacent to the site on the north, and he was concerned for increased traffic needed to support the 93 parking spaces planned for the site. Andrew Fisher, 6175 Riviera Lane, stated he was also concerned with the increased traffic to merit 93 parking spaces on the site. He stated he was concerned with the overall size of the building planned, as well as the landscaping. He stated he would like to see additional landscaping on the site, as well as fencing in the plans. Furthermore, he stated he was concerned with the sight lines from all levels of the building, and he wondered if berms could be places around the site to mitigate these concerns. He also stated he was concerned for the ponding on the site, and certainly, did not wish to see a pond planned for the westerly side of the property near other residences. Chair Bailey arrived at 7 :49 P.M. Rob Meece, 6185 Riviera Lane, stated he appreciated the efforts of Dr. Bosworth in asking for the input from the neighbors regarding the site plans. He stated he would like to see fencing and landscaping of the site as the car lights currently shine in his home at various points in the day. Commissioner Borkon arrived at 7:51 P.M. . Nancy Meece, 6185 Riviera Lane, stated she was also concerned about the landscaping of the site. She stated she had been hearing a choice of either fencing or landscaping, and she wanted to advocate utilizing both to minimize visual impact from the site. A solid barrier would prevent pedestrian traffic from cutting through the site to the Shorewood Village Shopping Center and would also provide a visual barrier as well. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 5 of8 Chair Woodruff closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M. Commissioner Packard questioned the use of the building. Dr. Bosworth explained its purpose would be to house medical and dental offices. Commissioner White questioned the rationale for the number of parking spaces. Director Nielsen explained it was based on the building size and use. Commissioner Gagne stated he liked the residential character of the design. Commissioner Packard agreed. In response to Commissioner White's question, Dr. Bosworth explained the six garage spaces were for his office staff for parking. Commissioner Woodruff clarified issues regarding the building height, lighting, ponding on site, and service activity for the operation of the building. Council Liaison Zerby questioned the mathematical calculations utilized by Director Nielsen in arriving at the necessary 93 parking spaces. After a bit of discussion, Director Nielsen stated he would recalculate the numbers at a later time and report his findings back to the Commission. Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Continuing the Request for Conditional Use Permit for Dr. Kelly Bosworth, 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive, to the December 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. Acting Chair Woodruff stated she would like to see the revised plans for the December 2,2003, Planning Commission Meeting to include a cross sectional diagram of landscaping as it related to sight lines from car headlights and the surrounding properties, as well as a plan for lighting and landscaping for the site. Motion passed 6/0. Acting Chair Woodruff returned control of the meeting to Chair Bailey at 8:08 P.M. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Applicant: Schwarz Bldrs., Inc. Location: 24140 Yellowstone Trail and Adjacent Lot Director Nielsen explained the applicant had purchased the property at 24140 Yellowstone Trail and the vacant lot next to it. The applicant had requested a minor subdivision and combination to rearrange the lot lines between the two parcels. The westerly of the two lots was vacant, but virtually unbuildable due to wetland and wetland setbacks. The lot line rearrangement would add buildable area to the westerly lot, as shown on the submitted survey, with access through a shared driveway to the easterly lot. The subject properties contained a total of 3.32 acres, with a single-family dwelling occupying the easterly parcel. As proposed, the westerly parcel would contain 2.31 acres and the easterly parcel would contain 1.01 acres. Upon analysis, Director Nielsen stated both of the proposed lots complied with the area, width, and depth requirements of the R-IA Zoning District. To avoid disturbing the wetland area, the applicants proposed serving both properties with a common driveway on the east side of the site. The driveway serving the existing home would be removed. Director Nielsen also noted the proposal was considered to be a good solution to the development of this property, versus filling and mitigating the wetland. The applicants also planned to construct a house on the new lot, while still observing the City's wetland buffer and setback requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 6 of 8 . Director Nielsen recommended approval of the division and combination, subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of each lot. 2. The conservation easement should be expanded to encompass the wetland buffer area. The applicant must provide a deed for the conservation easement. 3. The applicant must have the wetland buffer staked using wetland stakes as required by the City. 4. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 5. The applicant must record the division and easements within 30 days of receipt of the Council resolution approving the request. 