2006 planning minutes
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 3 JANUARY 2006
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 Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, White, and Woodruff;
Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Wellens
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 6 December 2005
Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Moving the Approval of the December 6, 2005, Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes to the January 17, 2006, Agenda. Motion passed 7/0,
1. 7: 00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicants: Scott Williams and Linda Halcon
Location: 5955 Country Club Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a January 23, 2005,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained Scott Williams and Linda Hakon, who own the property at 5955 Country
Club Road, have requested a setback variance. The subject property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family
Residential and contained approximately 40,573 square feet of area (just shy of one acre). The applicants
proposed building a small (10' x 12'), single-story room addition at the back of their home. The addition
would be built on an existing foundation that was constructed with the original home in the early 80's.
Nielsen then reviewed various illustrations of the existing home, planned addition and property views. He
stated the subject property became nonconforming with the platting of Mary Lake Woods, a seven-lot
subdivision located to the south of the subject property.
Director Nielsen then explained with regard to the analysis of the case, Staff had researched the property
file and found the original building permit included the foundation at the rear of the house. The building
plans for the home clearly showed the future addition. At the time the home was originally constructed it
was located somewhat back on the lot for two apparent reasons: 1) to establish some distance from a
relatively Country Club Road, a busy street; and 2) to take advantage of a clearing in the otherwise
wooded lot.
Nielsen explained the proposed addition was consistent with the original plans for the home and would
finish off the back side of the house. He noted the right-of-way for Mary Lake Trail was wider (75 feet)
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 2 of 8
than the standard 50-foot street. That was done because of the relatively steep topography along the north
side of the Mary Lake Woods project. The subject property would have substantially more green space
on the north side of Mary Lake Trail, even with the proposed addition. The elevation change, existing
vegetation, and the extraordinary right-of-way width mitigate any visual effect the addition would have
on homes on the south side of Mary Lake Trail.
Nielsen stated if the applicants were allowed to finish the home as originally planned and constructed they
would be able to make reasonable use of their property. He again noted their hardship was due to the
construction of the Mary Lake Trail and not of their own doing. He explained the proposed variance was
considered to be the minimum necessary, considering the current extent of the existing foundation, and
did not adversely affect neighboring properties.
Nielsen stated the applicants' request was considered to satisfy the criteria for a variance. Adequate
landscaping exists on the property to soften the view of the proposed addition; therefore no additional
landscaping is suggested at this time. He stated Staff recommended the variance be approved.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this topic, Chair Bailey opened and closed the public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if the granting of this variance request would set precedence for
future variance requests. He stated he understood there were a number of interesting facts associated with
this variance request. He also stated he was aware of other applicants who had requested variances and
been denied. He wanted to ensure the Planning Commission was able to distinguish the elements of this
variance request that would contribute to the Planning Commission recommending it for approval.
Director Nielsen stated he was not aware of another similar variance request. In response to a comment
from Commissioner Woodruff, Nielsen stated if a structure such as a deck or home was destroyed to more
than 50% of the structures value it must conform to current code regulations when rebuilt.
Discussion ensued regarding the uniqueness of this variance request and whether or not the granting of
this variance would set a precedent.
Director Nielsen clarified only a portion of applicants home became nonconforming after Mary Lake
Trail was built. He explained if a portion of the Mary Lake Trail right-of-way were vacated it had to be
returned to the Mary Lake Woods Subdivision, the original owner, and it would not help the applicant. He
also stated for a variance to be granted there must be an element of uniqueness with the property.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the granting of this variance would set a precedent, and the
need for the Commission to understand the elements that made this variance unique.
Commissioner Woodruff stated a portion of the Mary Lake Trail could be vacated back to Mary Lake
Woods Subdivision which in turn could be given to the applicants, although Mary Lake Woods would not
have to give the property up. All of that activity would be a costly and time-consuming endeavor. He
summarized, granting the variance would be the most cost effective and expeditious approach.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of a Request for a Setback Variance
for Scott Williams and Linda Halcon, 5955 Country Club Road. Motion passed 7/0.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 3 of8
2.
PUBLIC HEARING - C.D.P. FOR COMMERCIAL BIDLDING AND TEXT
AMENDMENT REGARDING SHORELAND DISTRICT HARDCOVER
REGULATIONS
Applicant:
Location:
Frostad Development Co.
23505 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Public Hearing for a c.u.P. for Commercial Building and Text
Amendment Regarding Shoreland District Hardcover Regulations had been continued from the 6
December 2005 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Commission had agreed to consider
an amendment to the impervious surface restrictions for commercial properties in the "S" Shoreland
zoning district, and had directed the developer to revise his development plans to address issues raised by
Staff.
Nielsen stated the consensus of the Planning Commission had been to allow additional impervious
surface for commercial properties, subject to specific storm water treatment standards being included in
the regulations. He reviewed a draft amendment of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2. u. that incorporated the
recommendations of the City's engineering consultant, which were based upon the requirements of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Nielsen noted Shorewood was not bound by Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District regulations. The significant text amendment was the addition of Section 1201.03
Subd. 2.uA.a and Subd. 2.uA.b. The amendment allowed for the c.u.P. for hardcover in excess of 25
percent provided it complied with the requirements for stormwater runoff treatment measures, as
specified, and the measures must be consistent with National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Standards.
He stated there was also a minor addition to Section 1201.26 Subd. 8.b.(1).
In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Nielsen stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.uA.c,
code specifying the maximum ratio of impervious service to be 75%, was inadvertently omitted from the
draft text amendment.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Text Amendment Regarding
Shoreland District Hardcover Regulations subject to the addition of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.u.4.c
"The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area ratio shall not exceed 75%." Motion passed
7/0.
Director Nielsen went on to address the request for a conditional use permit for the redevelopment of
Shorewood Nursery, 23505 Smithtown Road, as requested by Frostad Development Company. He stated
the applicant had submitted revised plans. He then reviewed how the revised plans addressed the issues
previously identified in a staff report, and what issues were still outstanding.
1. The parking lot design had been modified to comply with R-C district setback requirements. The
building had been very slightly reduced in area. The number of spaces provided was 114, where
107 were required. The proposed hardcover was reduced to 64% of the site; therefore a reduction
in parking spaces was not recommended.
2.
The driveway in front of the property (County Road 19) had been moved, as recommended by
Staff. The C.U.P. should reference approval of the driveway location by Hennepin County.
Circulation aisles had been removed from the required setback areas.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 4 of8
.
3.
The landscape plan had been redesigned and signed by a registered landscape architect. The plan
now identified existing vegetation on the site; it designated what vegetation would be removed
and what vegetation would be saved. The final grading plan for the project should illustrate tree
protection measures. As mentioned previously, the proposed pond (which had now been
enlarged) left minimal room for landscaping. A low-maintenance fence as previously described
was still recommended.
The plan was considered to be consistent with the recommendations of the County Road 19
Corridor Study. Irrigation for the landscaping should be addressed with the building permit for
the property. Finally, the C.U.P. should reference the annual maintenance of the proposed
perennial planting beds.
4. Loading and trash collection were located at the rear of the building on the east side of the
parking lot. Elevations for the proposed dumpster area were consistent with the design of the
building.
5. The revised lighting plan was consistent with the requirements of Shorewood's Zoning Code (no
more than .4 foot-candles at the property line). Although the proposed fixtures compliment the
street lighting being installed by the City along County Road 19, they were relatively tall (25 feet)
and were likely to be visible from adjoining residential properties. The applicant's architect
should address whether these fixtures can be shielded or lowered to minimize this concern. The
C.u.P. should reference the hours during which the lighting must be reduced.
.
6.
The applicant's revised grading plan had enlarged the pond at the rear of the site; it no longer
appeared to depend upon underground piping for storage. This plan would be addressed under
separate cover by the City's engineering consultant. Any approval of the C.U.P. should include
the consultant's recommendations.
Nielsen stated the City Consulting Engineer stated the stormwater management plan submitted with the
revised drawings did meet the NURP standards specified in the draft text amendment.
Todd Frostad, the applicant, explained to have lights lower than 25 feet high would require additional
light polls thereby resulting in inconsistency with the requirements of Shorewood's Zoning Code (no
more than .4 foot-candles at the property line). He stated additional shielding could be added if required.
In response to Commissioner Gniffke, Frostad explained if the lights were reduced to 21 feet high more
lights would be required.
Commissioner Conley stated it appeared the 25-foot lights were approximately the same height as the
building, to which Frostad concurred. Frostad explained some of the existing vegetation that would be
retained was in excess of 25 feet, thereby providing screening for the neighbors.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Frostad explained why the storm water management
system was designed to handle the "100 year" rainfall. He also stated the proposed storm water
management system would significantly reduce the fUnofffrom the property.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Frostad stated the current Shorewood Nursery
would not be a tenant on the future property. He also stated Gary Minion, who owns Shorewood Nursery,
would be a partial owner of the new development.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 5 of8
.
Discussion ensued regarding the depth of the runoff pond and the associated safety factors. Director
Nielsen explained how NURP ponds are designed to work.
Commissioner Woodruff supported the requirement for a 4-foot fence as a safety measure due to the
depth of the pond. He suggested the landscape plan be modified to reflect the height of the black hill
spruce trees. Frostad replied the height for the proposed trees was in the 6-12 foot range. Woodruff stated
he was concerned with the level of screen river birch would provide in the winter and suggested the trees
be spruce. He questioned the ability of river birch to flourish in that environment. Director Nielsen
responded river birch do well in that environment, and there were no windows on the side of the house the
river birch would be planted. He stated part of the rationale for a 4-foot fence was for screening.
Commissioner White stated she had concerns a 4-foot fence could negatively impact the newly planted
trees - the young trees could be deprived of sunlight. Nielsen did not agree a 4-foot fence would cause
any harm to the trees. Nielsen then explained that a 4-foot fence can be solid but a 6-foot fence requires
25% of the fence be open. White preferred a fence not be installed, and stated when spruce mature there is
open space on the bottom of the tree.
Discussion ensued regarding the requirement for a 4-foot fence.
Consensus from the Commission was to require the fence and the specified landscaping.
.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley, Director Nielsen stated there was a requirement for
rooftop mechanical equipment to be hidden by parapet, which Frostad stated was planned. Conley then
expressed concerns with the 7 excess parking spaces planned for Shore land District. In response to a
question by Conley, Nielsen stated the retaining wall on the east side could be as high as 6-8 feet. In
response, Frostad stated if a retaining wall was needed he would prefer a 3-foot retaining wall and
manage a lighter slope. Conley stated a condition of the c.u.P. should be verification that the size and
capacity of the trash enclosure specified was sufficient to enclose the number, variety and size of trash
containers required for trash management of a building the size planned (the state had formulas that
would assist in determining the container sizes and frequency of pickup).
Frostad explained the rationale for the number of spaces, indicating the overflow spaces were planned for
those few times the on-site building occupants would be at its highest. He wanted to minimize the number
of building occupants that would have to use residential parking in those situations.
Commissioner Woodruff addressed two items in the City Consulting Engineer's memo (the 29 December
2005 memo from Steve Gurney with WSB & Associates). First, he expressed concern with a statement in
the memo that stated there was a possibility standing water could freeze in the storm water management
system's pipe and plug the line. After discussion, it was agreed the developer address this concern subject
to the City Consulting Engineer's satisfaction as a condition of approval for the C.D.P. Second, he stated
he had concerns with the grading of the east side of the property, as identified in the memo, and this
concern had already been addressed.
In response to a request from Chair Bailey, Commissioner Gagne stated Commissioners present at the 6
December 2005 Planning Commission meeting discussed the parking spaces issue and respectfully agreed
to disagree. He would prefer the site to have the extra spaces, and he stated the quality of water entering
Lake Minnetonka would be improved with the proposed storm water management system.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 6 of8
.
In response to a question by Commissioner White, Postad stated the proposed building could easily house
85 occupants. He also stated the number would depend on the future lessees of the property. In response
to another question by White, Director Nielsen stated a fence was required to be inside the property line.
Discussion again ensued regarding the planned excess parking spaces. Director Nielsen stated the parking
space requirement was a minimum, and the Commission did not want to encourage commercial parking
on residential streets such as Wood Duck Circle. He also stated once parking on Wood Duck Circle
became an issue it would be made no parking.
The Commission reached consensus regarding the acceptance of the number of parking spaces planned.
In response to a comment by Councilmember Wellens regarding snow storage and storage of associate
equipment and products, Director Nielsen stated the setback area and the pond area would be sufficient to
accommodate snow storage.
Director Nielsen clarified site lighting was part of site design which was part of the Planning
Commissions responsibility. He stated the standard business hours for lighting are 6:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M.
and recommended the lights be turned off by 9:30 P.M. In response to a question by Commissioner
White, Prostad stated the site lights would be on consistently all week for security purposes and the lights
would be managed with one master switch.
In response to a question from a neighborhood resident regarding the potential 6-8 foot retaining wall,
Prostad explained a 3-foot retaining wall may be required to maintain a 3:1 slope. He further explained
. how that landscaping would be designed.
Meyer moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for
Commercial Building at 23505 Smithtown Road, subject to Staff Recommendations, verification
that the size for the trash enclosure was sufficient to comply with state statutes, and the developer
must satisfactorily address concerns regarding storm water management should pipes freeze, and
subject to the satisfaction ofthe City Consulting Engineer's recommendations. Motion passed 7/0.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION (continued from 6 December 2005)
Applicant: George Danser
Location: 5840 Christmas Lake Road
.
Director Nielson explained the request for minor subdivision for George Danser, 5840 Christmas Lake
Road, was originally presented to the Planning Commission at the October 4, 2005 meeting. Because of
the number of issues that needed to be resolved at that meeting, Nielsen recommended the application be
continued to the November 1, 2005 meeting pending completion of the required items. At the November
I, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, Danser stated a number of the issues had been resolved though he
had not provided City Staff with updated plans. Since the October 2005 meeting the property owner to the
south had disputed the common property boundary between his and the Danser property; the neighbor
provided information indicating that the property line might be 12 feet further to the north than that
shown by the Dansers' surveyor. The application was continued to the November 15, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting to provide Danser time for the Danser family to determine how they wanted to
move forward with resolving the outstanding issues, including the common property line dispute. This
case was then continued to the December 6, 2005 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the
applicant. Danser did not appear at the December 6, 2005 Planning Commission meeting to provide a
response to areas of concern identified at previous meetings. The Commission agreed to continue this
case to the January 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 7 of 8
George Danser did not appear at the meeting nor had he submitted plans for resolution of the outstanding
Issues.
The Commission was no longer clear on what revision of the application they were considering for
recommending for approval. The Commission reached consensus the application under consideration was
the original application.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Denial of the Original Request for Minor
Subdivision for George Danser, 5840 Christmas Lake Road. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant: Michael McDonald
Location: 4695 and 4725 Lagoon Drive
Director Nielsen explained Mike McDonald and Thomas Countryman who own the properties at 4695
and 4725 Lagoon Drive, respectively have requested a minor subdivision and combination. The subject
properties in question are located in the R-IC/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district. The
proposed division/combination cleans up these rather irregular parcels.
He stated Staff recommended the minor subdivision be approved and the resolution approving the request
should stipulate the division/combination must be recorded within 30 days of Council approval.
Woodruff moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Request for Minor Subdivision
for Mike McDonald, at 4695 Lagoon Drive, and Thomas Countryman, at 4725 Lagoon Drive,
subject to the division/combination being recorded within 30 days of Council approval. Motion
passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there were three items for discussion on the January 17, 2006, Planning
Commission Agenda: 1) the 2006 Work Program review; the annual variance discussion; and 3) C-3
District Land Use.
Nielsen explained the July 4, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting was on a holiday and November 7,
2006, Planning Commission Meeting was on an election day. The Planning Commission decided the July
18, 2006, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting would be replaced with a Regular Planning
Commission Meeting. They also decided the November 7,2006, Planning Commission Meeting would be
moved to November 14,2006, and the November 21, 2006, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting
would stay as scheduled.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 12, 2005,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 January 2006
Page 8 of8
. SLUC
No report was given for the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) meeting.
. Other
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Gniftke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 3,
2006, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, White, and Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioner Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 6 December 2005
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the December 6, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, Bailey abstaining due to his absence at that meeting.
· 3 January 2006
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the January 3, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended: on Page 2, Page 3, Page 5 (two instances), and Page 7 change "Woodward" to
"Woodruff'; on Page 2, Item 1, Paragraph 7, Sentence 1 change "would set precedence." to ''would
set a precedent."; on Page 2, Item 1, Paragraph 8, Sentence 3 change "a variance is granted when
there was an element of uniqueness with a property." to "for a variance to be granted there must be
an element of uniqueness with the property."; on Page 2, Item 1, Paragraph 9, Sentence 1 change
"establish precedence," to "set a precedent,"; on Page 2, Item 1, Paragraph 10, Sentence 2 change
"timely," to "time-consuming"; on Page 3, Item 2, Paragraph 3, Sentence 5 change "25 feet" to
"25%"; on Page 4, Item 2, Paragraph 7, Sentence 1 change "lower 25 feet high would require
additional light polls" to "lower than 25 feet high would require additional light poles"; on Page 5,
Item 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 change "dept" to depth"; on Page 5, Item 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 7
change "He sated" to "He stated"; on Page 5, Item 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5 change "be
certification the" to "be verification the"; on Page 6, Item 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 change "a fence
was required to be 6 inches off the property line." to "a fence was required to be inside the property
line."; on Page 6, Item 2, Paragraph 5, Sentence 2 change "standard hours" to "standard business
hours"; on Page 6, Item 2, Paragraph 7, Sentence 1 change "certification the size for the trash
enclosure was sufficient to comply with state stature, and the developer satisfactorily addressed
concerns regarding storm water management should pipes freeze subject to the satisfaction of the
City Consulting Engineer." to "verification that the size for the trash enclosure was sufficient to
comply with state statutes, and the developer must satisfactorily address concerns regarding storm
water management should pipes freeze, and subject to the satisfaction of the City Consulting
Engineer's recommendations.". Motion passed 6/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
17 January 2006
Page 2 of6
.
1.
DISCUSS 2006 WORK PROGRAM
Director Nielsen stated Chair Bailey and he had met to discuss item that would be considered for discussion
in 2006. He noted Commissioner Meyer had observed the discussion. The items included topics that had
arisen during 2005, and items that had not been completed in 2005.
Nielsen then reviewed the topics on the 2006 Planning Commission Work Program.
Januarv
· Study/update C-3 zoning district uses
. Appoint ChairNice Chair
· Annual Variance discussion
Februarv
. C-3 zoning district uses continued
· Study/update dock regulations
. Review zoning code relative to parking requirements (Any amendment to the C-3 zoning
district uses should address required parking for any new uses to be included in the Code)
Commissioner Woodruff distributed Shorewood's Dock Zoning Regulations which contained amendments
he proposed, and he distributed the LMCD's Dock Use Area rules and regulations. He stated either LMCD
Executive Director Nybeck and/or LMCD Chair Skramstad had expressed interest in attending the Planning
Commission meeting when Shorewood dock regulations would be discussed.
.
March
· Comprehensive Plan - Study of Planning District 6
Director Nielsen stated this would be the continuation of discussion regarding the C-4 District on the east
end of Planning District 6 and could result in changes to the Area Plan for the District. The C-4 District
under review included the Shorewood Yacht Club, the Dredging Company, the Shorewood Nursery, the
Garden Patch, etc. He stated the review and possible modification of the Area Plan would be done in
anticipation of changes.
April
· Review Smithtown Crossing - primarily as it relates to the landscape islands
Director Nielsen stated there was some landscaping that was being done which was included in the Concept
Plan that had been approved. He explained a review of the landscape architect's plan prepared for the City
needed to be completed to identify which, if any, of the plan's components should be incorporated into the
landscape islands design.
Mav-December
· Planning Commission Training - explore alternatives
. Historic Preservation
· Review Planning Inventory - Comprehensive Plan
· Other topics per Planning Commission
.
Commissioner Woodruff distributed a packet of University of Minnesota College of Continuing Education
Great Conversations sessions to the Commission.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
17 January 2006
Page 3 of6
. Director Nielsen stated Chair Bailey and he would work with Julie Moore on developing a historical
preservation program for the City. He explained there was no plan to regulate the preservation of the sites.
The focus of the program would be on creating an inventory of the historical sites, putting the sites on the
City's website, and placing identification markers at each site.
Director Nielsen stated the next review and update of the Comprehensive Plan would be initiated in 2006.
The Comprehensive Plan update process would entail a Planning inventory, which included demographics
and land use, and must be completed by 2008. Nielsen stated the task was a Staff activity; the results would
be presented to the Commission for review.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Directory Nielsen stated the sub-division
ordinance review and update had been completed, and the sign ordinance was on the City Council Agenda
for January 23, 2006. He explained a byproduct of the sign ordinance was sign permits would be addressed
administratively. Nielsen stated the issue of barber poles was addressed as part of the sign ordinance.
Discussion ensued regarding the City's website, its "user friendliness", and the information that was/was
not available on the website.
Director Nielsen stated there was more Planning information available in the Shore Report News Letter
than on the City website. The Commission recommended archiving the Shore Report Planning articles on
the website.
.
Director Nielsen stated all City municipal code was available on the website. He then explained the plan
was to have the entire Comprehensive Plan and associated graphics available on the website. He stated the
Commission would be provided a with an overview of the web site, a review of it's contents, and a
demonstration of how to use it once the Comprehensive Plan has been added to it.
Chair Bailey stated the 2006 Work Plan was a "plan in progress".
Council Liaison Turgeon stated the terms for Chair and Vice Chair come to closure the end of February
2006, and the Commission may want to wait until their March 2006 Planning Commission meeting to select
their new Chair and Vice.
Commissioner White tendered her resignation from the Planning Commission effective February 28, 2006.
Director Nielsen stated Commissioner White's resignation would be placed on the Planning Commission
Agenda for February 7, 2006.
Nielsen explained there were precinct caucuses scheduled for March 7, 2006, which was the date for the
March 2006 Planning Commission Regular Meeting. The consensus of the Commission was to reschedule
the Planning Commission Regular meeting to March 21, 2006, which was the date for the March 2006
Planning Commission Study Session. The March 2006 study session would follow the March 21, 2006,
regular meeting if time permits. If the Agenda for the regular meeting was too significant to allow for a
study session following the meeting, a Planning Commission Study Session would be scheduled for March
28, 2006.
2. DISCUSS VARIANCE CRITERIA
. Chair Bailey distributed the City of Shorewood Planning Commission Historical Profile of Variance
Requests Heard report. He explained there were only two variance requests heard in 2005. He expressed the
importance of being mindful of variances previously granted or denied to ensure consistency when
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
17 January 2006
Page 4 of6
. evaluating new requests. He stated he thought the Planning Commission had become more consistent in the
approval or denial of requests over the last 6 - 7 years. Director Nielsen noted the consistency helps Staff.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated that for every variance heard by the
Planning Commission there are probably 3 - 4 additional requests that never reach a public hearing.
Director Nielsen explained the first thing he tells every potential applicant is the applicant has every right to
work through the variance process, and that Staff and the Planning Commission act in an advisory role with
Council making the final decision. He explained he does not offer any opinion on the likelihood of the
variance being approved. Nielsen then explained when he meets with potential applicants to discuss their
variance requests he will identify alternatives for the applicant to consider, and he also reviews what would
be included in the variance report for the Planning Commission. Nielsen stated in some situations the
proposed alternatives are sufficient to meet the applicant's needs, and in other situations the applicant does
not want to spend their time or money working through the variance approval process.
Chair Bailey noted the Phillippi variance request was granted because it solved a very difficult development
for the neighborhood, not because of hardship. Director Nielsen stated the Phillippi variance request
prompted the Commission's discussion regarding the possible change to variance criteria. He noted the
variance criteria were not changed.
Chair Bailey stated 32 of the 45 residential variance requests heard from 1998 - 2005 involved older
properties that were platted before the current City codes were in effect.
.
Council Liaison Turgeon suggested Director Nielsen distribute the report to Council.
3. DISCUSS C-3 ZONING DISTRICT USES
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had conducted an assessment of the 4 Commercial Districts
allowable land uses in 2005. He stated the C-2 District allowable land uses were incorporated into the C-3
District allowable land uses, and the C-2 District was eliminated. He stated during the assessment process it
became apparent the C-3 District allowable land uses were outdated and need to be made current.
Nielsen stated Staff had researched several of what Staff considered to be contemporary zoning
ordinances. He explained some of the cities included had a more diverse offering of commercial activities.
Nielsen stated Staff reviewed the land uses from the other ordinances and took the liberty of incorporating
these uses into the City's code for purposes of discussion.
District Nielsen reviewed one possible way of rewording 1201.22 C-3 Subd. 1, the purpose of the C-3
District, and stated the intent of the revision was to provide clarity. He explained the objective of the
"purpose" statement was to provide a general overview of allowable land uses in the C-3 District.
1201.22 C-3 Subd. 1
.
"Purpose. The purpose of the C-3, General Commercial District is to provide for low to
moderately intense retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for
whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide
goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas which are
well served by collector or arterial street facilities."
Director Nielsen stated Shorewood's C-3 District was intended to provide services to the City's residences
and the community. He noted the Comprehensive Plan stated Excelsior served as Shorewood's downtown.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
17 January 2006
Page 5 of6
Discussion ensured regarding the "purpose" phrases "moderately intense retail or service outlets" and
"limited community market scale" and how to interpret the phrases; and whether or not businesses such as
CUB and Xcel Energy would fit under the proposed C-3 District Ordinance. There was agreement that the
current C-3 District Ordinance purpose was extremely vague.
Director Nielsen explained a regional shopping center, such as Ridgedale, was an example of the type of
land use that would not be permitted under the proposed C-3 District purpose.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not there were minimum and maximum lot size restrictions in the
C-3 District, and whether or not lot size or building size could be used as a means to control the size of
commercial developments. Director Nielsen stated he was not sure if there was a minimum lot size for the
C-3 District, he would need to research it.
Director Nielsen reviewed the proposed addition of 1201.22 C-3 Subd. 2.4 to the C-3 ordinance, which was
a criteria for approving or denying a land use not specifically identified in the ordinance.
1201.22 C-3 Subd. 2.4
Uses similar to those enumerated in a. above, but not included in the listing, shall be
subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the
City Council. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that a particular use
is consistent with the uses listed above, including, but not limited to, traffic, hours of
operation, noise, signage and the market intended to be served.
The Commission reached consensus on accepting the "purpose" as presented.
Commissioner White stated the revised C-3 District land uses would prohibit approving the Fisher request
for a Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Trade Contractor's Shop in the C-3 Zoning District. She
questioned if it was necessary to exclude that type of land use in the C-3 District. White asked for
clarification from the Commission on what their specific concerns were with allowing a business such as
Fisher's proposed in the C-3 District. She asked if the concern was the outdoor storage, or the look of the
buildings. White asked for distinction between the auto-service businesses nearby, and the Fisher proposal.
Director Nielsen stated the Fisher's proposal was a good proposal, and if there were a guarantee the Fisher's
would always use the site as they particularly propose there would not be a problem. He explained,
however, that trade contractor shops generally operate with characteristics similar to businesses in the C-4
District.
Discussion ensued regarding the Fisher proposal.
Chair Bailey stated he believed the Planning Commission should focus on attracting commercial businesses
that are more similar to those in the redeveloped Shorewood Village Shopping Center.
Chair Bailey acknowledged the presence of Jeff Williams, who co-owned the property at 24285 Smithtown
Road with the Fisher's. He explained the meeting was not a public hearing, but would grant him the
opportunity to address the Commission.
Mr. Williams eXplained he was in the heating and air conditioning service / installation business. He stated
the Fisher proposal included eliminating the accessory building and the brown building currently located on
the property. He explained his business would sell furnace filters, etc., and would generate a low volume of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
17 January 2006
Page 6 of6
. traffic. He noted he did make plenums for furnaces he installs, and the construction of the plenums would
be done inside the building. He clarified the Fisher proposal was a concept plan only. Mr. Williams thanked
the Planning Commission for allowing him to address the Commission.
Chair Bailey stated the purpose of the Planning Committee study session was not to reopen the evaluation
of the Fisher proposal.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the proposed revised list of C-3 District ''permitted uses" (as detailed in the
revised 1201.22 C-3 General Commercial District ordinance).
Discussion ensued regarding the "permitted uses".
Commissioners Gniffke and Woodruff expressed concern with the list growing. They had both attended a
seminar where the consolidation of allowable land uses was encouraged.
Chair Bailey reviewed what still needed to be addressed at the next Planning Committee study session
regarding C-3 "permitted uses": determine if the approved list is the appropriate way to proceed or should it
be condensed; discuss commercial schools and professional tutoring as a permitted use; discuss the
inclusion of restaurants in the list; and discuss whether or not convenience stores should be a permitted use
or an conditional use.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
.
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there were two public hearings regarding a variance and Conditional Use Permit,
and a Text Amendment to allow child day care facilities in the C-3, General-Commercial Zoning District,
as a permitted use, slated for the February 7, 2006, Planning Commission Agenda.
6. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 9, 2006, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
. SLUC
No report was given for the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) meeting.
. Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
.
Woodruff moved, White seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17,
2006 at 9:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2006
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 Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, White, and Woodruff;
Planning Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
17 January 2006
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the January 17, 2006, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended: on Page 6, Item 3, Paragraph 4 delete "The following modifications
were made." and delete the modifications listed underneath the statement. Motion passed 6/0/1 with
. Conley abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE AND C.U.P. TO BUILD ON A
SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT
Applicant: Tony Lund
Location: 27695 Island View Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public Hearing
process. In addition, he stated any items recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the
February 27,2006, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration.
Director Nielsen explained Tony Lund, on behalf of Rohan Lund, Inc., proposed to replace an existing
house on the property located at 27695 Island View Road with a new house. The subject property was
located in the R-IA1S, Single-family ResidentiallShoreland, zoning district and contained 25,560 square
feet of area. Since the subject property was smaller in size than prescribed by current zoning standards,
the applicant had requested a conditional use permit to build on a substandard lot and a lot area variance.
The lots on the north side of Island View Road (a private road) generally comply with R-IA1S
requirements; the lots on the south side of the street are substandard in width and area. The applicant's
property was somewhat larger than the two lots to the east of it, but somewhat smaller than the two lots to
the west of it.
.
The lot was presently occupied by a one and a half story single-family home with an attached two-car
garage. The applicant proposed to remove the existing house and garage and the driveway leading to the
existing garage and build a new home that would be located essentially in the same location, with an L-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 2 of7
.
shaped, side-loading three-car garage attached on the west side of the lot. A new driveway would be built
on the east side of the driveway to avoid a tuck-under garage design.
With regard to the conditional use permit, Director Nielsen reviewed how the applicant's request
complied with the City's zoning requirements. The lot was in separate ownership from the lots on either
side of it. The proposed house complied with or exceeds all setback requirements. The amount of
impervious surface proposed for the site was 22.3 percent, 25 percent was the limit for the Shoreland
District. The 90-foot width of the lot was less than the R-IA zoning standard but it did meet the 70
percent width and area requirements necessary for a buildable lot. The area of the lot was only 64 percent
of the minimum lot size, and the applicant has requested a variance to that requirement.
With regard to the lot area variance, Director Nielsen explained the reason the existing home could not
simply be remodeled and expanded, without a variance, had to do with the topography of the lot. The
house was currently cut into the slope, which resulted in drainage being conducted directly at the house.
This drainage had resulted in structural deterioration of the foundation over the years. The roof structure
was also in need of replacement. Director Nielsen noted Shorewood's Building Official, Joe Pazandak,
did not recommend the house be remodeled. Nielsen then explained the variance would allow a new
foundation to be constructed, higher on the site, allowing for the back of the home to be graded so as to
conduct drainage to the sides of the lot and down the side lot lines. Reconstruction of the house was in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
.
In addition, Director Nielsen explained the conditions establishing a hardship in this case are not due to
the actions of the applicant and the hardship was not economic in nature. The work necessary to fix the
existing structure would result in demolition in excess of 50 percent of the value of the structure. The
variance would not result in a floor area to lot area ratio of greater than 30 percent, as proposed the ratio is
21 percent.
Director Nielsen stated Staff recommended the conditional use permit and the lot area variance be granted
subject to: I) Staff approving a plan submitted by the builder, prior to the demolition of the structure and
driveway, that would identify how the builder would provide tree protection; and 2) the applicant
applying for a building permit within one year from the date the City Council approved the request. He
noted the applicant, Mr. Tony Lund, was present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may
have.
Chair Bailey open the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 13 P.M.
Mr. Lund thanked the Planning Commission for hearing his request. He stated the existing house was in
poor condition and he was making a concerted effort to design a house that was appropriate for the area.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 14 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner White, Director Nielsen stated the proposed plan would
result in drainage flowing toward the street and not onto the neighbor's property.
In response to a question from Commissioner White, Mr. Lund stated the reason Island View Road was
slippery in the winter was sand and salt were not applied to the private road.
.
There was discussion regarding the poorly constructed existing house and how someone was able to have
built the house on a substandard lot without a variance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 3 of7
.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated had the existing house been
constructed properly Staff would probably have recommended the house be remodeled rather than rebuilt
provided the structure was solid.
Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded Recommending Approval of a Lot Area Variance and a
Conditional Use Permit to Build on a Substandard Lot in the Shoreland District, subject to Staff
Recommendations, for Tony Lund, 27695 Island View Road.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHILD DAY CARE
FACILITIES IN THE C-3. GENERAL-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AS A
PERMITTED USE
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center, Inc.
Location: Highways 7 and 41
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, located at 23470
State Highway 7, had requested an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code that would allow day care
facilities in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district. They proposed to locate a day care center
within the Center, in space previously occupied by the drug store.
.
Director Nielsen then explained the Planning Commission was in the process of studying the land use
activities currently allowed in the C-3, General Commercial zoning district. One of the issues under
consideration was day care facilities in the commercial district. While there was consensus that this use
should be included in the C-3 District, the question that remained was whether it should be a permitted
use or a conditional use.
With regard to analysis of the case, Director Nielsen stated Staff had researched how other cities handle
day care facilities in commercial zoning districts. Staff found some cities require a conditional use permit
for this type of use. Of those cities that do require a conditional use permit, some cities simply reiterate
the requirements found in the State licensing provisions. Others cities address issues such as loading
areas, parking, fence height and screening/landscaping adjacent to residential uses. He noted Shorewood
required a c.u.P. for day care facilities in the R-C, Residential/Commercial District, and that the City
specified size limitations in addition to the provisions found in the State requirements. No such size
limitations are proposed for the C-3 District. He then explained Minnesota Rules, Chapter 9503 contained
several pages setting forth the requirements relative to day care facilities, and there were three pages that
dealt specifically with the facility requirements (space per child, outdoor activity area, etc.).
Director Nielsen then explained Staff asked the applicant to provide plans showing how a day care facility
and its required outdoor activity area would fit within the Shopping Center, noting the plan was not
required for a zoning text amendment. He stated a crosswalk, with speed bumps and signs, connects the
facility to the play area, and the State Rules allow the play area to be as far as 2000 feet away from the
center. The play area was enclosed with a fence
Director Nielsen then stated Staff suggested provisions relative to parking, loading and screening /
landscaping adjacent to residential be set forth in the General Provisions of the Zoning Code. Day care
facilities would then be listed as permitted uses in the C-3 District, subject to the new general provisions.
If the City felt that extra scrutiny was required, one of the requirements could include site plan approval
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 4 of 7
Director Nielsen then reviewed four provisions of a draft text amendment to the General Provisions of the
Zoning Code 1201.03 Subd. 22 Day Care Facilities. The provisions were:
1. Adequate off-street parking and access are provided in compliance with Subd. 5. of this
section.
2. Adequate short-term parking or drop-off area shall be provided within close proximity to
the main entrance of the building. The short-term parking or drop-off area shall
accommodate three car spaces and shall be designated as temporary in nature. The short-
term parking or drop-off area shall not conflict with off-street parking access or
pedestrian movement.
3. Outdoor activity areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any residential lot and shall
be screened and landscaped to buffer neighboring residential uses.
4. Day care facilities shall be subject to plan review by the Planning commission and
approval by the City Council. (Optional)
John Uban, a representative of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center, stated he was available to answer
any questions the Commission may have and he thought the day care center would be a great addition to
the Shopping Center.
Chair Bailey open the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
With regard to the 25 foot setback provision, Jennifer Halberg, who co-owns the day care center with
Dorothy Christensen, stated the proposed plan would be modified to elongate the playground area (which
could possibly require a retaining wall to be built) to comply with the provision.
Mr. Uban stated the plan could be modified to include a wood privacy fence if need be. Ms. Halberg
noted state law requires a four-foot fence around the playground area.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M.
Commissioner Conley stated he thought the Commission was considering whether day care facilities
would be a permitted use (which required a General Provisions text amendment) or a conditional use this
evening, and once that decision had been made the site plan would be considered at a future date once.
Director Nielsen stated the plan was a prototype to use as a visual aid.
Commissioner Conley then questioned what other controls the City could impose (e.g. hours of operation)
if day care facilities were to be a conditional use.
In response to a comment from Conley, Director Nielsen summarized the RlC District conditions.
In response to a question from Commissioner White, Ms. Halberg stated the playground surface would be
rubber mats.
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern regarding noise abatement, dedicated parking spots reducing
parking for other businesses, the possibility of the proposed basketball court blocking the fire hydrant, the
possible loss of parking in the rear of the Shopping Center due to the addition of a crosswalk, and material
storage behind the Shopping Center (e.g. flammable materials, machinery, abandoned tires). He then
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 5 of7
.
stated there had been residents that were unhappy with the Shopping Center being constructed where it
was.
Director Nielsen explained the Shopping Center had added additional parking spaces to its original plan.
Commissioner Gagne stated the majority of the original neighbors of the Shopping Center had sold their
properties. He expressed concern with the fact that delivery vehicles use the driveway behind the
Shopping Center where the children would be playing.
Chair Bailey reminded the Commissioners the item under consideration was permitted use or conditional
use not the proposed site plan, and he asked if they were comfortable with the draft text amendment.
Director Nielsen stated there was a city that required a six-foot fence around the playground area instead
of the four-foot fence required by the state and he thought a six-foot fence would be appropriate.
Discussion ensued regarding the impact of three dedicated day care parking spaces on other businesses,
the location of the spaces, and whether or not the draft text amendment needed to be modified to include
more parking specifics. Ms. Halberg stated the day care center had requested five 10-minute parking
spaces in front of their front door. Commissioner Meyer stated he thought the draft text amendment was
sufficient. Director Nielsen stated provision 2 could be modified to include a statement with regard to the
drop-off spaces location.
.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated a plan review did not require a public
hearing and a notice was not required, where a conditional use permit required both. Chair Bailey stated
he thought property owners with close proximity to a C-3 District should be granted a public hearing;
therefore day care facilities should be a conditional use. Commissioner Woodruff agreed because of the
outdoor play area.
With regard to discussion on the location of the proposed playground, Director Nielsen stated the State
Rules allow an outdoor activity area to be up to 2000 feet away from the building. Discussion ensued with
regard to the location of the playground. Commissioner Conley stated the prototype site plan identified
the crosswalk, speed bump location, and crosswalk signage, and then suggested the day care facility
zoning provisions be modified to include those items. Chair Bailey expressed concern with making the
zoning requirements too specific. Commissioner Woodruff stated if day care facilities were decided to be
a conditional use then those types of items could be addressed as conditions of the C.U.P. specific to that
site.
Mr. Uban stated Planning Commission concerns could be addressed at the time of a site plan review. He
did not believe there were any additional benefits to be gained from a conditional use permitting process.
He then stated State Licensing Rules were quite extensive and designed to protect the children. He again
clarified the site plan was a prototype and the final plan would be more inclusive.
Chair Bailey stated the R-C District requires a C.U.P. for day care facilities. He stated there should be
consistency between the C-3 District and the R-C District requirements; both should be a conditional use
or both should be a permitted use.
.
Conley moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of the Draft Text Amendment to Allow
Child Day Care Facilities in the C-3, General-Commercial Zoning District as a Conditional Use
subject to, provision 2 be modified to address additional parking and signage requirements and
provision 4 be included.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 6 of7
Discussion again ensued with regard to day care facilities in the C-3 District being a conditional use or a
permitted use.
Conley withdrew the motion.
Conley moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of an Amendment to the C-3 District
Zoning Code to Classify day care facilities a conditional use, subject to the conditions specified in
provisions 1, 2, and 3 of the draft text amendment. Motion passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DISCUSS MARCH MEETING DATES
At the January 17, 2006, the Planning Commission Meeting the Commission rescheduled their March 7,
2006, regular meeting to March 21,2006. The Planning Commission Study Session previously scheduled
for March 21,2006, would follow the March 21,2006, regular meeting if time permits. If the Agenda for
the regular meeting was too significant to allow for a study session following the meeting, a Planning
Commission Study Session would be scheduled for March 28, 2006.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated review of the draft C-3 District code amendment for day care facilities;
continuation of the C-3 land uses discussion, and a review/update the dock zoning regulations were slated
for the February 21,2006 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. Commissioner Gagne stated he would
be unable to attend the March 2006 Planning Commission Meetings.
8. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 23,2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Turgeon stated residents had informed her there had been 30 Basswood trees had been
taken out in the Watershed District when there had been a promise not to remove any more trees. She then
discussed components of the upcoming SLMPD binding arbitration process. She stated there were seven
Planning Commission applicants and three Park Commission applicants the Council was going to
interview at a March 13,2006, City Council Special Meeting.
Commissioner White stated she had learned that permeable pavers require a highly engineered foundation
and they also require a lot of maintenance.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if the City would reimburse the cost of Commissioners attending the
University of Minnesota College of Continuing Education Great Conversations sessions.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7 February 2006
Page 7 of7
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated Todd Frostad had
previously expressed some interest in the Hilltop Property, but he was not sure if he was still interested.
Mike Siefert, who owns the Hilltop apartment property, may choose to convert the apartments to condos.
. SLUC
No report was given for the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) meeting.
. Other
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 7,
2006, at 8:32 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2006
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 Meyer, White, Gniffke, Conley, Gagne, and Woodruff;
Planning Director Nielsen and City Council liaison
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 7 February 2006
Gagne moved, White seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 7, 2006, as amended: on Page 5, Paragraph 3, line 2, changing deliveries to
"delivery"; and Paragraph 7, line 2, changing condition use permit to "conditional use
permit"; Page 5, last paragraph, Line 2 modify the motion to reflect the "General-
Commercial Zoning District as a Conditional Use..". Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS DOCK REGULATIONS
· Representative from LMCD will attend
Director Nielsen explained that the topic regarding dock regulations arose from a proposed dock
installation for a multiple dock facility on Enchanted Island which raised many questions as to
whether the City's regulations were up to date. It was the consensus of the Commission to examine
both the LMCD and City regulations. Nielsen shared a graphic depicting the initial dock request
highlighting how large the proposed dock could be by Shorewood standards. He noted that the
only limitation that could be imposed under Shorewood regulations was that a resident could have
just one dock housing up to four boats, for their use, after that point the City defers to LMCD
regulations.
Director Nielsen indicated that, in the past, if a dock system extends from a property in one
location, the configuration is of no concern to the city. While the LMCD has typically allowed
more than four slips.
Chair Bailey asked for clarification of a dock system.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 2 of 8
.
Although within the Shorewood Zoning Regulations there is a definition of docks, Commissioner
Woodruff acknowledged that it must be more clearly defined.
Though he did not feel the Commission would resolve issues tonight, Nielsen pointed out that he
viewed this evening as more of a fact finding mission and hoped that their guest speakers could
assist in identifying those issues. He believed it important to understand what the Shorewood City
rules allow, as well as, what the LMCD rules allow and to close up some of the gaps in between.
While he did not intend to pick on a dock system recently proposed for a property on Enchanted
Island, Nielsen did feel it identified some of the key issues they wished to discuss. Nielsen
continued, stating that Shorewood Code treats docks as accessory uses to a residence, limited to
four slips - but adopts the LMCD regulations by reference, which seems to have allowed an
increase in the number of slips since the initial writing.
Chair Bailey asked whether the LMCD Code overrides City regulations.
While the Codes were written in the 80's, Nielsen stated that the City could be more restrictive
than the LMCD Codes.
Commissioner Woodruff stated that the LMCD Regulations allow up to four slips for restricted
watercraft without a permit from the LMCD.
.
Tom Skramstad, LMCD Chair and Shorewood's Representative, interjected that, generally, 50 foot
lots are allowed one slip, and if someone has 500' of shoreline they can apply for multiple boat
licenses.
Director Nielsen asked whether the LMCD cares if the slips are used by the resident, as opposed to
being used as rental slips or by others than the residents.
Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director, indicated that their regulations are predicated upon the 1
for 50' rule, though there are exceptions; therefore, residence was irrelevant to the LMCD. The
first exception Nybeck identified was the 2-boat rule which allows up to 2 boats regardless of
ownership if a legal residence was established prior to 1978 and the land has not been subdivided,
the second exception is the 4-boat rule which applies to all residences in existence now allowing a
residence to have up to 4 watercraft at the site provided there is one residential structure and that
they are all registered to the resident of that site. The most restrictive standard applies to the 1 boat
per 50' of shoreline regardless of ownership regulation standard applied generally.
Woodruff commented that the majority of the large scale lots of250'+, for example, in which the
standard 1 for 50' would likely apply, typically would be to serve a condo development, etc.
.
Nybeck stated that in most cases a single residence of250' would not likely be renting out slip
space, but using it for their personal or family use. He cited an example in Orono in which a permit
was granted to a large lakeshore residence for 6 slips, since the watercraft were legally registered
to that resident. In this case, the local ordinance overlay was more restrictive by requiring the
residents to own the watercraft. Nybeck stated that in the example being cited here at Enchanted
Island, some of the neighbors have indicated that the slips would be used for rentals, and though
the LMCD does not get involved in this matter, the City could choose to be more restrictive.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 3 of 8
Skramstad added that in this example, the City may want to limit the expanse and construction of
the access due to the impact upon trees at the Shoreline. In addition, Nybeck pointed out that the
applicant has applied for the installation of a permanent, as opposed to a seasonal, dock.
Nielsen asked what additional criteria the LMCD has for granting multiple dock licenses.
Nybeck stated that, in addition to the 1 for 50' rule, dock use areas must also be taken into account
as the docks extend into the water. In the Shorewood example, two applications are pending,
which include a multiple dock license and a variance application for the watercraft dock use area.
Other requirements might include survey work, neighborhood meetings, etc.
Woodruff asked how the mission of the conservation district and the mission of the City intersect.
Since both are coming at this use from an opposite direction via water or land, he asked how the
two coordinate their interests.
Nybeck stated that the LMCD has no authority on the land, while the City has the ability to be
more restrictive on the land or water. The LMCD covers the water only up to the ordinary high
water mark.
Commissioner Conley pointed out that the proposed dock system runs along the shoreline, stating
that he was not interested in allowing people the ability to build a boardwalk along the entire width
of their shoreline.
Skramstad stated that the lake is public property, as presented, this boardwalk would not be
allowed.
Though he was unsure how the LMCD would treat something like this, Nybeck asked whether the
shoreland ordinances could be created to cover any structures like this. He explained that lots of
less than 100' can extend out into the water that far, lots of 100'+ can have docks that extend 100'
or apply for a permit which extends the dock.
Commissioner White asked whether granting those permits is commonplace. In addition, she asked
how wetland versus lake is handled with regard to dock space.
Nybeck stated that they do allow residents to get out to navigable water. If you can document that
you don't have 4' of water depth, then you may be granted a permit to lengthen your dock. Nybeck
noted that even if a resident is on swampland, they still have ordinary high water rights which
allow them to place docks over wetland areas to access water. He noted that this typically triggers
other questions with regard to sizes of boats or emerging vegetation.
Commissioner Gniffke stated that in the case of wetlands, regardless ofLMCD regulations,
Shorewood has more restrictive Ordinances which do not allow applicants to build a structure
across a wetland.
In an attempt to bring the discussion back to Shorewood, Commissioner Gagne asked whether the
City of Shorewood should be as restrictive as to say no more than four boats allowed period.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 4 of 8
.
Since the LMCD has already gone to great lengths to collect information, Commissioner Meyer
questioned whether Ordinances 76 and 80 are still relevant, and whether the City should adopt
LMCD codes or tighten their own.
In addition to educating themselves, Chair Bailey stated that the Commission should talk about
what they wish to see in Shorewood and try to compile those into some sort of enforceable
regulation.
Commissioner White asked what the definition of the lake is with regard to the lagoon area in the
Enchanted Island example.
Nybeck stated that, while you are allowed a certain dock use area, you cannot impede navigation
or impair access to neighboring docks. He suggested that Shorewood contact neighboring
communities, such as Orono, who have been somewhat more restrictive with regard to rental boats
off private sites or primary structures and the allowance for slips.
Commissioner Woodruff stated that Shorewood is a residential community; therefore, what he has
made reference to in his suggested amendments refers to residential dock regulations. He stated
that, in his opinion, the definition of a dock itself is inadequate.
.
Chair Bailey inteIjected that this falls back on what the City's vision is with regard to its shoreline.
He questioned whether it is their desire that the shoreline be unimpeded, if residents should be
allowed to make use of a certain number of boats, or left to their own accord to make use oftheir
shoreline. Once a vision is decided upon, the Commission should shape policy and move forward
with that vision writing Ordinances to follow that line of thinking.
Woodruff stated that a dock definition will help to control the shoreline. He suggested that a dock
be defined as a structure that connects to the land and extends out into the lake to allow access to
humans out over the water. While the Ordinance language does set certain limitations as needed,
he felt more was necessary to limit the impacts on land and views.
White asked what the limit to the size of a boat is on the lake, as the dock being proposed is 72'
long.
Nybeck noted that 70' is the maximum boat length and pointed out that the applicant has also
proposed a covered canopy for this structure to protect the boats from the sun, which in effect
creates another massing dimension.
Woodruff stated that, in his opinion, the proposed dock is an example of more than one dock and
suggested that the Commission go so far as to define how one dock is delineated. He proposed the
City adopt the concept of a deck over the water as the LMCD has done. At minimum, Woodruff
posed several questions; how do you know what a dock is, how do you know if you have one or
more, is the reference to the LMCD adequate in our code, do we want to allow residents to have
decks on the water as the LMCD has, and finally, should the regulations apply to other bodies of
water.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 5 of 8
.
Nielsen stated that the reference to the LMCD is outdated and suggested that the Commission
merely adopt the current code by reference, as that is the one the City is enforcing anyway. In
addition, Nielsen stated that the current Shorewood codes do apply to other bodies of water. He
noted that the subject of decks is another matter, contrary to how they have regulated the shoreland
otherwise in the past.
Chair Bailey concurred, stating that the Commission is not trying to create recreational structures
by way of docks.
Nielsen asked whether the LMCD had any dimensional requirements with regard to docks.
While a city can choose to be more restrictive, Skramstad stated that the proliferation of the big
platform decks at the end of docks is a relatively new concept, though a popular growing trend. He
stated that the LMCD is working with the DNR on a separate project to create some further
definitions on these new docking terms, trampolines, docking dimensions, etc. which will likely
result in some special rules on lake Minnetonka. Currently the rules on the width of a dock are 8'
in one dimension, though the rules on the other dimension are not so restrictive. He stated that it is
their intent to come up with rules that can be enforceable with the dock manufacturers and their
customers.
.
Nybeck stated that the DNR may begin to take on a greater role in the enforcement piece. He
pointed out that an inventory will be completed this summer with regard to the size and numbers
of docks on the lake.
Nielsen asked what the LMCD viewed as its purpose for regulating docks or whether it has to do
simply with navigation. He questioned whether aesthetics playa role.
Skramstad stated that regulating docks provides residents with proper access, so that neighbors
have equity and don't encumber one another. Especially in the case of pie shaped lots or
converging concave shorelines where many issues arise.
Nybeck stated that, while the original rules may have applied to aesthetics, shading etc, newer
rules apply more to equity.
Skramstad pointed out that, while most of the normal rules work all of the time, there are a few
exceptions, such as this case, in which other aspects like the meandering shoreline measurement
must be applied.
Conley questioned whether different terminology such as channels, wetlands, lakes, lagoons would
be applied in triggering the application for different rules.
Skramstad reiterated that there are different rules that apply in these different areas of water, not
the least of which, is the fact that the use must not impede navigation.
.
Gagne stated that, in his opinion, this particular design constitutes 6 docks, which is more than the
lot should be allowed to support.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 6 of 8
.
Woodruff walked the Commission through his suggested changes to the zoning language: add the
definition of deck to the zoning ordinance with regard to docks; generalize the lake to cover
'public waters'; change the definition of dock to what is in the LMCD rules and regulations except
to replace the word lake with public water body; paragraph B, add the word decks if allowed;
paragraph C address the number of docks allowed above the surface of the public water body,
define the terms which make up a dock itself; paragraph E add the term deck, if allowed by the
Commission; paragraph G, make reference to the current LMCD regulation.
Chair Bailey asked whether these amendments merely cleaned up much of the language that
currently exists or went so far as to place additional restrictions within the regulations. For
example, as he viewed it, if the Commission omitted the sections that applied to deck references,
the only additional restrictions would include a limit to one shoreline access and better referencing
of the LMCD regulations.
Gagne asked for clarification of how the number of connections to the shoreline could be used to
help distinguish and define the size of a 'one' dock configuration.
Conley stated that it seemed to him that the City would not be getting anymore responsible control
over what goes into the water by simply clarifying regulations.
.
Woodruff stated that the City would be relying on the LMCD regulations; however, if the
Commission does not feel these go far enough, the City can place additional restrictions within
their codes.
Skramstad suggested that the Commission give consideration to creating a formula, similar to their
25% hardcover equation for land, over the water.
White indicated that is the large lots that seem to be causing the concern with regard to the dock
coverage and neighborhood impacts. She questioned whether the Commission could consider a
25% limit, similar to the hardcover figures, with the 10' setbacks, to use as a formula. She asked if
the Commission could place some restrictions on the size due to the impacts on the character of the
neighborhood as a possibility.
The Commission wished to give further thought to a formula, but did not realistically feel impacts
on the character of the neighborhood could be a legitimate consideration due to the variety of
lakeshore dock systems and the ongoing changes occurring upon rebuilds.
Chair Bailey suggested they wind up their dialogue for the evening and bring this back for further
discussion at a future study session and even consider inviting Orono or other cities on the lake to
join the discussion.
Due to the phosphorous levels, White asked if the LMCD considers what is on the bottom of the
lake when it grants permits or dock access, such as that near the Yacht Club.
.
Nybeck stated that the LMCD put restrictions on Site 1, but the City of Shorewood was more
restrictive on Site 2; therefore, the LMCD did not rule on this site.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 7 of 8
Chair Bailey thanked Director Nybeck and Representative Skramstad for coming and asked them
to join the Commission again for a future discussion.
Nielsen interjected one final question, whether the LMCD enforces a canopy regulation.
Nybeck stated that the DNR has placed some limitations or restrictions on the use of canopies, but
the LMCD does little to regulate this further.
2. REVIEW DRAFT OF C-3 DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT
In review of the draft, Nielsen stated that the reference to dry goods or haberdashery stores had
been stricken. Nielsen explained that the red changes were those meant to be added in, the blue
were to be deleted, green were recent additions/revisions.
Woodruff made minor revisions to typos, Pg 1 Subdivision 1 - 'intense retail or service outlets' ,
next line - 'to whom the service...'. Page 3, under 37, in red, "laboratories medical or dental" was
to be omitted as it is incorporated later; #38, 'on-sale liquor' was added without his recollection.
Nielsen stated that the on-sale liquor was already an allowed use; therefore, he added it in.
Woodruff continued, pointing out that page 4, under 41, 'optical stores and lab's accessory there
to' should be added; page 5, strike out 52, and revise to 'veterinary clinics with indoor overnight
care', omitting 'and'; page lOG, under Conditional Uses, he questioned the other uses.
Chair Bailey stated that, having just received the amendments today, he was not prepared to move
the item forward. He suggested they discuss the changes made to the 'daycare section' and
consider the other additional uses at a future work session.
Nielsen stated that the direction given at the previous meeting was to incorporate 'daycare' as a
conditional use in the C-3. He indicated that he believed they had been inclusive ofthe
requirements discussed and reviewed those with the Commission
The Commission felt Nielsen captured what was discussed.
Because this was a separate Amendment request from Shorewood Village, if the Commission was
okay with the Amendment Nielsen would put it into a formal Ordinance Amendment for next
Monday evenings City Council Meeting. Nielsen stated that the applicant would still need to
present a formal Conditional Use Permit request for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Gagne pointed out that the proposed child care facility concerned him based on its proximity to the
building. Since there is a driveway which separates the center from its activity yard, he voiced
concern that delivery vehicles might pose a hazard to the children accessing the activity area.
White pointed out that hardcover, as well as, outdoor storage of a daycare center vehicle might be
an issue for consideration.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Meeting
21 February 2006
Page 8 of 8
Chair Bailey suggested they return to the language of the daycare center and approve the general
amendments as proposed. Then for the second order of business address the three other uses.
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment.
Motion passed 7/0.
3. CONTINUE DISCUSSION REGARDING C-3 DISTRICT USES
As Nielsen wished to further examine the three conditional uses, Chair Bailey suggested they hold
off further discussion until the March 21 st meeting.
Nielsen stated that one additional use to be further articulated might include a convenience store
with gas as a conditional use.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were none.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Commission accepted the draft of the upcoming meeting.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Woodruff reported that the City Council endorsed the fourth Amendment to the Joint Powers
Agreement and the County Road 19 costs continue to be on target.
· SLUC
Nothing to report.
· Other
Chair Bailey stated that he was unaware that it was Commissioner White's last meeting and
thanked her for her dedication and commitment. They invited her back to the next meeting briefly
to recognize her more formally.
7. ADJOURNMENT
White moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February
21,2006 at 9:15 p.m. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Kristi B. Anderson
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLLCALL
Present Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gniffke, Meyer; Planning Director Nielsen and City Council
Liaison Callies
Absent Commissioners Gagne, Schmitt, Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 21 February 2006
Gniffke moved, Conley seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February
21,2006, as amended: on Page 1, change "Absent: City Council Liaison" to Absent: None"; Page 8,
Item 6, Paragraph 1, Line 1, change "Meyer reported" to "Woodruff reported". Motion passed 4/0.
. Without objection from the Commission, Director Nielsen asked that Item 4 be continued to a Planning
Commission Meeting on April 4, 2006.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Greg Buckley
Location: 25885 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He
explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a March 27, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant, Greg Buckley, owns the property at 25885 Birch Bluff Road. The
applicant had requested a setback variance to build an addition on the east side of his home, behind the
existing garage.
Director Nielsen explained the subject property was located in the R-1C/S, Single-Family
ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and contained approximately 21,781 square feet of area. The lot was
technically a comer lot, having frontages on Birch Bluff Road and a "paper street", originally platted as
Second Street. The proposed two-story addition measured 8' x 24' and necessitated a 25-foot variance. The
required setback from the Second Street right-of-way cuts the property approximately in half.
.
Nielsen went on to explain the 35-foot setback required from Second Street severely limited the buildability
of the applicant's lot. If allowed a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way, the applicant had adequate room
to fill in the space behind the garage, which was already at a ten-foot setback. Note - at the time the home
was built, the City did not require the builder to observe a 35-foot setback. The applicant's situation was
considered quite unique and does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
21 March 2006
Page 2 of6
Nielsen then explained there was ample precedent for granting the applicant's request for a variance. The
City had, on other occasions, granted similar variances for properties abutting fire lanes (platted rights-of-
way leading to lakeshore).
Nielsen also explained the Second Street right-of-way was part of a small network of so-called "paper
streets" south of Birch Bluff Road. Second Street and Third Street, to the west, are north/south rights-of-
way, connected by Clara Avenue, which runs east and west. A number of years ago, the City examined the
area in question relative to the future of these rights-of-way. The "Clara Avenue Study" concluded that the
streets were too substandard in width, did not respect topography and homes were built too close to them to
upgrade into standard city streets. Nevertheless, it was decided that they would not be vacated as they did
provide limited access to three large parcels of land on the south side of Clara Avenue. He noted they were
very similar to the fire lanes that currently existed in Shorewood.
As in similar requests relative to fire lanes, Staff recommended the applicant's request for a variance be
granted, treating the right-of-way in question as a typical side yard.
Director Nielsen stated Mr. Buckley was present.
Mr. Buckley stated he was available for questions. He also stated he was staying within the footprint of his
original house and he was not destroying any trees.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 15 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley, Director Nielsen explained the Second Street right-
of-way was not maintained by the City; it contains a private driveway which is maintained by the property
owner to the south of Mr. Buckley's.
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen how many "paper streets" there were. Nielsen stated Second Street and
Third Street were the only ones in that particular area, and all fire lanes were paper streets (there were 7 of
them left). He listed some of other streets that were classified as "paper streets".
Chair Bailey questioned if the ordinance should be amended to allow for fire lanes and "paper streets" to
have a 10-foot setback rather than deal with each of the requests on an individual basis; it seemed all
requests of this nature had been granted.
Director Nielsen suggested Staff conduct a study of the "paper streets" and identify which of them could
potentially be opened as a City street, and the Commission should consider reviewing the "paper streets" on
a global bases. He stated there had been instances where some undeveloped rights-of-way had been
vacated. Fire lanes were not vacated because of the need for access to the lake.