6. Tree preservation and reforestation should be addressed with the building permit for the new lot. 7. Recent Fire Code requirements dictate the new house would have to have a sprinkler system, as it would be more than 150 feet back from the street. Kurt Schwarz, owner of the property, stated he was a small custom builder whose goal was to build fine custom homes in nice neighborhood such as this one. He stated the proposed driveway allowed for better sight lines when entering and exiting the site. He also stated he would be remodeling and remarketing the existing home on the property, and would most likely live in the home to built on the other lot, as he thought the wetlands added beauty to the property. In response to Commissioner White's question, he explained the new home to be built would be 1300-1500 square feet, and would fit the privacy ofthe lot. . Chair Bailey questioned the need for a retaining wall near the proposed driveway due to steep grades. He also expressed concern for creating a flag lot in this case. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Approving a Minor Subdivision and Combination, subject to Staff Recommendations, for Schwarz Bldrs., Inc., 24140 Yellowstone Trail and Adjacent Lot. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION Applicant: Kay Ellen Triden Location: 4975 Kensington Gate Director Nielsen explained the applicant was requesting a lot line rearrangement for her property at 4975 Kensington Gate. As she explained in her request letter, her existing deck was located ion the common area of Amesbury, beyond the unit-lot boundary of her property. A lot line adjustment would solve the problem and Director Nielsen noted she had the support of the Amesbury Homes Association. Kay Ellen Triden stated the Board of the Amesbury Homes Association had agreed to convey eight feet to her. She stated she would be turning her deck into a three-season porch with her neighbors' knowledge and support of her project. Commissioner Woodruff questioned the potential implications for approval of this situation as it related to the other units on the property. Ms. Triden explained her building was among the last to be built on the property. For reasons unknown to her, there were incremental encroachments of similar nature to her situation with other unit lot lines for her building. Director Nielsen stated it would be wise to have the Amesbury Homes Association view all unit lot lines and submit a replat for all. . Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision and Combination for Kay Ellen Triden, 4975 Kensington Gate. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 7of8 Ms. Triden clarified her need for a survey and legal description for the resolution granting approval of this request prior to consideration of Council. Commissioner Gagne called the question. Motion passed 6/0. 4. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT Applicant: Our Savior's Luther Church Location: 23290 Highway 7 Director Nielsen explained that in January 2001 Our Savior's Church amended their conditional use permit to add the community center/gymnasium to their building. The site plan approved included a proposed utility building located in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The Church had an opportunity to acquire an existing garage, currently located in Minnetonka. The garage measured 24' x 38' and fit into the space originally set aside on the plan. Shorewood's Building Moving Code was originally intended to address the moving of houses into the community. As written, however, any building moved into the City must comply. The Code focused on three issues: 1) quality of the structure; 2) zoning aspects (i.e. setbacks, height, etc.); and 3) the route over which the structure will be moved. Director Nielsen then reviewed how this matter complied with the Code. He noted the Building Official had inspected the structure and had suggested a couple of technical corrections, such as additional bracing, and Electrical Code compliance. Overall, the building was relatively new (4-5 years) and in very good condition. He also noted the building fit very nicely into the space originally proposed for a building. It should be noted that the building would be blocked until next spring, after which a permanent foundation would be constructed. Due to its low height, power lines were not considered to be an issue, nor was the planned route for moving the structure, as the building would be moved in on Highway 7, then directly onto the service road and onto the church property. Chair Bailey expressed concern for the storage items currently being stored on the location of the proposed garage. He suggested a stipulation be placed upon the permit that the items currently being stored outside be moved inside. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommended Approval of a Building Moving Permit, subject to the stipulation that non-conforming items currently being stored outside would be stored inside, for Our Savior's Lutheran Church, 23290 Highway 7. Motion passed 6/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study and Review of the Comprehensive Plan Chapters was slated for the November 18, 2003, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Agenda. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Page 8 of8 7. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 27, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC No report was given on this item. · Other No other business was presented this evening. 8. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 5,2003, at 9:11 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEBER 18, 2003 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, White and Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Council Liaison Zerby APPROVAL OF MINUTES · November 5, 2003 Borkon moved, White seconded, Approving the November 5, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/01, with Pisula abstaining due to absence at that meeting. 1. COUNTY ROAD 19 CORRIDOR STUDY Director Nielsen explained the information shared for review this evening included a proposed "mini- Comprehensive Plan" for the County Road 19 Corridor area of the City. He then reviewed Corridor issues, such as Natural Resources/Environment, Land Use, Transportation, and Community Facilities/Services associated with the County Road 19 project. The goals of the Study were to upgrade and improve all aspects (safety, convenience, and aesthetics) of the segment of County Road 19 that extended through Shorewood, between Tonka Bay and Excelsior, and to enhance the identity of Shorewood and the South Lake Minnetonka community by giving the County Road 19 corridor a sense of place as the northerly entrance or "gateway" into the community. The Corridor Plan included elements related to Gideon Glen and it historic monument, issues related to Land Use, such as billboards, potential plans for any redevelopment the Xcel Energy site might be interested in pursuing in the distant future, redevelopment of the Tonka Village Shopping Center, the Public Safety Facility Campus, Non- conforming Multiple-Family Use sites, "stranded Single-Family Residential sites, substandard parking lots, and landscaping throughout the entire corridor area. Transportation concerns were addressed as part of the County Road 19/5mithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection, pedestrianlbicycle circulation, as well as the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) Trail. Commissioner Woodruff stated she was concerned the landscaping planned, as a critical underlying element throughout the Corridor Study, might potentially be lost due to lack of funding. She stated she believed it was imperative that the landscaping remain and various options considered for how to keep it as part of the Corridor Study plans should a lack of funding become a possibility. After review and discussion on the proposed plan for the County Road 19 Corridor, the Planning Commission agreed a trail through the Public Safety Facility should be proposed as part of the Plan, and support was demonstrated for moving the Gideon Glen monument to a site closer to the HCRRA trail for better vehicular and pedestrian viewing. Director Nielsen stated he would consult the Excelsior Historical Society regarding the monument and its history. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES November 18, 2003 Page 2 of2 . Commissioner Gagne stated he was a bit apprehensive regarding the cost for undergrounding utilities as part of this project when it would only be affecting a few blocks and then the utilities would be overhead again in neighboring municipalities. Commissioner Borkon stated she thought it important as it was part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and it was important to be able to tackle the issue in small pieces when available to accomplish undergrounding as a goal. 2. REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTERS Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Chapter Summaries. Discussion ensued regarding the need to leave items in the summaries that had been, or were nearing, completion. Director Nielsen stated he thought it imperative to have these items remain as it explained the rationale for decisions made in the past to the future Commissions and Council of the future. The Commission also suggested items pending or needing monitoring be designated symbolically throughout the proposed summaries. The Commission agreed to review these Chapter Summaries in further detail and return this item to the December 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA . Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study, Comprehensive Plan Chapter Summary Review, as well as Public Hearings for Development Stage Plans for the Barrington PUD and continuation of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Building, were slated for the December 2,2003, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Borkon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 10, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). · SLUC No report was given. Director Nielsen noted George Latimer would be the speaker for the Sensible Land Use Coalition Seminar at the Doubletree Park Place Hotel from 11 :20-1 :30 P.M on December 10,2003. · Other No other business was presented this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 18,2003, at 8:38 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2003 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 Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Pisula, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Packard APPROVAL OF MINUTES · November 18, 2003 Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Approving the November 18, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS - BARRINGTON P.U.D. (formerlv known as Capestone Ponds) Applicant: Brian Harju, Capestone Builders Location: 20755 and 20775 Manor Road Director Nielsen explained that last February Capestone Builders received approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Concept Stage approval for a 24-unit residential development on land currently occupied by the Carmichael auto salvage