Chair Bailey suggested this issue be addressed as part of the 2006 work program.
Meyer moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance for Greg Buckley,
25885 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M.
.
.
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
21 March 2006
Page 3 of 6
2.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Blair Bury
Location: 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant, Blair Bury and his wife Sharon Bury, own the property at 28160
Boulder Bridge Drive. The applicants wanted to add on to their existing attached garage. The floor area of
the new garage, when combined with an existing attached garage, brought the total area of accessory space
on the property over 1200 square feet. Therefore, the applicants had requested a conditional use permit to
construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property.
Nielsen explained the property was zoned P.U.D./S, Planned Unit Development/Shoreland, and was subject
to Shoreland management requirements. It contained 59,077 square feet of area. The existing house
contained approximately 3560 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. The existing garage
contained 760 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage contained 810 square feet, which brought the
total area of accessory space on the site to 1570 square feet.
Nielsen then explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contained four
specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit. He then reviewed how the applicants'
proposal complied with the Code:
a.
The total area of accessory space (1570 square feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principal structure (3560 square feet).
b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the P.U.D./S zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complied with the setback requirements of the P.U.D./S
zoning district. Hardcover on the property will go from approximately 17.3
percent to 23.1 percent, remaining in compliance with the 25 percent maximum.
d. The new garage addition would be integrated into the architecture of the existing
home. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage
are consistent with the principle dwelling.
Nielsen stated the applicant's request was considered to be consistent with the requirements of the
Shorewood Zoning Code; therefore, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as
requested.
Nielsen noted Mr. Bury was available for questions.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion
ofthe Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Gniffke moved, Meyer seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space Over 1200 Sq. Ft. for Blair Bury, 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the public hearing at 7:26 P.M.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
21 March 2006
Page 4 of 6
3.
MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant:Mark Sass
Location:22690 / 22740 Murray Street and 6035 Galpin Lake Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant, Mark Sass, owns the two properties at 22690 and 22740 Murray
Street. Mr. Sass had arranged to purchase a strip of property from Brent Sinn, 6035 Galpin Lake Road. To
accomplish this, Mr. Sass and Mr. Sinn had applied for a minor subdivision and combination that would
rearrange the boundaries between their lots.
Nielsen explained all of the subject parcels are zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland, and are
occupied by single-family homes. Mr. Sass' lots are somewhat substandard in terms of lot area. His intent
was to bring these lots into compliance with R-1C standards by adding depth to both of his properties. He
noted the additional depth on the properties would provide Mr. Sass with more flexibility for future
construction. He also noted the Sinn parcel was substantially oversized for the R-1C zoning district.
Nielsen went on to explain the lot line rearrangement also involved vacating the existing drainage and
utility easement that was platted as part of the Zachary Woods development (Sinn's property), in exchange
for new drainage and utility easements along the new north property line and around the perimeters of the
Sass lots. A public hearing to consider the vacation has been scheduled for a March 27,2006, City Council
Meeting.
Nielsen stated Staff recommended the proposed division and combination be approved, along with the
vacation of the existing easement. This approval was subject to the applicant providing deeds for the new
easements and a title opinion for review by the City Attorney. The division/combination should be
recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request.
Nielsen stated Mr. Sass was available for questions.
Mr. Sass stated the purchase of land from Mr. Sinn would clean up the property lines, and the setbacks
would be correct.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
Conley moved, Meyer seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision/Combination (Lot
Line Rearrangement) for Mark Sass, 22690 / 22740 Murray Street, and Brent Sinn, 6035 Galpin
Lake Road. Motion passed, 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the public hearing at 7:33 P.M.
4. STUDY SESSION
· C-3 District Uses
This was continued to an April 4, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.
.
Dock Regulations
This was continued to an April 4, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
21 March 2006
Page 5 of6
.
5.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Bailey explained there would be no action taken at the meeting.
Kelly Bosworth, who owns the property at 6120 Lake Linden Drive, stated he came to the Planning
Commission that evening for guidance on what process to follow. He explained he had been approved for a
C.D.P. to build a garage on the subject property. The plans approved as part of the C.D.P. specified the
garage would have log siding. His question to the Commission was could some of the siding be vertical
cedar siding. He explained when his builder met with Director Nielsen regarding the use of different siding
there had been some miscommunication, and he understood that Nielsen had been left with the
understanding Mr. Bosworth wanted to use vinyl siding. Mr. Bosworth wanted to clarify he did not intend
to use vinyl siding, just another form of wood siding.
Mr. Bosworth also understood that Director Nielsen had explained that because there had been a public
hearing for the C.D.P. and Mr. Bosworth was now asking for a change to the architectural part of the
C.D.P., there would need to be another public hearing to approve the change. He assumed the reason was
because Nielsen thought he wanted vinyl siding. Mr. Bosworth asked now that Nielsen knew he did not
want to use vinyl would it still require another public hearing.
Director Nielsen explained the architectural nature ofthe garaged was included as part of the C.D.P.
Mr. Bosworth noted he may want to use a minimal amount of vinyl siding in the peaks of the garage.
.
Chair Bailey explained the Commission would follow Director Nielsen's recommendation on this matter,
and he suggested Mr. Bosworth meet with Nielsen.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be three items slated for an April 4, 2006, meeting of the Planning
Commission including one Lot Area Variance and Minor Subdivision, C-3 District Uses, and Dock
Regulations.
Director Nielsen stated he and Chair Bailey had an informal discussion with regard to dock regulations, and
they had agreed the number of dock regulations issues needed to be prioritized so the Commission would
have adequate time to focus on the high priority items. He stated one issue that needed to be addressed was
the Enchanted Island dock request.
Nielsen stated Staff would prepare a matrix that would depict what the regulations were for the LMCD,
Shorewood, and Orono. He noted that LMCD Director Nybeck had stated that Orono had spent a great deal
of time defining dock regulations, and he also noted Orono was similar to Shorewood in character (e.g. a lot
of lake shore, big lots, etc.). He stated he had spoken with Mike Gaffron, Orono's Planning Director, and,
with one exception, Orono's regulations are the same as Shorewood's regulations. Nielsen then stated the
LMCD regulations are the foundation for Orono's regulations. Orono treats docks as accessories (i.e. the
property must have a house in order to have a dock); while the LMCD allows a property to have a dock
even if there is no house on the property. The one difference between Orono regulations and Shorewood
regulations was Orono required a C.D.P. for permanent docks (Nielsen noted Director Nybeck was unsure
as to why the C.u.P. regulation existed) and the c.u.P. condition was LMCD approval was required.
.
Nielsen then listed some of the issues he heard at the 21 February 2006 Planning Commission Meeting:
what was the requirement to have a dock (a house on the lot); based on Shorewood's regulations and the
LMCD's regulations, a certain amount of shoreline was required; there were water use areas and setbacks,
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
21 March 2006
Page 6 of 6
but there were no size requirements; there was no control over configuration; there was no control over
canopies; and the number of slips with the LMCD was almost unlimited.
Nielsen stated the Enchanted Island boardwalk type dock did have land on one end, and technically it could
qualify as a dock.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission needed to determine how directive the City needed to be toward
lake shore owners, and he stated the City may overstep its authority if it starts to tell lake shore owners what
to do. He suggested it may behoove the Commission to solicit the advice of Mayor Love on this matter.
Director Nielsen stated there could be value in the Commission taking a boat tour around Shorewood
lakeshore.
Chair Bailey cautioned the Commission on moving to quickly with regard to making dock regulations more
restrictive. Commissioner Gniftke concurred with Chair Bailey.
Director Nielsen stated his objective for the April 4, 2006, meeting was to have assembled the information
for review and discussion.
With regard to C-3 District Uses, Director Nielsen stated the Commission had completed the review and
modifications to the permitted uses and needed to address the conditional uses.
7.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Meyer reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 13,2006, Regular City
Council Meeting. He stated other than approval of minutes and approval of the consent agenda, the major
item was a public hearing regarding the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. He also stated Council
adjourned to a work session where one of the items discussed was the City's Water Extension and
Connection Policy.
Councilmember Callies provided a brief summary of some of the issues discussed with regard to the policy.
She stated there was a great deal of discussion regarding the current policy, and the fees property owners
are charged for subscribing to City Water. She described how the current policy worked. Callies stated the
policy discussion would be addressed at a City Council Work Session on April 10, 2006.
· SLUC
No report was given.
. Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
Meyer moved, Gniftke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2006 at
8:04 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 4 APRIL 2006
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 Conley, Gagne, Meyer, Schmitt, Woodruff; Planning Director
Nielsen and City Council Liaison Callies
Absent:
Gniftke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 21 March 2006
Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21.
2006, as Presented. Motion passed 3/0/3 with Gagne, Schmitt, and Woodruff abstaining due to their
absence at the meeting.
.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT AREA VARIANCE AND MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Ann Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public Hearing
process. In addition, he stated this item would be placed on the April 10, 2006, Regular City Council
Meeting Agenda for further consideration.
Nielsen stated Ann Meldahl and her husband own the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive. The property is
located in the R-IA, Single-Family Residential zoning district. In 1991 the Meldahls split their property
into three lots. They had subsequently sold the westerly lot and later recombined the easterly two lots. The
property currently contains 80,075 square feet of area. He noted the applicants had also been granted a
conditional use permit (C.u.P.) to place fill on the westerly half of the property in 2005.
Nielsen then explained the Meldahls had submitted an application for a minor subdivision to re-subdivide
their property into two lots in October 2005 because of drainage issues. That request was addressed in a
Staff memorandum dated 27 October 2005. Before any action could be taken on the Meldahls' request they
asked for that application to put on hold, pending their submittal of a lot area variance and a different lot
configuration.
Nielsen stated the Meldahls had submitted a new plan to re-subdivide their property into two lots. He noted
R-IA zoning regulations require a lot to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet in area and a minimum of 120
feet wide. The new plan showed the northerly parcel to have only 30,000 square feet of area; therefore, the
. Meldahls had requested for a lot area variance of 10,000 square feet for the northerly parcel.
Nielsen went on to explain while there were several specific criteria set forth in the Zoning Code and state
statutes regarding the granting of variance. The first and simplest question to be answered was - could it be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 2 of 7
. done without a variance? In this case, the applicants had already answered it could with their 2005
application. The division shown in the 2005 application complied with the width, depth and area
requirements for the R-IA zoning district. It also allowed a home to be built exactly where the applicants
suggested the best spot on the property was - the higher ground adjoining Cathcart Drive. It also provided a
more buildable area for the northerly lot than would be provided if the variance were granted. This was
considered to be a very reasonable use of the applicants' property.
Nielsen went on to explain the current request did not comply with the criteria set forth in Section 1201.05
Subd. 2.b. of the Zoning Code, and the request failed as follows:
1. The applicants were not being deprived of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in
the same district. A review of the area in which the property was located showed the
lots in the western half of Planning District 4 are at least 40,000 square feet in area.
While lots lying east of the LRT Trail were smaller in size, they were located in
different zoning districts (R-ID and R-IC).
2. The existing lot configurations were the result of how the applicants themselves
divided the property in 1991. As such, if there was any hardship, it had been self-
imposed.
.
Nielsen stated after reviewing the applicant's request and the zoning code criteria, Staff determined the
applicants were able to make reasonable use of their property without a reduction in the City's standard lot
size. He noted that in discussions with the applicants, much of their concerns had more to do with the
aesthetics of having the northerly parcel cut behind the southerly parcel. He stated if the rear view of the
existing home was of great concern, the concern could be addressed by the applicant placing a "sight or
scenic" easement over the portion of the northerly lot that would affect any view. The easement could
restrict construction or preserve vegetation, or both.
Nielsen stated Staff did not recommend approval of the lot area variance. Staff did support the Planning
Commission recommending approval of the minor subdivision application submitted in October 2005,
subject to the conditions included in the 27 October 2005 Staff report.
Ann Meldahl stated Director Nielson described the situation clearly. She apologized for any mistakes in her
recent letter to the Planning Commission regarding the request. She stated there was a property in the area
that was only 30,000 square feet in area, and that property was located in an R-IB zoning district. Nielsen
stated that was not what he had explained and asked her to continue on.
Ms. Meldahl stated the request would create a clean rectangular lot (as opposed to a triangular lot with the
October 2005 request), they had no plan to change the density of the property, nor did she think the request
would set a dangerous precedent for future variance requests (though she noted anytime legal action was
taken a precedent was established). She went on to state she had discussed the request with various
neighbors. She then stated, with the exception of one neighbor, the neighbors did not have the size of
property that could be subdivided. She commented she and her husband had owned their property before
the City of Shorewood had been created, and they were very concerned about the well-being of Shorewood.
.
Ms. Meldahl went on to say it was not right to require them to lose their lovely backyard by implementing
the October 2005 plan, and it would not leave them with a nice yard for their older home. She also said
aesthetics were important with real estate. She then stated she did not believe their current request would be
detrimental to Shorewood or to their neighborhood. Ms. Meldahl stated the reason for eventually selling
part of their land was to fund their retirement. She explained they had already gone through a considerable
expenditure to achieve the 120 foot wide requirement on Cathcart Drive: they had taken out the driveway;
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 3 of7
. they had taken down the pillars; they had changed the entrance to the garage; and they had removed trees.
She noted they still needed to remove the old garage.
Ms. Meldahl stated she did not agree with the Staff's recommendation to deny the request for variance.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 19 P.M.
George Gleason, 6130 Cathcart Drive, stated he was not sure of where someone could build a new house on
the proposed subdivided lot. Director Nielsen said under either the October 2005 application or the current
application the logical building pad would be to the north of the existing house in between Mr. Gleason's
house and the Meldahls' house. Mr. Gleason expressed concern because his house was close to his property
line and a new house could be built too close to his house. Director Nielsen explained there was a 10 foot
side setback.
Ms. Meldahl explained that anyone who would buy the subdivided property would need to comply with
Shorewood regulations. She stated the large homes in Shorewood Oaks and Shorewood Ponds are very
close together, and she assumed the reason they were able to be close was because the builders of the units
complied with Shorewood's regulations.
In response to a question from Mr. Gleason regarding variance approval, Chair Bailey stated each variance
is addressed based on its own merits.
.
Carol Berg, 5970 Cathcart Drive, stated she had reservations about the request. She stated a variance of
25% was not a small variance, and approval would establish a precedent. She questioned why the Meldahls
had discarded the previous proposal. Ms. Berg stated she would support a "scenic" easement significantly
more than a 30,000 square-foot lot. She also acknowledged the October 2005 plan would be more of a
hardship to Ms. Meldahl's property.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M.
Commissioner Meyer stated he agreed with the Staff's recommendation to deny the lot area variance. He
commented that the Planning Commission doesn't enjoy denying a variance request, but this request did not
comply with the variance criteria.
Commissioner Conley shared Commissioner Meyer's perspective. He said he could appreciate the
applicant's desire to preserve their back yard, but he thought the "scenic" easement could provide screening.
He stated the current property situation was self imposed from the first property subdivision.
Chair Bailey stated the Meldahl's variance request did not qualify for any of the variance criteria - it was
not unique, the property owners generated the circumstances, it was not a hardship because the property
owner could make reasonable use of the property, and it would be granting special privilege to one property
owner in the neighborhood. He then stated even if a "scenic" easement was not available there would be no
justification to grant the variance request. Bailey stated he would not recommend approval of the variance.
.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Callies with regard to the uniqueness of the lot, Director
Nielsen explained that to build on the previously approved westerly lot would require substantial site
alteration beyond what had already been approved in the applicants' C.D.P. for additional fill. The likely
building site achieved by the October 2005 reconfiguration would result in an elevation similar to that upon
which the existing home was located. He also explained if the water on the westerly lot was displaced it
could have a negative impact on a neighboring property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 4 of 7
.
Council Liaison Callies stated what she understood was there were some topographical constraints to the
lot.
In response to a question from Ms. Berg, Director Nielsen stated the low and wet area on the Meldahl
property was somewhat exacerbated by a development in Victoria.
Director Nielsen clarified the Meldahl's October 2005 subdivision proposal was never acted on by the
Planning Commission.
Conley moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Denial of a Lot Area Variance and Minor
Subdivision for Ann Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive. Motion passed 6/0.
Ms. Meldahl expressed her disappointment with the Planning Commission's decision, and she stated she
did not understand the reason for the decision.
Chair Bailey reiterated the Planning Commission's rationale for denying the request. He stated it was the
Planning Commission's obligation to ensure the criteria were satisfied before they could recommend
approval of a variance.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission was willing to consider the October 2005 request at the
meeting if Ms. Meldahl wanted them to.
Ms. Meldahl stated she and her husband had no other alternative than to request the October 2005 Minor
. Subdivision be considered because they needed to sell the land.
Director Nielsen explained to Ms. Meldahl that she could present her case to the City Council and,
depending on the outcome, she could ask the Planning Commission to consider the October 2005 request at
a later date.
Chair Bailey stated Ms. Meldahl should consult with her husband as to whether or not they would like the
Planning Commission to consider the October 2005 request, and if they wanted the Commission to consider
that request the Planning Commission could do so at the April 18, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. He
stated if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the October 2005 request, which he thought
was likely, their request could be presented to the City Council at the April 24, 2006, City Council meeting.
Ms. Meldahl stated she wanted to present her case to the City Council at the April 10, 2006, City Council
Meeting. Chair Bailey explained if she went before the Council on April 10, 2006, the Planning
Commission would not be able to consider her October 2005 request until May 2006.
Director Nielsen stated he did not think there would be any more fees for the October 2005 request to be
considered.
Ms. Meldahl again stated she was going to present her case to the City Council on April 10, 2006.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M.
2. STUDY SESSION
.
.
C-3 DISTRICT USES
Director Nielsen distributed the third draft of C-3 General Commercial land uses. He stated the Commission
had been revising the permitted and accessory uses in recent study sessions. He explained there was no
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 5 of7
action required at the meeting; and he commented the proposed amendments would eventually go before a
public hearing. He did ask the Commissioners to please review the document to ensure all the amendments
that had been proposed were included correctly, and if they found any errors please let him know.
Nielsen noted the number of permitted land uses had grown considerably. He then reviewed an important
provision that the Commission had added:
1201.22 Subd.2.4
Uses similar to those enumerated in a. above, but not included in the listing, shall be
subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the
City Council. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that a particular use is
consistent with the uses listed above, including, but not limited to, traffic, hours of
operation, noise, signage and the market intended to be served.
Nielsen stated he thought the C-3 conditional uses were reasonably complete. He noted a use that was not
included in the conditional uses - Convenience Store with Gasoline. He reviewed Wayzata's ordinance with
regard to that conditional use. He thought it was comprehensive and well stated, though it did need some
modifications to reflect Shorewood setback regulations.
Chair Bailey questioned why that conditional use would not be included in the C-l District. Director
Nielsen stated he thought Convenience Stores had been considered for removal from the C-l District.
Discussion ensued with regard to which land uses should be included in the C-l District and which should
be included in the C-3 District, which land uses could be moved from one district to another, and how could
duplication be minimized. There was also discussion with regard to including size regulations for land uses
in the C-l district.
Director Nielsen stated he had thought the Commission was comfortable with the C-l District land uses
they had amended.
Ensuing discussion continued with regard to C-l District and C-3 District land uses.
There was consensus amongst the Commissioners that the C-l District and C-3 District land uses both be
reviewed at the next study session to identify where duplications can be eliminated or clarified, and to
determine how to incorporate size regulations.
Chair Bailey asked the Commissioners to come prepared so that the review and revision process could be
done expeditiously.
· DOCK REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen recapped the discussion that had occurred at the March 21, 2006, Planning Commission
Meeting for those Commissioners that were not present.
Commissioner Woodruff explained he had two major objectives when he had asked for dock regulations to
be discussed at a February 2006 meeting. He would like to have Shorewood's dock regulations updated to
reflect the current LMCD regulations. He would also like to have a statement that defined what a dock was;
the ordinance stated that one dock was permitted but it did not define what a dock was. He also questioned
if the Commission was comfortable with using the LMCD dock regulations as the foundation for
Shorewood's dock regulations.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 6 of7
Director Nielsen agreed there needed to be a definition of what one dock was. He stated one way to address
the issue was by defining the number of boat slips one dock could have, and requiring a C.U.P ifmore slips
were desired.
Chair Bailey asked Commissioner Woodruff if he wanted Shorewood to have more restrictive dock
regulations than the LMCD.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he wanted the dock regulations to be specific.
Chair Bailey stated his perspective was the discussion on dock regulations were moving beyond making the
regulations more specific.
With regard to boardwalks, Commissioner Woodruff stated if the boardwalk was over land it would be
considered a structure built over a Shoreland setback and would therefore be an illegal use. He also stated
the discussion regarding canopies was a legitimate discussion.
Chair Bailey stated he was not comfortable imposing restrictions on canopies.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he did not think Shorewood, on its own, should impose canopy regulations;
that was an LMCD responsibility. Director Nielsen stated the LMCD was considering reviewing canopy
regulations in the future.
Commissioner Gagne stated his concern with the boardwalk on Enchanted Island was with the
enormousness of it and the sizes of boats that would be docked there - it was too commercial in nature.
Chair Bailey stated if the Commission was going to pursue the topic of revising dock regulations, then a
tour of the lake would be beneficial.
Schmitt stated he thought the DNR was moving forward with a dock slip regulation that Waconia was
including in its dock ordinance. He stated this regulation was in its preliminary stages.
Commissioner Woodruff noted there were a few commissions similar to the LMCD and the State
Legislature had granted these commissions the authority to govern the over-the-water use of the lake.
Commissioner Conley stated Shorewood's ordinance could specify parameters such as the width of a dock,
the dock must be removable, and the boat must be located a certain distance from the shore.
Discussion ensued with regard to how restrictive Shorewood dock regulations should be.
Director Nielsen stated he would prepare an issues list and some ideas on how to address the issues.
The Commissioners agreed that Mayor Love be asked to address the Commission with regard to dock
regulations at a May 2006 study session, and the Commission should take a boat tour of the lake in June
2006.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 2006
Page 7 of7
4.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be two items slated for an April 18, 2006, meeting of the Planning
Commission including C-l District / C-3 District land uses, and parking requirements for various zoning
districts.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Meyer reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 27,2006, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
It was noted that Commissioner Woodruff would be the Liaison to the Council for April 2006.
. SLUC
No report was given.
. Other
Director Nielsen stated that Mr. Bosworth's request for plywood siding was not in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood, and therefore it did not satisfy the conditions of the c.u.P. that had been
granted. Mr. Bosworth chose to change his siding to an artificial shake that would be allowed as part of the
C.U.P.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meyer moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2006 at
8:40 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 18 APRIL 2006
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 Gagne, Gniffke, Schmitt, and Woodruff; Planning Director
Nielsen and City Council Liaison Callies
Absent:
Commissioners Conley and Meyer, and City Council Liaison Callies
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 4 April 2006
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4,
2006, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Gniftke abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
WORK SESSION
1.
DISCUSS C-l AND C-3 DISTRICT USES
Director Nielsen stated at an April 4, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting a discussion regarding C-3
District conditional uses had evolved to include C-1 District uses. During the meeting he had indicated that
in previous discussions Staff had recommended the C-1 District not be eliminated largely because of the
self-storage facility at 19545 State Highway 7.
Nielsen then stated he had since reviewed the minutes from a Commission meeting when the need for the
C-1 District had been discussed. He found the recommendation for the self-storage facility property was
actually quite different. It was suggested the R-C, Residential Commercial District be amended to include
self-storage facilities, by conditional use permit, with conditions that would substantially limit such uses to
specific locations (e.g. on State Highway 7). He stated R-C zoning would be suitable for the land currently
zoned C-1 and would allow for the C-1 District to be eliminated; there appeared to be little or no use for the
C-1 District except for self-storage facilities. He stated the self-storage facility created a sound barrier for
the Shady Hills residential area.
Nielsen noted Staff did not recommend C-3 zoning for the property at 19545 State Highway 7 because of its
proximity to the residential area, and the property would become non-conforming. He then noted the
amount of signage allowed was the same in both the C-1 District and the R -C District.
Nielsen explained the revision to the R-C District zoning regulations would entail adding two provisions to
Section 1201.19 Subd 4.c (C-1 conditional uses: self-storage facilities) of the Zoning Code: 1) the site on
which the self-storage facility is located shall be a minimum of two acres in size; and 2) the site on which
the self-storage facility is located shall be adjacent to a principal arterial, as designated in the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 18, 2006
Page 2 of3
. Commissioner Gagne stated the property owners behind the self-storage facility had originally been
opposed to the facility, but now they appreciated the sound barrier it provided.
Director Nielsen stated the new self-storage facility had not been well received.
Chair Bailey stated if the businesses in the C-4 District near the Shorewood Nursery ever leave, maybe the
C-4 District could be rezoned. Director Nielsen stated that was a definite possibility.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if there were C-1 District uses that should be retained for the 19545
State Highway 7 property if it were rezoned to R-C. Chair Bailey noted R-C uses were lower intensity,
more residential friendly type of uses. Woodruff suggested R-C District uses be reviewed before a rezoning
of the property was considered.
Commissioner Schmitt questioned if there were any roads that could ever be reclassified to principal
arterial.
Director Nielsen explained principal arterial was part of the Metropolitan Council's road classification
system. Freeways were classified as major arterials, Highway 7 was a principal arterial, and County Road
19 was a minor arterial. He also explained Smithtown Road was a collector street, and most of Shore wood's
roads were local streets. He then explained that Council would have to designate Smithtown Road a
principal arterial (the same as Highway 7) and he did not see that happening. He stated that MnDOT had no
plans to upgrade Highway 7 to four lanes.
.
Director Nielsen reviewed the R-C District conditional uses.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained a day care facility in the
Shorewood shopping center on Highway 7 had never been established. He commented the shopping center
owner had stated the day care facility owners wanted too many improvements to the property.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he would be satisfied to rezone the 19545 State Highway 7 property to R-C,
and to eliminate the C-1 District.
Director Nielsen explained there was one other parcel of land that was classified C-1. The property was
located on the southwest quadrant of Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7, and the City owned the
property. That property would be rezoned to closest residential property zoning, probably R-1A.
Director Nielsen clarified a public hearing was required to rezone the property, eliminate the C-1 District,
and adopt the revised C-3 District zoning regulations.
In response to a comment by Chair Bailey, Commissioner Woodruff noted all the C-1 District uses were
already included in the C-3 District uses. Director Nielsen stated the only difference would be
professional/commercial offices are permitted use in the C-3 District.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the Convenience Store with Gasoline use proposed for addition to the
C-3 District uses should be changed to Convenience Store with Motor Fuel to better reflect sources of fuel
used today and in the future.
.
There was consensus amongst the Commissioners that the proposed revised C-3 District uses were
acceptable.
Director Nielsen stated he would have the proposed amended C-3 District zoning regulations available for
the Planning Commission to review prior to a May 2, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting. He then stated
.
.
.
CITY OF SHORE WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 18, 2006
Page 3 of 3
the public hearing for rezoning the 19545 State Highway 7 property, eliminating the C-1 District, and the
adoption of the revised C-3 District uses would be scheduled for a June 6, 2006 meeting. He stated parking
regulations for the proposed amended C-3 District uses should be reviewed at a May 2, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
2. PARKING REGULATIONS
This item was postponed to a May 2, 2006, 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 there was a Minor Subdivision request for Ann Meldahl (the applicant's very
original request) slated for the May 2, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting, and a study session to review
C-3 District parking regulations and the final draft of C-3 District zoning regulations.
The Commission agreed they would schedule a tour of Lake Minnetonka to view the dock situation for a
meeting in June 2006. Commissioner Schmitt stated he had access to a deck boat for the tour.
Commissioner Woodruff offered the use of his boat for the tour, noting his boat could carry up to eleven
people. The tour will take place on W oodrufr s boat and depart from his house.
5.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 10, 2006 Regular
City Council Meeting and the City Council Work Session (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
. SLUC
Chair Bailey stated the next Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) meeting was scheduled for April 26,
2006.
. Other
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 2006 at
7:51 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 2 May 2006
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.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley (arrived at 7:05), Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt,
Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Councilmember Callies
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 18 April 2006
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April
18,2006, as Amended, on Item 1, Page 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5, change "He stated that Council"
to "He stated that Mn/DOT". Motion passed 5/0 with Meyer abstaining due to his absence at the
. meeting.
Conley arrived at 7:05 P.M.
1. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Ann Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Director Nielsen stated in April 2006 Ann Meldahl' s request for a lot area variance and minor subdivision
was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission and turned down by the City Council. The
Meldahl's have since reactivated a minor subdivision request they had made in October 2005, revising it
to reflect the division that was originally approved back in 1991 and re-approved in 2004.
Director Nielsen explained the minor subdivision would satisfy R-1A District zoning requirements, and
all the drainage and utility easements would be in place.
The Staff supported granting the minor subdivision request subject to the following provisions:
1. Park dedication fees have risen to $2000 per lot. The applicants should pay
$1,250 which was the difference between the $750 paid in 1991 and the current
fee, prior to release of the resolution approving the request.
2. In light of the various discussions relative to drainage on the subject property, it
was recommended that the resolution contain the following
.
A.
Any house built on the westerly lot should be located on the westerly
side of the lot; and,
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 2, 2006
Page 2 of 6
B. Plans for any new home built on the westerly lot must include an
engineered grading plan, ensuring that drainage through the site is
maintained.
Discussion ensued with regard to the possibility that provision 2.A above could be too restrictive to future
building on the westerly lot. Discussion also ensued with regard to how the drainage must flow. There
was consensus the drainage flow must be maintained on the easterly portion of the property so as not to
create a problem for the surrounding properties.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen explained a site building plan would be
reviewed before a permit would be issued to build a home on the westerly lot.
Director Nielsen commented on a similar situation where a lot had been subdivided into three lots, and a
new house had to be built on a certain side of the property to maintain drainage to the culvert. Nielsen
then noted the Acting City Engineer had removed some of the rip-rap around the culvert near the Meldahl
property, and that improved the drainage somewhat. He stated the City would do some additional cleanup
around the culvert to further improve the drainage situation.
There was Commission consensus to revise the provisions as follows:
1.
Park dedication fees have risen to $2000 per lot. The applicants should pay
$1,250 which was the difference between the $750 paid in 1991 and the current
fee, prior to release of the resolution approving the request.
2. Any house built on the westerly lot must include an engineered grading plan that
ensured that existing drainage through the site was maintained.
Conley moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision for Ann
Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive, subject to the revised provisions. Motion passed 7.0.
2. STUDY SESSION
· Review C-3 District Final Draft
Commissioner Woodruff stated at an April 24 2006, City Council Meeting Councilmember Callies stated
if the C-IDistrict and the C-2 District were eliminated, maybe the C-3 District and C-4 District should be
renamed to the C-l District and C-2 District. Director Nielsen stated he thought renaming the C-3 and C-4
districts should be considered; he would review the City Ordinance to determine how they should be
renamed.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the references in the C-3 District portion of the City Ordinance to
other areas of the City Ordinance should be reviewed to ensure the reference was still accurate. He then
questioned why the last item in Section 1201.22 (C-3, General Commercial District) Subd. 3.c referenced
only semi truck parking; Director Nielsen explained off-street parking covers other types of vehicles but
excluded semi truck parking. Woodruff then suggested all references to gas or gasoline be changed to
motor fuel in the City Ordinance. He then stated Section 1201.22 SubdA.g.l be deleted because it
referred to the C-l District permitted uses.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 2, 2006
Page 3 of 6
. In response to a comment from Commissioner Woodruff, discussion ensued with regard to the phrasing
of Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.b.l, 1201.22 Subd. 4.c.1, and 1201.22 Subd 4.d.2 of the City Ordinance
(which were relatively similar in nature). The current wording had a negative tone, and there was question
as to whether they statements should be reworded to have a more positive tone (e.g. change "shall not be
so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area so as to cause impairment" to "shall be in character with the
existing buildings or area so as not to cause impairment").
There was majority consensus (5/2) amongst Commissioners to have the statements reflect a more
positive tone.
Commissioner Woodruff then stated in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.h.6 the reference to height restrictions of
the C-l District needed to be changed because of the elimination of the C-l District. Director Nielsen
stated it would be changed to reflect the 25 foot height restriction of the C-l District.
With regard to the requirement for Convenience Store with Motor Fuel to have pitched roofs for detached
canopies (which Commissioner Schmitt referred to in the last Commission meeting), Director Nielsen
stated he was not able to find any reference to pitched roofs for detached canopies in Waconia's
ordinance. Schmitt stated for the specific project he was working on in Waconia, the Waconia Council
had requested there be a pitched roof rather than a flat roof, noting it was not in its ordinance yet. He
explained the project area was located between Highway 5 and a single-family homes residential area
across the street.
.
Director Nielsen explained requiring a pitched roof was a policy decision, and the City had requested a
pitched roof for the Waterford Shopping Center, which is zoned P.D.D. He stated the structure was more
massive because of the pitched roof, however, he noted pitched roofs had a more residential appearance.
He asked the Commission if they thought it appropriate to require pitched roofs on detached canopies,
noting the building was not required to have a pitched roof.
Commissioner Woodruff stated a pitched roof canopy requirement for Convenience Stores with Motor
Fuel would be a positive addition to the C-3 District; he questioned in what other situations a pitched roof
should be required. He then stated although a pitched roof was aesthetically pleasing, he wasn't sure if it
should be a requirement.
Commissioner Gagne stated flat roofs in the Minnesota climate deteriorated much faster.
Discussion ensued with regard to existing buildings where detached canopies were added.
Commissioner Conley would prefer a requirement for a pitched roof because it would be more
aesthetically appealing in residential areas. He stated if the building structure had a pitched roof, then the
canopy should also be pitched; and, if the building structure roof was flat the canopy roof could be flat.
Ensuing discussion continued with regard to pitched roofs for Convenience Stores with Motor Fuel
buildings and canopies, the impact on existing buildings, and whether or not a pitched roof requirement
should be limited to Convenience Stores with Motor Fuel.
Councilmember Callies questioned the practicality of requiring a pitched roof for a new canopy adjacent
to an existing flat roof building.
. There was consensus amongst the Commissioners to add an item to Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.a.
(Convenience Store with Motor Fuel): any principal structure with/without a detached canopy constructed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 2, 2006
Page 4 of 6
. after the revised ordinance goes into effect would require pitched roof(s); and when the use of an existing
building was changed to that of Convenience Store with Motor Fuel the roof of the principal structure and
canopy must be pitched. Existing Convenience Stores with Motor Fuel canopies with flat roofs could
remain as flat roofs when replaced, and if a canopy was added and the principal structure had a flat roof
the canopy roof could be flat.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.a.6 wording be made consistent (i.e. change
motor fuel facilities
Discussion then ensued with regard to the hours of operation (6 A.M. to midnight) requirement for
Convenience Store with Motor Fuel.
Director Nielsen stated if the hours of operation were left as stated, the Oasis store would become non-
conforming. He stated the City had already allowed businesses to remain open 24 hours a day, with some
restrictions.
There was consensus the clause "unless extended by the City Council" provided the flexibility to allow
extended hours. The stated regulation should remain as is.
Councilmember Callies commented there are existing "gas station" regulations in the City Code.
.
Director Nielsen stated when self-storage facilities were added to the R-C District he had recommended
adding two regulations - the requirement for the facility to be located near an arterial street, and the
facility site size must be a minimum of two acres. He noted he was not sure there had been any resolution
on his recommendation. There was consensus the regulations would be added to the R-C and C-3 districts
regulations.
· Review Parking Regulations for the C-3 District
This was postponed to a May 16, 2006, 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 following topics would be discussed at the Planning Commission Study
Session scheduled for May 16, 2006: C-3 District parking regulations and final review of the C-3 District
uses. He explained the changes to the R-C District ordinance, the changes to the C-3 District ordinance,
and the elimination of the C-l District would be considered at a public hearing scheduled for June 6,
2006. He stated the goal was to also consider C-3 District parking regulation changes, but he was not sure
that was a realistic goal.
Nielsen noted the boat tour was scheduled for a June 20,2006, Planning Commission Work Session, and
the Commission accepted LMCD Chair Skramstad's offer to use his boat for the tour.
.
5.
REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 2, 2006
Page 5 of 6
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 24, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Council Liaisons for the remainder of 2006 were selected as followed:
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
Commissioner Gagne
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Woodruff (Director Nielsen would serve as the alternate)
Commissioner Gniffke
Commissioner Schmitt
Commissioner Meyer
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Gagne
.
SLUC
No report given.
. Other
Director Nielsen stated Todd Prostad with Prostad Development wanted to slightly expand the building,
to make it deeper, on his development at the Shorewood Nursery site. Prostad would then reduce the
number of approved parking spaces at the site by three. He noted the increase in size was approximately
1000 square-feet, noting the approved building size had been approximately 23,800 square feet. Nielsen
stated the site had more parking spaces than were required by code, also noting Prostad had previously
reduced the excess number of spaces to accommodate the runoff pond. Nielsen's question to the
Commission was: could City Staff approve the change, could the Commission recommend and Council
approve this change without a public hearing; or, was another public hearing required.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission needed to handle this request consistent with the way they had
handled similar situations.
Councilmember Callies stated there may not be a choice about a public hearing.
Commissioner Woodruff asked what the ramifications of granting the change based on the original
approved plan and the City ordinance.
Commissioner Conley stated the approval was based on a specific number of spaces being allocated at the
site. He asked if the City had the power to amend its own c.u.P. with the approval of the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Gagne stated he thought the application should be considered again.
Director Nielsen stated he would consult the City Attorney with regard to the matter.
Commissioner Gagne questioned the status of the Virginia Lake Woods Development. Director Nielsen
stated the development agreement had been signed on 2 May 2006, noting there was still a discrepancy on
the plat that needed to be resolved.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 2, 2006
Page 6 of 6
. Chair Bailey questioned the situation with the property that had all the dogwoods that were supposed to
have been removed and landscaping planted. Director Nielsen stated the property owner had stated the
dogwoods had been his landscaping, but then he put up a fence. Nielsen then stated he had sent the
property owner a letter, and the response was as soon as the City resolved the drainage problem he would
plant additional landscaping. He noted the option for the property owner was to reduce the height of the
fence or plant landscaping.
Commissioner Gagne noted a waterfall had been installed at the property located at the intersection of
Edgewood Road and Grant Lorenz Road, and it was worth going to see it.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning eommission Meeting of May 2, 2006
at 8:16 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPEeTFULL Y SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMICION MEETING
TUESDAY, 16 May 2006
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 Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Callies
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 2 May 2006
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 2,
2006, as Amended, on Item 2, Page 4, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "and if a canopy was added
to a principal structure with a flat roof." to "and if a canopy was added and the principal structure
had a flat roof.", and on Item 5 Other, Page 5, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, change "Liaison Calles" to
Councilmember Callies", and on Item 5 Other, Page 5, Paragraph 8, change "was based on a specific
number of spaces being allocated at the site, although he thought the City should have the power" to
"was based on a specific number of spaces being allocated at the site. He asked if the City had the
power". Motion passed 7/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. REVIEW PARKING REGULATIONS FOR THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT
Director Nielsen stated he reviewed the parking regulations relative to the uses added to the commercial
zoning districts. The uses added did not require any new parking regulations; therefore, he was not
recommending any changes to the parking regulations for the commercial districts at this time. He then
stated any changes done to the parking regulations should be done as part of an entire review and update of
all parking regulations.
Nielsen stated there were two reference publications that were a resource for current standard for parking
requirements - The Parking Generation by The Institute of Transportation Engineers and The Guide Book
by the American Planning Association. He noted the City would purchase the reference publications
because they were not available at the library.
Nielsen stated there was some evidence the City may require too many parking spaces for shopping centers,
relative to what other cities require.
Nielsen stated the owners of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center had been approached with regard to
leasing space for a possible large restaurant use. He then stated the Shopping Center's parking was about at
maximum. Chair Bailey commented the restaurant would be busy at times the existing businesses in the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 16, 2006
Page 2 of 3
. Center would not be. Nielsen thought there would be periods of time when some of the businesses could be
busy at the same time.
Nielsen stated at a Planning Conference he attended it was recommended to avoid determining a city's
parking regulations based on other cities' ordinances because other cities' could have used that city's
ordinance in previous years to determine its regulations.
Commissioner Woodruff stated materials (e.g. flammable materials, pallets, equipment, etc.) were still
being stored behind the hardware store in the Shopping Center. He noted the materials were not in
enclosures, and they were on the parking spaces. Commissioner Gagne stated those types of materials had
previously been stored in an enclosed area where a dance studio and coffee shop had been constructed.
Director Nielsen stated a C.D.P. was required to store materials outside.
2. REVIEW C-3 DISTRICT FINAL DRAFT
Director Nielsen reviewed four amendments to the commercial zoning districts that would be considered for
adoption at a public hearing scheduled for 6 June 2006. He noted the order of consideration and adoption of
the amendments must be addressed in the order listed.
1. Revise the R-C, Residential/Commercial District to include self-storage facilities
by conditional use permit. In the R-C District, these facilities must be located on a
principal arterial (Highway 7) and the site must be at least two acres in area.
.
2.
Rezone the current self-storage facility west of Vine Hill Road to R-C,
Residential/Commercial District, and rezone the City's property at Christmas Lake
Road and Highway 7 to R-IA, Single-Family Residential District. (He noted: the
City would send a separate letter to Shurgard, who owned the facility, explaining
the proposed change; the height restrictions in the R-C District were more
generous; and the R-C District uses were better suited for the site.)
3. Eliminate the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District.
4. Adopt the revised C-3, General Commercial District regulations which included the
incorporation of uses from the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
District; change the designation of the C-3, General Commercial District to C-l,
General Commercial District; and change the designation of the
C-4, Commercial Service District to C-2, Commercial Service District.
Nielsen stated Staff would search the remainder of the City Code to find and revise references (e.g. sign
requirements) to the old commercial designations. A "housekeeping" amendment would be prepared for the
hearing.
Nielsen stated Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.a.7 needed to revised to address regulations for existing structures
as discussed at an 18 April 2006 Planning Commission Meeting - Existing Convenience Stores with Motor
Fuel canopies with flat roofs could remain as flat roofs when replaced, and if a canopy was added and the
principal structure had a flat roof the canopy roof could be flat. He noted the minimum pitch of 4: 12 was
arbitrary. Commissioner Conley suggested "For facilities" be changed to "For structures". Commissioner
Schmitt stated "the proposed buildings" be changed to "the proposed buildings and canopies". Conley
suggested the types of pitched roofs allowed be specified (i.e. gable and hip).
.
Discussion ensued with regard to the restrictiveness of the pitched use requirement.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 16, 2006
Page 3 of3
. There was consensus amongst the Commissioners to include the recommended changes.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be a public hearing related to a C.D.P. for Accessory Space Over 1200
square feet, a Land Rezoning public hearing, a Zoning Code Text Amendment public hearing, and two
Minor Subdivision requests slated for the June 6, 2006, Planning Commission Agenda.
Nielsen explained the Meldahl's were requesting consideration of their Minor Subdivision request
submitted in October 2005.
5. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at a May 8, 2006, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Councilmember Callies reviewed the current water policy, and shared her perspectives on the current
. policy.
Councilmember Callies stated the SLMPD Arbitration was in the Arbitrators' review and decision phase.
She noted a decision was expected by June 1,2006.
· SLUC
No report given.
. Other
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 16, 2006
at 7:52 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Conley called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Conley, Gniftke, Meyer, ~nd Schmitt; Planning Director Nielsen, and
Council Liaison Callies
Absent:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne and W dodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 16 May 2006
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Plann~ng Commission Meeting Minutes of May 16,
2006 as presented. I
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ~CCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: David Brenke
Location: 5985 Cajed Lane
Acting Chair Conley opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 -t.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval t~at evening would be placed on a June 12, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review ~nd consideration.
1.
Director Nielsen stated David Brenke, who owned the B~operty at 5985 Cajed Lane, had applied for a
conditional use permit to construct an attached garage an~ room addition on his property. The floor area
of the new garage would be in excess of 1200 square fe~t, necessitating a conditional use permit. The
property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential apd contained 40,983 square feet of area. He
reviewed the property survey which showed the location qf the existing house, an existing nonconforming
garage that would be removed, and the proposed additiop to the house. Nielsen then stated the existing
house plus the new addition would contain approximately I 1462 square feet of floor area on one floor, and
the proposed garage would contain an additional 1408 s~uare feet. He noted the new garage would be
attached to the south side of the house.
I
Nielsen then reviewed how the applicants proposal complied with the four specific criteria for granting
this type of conditional use permit, as specified in Sectior1. 1201.03 Subd.2.d(4) of the Shorewood Zoning
Code. I
1.
I
The total area of accessory space (1408 s~uare feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principal structur~ (1462 square feet).
2.
i
The total area of accessory space did notl exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the R-IA zoning district (.10 x. 4p,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2006
Page 2 of 6
3. The proposed garage complied with the setback requirements of the RI-A zoning
district. Removal of the existing garage would eliminate a nonconforming
structure. Hardcover on the property would only amount to 13.7 percent.
4. The new garage would be integrated into the architecture of the existing home.
As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage would
be consistent with the principle dwelling.
Director Nielsen stated Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit as requested.
Mr. Brenke explained his reason for wanting to build an attached garage was because of the inclement
Minnesota weather.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Acting Chair Conley closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Gniffke moved, Schmitt seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for David Brenke, 5980 Cajed Lane. Motion passed 4/0.
2.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-C, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: 19545 Highway 7
Director Nielsen stated this public hearing would be placed on the June 20, 2006, Planning Commission
meeting agenda.
Nielsen explained the notice of public hearing had been published as required, but the owner of the
property located at 19545 Highway 7 had not been notified of the public hearing. He stated the notice of
public hearing had been republished and the City would notify the owner of the property as necessary.
Nielsen noted the dock tour would be rescheduled to sometime in July 2006, possibly on the same day as
the 18 July 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING
C-3 AND R-C DISTRICT USES, ELIMINATION OF THE C-1 DISTRICT, AND C-3
DISTRICT PARKING REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen stated this public hearing had a dependency on Item 2; therefore, he recommended the
public hearing being opened and continued to another meeting.
Nielsen then reviewed the order for the public hearings, which would include Item 2 and Item 3 above,
that would be scheduled for a June 20, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. He then reviewed the order
in which the consideration and adoption of the amendments must be addressed.
1.
Revise the R-C, Residential/Commercial District to include self-storage facilities
by conditional use permit. In the R-C District, these facilities must be located on
a principal arterial (Highway 7) and the site must be at least two acres in area.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2006
Page 3 of 6
2.
Rezone the current self-storage facility west of Vine Hill Road to R-C,
Residential/Commercial District, and rezone the City's property at Christmas
Lake Road and Highway 7 to R-IA, Single-Family Residential District.
3. Eliminate the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District.
4. Adopt the revised C-3, General Commercial District regulations which include
the incorporation of uses from the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial
District; and change the designation of the C-3, General Commercial District to
C-l, General Commercial District.
5. Change the designation of the C-4, Commercial Service District to C-2,
Commercial Service District.
6. Amend the general provisions section of the City ordinance to reflect all of the
changes.
Nielsen noted there would be a separate amendment for each of the above six items.
Acting Chair Conley opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M.
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing to a June 20, 2006, Planning
Commission Meeting. Motion passed 4/0.
Acting Chair Conley closed the Public Hearing.
4. COMBINATION/MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Anne and Jack Carter
Location: 5705/5725 Smithtown Way
Director Nielsen stated Anne and Jack Carter had arranged to purchase the properties located at 5705
Smithtown Way and 5725 Smithtown Way. They proposed combining the two lots, and then re-
subdividing the combined lot into two lots. He stated the property was zoned R-l C, Single-Family
Residential, and was currently occupied by a single-family residence and a detached garage. The two
proposed lots would contain 20,030 square feet (Parcel A) and 41,725 square feet (Parcels Band C
combined). Nielsen noted the Carters ultimately want to subdivide the 41,725 square-foot lot into two
lots, a 21,149 square-foot lot (Parcel B) and a 20,576 square-foot lot (Parcel C), once a new house had
been built on the Parcel A.
Nielsen then stated all three of the proposed lots would comply with R -1 C zoning district requirements.
Sanitary sewer was available to the new lots, noting new services would have to be constructed at such
time as someone applied for a building permit. He stated Staff recommended the combination/minor
division be approved subject to the following:
1. The applicants' surveyor should revise the survey to show that Parcels Band C would be at least
100 feet wide at the building line (front setback).
2. The applicants must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots. One simplified description
must be written for Parcels Band C as a single parcel.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2006
Page 4 of 6
. 3. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet on each side of each lot line.
4. The applicants would have to request a vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements on
the property. It would probably be easiest to simply vacate all the current easements and then
dedicate the new ones as specified above.
5. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
6. Items 1-4 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no
later than 30 days.
7. Since no additional lots would be created at this time, no additional park dedication or sewer
access fees would be required at this time. Upon re-subdivision of Parcels Band C, the
applicants would have to pay the park and sewer charges that would be in effect at that time.
8. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits were applied for.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Callies, Director Nielsen stated the request was actually a
reshaping of two lots.
.
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a CombinationlMinor Subdivision
for Anne and Jack Carter, 5705 / 5725 Smithtown Way, subject to all Staff Recommendations.
Motion passed 4/0.
5. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Ann Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Director Nielsen stated Ann Meldahl, who owned the property at 6180 Cathcart Drive, had changed her
mind regarding the proposed subdivision of her property (per her letter, dated 15 May 2006). He
explained the new proposal was the same application she made in October 2005, and, with the exception
of the issues related to a conditional use permit, Staffs recommendations remain the same as stated in the
27 October 2005 Staff report. Nielsen then stated the proposed configuration would establish a building
site that would front on Cathcart Drive rather than West 62nd Street, and would result in a building pad
location with a higher elevation and the drainage pattern being maintained.
Nielsen went on to state the applicants would have to relocate the existing detached garage to comply
with side yard setback requirements. He noted the applicants had already made arrangements to modify
the existing attached garage so the driveway would come straight up from Cathcart Drive.
Nielsen stated Staff recommended approving the minor subdivision subject to Staff recommendations 2 -
6 that were identified in the 27 October 2005 Staff report, noting Staff recommendation 1 had been
satisfied. The previous Staff recommendations were as follows:
.
2.
The applicants must provide drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each of
the new lots. The applicants' surveyor should provide legal descriptions for these
easements, and their attorney should prepare deeds in favor of the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2006
Page 5 of6
.
3. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title
commitment for review by the City Attorney.
4. Consistent with the last approval of the minor division, the applicants must pay the
difference between the previously paid park dedication charge and the current rate
of that charge.
5. The items referenced in 2 and 3 above must be completed prior to this matter being
placed on the City Council's agenda for approval, but no later than 30 days from
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
6. Once the applicants receive a certified copy of the Council resolution approving the
request, they must record it within 30 days, or the approval will be void.
Nielsen noted the placement of a "sight or scenic" easement over the portion of the northerly lot that
would affect any view was at the applicants' discretion.
Ann Meldahl stated the Planning Commission had been prepared to approve the request at its 4 April
2006 Planning Commission meeting, but she chose to discuss the matter with her husband first. She then
stated after serious consideration she and her husband chose to move forward with the October 2005
minor subdivision request. She also stated following discussions with a landscape architect, she realized
the appropriate landscape plan would beautify the lot. She noted a dry-bed creek was being considered as
. part of the plan.
Ms. Meldahl then stated she was still disappointed the Planning Commission would not recommend
approval of a minor subdivision that would result in one of the lots being a 30,000 square-foot lot.
GniftKe moved, Schmitt seconded, Recommending Approval of Minor Subdivision for Ann
Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive, subject to Staff Recommendations 2 - 6 Documented in a 27
October 2005 Staff Report. Motion passed 4/0.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the public hearings for six zoning code amendments were slated for the 20 June
2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Nielsen stated he had heard Shurgard Self-Storage was considering selling its company to Public Storage.
Therefore, the notice of rezoning would also be sent to Public Storage at both its corporate and local
representative locations. He went on to state if the Shurgard Self-Storage property was rezoned to R-C,
Residential Commercial, the existing signage on the property would become non-conforming. That would
be a non-issue if the company name were to stay Shurgard Self-Storage; but if the company name were to
change the signage would need to become conforming, unless the requirements for that type of use were
amended in the City ordinance. All other R-C zoning district requirements were conforming. Nielsen
stated he thought if Public Storage were to apply for a signage permit prior to the zoning change it would
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 6, 2006
Page 6 of6
. be able to maintain the existing signage configuration, but he would consult with the City Attorney on
this matter.
Nielsen noted Public Storage would need to satisfy the shared resident caretaker requirement currently in
existence for the Minnesota Mini-Storage and the Shurgard Self-Storage sites.
8. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 22, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting and the May 22, 2006 Work Session Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those
meetings) .
Council Liaisons for the remainder of 2006 are:
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Woodruff (Director Nielsen would serve as the alternate)
Commissioner Gniffke
Commissioner Schmitt
Commissioner Meyer
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Gagne
.
.
SLUC
No report was given.
. Other
9. ADJO~ENT
Meyer moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 6, 2006 at
7:50 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt; and Woodruff; Planning Director
Nielsen, and Council Liaison Callies
Absent:
Chair Bailey
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 6 June 2006
Conley moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 6,
2006 as presented. Motion passed 4/0/2 with Gagne and Woodruff abstaining due to their absence
at the meeting.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING R-C,
RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USES (continued from 6
June 2006)
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public
Hearing process. In addition, he stated items heard this evening would be placed on the June 26, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had conducted an assessment of the 4 Commercial Districts'
allowable land uses in 2005. He stated the C-2, Auto-Oriented Commercial District had been eliminated
in April 2005. He explained during the assessment process it became apparent the C-3, General
Commercial District allowable land uses were outdated and need to be made current. During the C-3
District review process the Planning Commission also decided to review the C-l, Neighborhood
Convenience Commercial District land uses. It was determined there were only two properties zoned C-l
District - the property located at 19545 Highway 7 (the Shurgard self-storage facility west of Vine Hill)
and a City owned property located at intersection of Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7 (which was
basically wetland).
Nielsen went on to explain the Planning Commission had agreed to recommend amending the R-C,
Residential/Commercial District zoning code to include self-storage facilities by conditional use permit,
and those facilities must be located on a principal arterial (Highway 7) and the site must be at least two
acres in area. The Commission then recommended rezoning the property to 19545 Highway 7 to R-C
District. He noted the R-C District was a transitional district, and the C-3 District was less restrictive.
Nielsen stated the Planning Commission originally scheduled the public hearings for the C-3 District
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
20 June 2006
Page 2 of 4
.
zoning code amendments and the property rezoning for the June 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting,
but continued them to the June 20, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting.
Nielsen then stated he had been contacted by property owners abutting the property located at 19545
Highway 7 regarding the proposed rezoning. He stated once he had explained the reason for the
recommended rezoning of the property and the fact the rezoning was initiated by the City the property
owners had no objection.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M.
Meyers moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code Text
Amendment to Include Self-Storage Facilities as a Conditional Use. Motion passed 6/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M.
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-C, RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: 19545 Highway 7
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M.
. Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M.
Richard Prince. 19480 Shady Hills Road. stated his property abutted the property located at 19545
Highway 7 and he was unclear about the proposed rezoning and what the impact would be on his
property.
Director Nielsen reviewed the history behind the proposed rezoning.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: lOP .M.
Conley moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of Rezoning the Property Located at
19545 Highway 7 from C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District to R-C, Residential
Commercial District. Motion passed 6/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THE C-l,
NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (continued from 6 June
2006
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
20 June 2006
Page 3 of 4
Director Nielsen stated the public hearing for rezoning of the City property located at the intersection of
Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7 would be scheduled for the 18 July 2006 Planning Commission
meeting.
Gniffke moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code Text
Amendment to Eliminate the C-l, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District. Motion passed
6/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7: 12 P.M.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING C-3
DISTRICT USES AND REGULATIONS; REDESIGNATION OF THE C-3 DISTRICT
TO BE THE "C-l, GENERAL COMMERCIAL" DISTRICT (continued from 6 June 2006)
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 12 P.M.
Schmitt moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code Text
Amendment to Update C-3, General Commercial Zoning District Uses. Motion passed 6/0.
Woodruff moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code Text
Amendment to Change the Designation of the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District to the C-l,
General Commercial District. Motion passed 6/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - REDESIGNATION OF THE C-
4 DISTRICT TO BE THE "C-2, COMMERCIAL SERVICE" DISTRICT (continued from
6 June 2006
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7: 14 P.M.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 14 P.M.
Conley moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Shorewood Zoning Code Text
Amendment to Change the Designation of the C-4, Commercial Service District to the C-2,
Commercial Service District. Motion passed 6/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7: 15 P.M.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters of the floor presented this evening.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
20 June 2006
Page 4 of 4
7.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be three items slated for a July 18, 2006, meeting of the Planning
Commission including a public hearing to rezone City owned property, a Conditional Use Permit
amendment, and a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1,200 Square Feet.
The Planning Commission's Dock Boat Tour was scheduled for 25 July 2006 at 6:00 P.M. The
Commission will meet at City Hall and depart from there.
8. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Conley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 12, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
. SLUC
No report was given.
. Other
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
Gniffke moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 20,
2006 at 7:25 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 18 JULY 2006
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 Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, and Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioner Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 26 June 2006
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 20,
2006 as Amended, on Item 5, Page 3, Paragraph 12, Sentence 1, change "Acting Chair Gagne
opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M." to "Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:15
. P.M." Motion passed 5/0/1 with Bailey abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AMENDMENT REGARDING A STORAGE
BUILDING AT THE CEMETERY OF THE RESURRECTION
Applicant: St. John the Baptist Church
Location: 5555 Covington Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a July 24, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen stated in January 2003, St. John the Baptist Church received a conditional use permit
approving a master plan for the Cemetery of the Resurrection, located at 5425 Covington Road. The
property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential. The southern half of property was subject to
shoreland management requirements, nothing of which affected its plans. The original plan included the
construction of two mausoleum structures and a new maintenance building. Last year St. John's was
granted an amendment to its conditional use permit that included one mausoleum structure and a new
maintenance building. The mausoleum was currently under construction and church representatives had
applied for another amendment to its C.U.P. relative to the maintenance building.
Nielsen then stated the original maintenance building was to be located near the northwest comer of the
cemetery's looped driveway. The applicant now proposed to locate the building on the south end of the
loop. The revised plan showed a somewhat larger building (30' x 30') than the original (24' x 24'). He
noted the first amendment to the C.U.P. would have required site alteration, but the second amendment
. would not. He noted the existing garage structure would be removed from the property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 18, 2006
Page 2 of 5
. Nielsen went on to state the 2005 staff report for the previously approved C.U.P. characterized the
maintenance building as being basically a typical two-car garage. The revised plan was essentially an
ample two-and-a-half-car garage; it was increased to provide adequate storage for maintenance
equipment. Similar to the original plan, it was one story in height and very residential in character. The
proposed location was tucked into a leveled off low area that was very well screened from surrounding
residential properties by both vegetation and terrain.
Nielsen stated Staff recommended the revised conditional use permit be approved as presented.
Deacon Gary Hoffman, a representative for St. John the Baptist Church, was available to answer any
questions. He stated after the first C.U.P. amendment had been approved, the church representatives
realized the location of the maintenance building would not be easy to access, nor would it be suffice to
provide the necessary storage space.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M.
Cathy and John Jacobi, 5490 Covington Road, were present at the meeting to ensure the building would
not be a detriment to their view or property value. Their concerns were put to rest.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 10 P.M.
.
Commissioner Gagne expressed concerned with regard to the lack of electricity, heat, and water for the
mausoleum. He questioned how the floor would be cleaned. Deacon Hoffman explained there was water
outside the structure; and there was only a small granite area in the center of the structure that would need
to be cleaned, and that could be done with a "swifter" type cleaning utensil. Gagne also expressed
concern about the lack of restroom facilities.
Meyer moved, Gniftke seconded, Recommending Approval of the C.U.P. Amendment Regarding a
Storage Building at the Cemetery of the Resurrection for St. John the Baptist Church, 5555
Covington Road. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-IA SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: 21445 Highway 7 (S.W. Quadrant of Hwy. 7 & Christmas Lake Road)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the City had acquired the property at the intersection of Highway 7 and
Christmas Lake Road a number of years ago through forfeiture proceedings. A large portion of the
property had already been used to correct problems at that intersection. The remainder of the property, the
southwest quadrant of the intersection, was not usable for any development. The property was zoned C-1,
Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District. He noted the C-1 District had been recommended to be
eliminated as part of the changes to the City's zoning code.
.
Nielsen stated the City had received a letter from Greg Harder, 848 3rd Avenue, which expressed his
concern about the possibility of the City selling the property at some time. Staff would notify Mr. Harder
that was not the City's intent; nor was the property suitable to build on because a large portion of the
property was wetland.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 18, 2006
Page 3 of 5
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated the property was slightly
less than three acres in size.
Councilmember Turgeon thought the site had been considered for one of the two new public safety
buildings. Director Nielsen stated the site had been limited in nature prior to taking some of the property
for the intersection.
Director Nielsen stated Staff had recommended the property be rezoned to R-IA1S, Single-Family
Residential District/Shoreland, to be consistent with the surrounding properties.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of Rezoning the Property Located at
21445 Highway 7 from C-1, Neighborhood Convenience Commercial District to R-1A1S, Single-
Family ResidentiallShoreland. Motion passed 6/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This discussion occurred after Item 5 on the agenda.