yard. Having completed a limited Phase II Environmental Assessment, the developers were now requesting approval of their development stage plans and preliminary plat. He noted the plans had changed. The number of units had been reduced to 22 (11 buildings), and there were two storm water detention ponds In the previous stage of consideration of the proposed plans, Director Nielsen had stated there were a number of issues requiring resolution and further consideration, the most significant of which was the extent of the environmental contamination caused by years of use as an auto salvage yard. He noted a report had been provided by the consulting engineer commissioned by the developer. The consultant's conclusion was that approximately 14,000 cubic yards of contaminated material would have to be removed from the site and disposed of in an appropriate landfill. He went on to explain the developer had now authorized the consultant to prepare necessary plans for MPCA approval. They had also begun the application process for a cleanup grant through Hennepin County. There had been no indication at this time as to how long it will take to prepare the MPCA plans, or how long the review of those plans will take. Director Nielsen noted there were several other issues of concern raised in the previous stage plans, including the need to establish a wetland buffer and soil remediation of the contaminated soils within the wetland buffer itself. He stated the wetland had been platted as part of the common area, with a drainage and utility easement over it. The wetland and 35-foot buffer should have a conservation easement over it in favor ofthe City as part of Staff recommendations. With regard to the setbacks in the project, he noted, some of the unit lots extend into the setback area. This was considered acceptable, provided the development agreement and protective covenants for the project clearly stated the buildings should not be extended past the setback. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2003 Page 2 of6 . All buildings showed a 20-foot setback from the paved surface of the street. Side yard setbacks demonstrated as part of the plans needed to be revised to comply with the Code requirements stipulating that structures must be separated by a distance of one-half of the sum of the respective building heights. Traffic generated by the project was calculated as 5-8 trips per day per unit. Director Nielsen stated the twin homes would be served by a private, cul-de-sac street extending into the site from Excelsior Boulevard. Only the existing Carmichael home would continue to have direct access to Manor Road. The plans for the private street have been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. The development agreement and the protective covenants for the project must contain language putting future residents of the project that the road was private and that the City would not take over its maintenance and repair. Original plans included guest parking spaces, which had been eliminated from the project. While each unit had its required number of parking spaces or more, it was considered important to realize that the street does not have adequate width to accommodate on-street parking. The street would need to be posted "No Parking". Director Nielsen went on to state the homes were being platted for individual ownership. Each unit would have its own unit-lot, with the remaining area being common open space for the development. For clarification purposes, he noted the project was located entirely within the city of Shorewood. . The Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Concept Stage approval specified the proposed density was only acceptable if municipal water was extended to the site. The City had revised its water connection fees to provide a credit to the developer for work done outside of the project. Sanitary sewer capacity was not considered to be an issue of concern for this project. Director Nielsen stated the development stage plans submitted had also raised additional issues of concern beyond those from the initial review. Specifically, the City Engineer had expressed concerns about the height and construction of the retaining walls in the northeast corner of the site. It now appeared that some of the higher ground along the north and east sides of the site would be graded at a 2:1 slope in order, presumably, to lower the retaining walls. This action would result in more tree removal than was anticipated. He recommended more detail be provided as to how the walls would look. It was also suggested the developer provide a cross-section view of the walls at their highest point, showing the proposed construction of the walls and their proximity to the adjacent buildings. Director Nielsen also stated the number of trees to be removed would be significant due to removal of contaminated soils; construction of the necessary detention ponds; and, the construction of the road and buildings. The number of replacement trees proposed by the developer was 59. Based upon the maximum tree replacement of eight trees per acre, the developer was obligated to put back 89 trees. With respect to the tree replacement plan submitted, Director Nielsen suggested additional evergreens be placed along the east side of the southerly pond as a buffer for the existing home to the east of the pond. Also, if possible, the area disturbed along the north and east property line, above the retaining walls, should have additional trees. Also, no details had been provided for the proposed monument sign at the entry to the development. Location of the sign structure(s) must observe a 30-foot sight triangle, measured from the intersection of the private road surface and the Excelsior Boulevard right-of-way. . For all of these reason, Director Nielsen recommended the request be continued to the January 6,2004, Planning Commission Meeting for further review and consideration, pending receipt of the revised plans that would address the issues raised in discussion this evening. Roger Anderson, civil engineering consultant for Capestone Builders, provided a summary of the Environmental clean-up report for the site. He stated the project that had been approved earlier in the . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2003 Page 3 of 6 year had been a good one, but was slowed due to environmental concerns that now had been reviewed by Liesch and Associates for potential contamination. He noted Liesch and Associates also had reviewed the site for onsite remediation. It was determined that the best method was to remove the soil and place it in a licensed facility for decontamination processes. He noted the process being planned was quite expensive and included scraping off of certain contaminated layers of soil from the site. The process of discovery and removal would be closely supervised by a certified contractor, as well as representatives from Liesch and Associates, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and the City of Shorewood. Mr. Anderson further explained the soil thickness for removal would vary and would need to continue until the soil cleanup was no longer needed. He stated the project was compelled to meet MPCA criteria, and a Hennepin County Clean-Up Grant had been applied for as part ofthis case as well. He then reviewed the potential time line for the process and noted an action plan would have to be approved by the MPCA. The MPCA would stipulate how the soils would need to be removed. This project would be heavily monitored and adjusted by the MPCA. Once the soil cleanup was complete, the rest of the project would be handled as any other residential development site. He stated he was confident, with the MPCA approval, the cleanup could occur, and was considered manageable. Mr. Anderson further stated he had heard concerns from the Staff and Commission earlier in the process, and noted water samples had not been taken in the wetland area of this site. He stated the MPCA would set requirements for any cleanup of the wetland, but at this point, the soil issues were not believe to have migrated to the wetland area. He stated there were a number of issues with buffers for the project, as there were several areas impacted by the environmental clean up. The plan was to replace the buffer with appropriate native species and revegetate the area. This plan would need formal approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Buffering was planned for the areas between Manor Road and the units as well as near the ponds on the site. He went on to explain that the embankment and retaining walls referenced in Director Nielsen's analysis of the case, included the need for maintenance-free plantings and to be able to shed water. He stated the project anticipated use oflow-maintenance vegetation, groundcover, and trees with a fence atop the retaining wall. He stated these trees would need to be strategically placed due to the topography of the site. He also stated he was unsure of the material planned for construction of the retaining wall, however, he noted it was planned to ensure a good look and character that would also handle the bearing loads being placed upon them. He stated he would provide a cross-section of the proposed structure to the City Engineer as part of plans to be submitted prior to the next meeting. Mr. Anderson stated there was some opportunity to provide some off-street parking, and he anticipated the project would start in the Spring of 2004 with a potential model home being constructed by the end of the summer. He stated the developers hoped to be ready for Spring preview in approximately 1.5 years. He stated the design of the units would be merged to follow the Code. Kenny and Bonnie Good, 5310 St. Alban's Bay Road, were present and stated they were the adjacent property owners to the east of the project. Mr. Good stated he was happy the development was taking place on the site, but expressed concern for the retaining wall planned as part of the project, and its subsequent runoff. He stated there was a great deal of runoff currently and he did not believe the area could handle any more drainage. He stated he thought more needed to be done in the area with regard to drainage. Patti Rainier, 5250 St. Alban's Bay Road, stated she was thrilled with the proposed development, and the neighborhood was happy to have the project in that area. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2003 Page 4 of6 . The Planning Commissioners requested clarification on issues pertaining to the distance between buildings, impacts to wetlands on site as a result of the removal and decontamination of the soil, cost per unit, and the design for the porch areas within the units. Commissioner Gagne expressed concern for the drainage flowing through the site, and additional off- street parking needed as part of the plan. Director Nielsen stated the City Engineer would be reviewing the plans for grading, drainage, and environmental controls. Discussion ensued regarding clarification for the plan for construction of the retaining wall, and how to keep the proposed retaining pond from the wetland areas. Commissioner Woodruff stated she was glad to see the project taking shape, but was very concerned about the environmental impacts to the site. Most specifically, she was concerned about the downward slope to the wetland, and why soil testing did not occur in that area. Mr. Anderson stated he was unsure if the pond area had been tested. He also stated, with regard to Commissioners' questions about the runoff from other areas, such as from Highway 7, and the impacts to clean-up from those pollutants, that it seemed prudent to allow the MPCA to review the plans and make a determination, as the areas that did not contain contaminants close to the MPCA thresholds were not required for clean-up as the contamination would continue to flush through the soils. . Commissioner Pisula stated he knew certain pollutants would continue to travel downward into the soils, and he was surprised the existing well serving the residence had not yet been tested. In response to Commissioner Pisula's concern, Mr. Anderson stated he would request Liesch and Associates to review the possible contaminants to the existing well. Director Nielsen explained, in response to Commissioner Borkon' s question, that the MPCA action plan would provide some answers to the concerns noted regarding the environmental impacts from the pollutants and how those pollutants would impact the water on the property. Chair Bailey stated he still remained concerned about the necessary environmental clean up of the site. Brian Hatju, owner of Capestone Builders, stated he had been on the site at the time Liesch and Associates collected its soil samples. He stated there were twelve test bits, he had encouraged six more, due to questions raised about the wetland. He stated their scientist stated water would have to literally collect soils and travel overland to the wetland to contaminate it. The scientist had stated this was quite unlikely and that wetlands by their purpose cleaned themselves over time. Further, the scientist believed contaminants would not be found in the wetland waters but would possibly be found in the soils below. However, this would be very difficult to make a determination as to the origin of the contaminant to those soils below the wetlands. Commissioner Borkon encouraged the developer to obtain a written documentation from Liesch and Associates declaring there would be no issue of contaminants to the water quality on the site. Mr. Hatju agreed, and stated he thought further investigation of the well water was appropriate as well. . Chair Bailey stated he believed the Planning Commission was requesting further information with respect to the wells, and a wetland assessment from Liesch and Associates with actions for evaluating the condition of the wetlands. He further stated he thought it best to continue this matter to the January 6, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting to allow further review of the stated areas of concern. Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, Continuing the Request to January 6, 2004, for Development Stage Plans for Barrington P.D.D. (formerly known as Capestone Ponds), for Brian Harju, Capestone Builders, 20755 and 20775 Manor Road. Motion passed 6/0. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2003 Page 5 of 6 Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:38 P.M., and reconvened the meeting at 8:45 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING- C.U.P. FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING (continued from 5 November 2003 Plannin2 Commission meetin2) Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 3. COUNTY ROAD 19 CORRIDOR STUDY Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study presented this evening included past revisions, and would continue to have items added to it, such as the Gideon Glen concept plan upon its completion. Chair Bailey stated the word "planned" rather than "proposed" should be included, conditioned upon anticipated Park Commission approval, when discussing the potential for a trail through the easterly portion of the Public Safety Facility as part of the Corridor Study. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Draft of the County Road 19 Corridor Study. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Bailey stated there had been recent discussions by the Planning Commission of the Chapter Summaries for the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission noted minor revisions to the Chapter Summaries in the areas of Transportation, Community Facilities, and Housing. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Revisions to the City's Comprehensive Plan Chapter Summaries. Motion passed 6/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated he would prepare a meeting Agenda for the January 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. The Continuation of the Development Stage Plans for the Barrington Planned Unit Development would be slated for that Agenda. 6. REPORTS · Liaison to Council No report was given, as a Commissioner had not been able to be present at the most recent Regular City Council Meeting. · SLUC No report at this time. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2003 Page 6 of 6 · Other Commissioner Gagne stated the Metro. Mobility buses utilized in the Dial-A-Ride program would now be housed nightly in Spring Park, Minnesota, under a five-year lease option for indoor storage. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 2, 2003, at 9:25 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Sally Keefe Recording Secretary