Steven PahL 24860 Smithtown Road, stated a neighbor's (James Qaust) use of an outdoor wood-burning
stove to heat his house and water was creating health problems for his son. He explained he had
conducted research on the type of wood-burning stove Mr. Quast was using. He noted he had provided
that information to City Staff at a July 10, 2006, City Council meeting. The information he found was
backed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Washington, and the State of Wisconsin.
The stove was UL approved, and its emissions were registered. He stated that type of wood-burning stove
was a health issue for the residents.
Chair Bailey clarified no action would be taken with regard to this issue at the meeting. The nuisance
ordinance relative to smoke emissions would be discussed at an August 1, 2006, Planning Commission
meeting.
Mr. Pahl asked that the Planning Commission expeditiously place a temporary restriction on Mr. Quast's
use of the stove until further study could be completed.
Chair Bailey stated the nuisance ordinance would be discussed on August 1, 2006.
Mr. Pahl stated that would be too late because the heating season was close. He explained his son's health
issues had been greatly reduced after Mr. Quast had quit using the wood-burning stove. He then stated he
did not want to go through another winter where his son would miss a great deal of school because of
health issues aggravated by the smoke emissions. He also stated medical expenses for his son which had
resulted from the smoke emissions had been significant. He questioned how many complaints would have
to be filed to justify a citation.
Chair Bailey clarified the Planning Commission did not have the authority to Issue a temporary
restriction. It would review the existing nuisance ordinance relative to emissions.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 18,2006
Page 4 of5
. Councilmember Turgeon explained Council had already decided it would not request a temporary
restriction on the use of the stove at this time. Mr. Quast had agreed to make a number of improvements
to try and mitigate his neighbors' concerns. She also explained it was not the Planning Commission's
responsibility to issue a temporary restraining order.
Mr. Pahl stated the manufacturer may consider purchasing the stove back from Mr. Quast; and the
salesman should not have sold the stove to Mr. Quast. He stated the manufacture recommended that type
of stove should not be installed within 300 - 500 feet of another residence because of the smoke
emISSIOns.
Chair Bailey stated the material Mr. Pahl had submitted would be reviewed by Staff, and the nuisance
ordinance relative to smoke emissions would be reviewed at the August 1, 2006, Planning Commission
meeting.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated the purpose of the July 25, 2006, Planning Commission Work Session (which
would be conducted on the water) was to observe dock configurations and boat houses. He explained the
current practice was to eliminate non-conforming boat houses through the development process. Changes
had occurred in State law that could affect that practice. He stated he hoped to have more information on
the changes to the law at the August 1, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission would
meet at City Hall at 6:00 P.M. He noted Mayor Love and LMCD Chair Skramstad had been invited to
attend.
.
Director Nielsen then stated there was a C.U.P. for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for Rodney
and Nancy Peterson slated for the August 1,2006, Planning Commission Meeting, and a study session to
discuss the nuisance ordinance relative to smoke emissions, per Council's direction. He explained the
City had received complaints regarding smoke emissions from one resident's use of an outdoor wood
boiler to heat his water and his home.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at a July 10, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon supplemented
Woodruff's comments.
. SLUC
No report given.
. Other
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Department was considering a policy change that would require a
complainant to provide their name and how they could be contacted for follow-up purposes. The name of
the complainant could not be divulged because of data practices regulations.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 18, 2006
Page 5 of 5
6. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 18 June 2006
at 7:45 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
e
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 25 July 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission met at City Hall at 6:00 p.m. to depart for its dock and boathouse tour of
Shorewood shoreline on LMCD Chair Tom Skramstad's boat.
Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, and Woodruff;
Planning Director Nielsen; City Council Liaison Turgeon; and LMCD Chair Skramstad
Absent: None
1. STUDY SESSION
· DOCK AND BOATHOUSE TOUR
LMCD Chair Skramstad conducted the tour of the Shorewood shoreline.
Director Nielsen explained that the topic regarding dock regulations arose from a proposed dock installation
for a multiple dock facility on Enchanted Island which raised many questions as to whether the City's
regulations were up to date. As a result, the Planning Commission had decided to tour the lake to gain a
practical understanding of how docks are currently configured on existing properties in the City. He then
explained the current City practice to eliminate non-conforming boat houses through the development
process may have to change because changes had occurred in State law that could affect that practice.
Therefore, the Commission should also make note of existing boat houses.
The first property discussed was one that was owned by the Scotts. On the property there was a lovely, well
maintained oriental type boathouse. Director Nielsen stated the Scotts had a desire to make improvements
to their existing garage. Because their boathouse was non-conforming, the non-conforming aspects of the
boathouse would need to be addressed before the improvements to the garage could be made (as required
by the City's current practice).
Discussion ensued with regard to the number of docks on the shoreline that had a deck (a rectangular or
square wooden structure) attached to them.
Chair Skramstad explained the LMCD regulations were the same as the DNR regulations with regard to
docks. He stated a dock could not exceed 100 feet in length (less for lots that had less than 100 feet of
lake shore ), and the platform could not exceed 8 feet wide at any point. He explained the reason for the
eight-foot-wide restriction was to allow sunlight exposure to the lake bottom; studies had indicated
restricted sunlight resulted in less vegetation growth. He commented the LMCD conducted a shoreline
inventory every two years. He noted meandering shoreline was measured in a straight line.
Director Nielsen reviewed the Boulder Bridge Farm request for development. The site was approximately
100-acres in size, and had approximately 200 feet of lakeshore. The developer had been granted 40 docks
for the 46 houses developed; he noted the discussions with regard to that approval in 1979 had been quite
controversial. He stated the there was a desire to expand the Boulder Bridge development, and as part of the
development there was a request for an additional 30 docks that would be located on the lagoon. He
explained the City regulated docks for houses not directly on the lake shore as part of its Planned Unit
Development/Shoreland (P.U.D./S) regulations.
.
e
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
July 25, 2006
Page 2 of2
Director Nielsen stated City regulations limited a property with 50 feet of shoreline to one dock with a
maximum of two slips. He then stated there was a 10-foot side lot setback for docks on properties with 50
feet of shoreline, and the setback increased to 20 feet for properties that had 100 feet or more of shoreline.
Director Nielsen took pictures of various boathouses and dock configurations, which could be used as
examples in further discussions regarding the City's regulations for those items.
Discussion ensued with regard to the role of the LMCD. Chair Skramstad explained the LMCD addressed
concerns with regard to the lake, but not with regard to the property. He stated the Lake's boat complexion
had changed over the last 25 years; and the average horsepower had increased 62% over the last 20 years.
He stated the LMCD worked with the Lake's cities and charters to ensure the lake was preserved and
protected, while ensuring the needs of the residents were considered as appropriate.
The boat tour stopped in a lagoon on Enchanted Island off Phelps Bay to discuss about a multiple dock
license that had been requested for the property located at 4320 Enchanted Drive. Chair Skramstad stated
the applicant had signed a 60-day waiver, which allowed the LMCD additional time to consider the request.
He noted the applicant had reduced his request to seven boat storage units from his original request for 10
units. The applicant had stated all the boats would belong to his family.
Discussion ensued with regard to the "boardwalk" type platform that surrounded a portion of the lagoon;
and if the structure was considered a dock, did it satisfy the LMCD's and City's dock regulations.
The topics of the City's dock regulations and boathouse regulations were continued to a future Planning
Commission study session.
2. ADJOURNMENT
The tour concluded at City Hall at approximately 8:45 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Schmitt, and Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioner Meyer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 18 July 2006
Gagne moved, Gniftke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 18 July
2006 as Amended, on Item 2, Page 2, change "REZONING FROM C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-IAS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIA" to "REZONING
FROM C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL TO R-IA SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL", and on Item 3, Page 4, Paragraph 2, Sentences 1- 2, change "Mr. Pahl stated the
manufacturer may considering purchasing the stove back from Mr. Quast; and the salesman
should not have sold the stove to Mr. Quast. He stated the manufacture recommenced" to ''Mr.
Pahl stated the manufacturer may consider purchasing the stove back from Mr. Quast; and the
salesman should not have sold the stove to Mr. Quast. He stated the manufacture recommended".
Motion passed 5/0/1 with Conley abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Rodney and Nancy Peterson
Location: 21355 Christmas Lane
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an August 28, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 21355 Christmas Lane. The Petersons
proposed constructing a detached screen porch which would be located on the south side of the existing
pool. Since the area of the screened porch, combined with the existing attached garage and four other
existing outbuildings, exceeded 1200 square feet, a c.u.P. was required.
He went on to explain the property was zoned R-IA1S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and
contained approximately 6.1 acres of area. (He noted the property was one of the largest parcels of land
left in the City.) The existing house contained approximately 5320 square feet of floor area on two floors
above grade. (He commented the square footage for the house needed to be recalculated; there was a
portion of the house which was single story, and the calculation was based on the entire house being two
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 2 of8
. stories. Also, the survey needed to be modified to reflect the configuration of the driveway.) The existing
attached garage, which was located on the south end of the house, contained 568 square feet of floor area.
A second detached garage, located near the street, contained 400 square feet. A barn located on the south
edge of the property contained 1528 square feet. The two utility sheds west of the barn contained 120
square feet and 168 square feet of area. The new screen porch measured 14' x 18' and contained 252
square feet, which would bring the total area of accessory space on the site to 3036 square feet.
Nielsen then explained how the applicants proposal complied with Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the
Shorewood Zoning Code. It contained four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use
permit.
a.
The total area of accessory space (3036 square feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principle structure (5320 square feet).
b.
The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the R-IA1S zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
c.
The proposed screen porch and the existing house complied with the setback
requirements of the R-IA1S zoning district. The new porch would be
approximately 175 feet from the east side of the property and approximately 52 feet
from the south lot line. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing
vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping were not considered to be issues in
this request.
.
The existing barn and detached garage did not comply with the setback
requirements of the R-l-AlS district. The City Code stated that nonconforming
accessory structures should be brought into conformity as part of the conditional
use permit approval. Recent State legislation may call that provision into question.
The City Attorney had been asked to provide a legal opinion as to whether the
City's current Code complied with the State law with respect to nonconformities.
Nielsen noted the existing barn was tucked into the trees on the 6.1-acre parcel,
making it virtually unnoticeable from surrounding properties.
d.
The materials and design of the new porch would be consistent with the character
of the existing house and garage.
Nielsen commented the Petersons had expressed no interest in subdividing their property, but it was
reasonable to expect that someday it would be further developed.
Nielsen stated the applicants' request was consistent with the requirements for a conditional use permit,
with the exception of the two existing nonconforming accessory structures. He explained there were two
possible remedies for resolving the issue: 1) continue the matter to the next meeting, pending the City
Attorney's legal opinion; or 2) approve the C.U.P., subject to a condition that all nonconforming
structures would be brought into conformity with the Zoning Code upon any future subdivision of the
property.
.
Nancy and Rodney Peterson, the applicants, stated they would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission had of them at this time.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 3 of 8
. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the City Code stated
that nonconforming accessory structures should be brought into conformity as part of the conditional use
permit approval. There had been recent State legislation that may call that provision into question. He
stated the description of the change was not clear; therefore, the City Attorney had been asked to provide
a legal opinion as to whether the City's current ordinance complied with the modified State law with
respect to nonconformities.
Chair Bailey expressed his disappointment with lack of the City Attorney's legal opinion on this matter.
He noted the Stated Legislature had adjourned its session in May 2006.
Director Nielsen explained by approving the c.u.P., subject to a condition that all nonconforming
structures would bc~ brought into conformity upon any future subdivision of the property, would only
delay the timetable for bringing the two nonconforming structures into conformity with City Code
(provided the property was eventually subdivided).
Commissioner Conley stated if the Planning Commission were to recommend approving the C.D.P.
subject to the condition specified, it would temporarily postpone the enforcement of the existing City
ordinance which the Commission had been enforcing.
.
Chair Bailey stated he did not understand why the requested C.D.P. should be approved if the
nonconforming structures were not required to be brought into conformity as part of that approval.
Director Nielsen explained the timing for bringing the structures into conformity was the difference; not
whether or not they should be brought into conformity.
Discussion ensued with regard to why this C.D.P. request should be considered for approval without
requiring the structures be brought into conformity. The Commission had been consistent in enforcing the
nonconforming aspect of the City ordinance in the past; and there was a need to be consistent and
equitable. There was also discussion with regard to how the Commission could enforce the ordinance in
the future if it did not enforce the ordinance for this C.D.P. request.
Director Nielsen stated in the past applicants had been given a period of time to bring the nonconforming
structures into conformity. The time period, in this circumstance, would be if/when the property was
subdivided. Chair Bailey commented there was a difference between a defined time period (e.g. one
year), and an open-1ended time period.
Commissioner Gagne questioned how many C.D.P.'s had been granted for properties of similar size.
Chair Bailey stated the City ordinance with regard to nonconforming structures did not distinguish
regulations based on property size.
Commissioner Gagne stated he was fairly sure the property would be subdivided in the future; therefore,
the nonconforming structures issue would be resolved. He also stated the barn was very, very old and
maybe it should bt: preserved. He noted there would always be special circumstances when granting a
C.D.P.
.
Commissioner Schmitt stated maybe properties of similar size should be considered differently; but, he
was not sure how that could be accomplished. Commissioner Woodruff stated one way to address the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 4 of 8
. request was to change the City ordinance to allow more accessory space for lots greater than a certain
size. Woodruff noted the property was six times larger than required for R-IA zoning.
Commissioner Conley stated delaying the requirement to correct the nonconforming structures until the
property was subdivided would place that responsibility on future owners of the property.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the request be continued until the Commission had received the City
Attorney's legal opinion on how the change in the State law impacted the City's ordinance.
Mr. Peterson questioned the rational for requiring nonconforming structures to be brought into conformity
as part of a process to build additional structures. He stated Staff had suggested they could tear down part
of the barn and garage to bring it into conformity.
Chair Bailey explained the City ordinance setback regulations apply to all properties. All new
developments are required to satisfy the setback requirements. Therefore, the Petersons' request to build a
new structure required all setback requirements be satisfied.
Mr. Peterson did not understand the applicability for a nonconforming 100-year-old building.
Chair Bailey stated the Petersons could request the City ordinance be changed to allow an exemption for
structures older than a to-be-specified number of years.
.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained they would not be required to bring
the structures into conformity if they were not requesting a c.u.P. for additional accessory space.
Commissioner Conley explained the City was under a legal comprehensive plan, as were all other cities.
Part of the intent of the plan was to move toward all City properties becoming closer to conformity with
the City ordinance. One way to accomplish that was to require structures be brought into conformity
when a variance was granted (similar to a give and receive scenario).
Ms. Peterson stated from her perspective the request to tear down a 100-year-old barn in order to build a
screened porch seemed quite radical. She stated there was uniqueness about the property and the barn that
added an element of interest to the City. She did not understand why the City would not want to
encourage keeping the historical building.
Chair Bailey stated the current City ordinance would require the barn be brought into conformity if a
C.D.P. for accessory space for the porch was granted.
Discussion ensued with the regard to the concept of structures being "grandfathered" in. Director Nielsen
stated when changes occur on properties with nonconforming structures, "grandfather" rights are
terminated.
Woodruff moved, Schmitt seconded, Continuing the Request for Approval of the C.U.P. for
Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for Nancy and Rodney Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, to
the 15 August 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.
Director Nielsen stated a legal opinion from the City Attorney would be available by that meeting.
.
Motion passed 5/1 with Gagne dissenting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 5 of8
. Mr. Peterson expressed his disappointment with the lack of the City Attorney's legal opinion regarding
the change to the State law.
2. STUDY SESSION
. Discuss Outdoor Wood Boilers/Furnaces
Chair Bailey explained this discussion was not a public hearing and no public testimony would be taken
at the meeting. He stated the Commission may ask for public information as part of the discussion. He
stated a matters-from-the-floor session would follow this discussion, and the public could comment
during that session.
Steven Pahl, 24860 Smithtown Road, stated he had additional information on wood-burning
boilers/furnaces. Chair Bailey stated Mr. Pahl could submit that information to Director Nielsen; but, this
discussion would be based on any information the Commission had previously been provided.
Director Nielsen stated the majority of the material the Commission had received with regard to outdoor
wood-burning boilers/furnaces had been provided by Mr. Pahl. He explained the City Council had
directed the Commission to review the City's nuisance ordinance relative to smoke emissions and the use
of outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces. He commented on the good quality of the material Mr. Pahl
had found on the web with regard to the type of unit Mr. Quast had installed.
.
Nielsen stated the City ordinance addressed smoke emissions in two places - as part of the nuisance code;
and under the zoning code. The City code definition of a public nuisance per Section 501.04. Subd.10.
was "The emission of dense smoke, gas and soot, dust or cinders, and other noxious and offensive fumes,
in the quantities as to render the occupancy of property uncomfortable to a person of ordinary
sensibilities." The zoning ordinance had attempted to set a standard - it referenced the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards for emissions. Nielsen stated the MPCA would not get
involved with residential matters regarding emissions; its rules were written mainly with regard to
commercial smoke stacks. The MPCA had informed the City's Director of Public Works it had means to
test smoke-stack emissions for a cost of approximately $5,000 per test; and, it also had people that
conduct what it called "a sniff test" where the individual actually sniffed around. The MPCA stated it did
not have the staffing to conduct residential tests.
Nielsen stated the material submitted by Mr. Pahl was not favorable with regard to the type of unit Mr.
Quast had installed. There was an association of wood-burning furnace manufacturers that had established
a list of best-bum practices, and those practices had been submitted to the Commission. He then stated
one of the best-bum practices stated the unit should not be located less than 100 feet from a residence not
served by the unit. Another practice stated if the unit was located between 100 - 300 feet of another
residence, then the unit's smoke stack height should be two feet higher than the peak of the neighboring
residence. He noted the City's ordinance did not specify any height requirements for a wood-burning
boiler/furnace smoke stack, and maybe that issue should be addressed.
Nielsen also stated he was not aware of any metro area cities that had addressed the issue ofMr. Quast's
type of unit; he was aware that Superior, Wisconsin, and Two Harbors, Minnesota, and both addressed the
issue. Their regulations were so strict it was extremely difficult to install a unit in a suburban environment
while satisfying all the regulations.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 6 of8
. Nielsen commented the manufacturer of Mr. Quast's unit had been extremely cooperative, and the
manufacturer had offered to submit information he had about different ordinances with regard to wood-
burning boilers/furnaces.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated he did not believe Mr.
Quast's unit was in accordance with the best-bum practices. Nielsen noted the manufacturer did produce
units that satisfied EP A standards.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniftke, Director Nielsen stated he had not had the
opportunity to review wood-burning boiler/furnace ordinances from Superior or Two Harbors.
Commissioner Gagne questioned if the City's ordinance was modified to include more restrictive
regulations for wood-burning boilers/furnaces, how would the regulations be enforced.
Director Nielsen stated there were two approaches to defining regulations: I) prohibit the use of certain
types of outside wood-burning boilers/furnaces; or, 2) define regulations that were so restrictive that it
would be extremely difficult to install a unit in a suburban environment while satisfying all the
regulations.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would prefer the ordinance prohibit the use of outdoor wood-burning
boilers/furnaces based on unit size, lot size, and smoke stack height.
.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley, Director Nielsen stated Mr. Quast had satisfied the
City's regulations with regard to the installation of his unit.
Director Nielsen stated fireplaces were used on an occasional basis, rather than on a regular basis. Council
Liaison Turgeon commented the City had specific guidelines for recreational fires.
Commissioner Schmitt stated if the City did not want residents to use certain types of wood-burning
boilers/furnaces, the City ordinance should just prohibit their use. The problem would be Mr. Quast
would be "grandfathered" in.
Commissioner Gagne suggested the City Attorney draft ordinance language that would in-effect prohibit
the future installation of wood-burning boilers/furnaces similar to Mr. Quast's. Director Nielsen
suggested the City Attorney offer a legal opinion as to whether the use of the units should be prohibited,
or whether regulations should be established that would result in it being impossible to satisfy the
regulations.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniftke, Director Nielsen stated he had received one other
request to install a similar type wood-burning unit. Gniftke commented in future years there may be many
more requests of that nature, because the rising cost of heating fuel.
Commissioner Schmitt stated smoke emissions become overpowering when there was too much smoke
density; therefore, he would support prohibiting the use of the wood-burning units.
Commissioner Gniftke stated smell is subjective. There was discussion regarding "what is ordinary
sensibility" .
.
Chair Bailey stated the New York study that was submitted was most encompassing and clear. He was
amazed at how inefficient the units were, and how much they emitted even indoors. He expressed his
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 7 or 8
. concern with the possibility of many residents using the units, and the impact that would have on air
quality. Although he could not provide legal advice, he did think if the City had the appropriate level of
findings of fact that it could prohibit the use of the units. He stated he would, at this point, be more
supportive of the City prohibiting their use.
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen to provide the Commission with examples of other cities regulations
regarding the use of wood-burning boilers/furnaces; and he asked that the City Attorney offer an opinion
regarding prohibiting their use or having extremely strict regulations.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he had reviewed all the material presented. He surmised that states and
cities that had established restrictive ordinances had done so as a reactionary measurer. He would prefer
that the City take proactive measures. Although he understood there could be an economic benefit to the
use of the units, he did not believe there would be an undue hardship to any residents created by
prohibiting the use of the units.
Commissioner Conley recapped his perspective of the discussion. There were City ordinance issues that
must be addressed. The City had a responsibility to ensure air-quality issues were not created from the
units and the types of fuel that was used. He stated recreational-fire permits were renewed annually by the
EFD; the types of wood-burning boilers/furnaces being discussed had similarities to recreational fires, and
maybe they should require an annual permit.
Commissioner Woodruff stated the cities and states that allowed their use had established regulations (e.g.
setback, smoke stack height, etc.), and emissions standards. If the City were to move in that direction, the
ordinance could be difficult and costly to enforce; and he was not convinced the City had the resources to
enforce it.
.
There was consensus this item would be continued to the 15 August 2006 Planning Commission Study
Session. Director Nielsen stated he would have ordinance examples and guidance from the City Attorney
available for the discussion.
Director Nielsen again clarified City Council had requested the Commission addressed the City's
ordinance relative to the use of outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Steven Pahl. 24860 Smithtown Road, stated he had additional information from the Minnesota
Department of Health, as well as other information, that could be useful in determining how to modify the
City's ordinance. He thanked the Commission for its deliberate conversation on the issue of smoke
emissions from outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
Chair Bailey stated the Commission would resume the discussion on this issue on 15 August 2006.
In response to a question from Mr. Pahl, the Commissioners stated they had not reviewed any pictures of
Mr. Quast's wood-burning furnace while it was in use.
Shirley Bergslien. 24785 Smithtown Road, stated she lived across the street from Mr. Quast. She
understood Mr. Quast's desire to save on fuel costs, but not at the expense of his neighbors' health. She
stated her grandson had asthma, and her husband had lung congestion. She stated she did not open her
windows if Mr. Quast was operating his furnace because of the smoke emissions. She also stated she had
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 1, 2006
Page 8 of 8
. sinus issues all winter because of the smoke emissions. She was appreciative of the discussion the
Commission had just had with regard to the matter.
Mr. Pahl stated the smoke emissions affected his son's health. His son had missed an average of three
days of school per week after Mr. Quast had started to use the furnace in late October 2005. He stated he
had helped Mr. Quast pour the concrete slab for the furnace; he was not out to harm Mr. Quast. He asked
that a temporary restriction be placed on Mr. Quast's use of the furnace.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there was the continued consideration for a C.D.P. for Accessory Space Over
1200 Square Feet for Rodney and Nancy Peterson slated for the August 15, 2006, Planning Commission
Meeting, and a study session to continue discussions about the nuisance ordinance and zoning code
relative to smoke emissions from outdoor wood-burning boilers/furnaces.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at a July 24, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon supplemented
Woodruff s comments.
.
.
SLUC
No report given.
. Other
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 1 August
2006 at 8:18 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2006
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, Gniffke, Meyer, and Schmitt; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioners Conley and Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 25 July 2006
Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 25 July
2006 as Presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Bailey abstaining as he had not had time to review the
minutes.
· 1 August 2006
Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1 August
2006 as Presented. Motion passed 3/0/2 with Bailey abstaining as he had not had time to review the
minutes and Meyer abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Rodney and Nancy Peterson
Location: 21355 Christmas Lane
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an August 29, 2006,
Special City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen noted this item had been continued from the 1 August 2006 Planning Commission
meeting pending the City Attorney's legal opinion as to whether the City's Zoning Ordinance (the
"Code") complied with the State law with respect to nonconformities based on recent changes to the State
law. The City Attorney's legal opinion stated the law distinguished nonconforming uses from
nonconforming structures, and the change in the law was relative to nonconforming uses; therefore, the
City's Code was valid as written.
Chair Bailey asked Rodney and Nancy Peterson, the applicants, if they had any comments.
Ms. Peterson reviewed information from Black's Law Dictionary (the 6th edition) with regard to
conformity and variances. She stated they were applying for permission to depart from the existing City's
zoning requirements. She stated they had petitioned their neighbors, obtained an updated survey of their
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 2 of 8
. property, etc. Ms. Peterson stated their barn was located on their property line, which was why they were
asking for the variance. The screened porch they had proposed to build complied with the American
Institute of Architect's standards. She acknowledged they had extra building structures on their property,
which they had purchased in 1970. Although she was not sure how old their barn was, she had been able
to determine it was a minimum of 70 years old. Ms. Peterson commented that per the City Attorney's
legal opinion on the change to the State law, the law had not been tested or even discussed among public
lawyers. Ms. Peterson requested the Planning Commission to "favorably vote" on their request without
requiring them to bring the barn into conformity.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M.
Chair Bailey clarified the Petersons had applied for a conditional use permit for accessory space over
1200 square feet; they had not applied for a setback variance.
Commissioner Meyer stated although he was not present at the last Planning Commission meeting, his
interpretation of the minutes was that one of the options discussed was to approve the c.u.P., subject to a
condition that all nonconforming structures would be brought into conformity upon any future
subdivision of the property. Chair Bailey stated he was not comfortable with an open-ended time period
for the nonconforming structures to be brought into conformity; that would be a right that other
individuals had not been granted. Meyer stated that during his tenure on the Planning Commission he
could not recollect a situation where a c.u.P. had been granted and the nonconforming structures were
not required to be brought into conformity. Bailey echoed the comment.
.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Chair Bailey stated if the C.U.P. was denied the
applicants could file for a variance, but they would have to demonstrate hardship.
Commissioner Schmitt stated the Planning Commission must uphold the law; but, he appreciated the
applicants desire not to have to bring their barn into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P.
Commissioner Gagne stated although he appreciated the Commission had not granted a C.U.P. without
requiring nonconforming structures be brought into conformity, he thought there could always exceptions
to the law (in this case the 6 acre lot size and 70+ year-old barn). Chair Bailey stated the City's Code did
not distinguish C.U.P. conditions based on lot size. Gagne stated there was a "human interpretation" that
could be factored in; and he would find it difficult to require the applicants to bring their barn into
conformity as a condition of the c.u.P. He also stated there were different considerations that could prove
problematic for the applicants if they were to file for a variance.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained a variance was a request for an
exception and there were specific conditions that must be met before a variance was granted (e.g. the
applicant must demonstrate hardship). Ms. Peterson questioned if it would be a hardship to require a 70+
year-old barn be torn down; the barn was too large to move. Chair Bailey stated he did not want to pre-
judge that request. Bailey clarified the Planning Commission was a recommending body, and its
recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission applied the City's Code to all applicants. He stated he could
support a law that exempted historical structures provided there was a definition for historical structures.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 3 of 8
. Ms. Peterson questioned if another interpretation of the law was possible that could allow the
nonconforming barn to remain if the C.U.P. was granted. Chair Bailey explained the C.U.P. had very
specific conditions that must be met; one of them was to bring nonconforming structures into conformity.
Ms. Peterson then questioned why they had not been informed that the structures would have to be
brought into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P. prior to spending their time and money to apply for a
c.u.P.; she questioned the C.u.P. process. She suggested in the future if Staff was somewhat confident a
C.U.P. or variance would not be granted, Staff should alert the applicant of that.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Chair Bailey explained C.U.P.s were frequently granted; but,
each c.u.P. required all nonconforming structures be brought into conformity.
Ms. Peterson stated the barn was relatively unique because of its age. She commented at one point in time
ponies had been raised in the barn. She stated she thought their request was a reasonable request; and she
asked the Planning Commission to look favorably upon their request. She also stated the requirement to
bring the barn into conformity as a condition of the C.U.P. (which would require removing the barn
because it was too large to move) seemed to be an unreasonable request; that would be a hardship.
Mr. Peterson stated he thought the law was pure bureaucracy. He then stated although the property was
large and the barn was 70+ years old, there appeared to be no leeway in the law for addressing the
uniqueness when considering their c.u.P. request. He went on to state there did not appear to be any
human consideration when evaluating the request.
.
Ms. Peterson stated the architects she interacted with could not understand the requirement to make the
barn conforming. She commented maybe the law was a little extreme.
Commissioner Meyer stated this request was a situation where a person may want to make a certain
recommendation, but they could not because the law required nonconforming structures be brought into
conformity. He commented a variance request may be the more appropriate process for the applicants to
follow.
Meyer moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Sq. Ft. for Rodney and Nancy Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane,
subject to the Condition that the Nonconforming Accessory Structures be brought into Conformity.
Motion passed 4/1 with Gagne dissenting.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained an applicant generally had six
months to bring the structures into conformity. He noted that could be extended if circumstances
warranted.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants could apply for a variance; but the hardship condition may be
difficult to prove. He then stated the Planning Commission had discussed the possibility of
recommending an amendment to the City's Zoning Code to exempt historical structures; but the
Commission had not yet determined what the definition of a historical structure should be. He suggested
it may be appropriate to revisit the topic. He noted the same issue would arise for future applicants that
had a boathouse on their property.
.
Nielsen stated it would be more appropriate to consider a possible change to the City Code with regard to
historical structures then it would be to grant variances for them.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 4 of 8
. Commissioners Meyer and Gniffke supported consideration of a possible change to the City Code. Chair
Bailey stated he was a strong supporter of maintaining historical structures; but he commented a solid
definition for historical structures, which included objective standards, was necessary before the City
Code could be amended.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission should assume responsibility for defining historical
structures. He noted the Minnesota Historical Society was not able to provide him with a definition.
There was Planning Commission consensus the topic of a possible amendment to the City Code with
regard to historical structures should be discussed at a future meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke with regard to the impact on the applicants,
Director Nielsen explained the study of the topic would require some time and the applicants may want to
wait until spring of 2007 to build their screen porch in the possible event the City Code would be
changed.
Ms. Peterson again expressed frustration with the City Code; and she questioned why the law was put in
place. She stated her interpretation of the law should allow for exceptions.
.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained the provision in the City Code
under discussion had been amended sometime during the last five years. The purpose of the ordinance
was to ensure properties would eventually meet minimum standards. He explained the laws were intended
to create a community character; and over time the City wanted the nonconforming structures to be
corrected to create and preserve its character. He noted the City had more open space than the majority of
surrounding communities. He also noted the City may be slightly more restrictive than some of the
surrounding communities. Nielsen commented because a structure was old did not necessarily make it
historical.
In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Director Nielsen explained there had been two situations
where the applicants had to remove their boathouses as a condition of their C.U.P.s.
In response to a question from Mr. Peterson, Director Nielsen stated he had spoken with the City Attorney
and the City Attorney had stated the change in the State law with regard to nonconformance applies to
uses and not structures.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants had the right to go before the Council with regard to their request.
Council Liaison Turgeon stated the City Council would review the Planning Commission's
recommendation, but it would make its own decision. Each Councilmember would assess the request and
vote accordingly.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained if an application was
denied the same application could not be made again for six months, unless Council approved a more
rapid re-application by a four-fifths vote. If the application was denied another application would require
additional permit fees. If the applicants requested a continuation of their request until after a review of the
City Code had been completed, they would not be required to pay additional permit fees.
.
Commissioner Gniffke stated the Peterson's request was the impetus for the Planning Commission to
review and possibly recommend an amendment to the City Code with regard historical structures.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 5 of8
. In response to a question from Ms. Peterson, Council Liaison Turgeon stated there had been instances
where the City Council had not supported the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission would commit to addressing the topic by calendar year-end.
He explained the Commission needed to address this issue in a comprehensive manner, not just specific to
the applicants.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants request would be placed on an August 29, 2006, Special City
Council Agenda for further consideration, and the meeting was scheduled to start at 5:30 P.M.
Chair Bailey stated this was his first experience where the discussion about a C.U.P. request was that
lengthy; an applicant usually understood in advance that their request would require a variance. Director
Nielsen stated Staff had made the applicants aware their nonconforming structures could be a risk if a
C.U.P. was approved, and the applicants did not feel that would be fair. But he assumed responsibility for
not more strongly communicating nonconforming structures would need to be brought into conformity as
a condition of a C.U.P.
Discussion ensued with regard to the action the Planning Commission had just taken, the need to ensure
consistency when interpreting the law in an objective manner, and the possible need for an amendment to
the City Code.
.
2.
STUDY SESSION
. Discuss Outdoor Wood Boilers/Furnaces
Director Nielsen stated the City Attorney had provided a legal opinion as to whether the use of the
outdoor wood-burning furnaces (OWFs) should be prohibited, or whether regulations should be
established that would result in it being impossible to satisfy the regulations, per the Planning
Commission's request. He noted the City Attorney's legal opinion had been forwarded to the
Commission. The City Attorney strongly recommended the second approach, as it would be easier to
defend than an outright ban.
Commissioner Gagne commented once the number of residents who burned their leaves became very
large, the City Code was amended to ban the burning of leaves. He also stated things change over time.
Director Nielsen stated he had reviewed a number of ordinances from other cities with regard to OWFs.
There were a couple of governmental units that simply banned the furnaces. The vast majority of agencies
that regulated them, adopted strict standards relative to location, distance from adjacent properties,
chimney height, etc.
He commented the State of Wisconsin had prepared a model ordinance for it cities to use with regard to
open burning, burning barrels, recreational fires, outdoor wood-burning furnaces, etc. He stated Staff used
some of the language from that model ordinance, and the purpose and definition from other ordinances, to
prepare a draft ordinance.
.
Nielsen then reviewed the components of a draft ordinance for the use of OWFs Staff recommended. As
he reviewed the standards he explained why he thought the standard was appropriate, and why it would be
difficult to comply with it.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15,2006
Page 6 of 8
.
A. Purpose. "It is generally recognized the types of fuel used, and the scale and
duration of burning by outdoor wood-burning furnaces, creates noxious and
hazardous smoke, soot, fumes, odors and air pollution, can be detrimental to
citizens' health, and can deprive neighboring residents of the enjoyment of their
property or premises. Therefore, with the adoption of this ordinance, it is the
intention of the City of Shorewood to establish and impose restrictions upon the
construction and operation of outdoor wood-burning furnaces within the city limits
of Shorewood for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, safety
and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."
B. Definition. "Any contrivance, apparatus, or any part thereof, that is installed,
affixed or situated out-of-doors for the primary purpose of the combustion of wood,
from which heat or energy is derived and intended to be directed there from by
conduit or other mechanism into any interior space for the supply of heat or
energy."
C. Standards. The following list of standards were the toughest standards Staff had
found in the city codes it had researched (the dimensions were Staff
recommendations) :
1.
. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Minimum lot size: 3 acres.
Setback from nearest property line: 200 feet
Chimney height: 2 feet above the ridgeline of homes within 500 feet, but
not higher than 50 feet
Months of operation: 1 September to 31 May.
Survey requirement: Registered land surveyor must show location and
ridgeline heights of all buildings within 500 feet of furnace.
Existing OWFs: This requires a policy decision. Many of the codes we
studied "grandfathered in" existing stoves, subject to some attempt to
comply with standards (e.g. chimney height). Others required the existing
furnaces to be brought into compliance with the new rules within a
specified period of time.
7. Code section: The City Attorney and Staff agree that the new code
regulating OWFs should be placed in Title 1000, Building Regulations.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated there were two additional items he
thought should be added to the standards. The first was to add a requirement to standard #3 for an
engineering report for chimney heights forty-feet high or higher. The second was to add a new standard at
the top of the list that required the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations be adhered to (it
would become #1).
.
Commissioners Gagne and Gniffke had no objections to the purpose; definition; and standards 1-5,
standard 7 and the proposed additions Director Nielsen had recommended.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15, 2006
Page 7 of 8
.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the City's height
restriction for a house was 2.5 stories or 35 feet and the height was determined by the mid-way point
between the eave and the peak of the house. He also stated elevation above sea level was used for the
starting measurement.
Commissioner Schmitt stated he would support an outright ban of OWFs. Commissioner Gagne echoed
his comment.
Schmitt stated he would prefer to change the chimney height restriction to be lower than 50 feet. There
was consensus to change the maximum height to 40 feet.
There was Planning Commission consensus to move forward with an ordinance with very strict
regulations.
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Recommended Addition of an Outdoor Wood-
burning Furnace Provision to the City's Zoning Ordinance as Amended, to include a standard
requiring the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations be adhered to, and to modify
standard #3 to reflect a maximum height to 40 feet and require an engineering report for any
chimney 40 feet high, and to remove standard 6 (existing OWFs) for further discussion. Motion
passed 5/0.
.
With regard to existing OWFs, Commissioner Gagne stated he would support a requirement that existing
OWFs must be brought into conformity of the proposed provision to the City's code within a to-be-
determined period of time. Schmitt questioned if similar past practices required pre-existing conditions to
be brought to conformity or were the conditions "grandfathered in". Director Nielsen stated most of the
conditions were zoning related and they did not have a health element; therefore they were normally
"grandfathered in" until which time a change to the property was requested. Nielsen stated the examples
researched indicated some cities required compliance and others allowed for the "grandfathered in"
scenario. Nielsen explained it would be basically impossible to bring an existing OWF into compliance
with the proposed standards. He stated it would be reasonable to require existing OWFs to have to
comply with the standard to adhere to the manufacture's specifications and recommendations, and with
the months-of-operation standard.
Chair Bailey stated if the reason for adding the proposed provision to the ordinance was to prohibit the
proliferation of OWFs throughout the City, then allowing existing OWFs to remain was not an issue. If
the reason was for the provision was an OWFs could be a health issue for neighboring residents, then
removal of existing OWFs would be appropriate.
Commissioner Gagne stated there had been instances where items that were found to be a health issue
were banned. He thought there were similarities to OWFs.
Commissioner Schmitt stated Mr. Quast, an existing OWF owner, had spent money on the purchase and
installation of his OWF, he had installed it according to City Code, and he had installed it according to the
manufacturer's specifications. He supported allowing the existing OWF to remain subject to compliance
with the proposed standard to adhere to the manufacture's specifications and recommendations, and
compliance with the months-of-operation proposed standard.
.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated he guesstimated the cost for the
purchase and installation ofMr. Quast's OWF to be $8,000 - $10,000.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 15,2006
Page 8 of 8
Commissioner Meyer stated Mr. Quast had followed the necessary procedures and should be allowed to
keep his existing OWF. Commissioner Gniffke concurred.
Schmitt moved, Gagne seconded, Allowing Existing Outdoor Wood-burning Furnaces to Remain in
Operation subject to Adhering to the Manufacture's Specifications and Recommendations,
provided they are only used from September through May. Motion passed 5/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a review of proposed provision to the City Code with regard to outdoor wood-
burning furnaces was slated for the 5 September 2006 Planning Commission Meeting.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at an August 14, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
SLUC
No report given.
. Other
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 15 August 2006
at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey: Commissioners Conley, Meyer, Schmitt; and Woodruff; Planning Director
Nielsen, and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioners Gagne and Gniffke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 15 August 2006
Schmitt moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 15
August 2006 as amended, in Item 2, Page 7, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "He also stated the sea
level was used for the starting measurement." to "He also stated elevation above sea level was used
for the starting measurement.", and in Item 2, Page 7, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, change
"Commissioner Schmitt stated he was support an outright ban of OWFs." to "Commissioner
Schmitt stated he would support an outright ban of OWFs." Motion passed 3/0/2 with Conley and
Woodruff abstaining due to their absence at the meeting.
1. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT REGULATING OUTDOOR WOOD-BURNING
FURNACES
Director Nielsen explained the City Council had directed the Planning Commission to review the City's
nuisance ordinance relative to smoke emissions and the use of outdoor wood-burning furnaces (Council
had not requested the Commission to consider regulations with regard to recreational fires, indoor
fireplaces, or indoor would-burning furnaces). In response to that request, Staff had done a fair amount of
research on the internet with regard to OWFs. Staff had also reviewed a number of ordinances from other
cities with regard to OWFs before it drafted an amendment to the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 1005)
to regulate the use of OWFs. Nielsen stated the research validated there was an issue with the amount of
pollutants generated by OWFs.
Nielsen stated the City Attorney had provided an opinion as to whether the use of the outdoor wood-
burning furnaces (OWFs) should be prohibited, or whether regulations should be established that would
basically be impossible to satisfy, per the Planning Commission's request. The City Attorney strongly
recommended the second approach. Nielsen commented if there was an outright ban for OWFs, then there
would be no standards that existing OWFs would have to adhere to. Nielsen stated the draft ordinance
specified extremely strict standards, and he doubted if a resident would be able to install a new OWF
while adhering to the proposed standards. He also commented that the standards in the draft ordinance
were consistent with the Wood Burning Industry best-burn practices.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 2 of9
.
Nielsen stated there was a least one resident that had an existing OWF. Staff was following up on a
complaint it had received regarding the possible use of another OWF by a resident on Cathcart Drive.
Nielsen then asked Commissioner Conley to review his suggestions for possible changes to the
"definition" of an OWF the Commission may want to consider. He noted those changes could possibly
broaden the scope of the amendment to include other solid fuels (e.g., com); and Staff had not found the
same adverse information with regard to pollutants about com-burning furnaces.
Conley stated the text he had submitted for suggested changes to the definition was not intended to be the
actual language. He then reviewed the suggested changes and the rationale for them.
Ori2inal Draft definition:
OUTDOOR WOOD-BURNING FURNACE. Any contrivance, apparatus, or any part thereof,
that is installed, affixed or situated out-of-doors for the primary purpose of the combustion of
wood, from which heat or energy is derived and intended to be directed there from by conduit or
other mechanism into any interior space for the supply of heat or energy.
.
. He questioned if the phrase "out-of-doors" would allow for a means to circumvent the
ordinance.
. He thought the phrase "intended to be directed" could be superfluous.
. He thought the phrase "for the supply of heat and energy" may contain qualifiers that did
not need to be included.
. He was not sure what the phrase "there from" was trying to convey.
He then reviewed one way the definition could be changed to address his concerns.
OUTDOOR WOOD-BURNING FURNACE. Any contrivance, apparatus, or any part thereof,
that is installed, affixed or situated on the exterior side of the exterior envelope of any structure
where the firebox or combustion chamber does not open directly to the interior of the structure
such as in the manner of a conventional fireplace, which facilitates or supports combustion of any
fuel except natural gas or (LP/propane,) and from which heat or energy is derived and transferred
into the interior of the structure by any means.
Chair Bailey stated he thought Commissioner Conley's suggested changes to the definition would make
the language more cumbersome and more difficult to read. Conley agreed that "on the exterior side of the
exterior envelope of any structure where the firebox or combustion chamber does not open directly to the
interior of the structure such as in the manner of a conventional fireplace, which facilitates or supports
combustion of any fuel except natural gas or (LP/propane,)" may be too cumbersome, and he questioned
if there was another suggestion on how to better replace the "out-of-doors" phrase with a less ambiguous
phase.
Chair Bailey summarized there were two issues at hand: I) the burning of solid fuels other than wood;
and 2) a clear definition of "out-of-doors".
.
Commissioner Schmitt commented that, from his experiences, it was at times easier to legally find a
loophole in an ordinance that was extremely specific because a particular item may not have been
specified in the ordinance (i.e., sometimes less is more). He was comfortable with the "out-of-doors"
phrase. He was also comfortable with the ordinance only addressing wood as a fuel, as the use of OWFs
was what Council had asked the Commission to consider.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 3 of 9
There was consensus amongst the Commissioners that the ordinance would address only wood as a fuel.
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen to ask Attorney Keane for an opinion on the phrase "out-of-doors".
Nielsen stated the draft amendment would be sent to Attorney Keane for his review and comment prior to
the amendment being presented to Council. Nielsen noted that much of the language contained in the
draft amendment had been used in other cities' ordinances. Chair Bailey asked that Nielsen forward
Commissioner Conley's concerns to Attorney Keane for consideration.
There was ensuing discussion with regard to the following changes (the changes are underscored) to the
draft Municipal Code Chapter 1005. The majority of the discussion centered on the Chimney Height
standard specified in 1005.94 Subd. 4., and whether or not that standard should pertain to existing OWFs.
1005.02 DEFINITIONS.
OUTDOOR WOOD-BURNING FURNACE. Any contrivance, apparatus, or any part thereof,
that is installed, affixed or situated out-of-doors for the primary purpose of the combustion of
wood, from which heat or energy is derived and intended to be directed therefrom by conduit or
other mechanism into any interior space for the supply of heat or energy.
1005.04 MINIMUM STANDARDS.
Subd. 4. Chimney height. The outdoor wood-burning furnace shall have a chimney that extends
at least 20 feet above the surface of the ground and two feet above the ridge line of any dwelling
within 500 feet of the furnace. In no case shall the chimney be higher than 40 feet. The chimney
shall be constructed and supported so as to withstand high wind speeds.
1005.05 EXISTING FURNACES:
Outdoor wood-burning furnaces that were legally installed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance
shall comply at minimum with the installation requirements set forth in Section 1005.04. Subd. 1.
of this Chapter and the months of operation standard set forth in Section 1005.04 Subd. 5. of this
Chapter.
Schmitt moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of the Draft Amendment to the
Municipal Code (Chapter 1005), which included the above recommended changes, Subject to the
Review of the City Attorney. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey continued the meeting to Item 3 on the agenda.
2. STUDY SESSION
. Discuss Nonconforming Accessory Structures
This item was discussed after Item 3 on the agenda.
Director Nielsen explained the City's zoning regulations required nonconforming accessory structures be
brought into conformity in conjunction with conditional use permit applications where the amount of
accessory space exceeded 1200 square feet of floor area. He also explained that in a recent C.D.P. request
for additional accessory space, the applicants (the Peterson's) raised objections to having to remove
buildings that, due to their age and setting, had become part of the character of the neighborhood. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 4 of 9
.
commented similar questions had arisen after the Planning Commission had viewed a number of old
boathouses on its recent tour of the City's Lake Minnetonka shoreline.
Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had denied the above request because it did not comply with the
City's zoning ordinance. He explained Council had suggested the applicants ask for a continuance of their
request until a December 11, 2006, Council meeting in order to allow Staff and the Commission time to
prepare text for an ordinance amendment that would allow certain nonconforming structures to be saved
based on age, historic value, or architectural value to the community or neighborhood.
Nielsen explained the proposed amendment Staff had prepared would establish a class of structures that
would receive special protection; therefore, it was important the criteria be applied in limited situations,
based on pre-established criteria, with a high degree of scrutiny. He commented a significant part of this
task had been in establishing objective criteria for what could be very subjective topics - historic value,
architectural value, etc. He noted the Historical Society representatives had difficulty in defining what
constituted "historic".
Nielsen then reviewed an outline of objective criteria recommended by staff.
.
· Purpose. Because it was recommended the proposed amendment be added to the existing
section on nonconforming accessory structures, the amendment itself would not include a
purpose. However, it was recommended that the City's intent be expressed in the
Comprehensive Plan under historic preservation. The amendment was limited to preserving
only certain buildings; it did not in any way detract from adherence to current zoning
standards for newly constructed buildings.
· Structure Age. Although age should be a factor in determining which structures should be
preserved, a structure should not be preserved simply because it was old. There must be
something special or significant about the structure. It was recommended that structures
considered for preservation should predate 1956; those structures would have been in
existence before Shorewood was incorporated. An advantage to this otherwise arbitrary date
was there would be no question as to whether the structure was lawful; if it was built prior to
the city being incorporated, it would not have required a permit and there were no standards
in existence before then.
· Structure Condition. There should be a high priority placed on the condition of the structure
in question. If the structure had deteriorated to or had been destroyed to more than fifty
percent of its current value, it should not be protected. (The current City ordinance required
all structures that had deteriorated to or had been destroyed to more than fifty percent of its
current value be brought into conformity.) Three structural elements should be considered
when evaluating the structure's condition: 1) the foundation; 2) the walls; and 3) the roof. If
it was determined the foundation required replacement of more than fifty percent, the
building should be relocated or removed. Also, if any two of the structural elements required
more than 50 percent replacement, the building should be relocated or removed. These
determinations would be made by the City's Building Official.
.
· Historic, Architectural or Cultural Value. It was difficult to remain entirely objective with
regard to this topic. Language in the National Park Service's rules on historic preservation
could be included as a prelude to the section.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 5 of9
.
. Heightened Scrutiny. It must be clearly communicated that buildings to be preserved were
special cases and would receive a higher degree of scrutiny than routine conditional use
permit applications. The applicant must understand there would be a heavy burden on them
to affirmatively demonstrate their building(s) met the criteria. That could be done by
professional architectural or historic analysis, dated aerial photography, or possibly sworn
affidavits from past or present neighboring property owners. Unfortunately, the assessors'
office information was not very valuable for more than 5-10 years back.
. Repair or Maintenance. The City may want to impose repair or maintenance requirements
(e.g., painting or re-roofing) for nonconforming structures that were allowed to remain under
this section of the City Code. If a building was worth preserving, it should be kept in very
good condition.
Nielsen stated Staff also recommended a special ad hoc review subcommittee of the Planning
Commission be established to review the requests. Membership of the subcommittee could consist of one
Planning Commissioner, one Council Member, and perhaps one Park Commissioner. An outside architect
could also be used to evaluate the requests. This extraordinary review process would emphasize the very
special nature of the application.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the conditions section address more than location for nonconforming
issues. He stated an owner was often required to maintain structure structures placed on historic registers.
He thought the owner should not have the option to remove the structure when they no longer wanted to
preserve it.
. Chair Bailey and Commissioner Schmitt agreed with Commissioner Woodruff's comments with regard to
removal of historic structures. They wanted to ensure it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the
historic structure to be removed.
Director Nielsen stated, with regard to the Peterson's barn, the setting for the barn would change
drastically if the property was subdivided.
Commissioner Schmitt stated he did not agree with the requirement to relocate or remove a historic
structure if the more than 50% of the foundation must be repaired. There could be exceptions (i.e., a
historic wet boathouse) where it was appropriate to replace an entire foundation. Chair Bailey agreed it
could be appropriate to allow an owner to do extensive repairs to their historic structure.
Director Nielsen stated it was important not to allow the aesthetic element of structure to be taken into
account when determining whether or not a structure should be classified as historic; what looks pleasing
to one person could look less than pleasing to another person.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated if special exception was
granted to a structure because of its architectural value or character, than the architectural character of the
structure must be maintained.
.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested Director Nielsen obtain codes and regulations with regard to historic
structures that other cities and states had already adopted, and maybe those regulations could be included
in the ordinance. Director Nielsen stated that a great deal of historic preservation had to do with
incentives and not mandates; therefore, he was not sure what value the other regulations may have. He
commented the National Register for historic structures did not require a property owner to keep a historic
structure.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 6of9
.
Commissioner Conley stated that when considering the criteria for architectural significance, the benefit
to the City as a community should be considered (e.g., did the structure contribute to a story of the history
of Shorewood, did it contribute to the City's identity, etc.) Granting an exception for a structure should
require some type of commitment to maintenance and preservation by the owner.
Commissioner Meyer stated if an exception was granted for a structure, then the owners must be held
accountable to maintain the structure (especially if the exception was granted because of its architectural
significance). He complimented Director Nielsen on the quality of information he had prepared.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if the Commission would have sufficient time to prepare a draft
amendment to the ordinance for Council's review and consideration prior to December 11, 2006. If the
intent was to provide information that would help Council evaluate the Peterson's request at that time,
then the Commission should focus on those elements of the amendment that would be relative.
In response to a comment by Director Nielsen, Chair Bailey stated he did not think it would be
appropriate to involve the Peterson's in the development of a draft text amendment as the amendment was
not being drafted solely for them. Chair Bailey also stated the date of December 11, 2006, could impose
time constraints on the Commission for preparing a quality text amendment. Director Nielsen stated he
would bring that concern to Council's attention.
In response to a comment by Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated he would remind the
Peterson's of the need for them to authorize Council to continue their c.u.P. request.
. Discussion ensued with regard to the City's ability to enforce a property owner to keep a historic
structure.
Commissioner Schmitt stated there was a great deal of information relating to code regulations for
historic and non-historic boathouses and how to preserve them; maybe that information should be
considered when preparing the text amendment. He questioned if the City should be pro-active or re-
active with regard to the preservation of "historic" structures, and if the City should even be involved with
them.
Director Nielsen stated applicants had always objected to the requirement to relocate or remove a
nonconforming accessory structure when applying for a C.U.P. for additional accessory space. He also
stated the Commission had difficulty with that requirement at times. Therefore, there must be some
element of the existing ordinance that should be considered for modification.
Chair Bailey agreed that the Commission had discussed the subject of historic structures over the years.
He stated the City had not wanted to impose severe restrictions on what a property owner could do with
regard to historic structures. He did think it was appropriate to try and secure some commitment from the
Peterson's to keep and maintain their barn should the barn be classified as historic or of architectural
significance, even though that commitment may not be totally enforceable.
In response to a question form Chair Bailey regarding what the Commission wanted Director Nielsen to
do next with regard to this topic, Commissioner Conley stated he would like to review representative
standards with regard to historic preservation. Conley questioned if there were any narrative books on the
history of Shorewood or Lake Minnetonka. Director Nielsen stated there was information of that nature.
Conley stated he would like to review that information.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 7of9
Chair Bailey asked Director Nielsen to prepare a draft narrative for the Comprehensive Plan as had been
discussed.
Chair Bailey asked the Commission what direction they wanted to take with regard to regulations for
structural repair. Commissioner Schmitt stated he would like to have further discussion on that topic.
Director Nielsen stated the Shore Report had published requests for historical information about
residents' houses, to which there had been little response.
In response to comments by Council Liaison Turgeon, Chair Bailey stated the Commission may want to
consider these same issues with regard to improvements to primary nonconforming structures in the
future.
Discussion ensued with regard to various instances where improvements were made, or wanted to be
made, to nonconforming structures.
There was consensus that the focus should remain on accessory structures. Commissioner Woodruff
commented that the regulations for accessory structures could also apply to primary structures.
Director Nielsen recapped that the Commission wanted to ensure there was a mechanism in place to
ensure the structures (that were considered for preservation) would remain in their original character and
be appropriately maintained. He stated he was not sure if it would be possible to require an owner to keep
the structure.
3.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda.
Steven PahI. 24860 Smithtown Road, stated there were EP A standards listed and specified for OWFs; and
if an OWF did not have a catalytic converter installed on it, it would not meet EP A standards. He then
stated there were both Minnesota Code and Local Code that required OWFs to comply with EP A
standards; that requirement would apply to OWFs already installed. He suggested that wording requiring
an OWF to comply with EP A standards be added to the draft amendment regulating the use of OWFs.
Director Nielsen explained that standard was addressed under 1005.04 Subd. 1. "Installation. All outdoor
wood-burning furnaces shall have an approved listing by Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), shall be
installed according to the manufacturer's installation instructions, and shall comply with emission
standards promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA)."
In response to a comment by Mr. Pahl, Director Nielsen stated there was no need to include a standard
requiring a catalytic converter be installed on an OWF; the need to comply with EP A standards was
included in the above mention subdivision.
Chair Bailey stated the EP A standards determined whether or not a catalytic converter was required on an
OWF.
Mr. Pahl stated that 95% of the com-burning furnaces have a catalytic converter on them as standard
equipment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 8 of9
. Chair Bailey thanked Mr. Pahl for his comments.
In response to a question from Mr. Pahl with regard to Mr. Quast being allowed to use his OWF, Chair
Bailey stated the health-hazard issue with regard to emissions from OWFs would need to be addressed
with the MPCA.
In response to a question from Mr. Pahl with regard to the nuisance ordinance, Director Nielsen stated the
City's public nuisance definition referred to "a person of ordinary sensibilities." It was difficult to
benchmark the definition of "ordinary sensibilities" on an individual with ill health.
Mr. Pahl stated if Mr. Quast would be allowed to continue to use his OWF, Mr. Pahl would have to sell
his house for health reasons. Mr. Pahl stated the draft amendment standard for allowable months of
operation would not alleviate the health issues resulting from the OWF's emissions.
Chair Bailey explained the Planning Commission had done what Council had asked of it with regard to
OWFs. The draft amended would be presented to the City Council for its review and consideration.
Mr. Pahl thanked the Commission for its efforts. He stated he had hoped the nuisance ordinance would
have been sufficient to prohibit the use of OWFs. He was concerned there could be a loophole in the draft
amendment. He also stated he had hoped the Commission would have banned the use of OWFs unless the
OWF complied with strict standards, such as being installed a minimum of 1000 feet from any other
house.
.
In response to a question from Director Nielsen with regard to the Pahl family not having a health issue
from being around recreational fires, Mr. Pahl stated he and his family did not have an issue with a hot-
burning bonfire (per their experience around bonfires three weeks ago) - their issue was with smoldering
fires, because the smoke from a smoldering fire did not rise high enough. He then stated the fires in Mr.
Quast's OWF were smoldering fires. He also stated the result of Mr. Quast raising his OWF's chimney
would be that the smoke would travel a further distance.
Chair Bailey stated the draft amendment for the use of OWFs would be addressed by the Council at its
September 25, 2006, meeting.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there was a public hearing for a residential P.U.D. request, a public hearing for a
C.U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet, and a public hearing for a C.U.P. for accessory
space on park property slated for the 3 October 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Chair Bailey
suggested the discussion of nonconforming accessory structures be continued at that meeting if time
permits, provided Director Nielsen had had the opportunity to gather additional information for review.
Commissioner Schmitt requested Director Nielsen gather information on the preservation of boathouses.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
.
Commissioner Schmitt reported on matters considered and actions taken at a September 11, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 19, 2006
Page 9 of9
.
SLUC
Chair Bailey stated he would like to attend the meeting titled "Time to Understand the Market".
. Other
Commissioner Woodruff suggested the Commission bring closure to the topic of docks at some future
meeting. The topic would be placed on the 17 October 2006 Planning Commission meeting agenda.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 19
September 2006 at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, and Woodruff;
Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 19 September 2006
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
19 September 2006 as presented. Motion passed 5/0/2 with Gagne and Gniffke abstaining due to
their absence at the meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT STATE APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL
P.U.D.
Applicant: Mark Kawell
Location: 20025 Manor Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an October 23, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting Mark Kawell, who represented Richard
Bowman, proposed subdividing the property located at 20025 Manor Road into four single-family
residential lots. The result of that subdivision would be three new building sites (Lots 2 - 4, which would
be located in Deephaven), plus Mr. Bowman's existing homesite (Lot 1). He noted the property was
approximately 10.6 acres and it straddled the ShorewoodlDeephaven boundary.
Nielsen went on to explain the subject property was characterized by very interesting terrain, basically
high, wooded upland areas separating three wetland basins, one of which was referred to as Lake Hooper.
The changes in topography were quite dramatic, with the Bowman residence sitting atop an elevation of
988, and the wetland basin in the Shorewood portion of the site dropping to approximately 956 in
elevation. He noted the Bowman residence and a house at 20005 Manor Road were currently accessed by
a private driveway.
Nielsen then explained the property had been the subject of two previous subdivisions. The first was
approved in 1990 and resulted in the creation of two lots (20005 Manor Road in Deephaven, and 20015
Manor Road in Shorewood). Both of these lots had since been built upon. That subdivision also created
Bowman Court - a public right-of-way upon which a city street was to be constructed at such time as
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 2 of 11
. additional lots were platted. That was memorialized in a three-way development agreement between the
owner, the City of Shorewood and the City of Deephaven. In 2003 the two cities agreed to an amendment
to the agreement that allowed the lot at 20001 Manor Road (in Shorewood) to be created, without
construction of the street. He noted that lot was accessed directly from Manor Road, and a house had
since been constructed on the lot.
Nielsen also explained Mr. Kawell's proposal depicted Lot 1 (the Bowman residence) and Lot 2 (one of
the new lots) would be served by a common driveway directly from Manor Road. The Bowman Court
right-of-way would be vacated in favor of a private road serving the existing home at 20005 Manor Road
and two new lots (Lots 3 and 4). He stated Mr. Kawell preferred not to have to build the city street
because of the location of one of the wetlands.
Nielsen then reviewed the location of the proposed lots on the concept plan. He stated Lot 4 would cross
the ShorewoodlDeephaven boundary and the Lot 4 building site would be located in Deephaven. He
noted part of the wetland basin on Lot 4 would reside in Shorewood.
Nielsen stated Staff recommended the applicant pursue a planned unit development approach to the
development of the site (at least on the Shorewood side). The City's P.D.D. ordinance allowed for
flexibility in lot configuration, lot setbacks, etc. It also contained provisions that addressed private roads,
private utilities, etc. He noted Deephaven did not have P.D.D. provisions in its code. He stated if the
applicant used a P.D.D. approach, then the applicant could obtain a concept approval from Shorewood's
City Council before going to Deephaven with a preliminary plat, thereby alleviating the "chicken and
egg" issue of dealing with two cities.
.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant had met with staffs of both cities. During the meetings with the
City's Staff a number of issues were identified, and hopefully resolved. He reviewed what had been
discussed and recommended:
A.
Lots. The proposed three new lots would be situated in Deephaven and, as such,
should comply with its zoning standards for lot size and setbacks. Proposed Lot
1 would be located mostly in Shorewood and it would be approximately twice
the area required in the R-IA zoning district. It had been suggested that the
building locations for Lots 2 - 4 should be subject to Deephaven's approval.
B.
Access. The proposed common driveway that would serve the Bowman house
and Lot 2 was a twenty-foot wide paved surface, not exceeding 12 percent grade,
extending to a turn-around at the top of the hill. From there, a 12-foot wide
driveway would extend to a new homesite on Lot 2. It was recommended that a
carefully worded ownership and maintenance agreement be drafted for the
common part of the driveway and turn-around.
.
Since the common driveway would serve three lots, the southerly access drive
would be considered (in Shorewood) to be a private road. A homeowner's
association would be responsible for the maintenance of the road. The applicant
stated far less site alteration would be required if a city street was not constructed
as had been originally planned; a cul-de-sac would require considerable grading
and some filling of the wetland basin in Shorewood. The proposed private road
would be narrower than a city street and an Excelsior Fire District (EFD)
approved turn-around would eliminate the need for the cul-de-sac. In a letter
from the EFD dated 10 August 2006, the EFD stated because the proposed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 3 of 11
.
buildings would be sprinklered, the EFD would be willing to accept a 12-foot
wide traveled surface instead of a 20-foot wide fire access road. Shorewood staff
strongly advised that road, at least the Shorewood portion, be at least 14 feet
wide in order to facilitate two cars passing one another.
The applicant would have to work with the owner of 20005 Manor Road with
respect to participation, if any, in a maintenance agreement for the private road.
C. Utilities. The project would be served with sanitary sewer and water from the
City of Shorewood. The sewer for Lots 2 - 4 would be installed using the
directional drilling method. It was recommended that all utilities within the
project be privately owned and maintained by a homeowner's association.
Ultimate approval of the project would include a requirement that the new lots
pay Shorewood's local sanitary sewer access charges and water connection
charges. Park dedication fees would be paid to Deephaven.
D. Wetland Protection. Two of the wetland basins on the property were located in
Deephaven. The westerly most basin was located in Shorewood. The Shorewood
wetland was already protected by an easement in favor of the City. That
easement should be expanded to reflect Shorewood's buffer requirement of 35
feet. Any approval should also specify that a 15-foot setback from the buffer was
required. Those stipulations had no practical effect on the Lot 4 build site.
.
E.
Lot Addresses. The proposed plat would necessitate re-addressing at least the
property at 20005 Manor Road, and possibly the Bowman residence. It was
important the addresses be in order. The 20005 property would have needed to
have been re-addressed even if Bowman Court were to have been constructed.
F. Process. If the P.D.D. was approved by Shorewood's City Council, the applicant
could go to the City of Deephaven with a preliminary plat, knowing that
Shorewood was accepting of the project, and what issues need to be addressed
from Shorewood's side of the boundary. If Deephaven' s City Council was then
agreeable, the applicant could submit Development Stage plans (including a
preliminary plat) for Shorewood's consideration.
Mr. Kawell stated the proposed platting of the property was done with strong consideration given to
maintaining the lots' natural terrain as much as possible.
Mr. Kawell then stated he had been involved in the subdivision that resulted in the lot at 20001 Manor
Road and the construction of the house on that property, as well as the construction of the house on the lot
adjacent to 20001 Manor Road (commonly known as the Apple Orchard lot). In both of those instances he
had strived to maintain the lots' natural terrain, the forest land, and the wetlands.
.
Mr. Kawell went on to state it was at the time of those developments that the concept of two private
access roads rather than one had initially been considered. One road would have required the building
sites to be located in more delicate areas because of setbacks. The new road off of Manor road, which
would be 20 feet wide, would go as far as the existing cul-de-sac; that would allow the road and sewer
line to remain outside of the wetland. It was decided to use the directional drilling method because it was
the easiest way to get a sanitary sewer line to the development.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 4 of 11
.
Mr. Kawell then explained he wanted to propose an extension to the cul-de-sac (which would provide
access to the Bowman residence and Lot 2) such that it would abut Lot 4; the extension would provide
EFD safety vehicles access to Lot 4 directly off a 20-foot wide road and the cul-de-sac. He noted the fire
hydrants would be located such that they would provide equal access to Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 4. He stated
the proposed change would result in Lot 3 and 20005 Manor Road being the only properties that would
have their EFD safety vehicle access off of the existing private drive. For that reason, Mr., Kawell
requested the private road remain at 12 - 13 feet wide as he had proposed, rather than require the width to
be increased to 14 feet, because that increase would result in the road being on the wetland boundary.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Mr. Kawell stated the distance from the fire
hydrant to the building site on Lot 4 would be approximately 80 - 90 feet, which was less than the 150-
foot maximum required by Code.
Mr. Kawell requested the City re-consider its request that the sanitary sewer and water be privately
owned. Deephaven preferred they were publicly owned, as it would be easier to gain approval for the
project from Deephaven's Planning Commission and City Council if they were publicly owned. He stated
Shorewood's Director of Public Works had stated to him that he would be more receptive to the sewer
line being publicly held if it were a cast-iron line because of the steep grade. Mr. Kawell stated he did not
think access would be any easier to a cast-iron underground sewer line, than it would be for a horizontally
bored sewer line. He clarified that once the sewer line reached the top of the hill it would be installed
using the traditional open construction method.
.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion
of the Public Hearing at 7 :25 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated the reason to change from
the original plan to have the Bowman Court public right-of-way become a City street was because of the
site alteration that would be required, and the original plan anticipated more lots than were currently
being proposed. He noted the 1990 approval was given prior to the establishment of the Wetland
Conservation Act. He commented Deephaven allowed private streets. He stated it was important the
development agreement was written and protective covenants were drafted such that residents using the
road understood it was a private road and the City had no responsibility to maintain the road.
Commissioner Gagne commented there had been previous instances where residents wanted private roads
to be reclassified, which would require the City to be responsible for maintenance of them. He stated he
would prefer the Bowman Court right-of-way be made a City street.
Commissioner Conley questioned if widening the private road to 14 feet wide would actually make a
significant difference relative to the impact it would have on the adjacent wetland. Director Nielsen stated
the widening would be approximately 6 inches on each side of the road, and that minor adjustment should
not have a significant impact on the wetland. Nielsen explained it was not anticipated that the private road
would be replaced; the addition of some Class V rock and possibly some additional blacktop would be all
that would be required. The reason a slightly wider road was suggested was to allow two cars to pass
safely. He then stated he still supported Staffs recommendation to widen the road to 14 feet, but he could
possibly be persuaded to change his mind.
.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley regarding the City's wetland buffer requirement of
35 feet, both the development agreement and another three-way agreement (between the developer,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 5 of 11
. Deephaven, and Shorewood) would list that as a stipulation. Nielsen stated, as Mr. Kawell had explained,
the directional boring was proposed so as not to disrupt the hillside or the wetland.
In response to questions from Commissioners Schmitt and Meyer, Director Nielsen stated Staff did not
recommend altering the south end of the wetland during the road widening efforts; the road could be
widened on either side.
Commissioner Gniffke stated he lived on Ridge Road, which was a private road in Shorewood. He stated
that road was only 12 feet wide. In the past the longer-term residents would back up to allow a car to pass
them on the road, but newer residents pull over to the side of the road for a car to pass by. The pull-over
practice had resulted in a lot of erosion being created. He supported the private road be widened to 14
feet.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated the common driveway would serve
three lots under the proposed configuration and by definition when a driveway served three houses it
became a private road.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained Staff had recommended
the sanitary sewer line from Manor Road to the site be privately owned and maintained. He explained the
sewer line would be made from material that was more flexible than PVC pipe. Also, problems would
more likely occur in the services area, and there would not be any services in the sensitive area. With
regard to the water line, it would also be constructed of flexible material. The City would have easement
access to the both the sanitary sewer and water lines; the question outstanding was who would perform
repaIrs.
.
Director Nielsen stated the City had cross-community agreements for providing sanitary sewer and water
utilities to other cities. In one instance the residents paid Shorewood directly; in another instance the
residents paid their city and that city paid Shorewood. In both instances, Shorewood had the authority to
turn off a resident's access to water for nonpayment.
Commissioner Schmitt stated if the utilities were to be publicly owned they should be built to public
specifications. He then stated he was not sure what benefit it would be to Shorewood for it to be
responsible for the maintenance of the utilities.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the owners of the three
new proposed lots would pay city taxes to Deephaven. He also stated the wetland basin located in
Shorewood generated little if any tax revenue. Woodruff stated as long as Shorewood would not receive
any tax revenue from the proposed development, the road should be classified a private road with the
residents responsible for maintaining it.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if the sanitary sewer line and water line were publicly owned, would
the construction of the utility lines be done any differently. Director Nielsen stated he did not know how
the proposed utility lines would compare to City specifications. He noted the City did have some
directionally bored utility lines.
Chair Bailey summarized there were two key issues that had to be addressed - access to the properties
and ownership of the utilities.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 6 of 11
. Mr. Kawell again stated directional boring was chosen for the utility lines to minimize the impact on the
sensitive areas of the property, and it was more costly to the developer to do it that way than it would be
to remove trees and install the lines in the traditional manner. He clarified the line from the City
connection in the street to the top of the hill that would be directionally bored. At the top the hill the man
holes, hydrants, and stubs to the street would be dug in as was traditionally done.
There was consensus amongst the Commissioners that the common driveway be widened to a 14 foot-
wide private road.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated Staff generally preferred the utilities
to be publicly owned, but there had been instances where they had been privately owned. For example, a
townhouse project on the north side of Christmas Lake had privately owned and maintained utilities until
they reached the City street. Also, the Robert SE Peterson Addition on Christmas Lake had a privately
owned cul-de-sac and privately owned and maintained utilities; in that instance the utilities were located
under a private road and the City did not want to have to repair the road if the utility system needed
repaIr.
Director Nielsen suggested the Commission request the City Engineer and Director of Public Works
address the pros and cons of public versus private ownership of the utilities for the development. He
clarified the Staffs current recommendation was to classify the utilities as privately owned and
maintained.
.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen clarified the issue of utilities ownership
should be addressed as an outstanding issue if the concept plan were to be recommended to the City
Council for approval.
Commissioner Conley suggested the City of Deephaven could own the portion of the development's
utilities that start at the end of the directional boring, and the ownership of the utilities system at question
would be the portion that was directionally bored.
Director Nielsen suggested the City of Deephaven could own that portion of the utilities system starting at
Manor Road and throughout the proposed development.
Mr. Kawell stated that from his vantage point that was a reasonable recommendation, and he would
present that recommendation to the City of Deephaven.
In response to a question from Mr. Kawell, Director Nielsen stated there was precedent for joint
ownership of components of sanitary sewer and water systems.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the proposed
development phases included - the concept plan, the development plan, and the final plan (which
coincides the with final plat).
.
Schmitt moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Concept Plan for a
Residential P.D.D. for Mark Kawell, who represented Richard Bowman who was the Owner of the
Property Located at 20025 Manor Road, subject to Staff Recommendations, the Bowman Court
right-of-way be widened to 14 feet wide and that it be reclassified a private road that would be
privately maintained, to the City of Deephaven owning and maintaining the sanitary sewer and
water systems from Manor Road throughout the development, and the proposed cul-de-sac be
extended to abut Lot 4 to satisfy EFD fire safety requirements." Motion passed 7/0.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 7 of 11
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Lance Black
Location: 20270 Excelsior Blvd.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Lance Black had applied for a conditional use permit to construct a gazebo on
his property, located at 20270 Excelsior Boulevard. He commented Mr. Black was not able to attend the
public hearing because he was out of town.
Nielsen then explained the floor area of the gazebo, when combined with his existing attached garage,
brought the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. The property was zoned
R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 88,009 square feet of area.
Nielsen stated the existing house contained approximately 2100 square feet of floor area on the main floor
alone. The existing garage, which was located at the southwest end of the house, contained 1156 square
feet of floor area. The new gazebo would be located in the rear yard, approximately 160 feet north of the
house. It was octagonal in shape and contained 150 square feet, which brought the total area of accessory
space on the site to 1350 square feet.
Nielsen then reviewed how the applicants' request complied with the four criteria specified in Section
1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code.
a.
The total area of accessory space (1350 square feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principle structure (2100 square feet - main floor only).
b. The total area of accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the R-1A zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage and the existing house complied with the setback
requirements of the R-1A zoning district. The new gazebo would be
approximately 60 feet from either side of the property and approximately 100
feet from the edge of Foot Lake (which was designated wetland). Given the size
of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and
landscaping were not considered to be issues in this request.
d. The materials and design of the new gazebo were consistent with the character of
the existing house and garage.
He stated because the applicants' request was considered to be consistent with the requirements of the
City's Zoning Code, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion
of the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M.
Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for Lance Black, 20270 Excelsior Boulevard.
Motion passed 7/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 8 of 11
.
3.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OF PARK
PROPERTY (Badger Park)
Applicant: Southshore Center
Location: 5735 Country Club Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Jerry Brecke, on behalf ofthe Friends of the Southshore Center (5745 Country
Club Road), had requested a conditional use permit for a small storage building to be located on Badger
Field, a City owned property. The Center was located on a site that was carved away from Badger Field;
and the City of Shorewood had donated the land to the Center when the Center was built. Because the
amount of land donated was purposefully minimized, there was virtually no place to construct any kind of
storage building on the site. He commented the Friends needed the storage space to house donated items
to be sold at its annual attic sale, as well as seasonally used items.
Nielsen then explained buildings located in parks were subject to conditional use permits; therefore, a
C.D.P. was necessary to accommodate the Friend's request. He stated Council had authorized the Friends
to make an application for the C.D.P. at its 11 September 2006 meeting.
Nielsen went on to explain the proposed structure would be a single-story structure, which measured 12
feet wide by 24 feet long. The structure would have the appearance of a small, single-car residential
garage. He then reviewed a drawing ofthe proposed structure.
.
With regard to the analysis of this case, Director Nielsen stated the request was not without precedent. For
example, the City had allowed South Tonka Baseball to locate structures within Freeman Park. Also,
much of the Center's parking lot was located on and shared with Badger Field. He noted the City was a
part owner of the Center. He stated if the Friend's were allowed to locate its building on park property,
Staff recommended the same kind of conditions that were imposed at Freeman Park.
Nielsen then reviewed how the proposed structure complied with requirements set forth in Section
1201.11 Subd. 4.b of Shorewood's Zoning Code (e.g., setbacks, parking/loading and screening). The
proposed structure exceeded setback requirements; it was approximately 250 feet away from the rear lot
line of Badger Field, and at least 300 feet from the nearest residential structure. The proposed building
was separated from adjacent residential uses by a relatively thick band of trees, and was in keeping with
residential buildings in the area. The proposed building would not take up any parking nor necessitate any
new parking.
Nielsen explained Staff had revised its recommendation for the building so that it would be located five
feet back from the parking lot curb to facilitate snow storage. That location would necessitate shortening
the proposed building from 24-feet long to 20-feet long because the terrain dropped off to a wetland area
east of the building pad. It appeared a 20-foot long building could be accommodated without substantial
site alteration and without interfering with the use of the football field located to the south of the building.
Nielsen stated, Staff recommended the ownership of the structure be turned over to the City of
Shorewood, a condition similar to the building on Freeman Park. The building could then be leased back
to the Friend's for one dollar per year. He then stated the Friends would be responsible for ongoing
maintenance of and insurance on the building. In the event the Friends ever ceased operation, the
. building would belong to the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 9 of 11
. Nielsen then stated because the request involved the use of part of Badger Field, Staff recommended the
Park Commission review and comment on the application. The item had been scheduled for the 10
October Park Commission meeting. At that time the Park Commission may want to consider what the
color of the building should be; because the City of Shorewood did not have a theme for the buildings in
Badger Field, it was suggested the colors of the new building reflect those of the Southshore Center.
Nielsen explained Staff would stake out the location of the proposed building in order to better illustrate
where the building would be located.
Nielsen stated if the c.u.P. was approved, Staff recommended it include the following conditions:
1. The building should be limited in length to 20 feet and its northerly side should
be located five feet back from the parking lot curb.
2. Until such time as it was demonstrated that maintenance of the grass became a
problem, the strip of land between the building and the parking lot curb should be
maintained as grass. If maintenance became an issue, class V rock should be
placed between the structure's overhead door and the curb.
3. The building must meet the minimum requirements of the State Building Code.
The Friends should carry the appropriate insurance during the construction of the
building. The policy should name the City of Shorewood as co-insured.
.
4.
Upon completion of the building, the ownership of the building should be turned
over to the City of Shorewood, after which it should be leased back to the Friends
for one dollar per year. The City Attorney should draft the necessary agreement.
5. The Friends should provide the City with evidence of ongoing insurance, both
building and contents, naming the City as co-insured.
6. The conditional use permit should be subject to review and approval by the
Shorewood Park Commission, including, but not limited to, the appearance of the
building.
Mr. Brecke stated the Friends would appreciate having adequate storage. He then stated the Friends were
looking for guidance from the Planning Commission regarding the size and location of the structure. He
did not foresee any problem with the structure length being reduced to 20 feet.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion
of the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated because he was a member of the Friends' Board he would not vote on the
requested C.U.P. He then stated the Friends had always been short on space at the Center. He questioned
if the proposed structure should have exterior lights.
It was noted the building would be located between two light poles; and those lights were on all night.
Therefore there would not be a need for exterior lights on the structure.
.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if there would be power inside of the structure, and if so where
would the power come from. He recommended eliminating the glass windows in the overhead door and in
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 10 of 11
. the structure to reduce vandalism. He stated he did not support having a sidewalk between the structure's
side door and its overhead door.
Mr. Brecke stated it would be infrequent for someone to be in the building when there was not daylight.
He explained the structure's side door was located in near proximity to the overhead door; therefore, a
sidewalk between the two doors was not necessary. He also explained there was a window located in the
back of the building and one in the front of the building, and both were located as high on the structure as
they could be to deter vandalism. He commented Home Depot had designed the structure.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated the City would generally
not put windows in a similar structure. He then stated if the Friends wanted the windows in the structure
for the purpose of allowing light into the structure, he suggested the windows be made out of something
that deterred vandalism (e.g. Plexiglas or grates). He also suggested the overhead door should not contain
windows.
Commissioner Conley stated he also recommended eliminating the windows from both the structure and
overhead door. He did not understand why indoor lighting was not planned for the building; there should
be, at a minimum, one overhead light. He noted there would be an additional cost for the lighting. He
stated it was his preference that the apron between the parking lot curb and the overhead door be paved.
Mr. Brecke commented interior lights would be nice addition, but it was not a requirement.
.
Council Liaison Turgeon stated the structure would primarily be used by the Friends' Boardmembers and
the Director of the Southshore Center. It would seldom be used during non-daylight hours.
Woodruff moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space on Park Property (Badger Park) subject to Staff Recommendations, a paved
apron between the parking lot curb and overhead door, and the structure and the structure's
overhead door contain no windows. Motion passed 6/0/1 with Gagne abstaining to a potential
conflict of interest.
4. DISCUSSION - NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Director Nielsen stated he was in the process of gathering information for future discussions. He said he
had gathered information from the National Park Service regarding historic structures, but he had not
gathered examples of city ordinances with regard to historic structures. He commented that he would
provide the Commissioners with website links to the example ordinance sites, rather than print out the
same ordinances.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
.
Director Nielsen stated the October 17, 2006, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Agenda
would include a Continuation of Discussions of Nonconforming Structures and Dock Regulations. The
primary focus of the dock regulations discussion would be with regard to the definition of "one dock",
and it would not address dock configurations because the number of possible configurations was
extensive.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 3, 2006
Page 11 of 11
Council Liaison Turgeon questioned if the Commission would be addressing the Boulder Bridge
Development's dock situation. She noted that the Development had initiated legal action with the LMCD
regarding restrictions the LMCD had imposed.
Director Nielsen stated the intent of the City's original ordinance regarding dock slips was to allow a
residential property owner to have a maximum of four watercraft slips. That interpretation would be more
restrictive than the LMCD's restriction. He commented the Commission may have to address what the
definition of a slip was.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Schmitt reported on matters considered and actions taken at a September 25, 2006,
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Turgeon and
Director Nielsen supplemented Schmitt's comments.
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 3 October 2006
at 8:42 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey (arrived at 7:02 P.M.); Commissioners Gagne, Gniffre, Meyer, Schmitt; and
Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen, and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioner Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 3 October 2006
Meyer moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of3
October 2006 as Amended, in Approval of Minutes, Page 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change
"Motion passed 6/0/1 with Gagne abstaining due to his absence at the meeting." to "Motion passed
5/0/2 with Gagne and Gniffke abstaining due to their absence at the meeting.", and in Item 1, Page
4, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, change "Commissioner Gniffke commented" to "Commissioner Gagne
commented". Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
Commissioner Bailey assumed the role of Chair upon his arrival at 7:02 P.M.
1. DISCUSS NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Director Nielsen stated he had distributed to the Commissioners a number of documents he had retrieved
off of various internet sites relating to historic preservation. He then stated that some of the language
contained in the historic preservation code examples could be used when preparing text for an amendment
to the City's Code that would allow certain nonconforming structures to be saved (when requesting a
C.U.P. request for additional accessory space) based on age, historic value, or architectural value to the
community or neighborhood. He stated he had also distributed the National Park Service's standards for
preservation which he had found on the National Park Service's web site (a site recommended by
Commissioner Schmitt).
Nielsen then stated one of the examples addressed what responsibility a property owner had for
maintaining a historic structure. It appeared that historic structure preservation was incentive driven rather
than driven by possible negative consequences.
Nielsen explained the Commission had reviewed and discussed an outline of objective criteria
recommended by Staff at its 19 September 2006 meeting. He stated he would add the requirement for
ongoing maintenance of a historic structure to the criteria. He stated he continued to support the idea that
the majority of the text regarding historic preservation would be contained in the City's Comprehensive
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 17, 2006
Page 2 of 5
. Plan, and the City's Code would refer back to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he would have the draft
text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the City's Code available for review and discussion at
the Planning Commission's November 2006 work session.
Nielsen stated if the Commission wanted to review additional information on historic preservation they
could "Go ogle" it on the internet. He commented the examples he had distributed were from California
and Colorado cities; he had found little historic preservation information for East Coast cities.
Nielsen stated residents should be encouraged to request their structures be designated as historic
structures prior to them having a need to request a conditional use permit for additional accessory space.
He then stated it was imperative that the City clearly communicate that its historic preservation code
would not place overly strict restrictions on historic structures. He commented the City had made two
previous requests of its residents for information on historic structures.
Chair Bailey requested the draft text amendments be distributed in advance of the November 28, 2006,
meeting.
2. DISCUSS DOCK REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen reviewed the three elements in the City's Code Chapter 1201.03 Subd.14 regarding dock
regulations that the Planning Commission identified as in possible need of amendment: 1) the definition
of a single dock; 2) what, if anything, should be done about regulating the size of docks, particularly in
cases where the LMCD would consider issuing a multiple dock license; and 3) updating the reference to
LMCD's Code of Ordinances.
.
Nielsen commented the definition of a dock contained in the City's code was virtually the same as the
definition contain in the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's (LMCD) Code of Ordinances. He
stated the Commission had previously suggested the City's definition be amended to clarify what "one
dock" meant. He suggested that could be accomplished by adding the statement "and which connects to
the shoreline at one location, no wider than four feet" to the end of the definition. That statement would
also prohibit "boardwalk" configurations of which there were two on Enchanted Island. He then stated the
definition should not contain regulations; regulations should be contained in the City's Code. He
explained the four-foot wide restriction was based on information dock installers had provided to LCMD
Chair Skramstad.
In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen explained that the City's Code
stated if there was a conflict between the City's dock regulations and the LMCD's dock regulations, the
more restrictive of the regulations shall apply.
Nielsen commented dock size and configuration were extremely difficult to regulate due to the size of
many boats that are kept on Lake Minnetonka, and the voluminous combination of dock arrangements.
He noted that was especially true in situations where the LMCD would allow multiple dock licenses
under their following definition:
"Subd. 28. "Multiple dock or mooring area" means any dock or mooring area constructed
or maintained for the storage of five or more restricted watercraft, other than commercial
docks. "
e Nielsen then reviewed how Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c and 14.g could be amended to include additional
restrictions (the amendment is in italics):
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 17, 2006
Page 3 of5
.
"c.
The number of docks and wharves per lot or parcel of land in the R Districts shall
be limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for
the use of the members of the family or families occupying the property upon
which the dock is located. The dock shall connect to the shoreline at only one
location, no wider than four feet, and shall extend into the lake at least eight feet
before branching out to form slips. The width of the dock shall not exceed four
feet at any point, except that at one location the dock may be no wider than eight
feet for a length of eight feet.
The number of boats that may be docked or moored on a single property is
limited to four, unless the dock owner first obtains an annual multiple
dock/mooring license from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
and a conditional use permit from the City of Shorewood, which permit shall be
subject to the following conditions:
(1) As part of the annual LMCD license review, the owner of the dock must
demonstrate to the City that all boats stored at the dock are owned,
registered and operated by the residents of the property on which the
dock is located.
(2)
As part of the annual LMCD license review, the owner of the dock must
demonstrate to the City that the dock is the minimum size necessary to
store the boats owned, registered and operated by the residents of the
subject property. "
.
The following provision could also be considered:
(3) No more than four of the slips allowed may be covered by boat canopies.
Subd. 14.g would be changed to:
"g. Unless specified otherwise in the City of Shorewood Zoning Code, all docks shall
comply with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances. "
Commissioner Woodruff commented the LMCD's Code of Ordinances contained a dock-width
restriction. He stated he had not anticipated the City Code would contain dock width regulations that
would be more restrictive than the LMCD's regulations. He stated the LMCD's charter included the
regulation of structures over the water (e.g. docks); the City should rely on the LMCD for those
regulations unless there was a compelling reason not to. He stated he was comfortable with incorporating
the LMCD's Code via reference into the City's Code, and with the City's Code identifying any
exceptions to the LMCD's Code. He recommended the word boat(s) be replaced with restricted
watercraft.
Director Nielsen stated the LMCD's width restriction was eight feet; and the LMCD allowed decks over
the water.
.
Commissioner Woodruff clarified his issue was with the possible restriction of "except that at one
location the dock may be no wider than eight feet for a length of eight feet" which was more restrictive
than the LMCD's.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 17, 2006
Page 4 of 5
.
Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed width restriction.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he could support the eight-foot by eight-foot exception to the four-foot-
wide width restriction.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Councilmember Turgeon stated she recollected
that LMCD Chair Skramstad stated the LMCD was responsible for enforcing dock regulations. She stated
the Planning Commission should recommend what the regulations should be to the City Council, and
once approved the LMCD should be notified of the regulations. Director Nielsen stated he did not expect
the LMCD to enforce the City's stricter regulations.
Director Nielsen stated the LMCD had stated it had planned to conduct a shoreline inventory, and conduct
dock inspections for property owners who had requested a permit to dock or moor more than four
watercraft. The LMCD regulations specify the property owner must be the owner of the docked
watercraft.
Commissioner Woodruff stated he did not think the proposed provision Subd. 14.c.2 was necessary; he
did not think it appropriate for the City to specify how a dock should be configured. Director Nielsen
stated that provision would not preclude a property owner from configuring their dock they way they
would like to; it was only a request to have the property owner to provide the City with a layout for how it
was to be done.
.
Discussion ensued with regard to provisions c.l, c.2 and c.3 and under what situations those provisions
must be complied width (in particular c.2), and what they actually meant.
Director Nielsen explained the watercraft must be owned by the person living on the property.
Commissioner Woodruff stated the amendment should be clarified to ensure provisions c.2 and c.3
applied only to situations where there was a need for more than four boats to be docked or moored on a
single property.
Commissioner Schmitt suggested the statement "The number of restricted watercraft that may be docked
or moored on a single property is limited to four. " be moved to provision c. paragraph 1 at the end.
Paragraph 2 should be modified to "If the dock owner wants to dock or moor more than four restricted
water craft, than the dock owner..... "
Chair Bailey stated the changes suggested by Commissioner Schmitt would improve the amendment.
In response to a question from Commissioner Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained the LMCD notified
the City of changes to their Code of Ordinances. Staff would notify the Planning Commissions of
significant changes.
Commissioner Schmitt suggested provision c.3 be changed to "No more than four restricted watercraft
may be covered by canopies. "
Discussion ensued with regard to provision c.3, regulating the number of canopies.
. Commissioner Woodruff stated canopies were a point of contention in various neighborhoods, mainly
because they block residents' views.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 17, 2006
Page 5 of5
In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Director Nielsen explained the LMCD had decided
not to regulate the number of canopies, although it had indicated that it may want to revisit the issue.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen stated he would make the suggested
changes and have them ready in an ordinance format for a public hearing on November 14,2006.
Chair Bailey suggested the start time for the public hearings already scheduled for November 14, 2006, be
scheduled such that they would be five minutes apart. Director Nielsen stated if the legal notices have not
been published he would change the start times.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be one public hearing on a request for a Conditional Use Permit for
Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards, and four public hearings on four requests for Conditional Use Permits
for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet, slated for the November 14, 2006, Planning Commission
Agenda.
The Planning Commission's work session that was scheduled for November 21, 2006, was
rescheduled to November 28, 2006.
5. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Meyer reported on matters considered and actions taken at an October 9, 2006, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
. SLUC
The Commissioners did not want to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition Twins Ballpark program
scheduled for October 25,2006.
. Other
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 17 October
2006 at 8:02 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2006
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.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, and Schmitt; Planning Director Nielsen; and
Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
Commissioners Gniffke, Meyer and Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 17 October 2006
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
17 October 2006 as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Conley abstaining due to his absence at the
meeting.
.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS
Applicant: Tim and Melia Liester
Location: 26355 Oak Ridge Circle
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a November 27,2006,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained Tim and Melia Liester, who owned the property at 26355 Oak Ridge Circle,
had applied for a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. The applicants proposed to
construct a swimming pool in the back of their yard. That project required more than 100 cubic yards of
fill to be brought onto their property. Because Shorewood's zoning regulations required a conditional use
permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards, the Liester's had submitted a request for such a conditional
use permit. The property was zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential, and was presently occupied by the
applicant's home.
With regard to issues of analysis for this case, Director Nielsen stated poor soils on the back of the
applicants' property necessitated the removal of approximately 800-900 cubic yards of bad material
which would be replaced with the same amount of compacted sand. He noted the alteration of the site's
topography would be minimal; the most significant change would be that the back of the pool would
extend approximately three feet above the existing elevation of the yard, and that would be supported by a
retaining wall. He stated the project would not adversely affect drainage onto adjoining properties; the site
. would continue to drain south on the applicants' property.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 2 of 8
Nielsen stated the City Engineer had reviewed the plans and had recommended approval. He also stated
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the recommendation of the Director
of Public Works, with respect to the timing of trucks hauling, and the applicants' final plans containing
provisions for erosion control, which would be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Nielsen stated Tim and Melia Liester were present this evening to answer any questions the Commission
may have.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 11 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Mr. Liester stated because of the location of trees
on the property construction equipment may have to drive over his driveway, which could result in a
damaged driveway he would have to replace.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen the City Code stated trucks could only haul
materials between 7:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M., and the Director of Public Works would determine if those
hours should be more restrictive.
Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Tim and
Melia Liester, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M.
2. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: James Loffler
Location: 6030 Mill Street
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting James Loffler was the owner of the property
located at 6030 Mill Street. Mr. Loffler was in the process of constructing a new home on the property.
Due, in part, to the topography of the site, Mr. Loffler had chosen to create additional 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. Because the City Code's required a conditional use permit for accessory space
over 1200 square feet, Mr. Loffler had submitted a request for such a conditional use permit.
Nielsen then explained the property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential and contained
approximately 44,800 square feet in area. He noted the location of the new house on the property survey.
The garage areas were located on the front of the home and on the back of the home (he noted their
locations on the elevation drawings), and they contained 1172 square feet of area on each of two floors.
He also noted the garage on main floor level, and he explained the lower level duplicated that space. The
proposed home contained 3164 square feet on two floors (not including the basement).
Nielsen then reviewed how the applicants' request complied with the four criteria specified in Section
1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code.
a.
The total area of accessory buildings (2344 square feet) did not exceed the total
floor area above grade of the proposed house (3164 square feet).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 3 of 8
b. The total area of accessory building did not exceed ten percent of the minimum
lot area for the R-IA zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square
fue0. .
c. The proposed house and garage complied with the R-IA setback requirements.
Because the lower level garage occupied the same footprint as the upper level
garage, tree removal was minimized.
d. The architectural compatibility of the new garage was not considered to be an
issue because the new garage was an integral part of the house that was under
construction. The overhead doors for the garage were located on opposite
elevations of the building.
Nielsen stated because the applicant's request was considered to be consistent with the requirements of
the City's Zoning Code, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 15 P.M.
Commissioner Schmitt stated he was a neighbor to applicants, and the applicants' property was heavily
wooded and he was not bothered by the applicant's request.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen explained because the new structure would
contain garage doors, the space was classified as accessory space rather being considered part of the
house.
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Recommending Approval of Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for James Loffler, 6030 Mill Street.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M.
3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Ryan Smolik, rep. Chantel & David Erickson
Location: 6155 Murray Court
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Ryan Smolik represented David and Chantel Erickson. The Erickson's owned
the property at 6155 Murray Court and applied for a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200
square feet to construct a detached garage on the their property. He noted the location of the house and
the proposed garage on the lot.
Nielsen then explained the property was zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential and contained 74,885
square feet of area. The proposed detached garage contained 576 square feet, and when combined with
the existing attached garage, the amount of accessory space on the site would total 1764 square feet. He
noted the Ericksons' home contained 3967 square feet of floor area, divided between two of the floors
above grade.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 4 of 8
. Nielsen then reviewed how the applicants' request complied with the four criteria specified in Section
1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code.
a. The total area of accessory space (1764 square feet) did not exceed the total floor
area above grade of the principle structure (3967 square feet).
b. The total area of accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot
area for the R-IA zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complied with the setback requirements of the R-IC
district. Hardcover on the property was well under 33 percent (approximately
11.66 percent).
d. The architectural character of the new building would be the same as the existing
house; the siding and roofing would match the existing house.
.
Nielsen had received correspondence from Lynn and Jerry Cox, 6200 Cardinal Road, with regard to this
request. Mr. and Ms. Cox questioned if a survey had been done to verify the placement of the garage
would comply with setback requirements - Nielsen explained the City had a survey on file. They also
questioned if the back of the proposed building would contain windows that would allow light to be
emitted from the building during dark hours, and what (if any) type of security lights would there be and
where would they be placed. Mr. Smolik explained there was no window on the back side of the proposed
garage. Lastly they referenced a City Code Violation Citation (re: Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 2.i) that was
issued to the Erickson's in April 2004 regarding flood-style security lights attached to the exterior of the
Erickson's house which produced direct glare onto surrounding properties. They stated the Erickson's had
not taken correction action as of November 9, 2006, and they suggested that violation be resolved as a
condition of granting the C.U.P. Nielsen stated he could not locate any Staff follow-up on that citation,
but he would research it further.
Nielsen stated because the applicant's request was considered to be consistent with the requirements of
the City's Zoning Code, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested.
Mr. Smolik provided a drawing depicting the location of the lights on the proposed structure. He
explained the planned lights would be located on the front of the new garage (facing the Erickson's
house) and they would be relatively small (similar to carriage lights).
Chair Bailey opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
In response to a comment from Mr. Cox, Director Nielsen explained the outstanding City Code violation
was not part of this C.U.P. request, but he would do research on that violation. Nielsen stated the lights on
the proposed structure should not create any illumination issues for the Cox property.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained that resolution of that
Code violation should not be included in a motion for the c.u.P. request.
In response to a question from Mr. Cox, Chair Bailey explained any conditions included as part of the
recommended approval of the C.U.P. request must be related to that request.
. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 5 of 8
. Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Directing Staff to Investigate the City Code Violation Chapter
1201.03 Subd. 2.i. issued to Chantel and David Erickson, 6155 Murray Court, Dated 16 April 2004.
In response to a question from Commissioner Conley, Director Nielsen stated he had no recollection that
he had ever measured the glare from the lights in violation. Conley questioned if he could therefore
assume there was excess glare from the lights. Nielsen stated Joe Pazandak (a City Staff member) may
have evaluated the lighting situation. Nielsen explained there were two components to that provision in
the City Code - one addressed the maximum foot-candles allowed, and the other addressed the visibility
of the source of the light.
Mr. Cox stated his house was technically located in Chanhassen, but he did pay property taxes to both
Shorewood and Chanhassen.
Motion passed 4/0.
Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of Request for a Conditional Use Permit
for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for Chantel and David Erickson, 6155 Murray Court.
Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
4.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicant: Paul V ogstrom
Location: 6140 Pleasant Avenue
.
Chair Bailey opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting Paul V ogstrom was the owner of the property
located at 6140 Pleasant Avenue. Mr. V ogstrom was in the process of constructing a new home on the
property. He wanted to keep the most northerly located of three old outbuildings situated on the south half
of the property; and the area of that outbuilding which, when combined with the new attached garage for
the home, would exceed 1200 square feet. Because the City's Code required a conditional use permit for
accessory space over 1200 square feet, Mr. Vogstrom had submitted a request for such a conditional use
permit.
Nielsen then explained the property was zoned R-IA, Single-Family Residential and it contained
approximately 64,279 square feet in area. The new garage was located on the southerly side of the new
house and contained 800 square feet. The existing outbuilding contained 880 square feet, bringing the
total area of accessory space to 1680 square feet.
Nielsen then reviewed how the applicant's request complied with the four criteria specified in Section
1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code.
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1680 square feet) did not exceed the floor
area (3420 square feet) above grade of the proposed home.
b.
The total area of accessory buildings did not exceed 10 percent of the minimum
lot size for the R-IA zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet).
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 6 of 8
c.
The proposed house and garage complied with R-IA setback requirements. The
existing building was approximately 90 feet from the Highway 7 right-of-way
and 47 feet from the lot to the west of the subject property. Hardcover on the site
would be 15 percent, according to the applicant's survey.
d. The applicant had indicated that the outbuilding would be re-roofed and re-sided
to match the new house, and those refurbishments should become a condition of
the C.D.P. Those improvements should be completed before the applicant was
issued a certificate of occupancy for the new home. As an alternative, the
applicant could provide a letter of credit guaranteeing that the outbuilding would
be refurbished by 1 June 2007. The removal of the old lean-to structure at the
rear of the building should also be a condition of the c.u.P.
Nielsen stated because the applicant's request was considered to be consistent with the requirements of
the City's Zoning Code, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted subject to Staff
recommendations.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M.
Mr. V ogstrom stated the soffit and fascia as well as the garage door would also be replaced on the
existing outbuilding.
In response to a question from Director Nielsen, Mr. Vogstrom explained the height of the upper level of
the existing outbuilding (which was used for storage) ranged from 24 inches to slightly under six feet.
Nielsen noted a height of six feet or more would classify as another story.
Conley moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of Request for a Conditional Use Permit
for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet for Paul Vogstrom, 6140 Pleasant Avenue, subject to
Staff recommendations. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M.
5. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING
DOCK REGULATIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M.
Director Nielsen stated he had distributed a revised draft ordinance regarding dock regulations which
incorporated the recommendations the Planning Commission had made at its October 17, 2006, Planning
Commission work session.
Nielsen then reviewed and explained the proposed changes to the City's current dock regulations as
specified in the draft ordinance he presented (the changes to the City Code are underlined). There was
ensuing discussion with regard to the proposed changes during the review process.
Section 1. City Code Section 1201.02, definition of "Dock" is hereby amended to read:
"DOCK. Any wharf, pier or other structure or combination of wharves, piers, or other structures
constructed or maintained in or over a lake, whether floating or not, including all "Ls", "Ts" or
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 7 of 8
. posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed or adjacent to the principal structure, and
which connects to the shoreline at only one location, no wider than four feet."
Section 2. City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c. is hereby amended to read:
"c. The number of docks and wharves per lot or parcel of land in the R Districts shall be
limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for the use of
the members of the family or families occupying the property upon which the dock is
located. The dock shall connect to the shoreline at only one location, no wider than four
feet. and shall extend into the lake at least eight feet before branching out to form slips.
The width of the dock shall not exceed four feet at any point. except that at one location
the dock may be no wider than eight feet for a length of eight feet.
The number of restricted watercraft. as defined by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District (LMCD) that may be docked or moored on a single property is limited to four.
The dock owner may exceed four restricted watercraft by obtaining an annual multiple
dock/mooring license from the LMCD and a conditional use permit from the City of
Shorewood, which permit shall be subiect to the following conditions:
(1 ) As part of the annual LMCD license review, the owner of the dock must
demonstrate to the City that all boats stored at the dock are owned, registered and
operated by the residents of the property on which the dock is located.
.
(2)
As part of the annual LMCD license review, the owner of the dock must
demonstrate to the City that the dock is the minimum size necessary to store the
boats owned. registered and operated by the residents of the subiect property.
(3) Boat canopies shall be limited to the size and number that is required to cover
four of the restricted watercraft."
Section 3. City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.g. is hereby amended to read:
"g. Unless specified otherwise in the City of Shorewood Zoning Code, all docks on all lakes
shall comply with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances."
Section 4. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the
Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood.
.
Schmitt moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of an Ordinance Amending the
Shorewood Zoning Code as it Pertains to the Regulation of Docks in Residential Zoning Districts,
as amended, in Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c., Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "and shall extend into
the lake at least eight feet before branching" to "and shall extend into the lake at least eight feet
beyond the ordinary high-water mark before branching", in Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c, Paragraph
2, Sentence 2, change "The dock owner may exceed four restricted watercraft by obtaining" to
"The dock owner may exceed four restricted watercraft only by obtaining", in Section 1201.03
Subd. 14.c.(3) change "Boat canopies shall be limited to the size and number that is required to
cover four of the restricted watercraft." to "Boat canopies shall be limited to the size and number
that is required to cover no more than four of the restricted watercraft.", and add Section 1201.03
Subd. 14.c.(4) "The provisions of Section 1201.04, subdivision I.d.(1) ofthis Chapter are considered
and satisfactorily met." Motion passed 4/0.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
14 November 2006
Page 8 of 8
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a continued discussion of nonconforming accessory structures was slated for the
November 28, 2006, Planning Commission study session. He noted he had informed Council that the
Commission would have the recommended changes to nonconforming accessory structures completed by
December 11,2006. He stated he would inform the Peterson's of that delay.
Nielsen then stated there was a development stage approval for a residential P.U.D., a conditional use
permit, and a minor subdivision slated for the December 5, 2006, Planning Commission meeting.
8. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at a November 13,2006, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
SLUC
No report given.
. Other
Nielsen provided a synopsis of the concept plan for the CSAH 19/ Southwest LRT Trail Crossing that
Council had approved.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 14 November
2006 at 8:15 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2006
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 Conley (arrived at 7:01), Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, and
Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 14 November 2006
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
14 November 2006 as presented. Motion passed 3/3 with Gniftke, Meyer and Woodruff abstaining
due to their absence at the meeting.
Commissioner Conley arrived at 7:01 P.M.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Director Nielsen stated the packet for the meeting included two documents related to nonconforming
accessory structures: 1) a proposed amendment to the City Code Section 1201.03, Subd. 2.d.(4); and 2) the
suggested changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Code amendment included the changes
recommended by the Commission at its 19 September 2006 meeting.
Nielsen reviewed the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The following section would be added.
Historic Preservation
There exist buildings, structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events and
persons important in local, state and national history. There are also places which provide
significant examples of architectural styles of the past, or which provide present and future
generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived and
worked. Shorewood recognizes these buildings and places as assets that can help to
promote community pride and create a sense of community.
It is not the City's intent to regulate or restrict the use or development of properties of
historic, architectural or cultural value. Rather, it is in the interest of the community to
evaluate tools and implement policies that encourage property owners to protect and
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
28 November 2006
Page 2 of5
preserve these buildings and places. In this regard, the City should create and maintain an
inventory or database of potentially historical or architecturally significant structures. A
program of physically identifying these sites should be established to enhance awareness of
the locations and provide educational information regarding these places of interest.
In Shorewood, these reminders of the past often times exist as lesser structures that were
accessory to some long-gone farm or estate. Since most of them were built before zoning
regulations ever existed, they seldom comply with current development standards. To
minimize conflicts between current standards and the desire to preserve historic/significant
structures, Shorewood's development regulations should be amended to allow for the
preservation of those found to be significant. Strict criteria should be established that
address the age of the structure - recognizing that age alone does not make a building
worthy of preservation, structure condition, and its historic, architectural or cultural value.
Exceptions to current standards should be subject to heightened scrutiny. A special ad hoc
committee should be created to review and comment on cases where exceptions to current
standards are requested. When exceptions are granted, it shall be incumbent on the
property owner to maintain the structure in very good condition.
Nielsen explained the first two paragraphs in the proposed section related to historic structures in general
and the third paragraph was specific to nonconforming accessory structures.
Commissioner Woodruff expressed concern with the statement in paragraph 2 of the proposed section that
suggested there was a commitment to create a database of the architectural and historical structures. He
questioned who would create and maintain the database, and where would the funds come from. Director
Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission had identified five - ten structures on a tour it took of the
City two years ago. At that time the Commission recommended both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 be
included in the Comprehensive Plan. The effort would be accomplished with the use of existing City staff
and volunteers.
Discussion ensued with regard to how the inventory would be created, what would be included in the
inventory, etc.; and with regard to the Planning Commissions' efforts two years ago.
Director Nielsen stated the changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be inserted into the land use section
of the Plan.
Nielsen reviewed the proposed amendment to the City Code Section 1201.03, Subd. 2.d.(4) which was as
follows (the changes are in italic).
Seciton 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)
(c) In evaluating the conditional use permit, the city shall take in to consideration the
location of existing and proposed structures, site drainage and landscaping. As a ceHditieH ef
appre':el of thc cenditieHal use permit, existing nene611.ferming eeeessery struetur-cs lecatcd
en the prepcrty shell he r-cnw';ed ey hreug.{1t in/e ceHj3rmencc with this oede.
(d) The architectural character of proposed accessory buildings shall be similar and
consistent with other buildings on the site and in the area.
(e) As a condition of approval of the conditional use permit, existing nonconforming
accessory structures located on the property shall be removed or brought into conformance
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
28 November 2006
Page 3 of 5
.
with this code. Under very special circumstances, a nonconforming accessory structure may
be allowed to remain nonconforming provided that:
(i) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure was constructed prior to 2
August 1956. Evidence of date of construction may include property surveys,
assessor's information, aerial photographs or affidavits from persons who lived on
or near the property on or before 2 August 1956.
(ii) The structure must be in sound structural condition with respect to roof,
walls and foundation. If the foundation requires fifty percent or more replacement,
the building must be removed or brought into conformity with this Code. If any two
structural elements require fifty percent or more replacement, the building shall be
removed or brought into conformity with this Code. The extent of replacement
required shall be determined by the Building Official.
(iii) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure has historic, architectural
or cultural value. Specifically, the structure shall meet one or more criteria
established by the City and patterned after the National Park Service standards for
historic designation. The historic, architectural or cultural value of the structure
shall be subject to review and comment by a special ad hoc committee, consisting of
one member of the Planning Commission, City Council and Park Commission.
.
(iv) The owner of the property shall enter into a development agreement with
the City, the purpose of which is to set forth what, if any, repairs may be necessary
to place the structure in good condition. The agreement shall be recorded against
the property to ensure that the structure is kept in good condition. Repairs to the
structure shall be consistent with the original architectural style and materials of
the structure.
With regard to item (e ).(i), Nielsen explained the City Code went into effect on 2 August 1956; therefore,
any building constructed prior to that date would have been a legal structure. He stated it may be difficult
for an applicant to prove a structure existed prior to that time, although Hennepin County had aerial photos
dating back to 1937 and the City had aerial surveys.
With regard to item (e ).(ii), Nielsen stated he left in the requirement that no more than 50% of the
foundation could be replaced if the structure was to remain nonconforming, even though there had not been
total agreement amongst the Commissioners to include it during previous discussions. His rationale for
keeping the requirement was if more than 50% of the foundation had to be replaced, then the structure
could be relocated.
With regard to item (e).(iii), Nielsen stated this section was subjective in nature. The applicant would have
to demonstrate the structure had historic, architectural or cultural value. The criteria that would be
established would not be as stringent as the National Park Service standards. He noted that the ac hoc
review committee would report to the Planning Commission.
With regard to item (e ).(iv), Nielsen stated it was important that the applicant be held accountable to
perform the required repairs as well as ongoing maintenance of the structure.
.
Commissioner Woodruff suggested item (e ).(i) be changed such that it specifically state that other forms of
proof of the construction time period in addition to those listed be allowed (e.g., not limited to). Both Chair
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
28 November 2006
Page 4 of 5
. Bailey and Commissioner Meyer thought it was fine the way it was, but would not oppose the suggested
change.
There was lengthy ensuing discussion with regard to item (e).(ii). Highlights of that discussion are as
follows.
Commissioner Woodruff and Commissioner Gniffke suggested the term "structural elements" be further
clarified.
Commissioner Schmitt stated if a structure had historic, architectural or cultural value, and if the property
owner wanted to invest the money to repair the structure, then the City should not prohibit that. Also, there
could be circumstances when a structure should not have to be moved if more than 50% of the foundation
had to be replaced (e.g., a boat house); therefore, he suggested the requirement be removed.
Chair Bailey stated the City should not provide a disincentive for retaining these types of structures. If the
structure had unique architectural style, then the City should be supportive of a property owner's desire to
invest in restoring the structure. He would have concern if the ordinance allowed for a total recreation of
nonconforming structure if there were no significant architectural features to the structure. Commissioner
Meyer agreed with Bailey's comments. Commissioner Conley agreed the City should be supportive of a
property owner's desire to restore a historic structure.
Commissioner Conley questioned if there was a way to distinguish structural elements from the integrity of
the structure in its entirety. With regard to necessary repairs, he suggested the fire marshal provided input as
to whether or not the location of the structure created a potential fire hazard.
.
Commissioner Schmitt questioned if the amount of repairs allowed should be limited to a percentage of the
value of the structure. Director Nielsen stated the assessor placed limited monitory value on these types of
structures; therefore, that approach would be more limiting. Commissioner Woodruff suggested the repairs
could be limited to 50% of what it would cost for a total rebuild of the structure.
With regard to item (e).(iii), Commissioner Meyer questioned if the criteria that would be patterned after
the National Park Service standards would eventually be included in this section of the ordinance. Director
Nielsen explained that was a possibility. They would more likely be included in a policy resolution, one
similar to the original tree preservation policy (that policy eventually became code). Director Nielsen noted
criteria would have to be identified prior to reconsidering the Peterson's request for a C.D.P.
In response to a comment made regarding the inclusion of a citizen on the ad hoc committee, it was pointed
out that representatives of the Council, Planning Commission, and Park Commission were residents.
Chair Bailey recapped the Commission's approval of items (e ).(i), (e ).(iii), and (e).(iv) as presented.
.
The discussion then returned to what type of restoration restrictions there should be, or if item (e).(ii) as
stated was sufficient. Chair Bailey questioned if there was a threshold of no return regarding the extent to
which a structure could be restored. Commissioner Gagne cited an example where a dilapidated old house
had been restored and was now a "gorgeous" house. Gagne then stated he did not believe the City should
make it impossible for a property owner to restore an architectural or historical structure. Commissioner
Schmitt commented that the previous owners of his house, which was built in the 1890's, had invested more
than 50% of the value of the house in repairs; that investment resulted in a significant increase in the
property's value. Commissioner Meyer suggested if there was only a foundation and there was nothing of
any architectural value, then a restoration project should not be allowed.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
28 November 2006
Page 5 of 5
. To move the discussion along, Director Nielsen suggested item (e).(ii) sentence two be changed to "If the
structure requires fifty percent or more replacement, the building must be removed or brought into
conformity with this Code.", and the sentence "If any two structural elements require fifty percent or more
replacement, the building shall be removed or brought into conformity with this Code." be deleted.
The Commission agreed with Director Nielsen's suggestion.
There was discussion regarding how much authority the Building Inspector should have in determining how
much of the structure "had to be replaced".
Director Nielsen stated there would be a public hearing on this item scheduled for 2 January 2006, Planning
Commission meeting, and the policy criteria should be developed by then.
Chair Bailey thanked Director Nielsen for his efforts.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there was a development stage approval for a residential P.D.D., a conditional use
permit, and a minor subdivision slated for the December 5,2006, Planning Commission meeting.
.
4.
REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at a November 27, 2006, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). All five of the resolutions recommended at the
November 14, 2006, Planning Commission meeting were approved. Also approved were requests for a
streetlight, a speed study, preliminary approval to refinance the bonds for the Public Safety facilities,
approval to review the existing EPD JP A funding formula, and a conservation easement for Gideon Glen.
. SLUC
No report given.
. Other
Director Nielsen reminded the Commissioners to R.S.V.P. for the appreciation event.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 28 November
2006 at 8:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Acting Chair Gagne; Commissioners Gniffke, Meyer, Schmitt, and Woodruff; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon (arrived at 7:08 P.M.)
Absent:
Bailey, Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· 28 November 2006
Gniffke moved, Schmitt seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 28
November 2006 as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.u.P. FOR ACTIVITY CENTER ADDITION
Applicant: Excelsior Covenant Church
Location: 19955 Excelsior Boulevard
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a December 11,
2006, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting Jay Anderson, representing Excelsior Covenant
Church, had submitted plans for an expansion of the existing building, located at 19955 Excelsior
Boulevard. The property was zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential. Churches were
conditional uses when they were located in residential districts; therefore, the applicant has requested a
conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.14 Subd. 4. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. There were
two phases to the proposed church expansion project. Phase 1 would include the construction of a 6827
square-foot activity center on the main level, with an additional 10,569 square feet on a lower level to
accommodate classrooms. Phase 2 would include a 4418 square-foot addition, divided between two
levels, along with a new church steeple. The addition included the expansion of the narthex and the
addition of a "Fire Side Room".
Nielsen went on to explain the property was located between Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 7, and it
contained approximately 7 .26 acres of land. The only access to the site was off of Excelsior Boulevard.
The site was currently occupied by the Church, a detached garage and a utility shed with the main parking
lot on the east side of the building. Additional smaller parking areas were located on the north, west and
south sides of the building. The site was relatively level except for a large knoll on the north side of the
property and a significant depression on the south side adjacent to the highway. A wetland basin located
mostly on the property to the west, extended onto the subject property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 2 of 8
.
Nielsen noted the project would include the addition of 23 parking spaces to accommodate parishioner
growth. A stormwater treatment pond would be constructed on the south side of the site to accommodate
stormwater runoff.
In addition, Nielsen explained as part of Phase 1 the applicant planned to install City water to provide
adequate fire flow for the building sprinkling system; this necessitated the extension of watermain across
the north side of the property. The watermain would also be extended to the east edge of the property
boundary in order to accommodate further extension to the east in the future. As a condition of the
C.D.P., the Church would have to grant the City an easement over the watermain.
Nielsen reviewed the architectural plans for the proposed expansion from a north, south, east and west
view. He also reviewed the existing land uses and zoning surrounding the site, which were as follows:
East:
South:
West:
Single-family residential (in Shorewood and Deephaven); zoned R-1A
(Shorewood)
Single and Two-Family residential; zoned R-2A
State Highway 7, then commercial; zoned P.D.D.
Single and Two-Family residential (elderly housing); zoned R-2A
North:
Nielsen stated Mr. Anderson had indicated the architectural character of the expansion would match the
existing structure.
.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated Churches were subject to the conditions set forth in
Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.b. He reviewed how the application complied with those requirements.
A. Side yards for church facilities were 20 feet in the R-2A zoning district, double that
which was normally required in the district. The building would be 154 feet from
the east property line and 130 feet from the west. The easterly parking lot was 20
feet from the east lot line, but did not extend into the required side yard.
B. A number of trees on the south side of the site would be lost to the stormwater
treatment pond construction and the watermain extension. The mass of an existing
berm was being reduced substantially to accommodate required parking and the
extension of watermain across the north side of the property, as well as to improve
sight lines for the main (only) access drive onto Excelsior Boulevard; the actual
height of the berm would be lowered by four feet. To mitigate lowering the berm,
a staggered double row of six-foot high evergreen trees would be extended across
the top. City staff had suggested that the watermain alignment across the north side
of the site be adjusted to save several trees on the northeast comer of the site,
which could include a row of existing arborvitae located there.
C. Additional parking (23 spaces) was being provided on the north side of the
northerly driveway loop in order to comply with City Code requirements. That
parking would be well screened from residential properties to the north.
The applicant was considering widening the access drive coming off Excelsior
Boulevard, and it would at a minimum enlarge the curb flare radii so as to enhance
access for larger vehicles, such as buses.
.
D.
Loading would remain basically the same as it exists today. The one change was
that the main entry may be served by a "porte cochere" over the aisle drive.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 3 of 8
.
E. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities were addressed under separate
cover by the City Engineer. The applicant must provide runoff calculations that
demonstrate that the size of the stormwater treatment pond was adequate to handle
site runoff. The site was proposed to be served with City water. The water
connection fee was $15,000 (1.5 times the residential charge of $10,000). It would
be highly likely that the charge would be credited back to the owner to reimburse
the cost of extending the watermain on Excelsior Boulevard.
F. Existing lighting would remain the same, with the exception of relocating two of
the existing shoe-box style light poles. The applicant proposed "up-lighting" the
east end of the new activity center. If approved, the "up-lighting" must be
programmed to turn offno later than 10:00 P.M.
The proposed HV AC system would be located at the northwest comer of the
activity center. The screen wall that was planned would help to hide and quiet the
system from the west, while the berm and landscaping should do the same from the
north. The HV AC system must be verified to meet MPCA noise requirements.
The trash enclosure was proposed to be masonry construction and was reasonably
screened from adjoining residential property.
G.
The applicant indicated that the first phase of the project would commence in the
spring of 2007. The intent was to begin work on the second, smaller phase within
five years. It was recommended that the second phase be included in this C.U.P. If,
after five years, the applicant had not applied for a building permit for the second
phase, a new C.U.P. application should be processed.
.
Based upon the preceding, Nielsen stated Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A revised landscape plan, signed by the landscape architect, should be submitted.
Additional plantings should be concentrated along the southerly side of the
westerly parking lot. The plan should also attempt to save the arborvitae trees
along the north side of the site, west of the berm. Based upon an approved plan the
applicant should provide cost estimates, from which a letter of credit will be
required. The building permit for the new addition should be conditioned upon
submission of the letter of credit.
2. Grading, drainage, erosion control and utilities should be subject to the
recommendations of the City Engineer.
3. The applicant must pay a water connection charge of$15,000. Upon completion of
the watermain construction, the applicant should submit invoices showing the cost
of the work. A refund of the water charges would be based upon the invoices.
4.
Other than security lighting, and eventual steeple lighting, all lights on the property
should be programmed to shut off by 10:00 P.M.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 4 of 8
.
5.
The HV AC system must be tested for compliance with MPCA noise requirements
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the addition.
6. If a building permit for the second phase addition has not been obtained within five
years of the date of approval of the c.u.P., it should be processed as a separate
c.u.P.
7. Plans for the project are subject to approval by the Fire Marshal.
Jay Anderson stated he represented Excelsior Covenant Church on this request, and he had been a lifetime
member of that Church. His professional background was architectural and construction. He thanked City
staff for its assistance in the project to date. He commented the watermain extension would benefit both
the City and the Church. He explained the Church's expansion was necessary to accommodate a growth
of approximately 50% in its congregation. The current membership was approximately 400, and the
expansion would accommodate a membership of 600. He commented the Church had no plans to become
a "mega Church". He stated although the Church would prefer to do both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the
expansion at the same time, financial resources could only support the Phase 1 efforts at this time.
.
Mr. Anderson explained the increase in membership would be addressed by adding additional consecutive
worship services; therefore, there would not be a significant increase in membership on site at any
particular time. Twenty-three additional parking spaces would be added on the south side of the berm.
The activity center would be a multi-use facility which would be used for contemporary worship,
programs for children, and additional meeting space. In addition, the center would also function as a
larger dining space and a recreational facility. The expansion would also provide additional classroom
space for the youth membership.
Mr. Anderson then explained Phase 2 would create a common core between the two assembly areas. It
would include the expansion of the narthex and the addition of a "Fire Side Room". It was a necessity for
the existing "Fire Side Room" to remain intact until a new one could be built. He also explained the safety
of and access to the site would be improved as part of the Phase 1 efforts: there would be increased fire
suppression on the site and in the structure as a result of City water; and the entrance and exit traffic site
lines to/from the property would be improved. In front of the main entry the grade would be elevated and
the existing steps eliminated.
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Fred Simon, 19780 Excelsior Boulevard, Deephaven, stated he lived across from the Church. He asked
how much the road would be widened. A project consultant stated it would be widened a maximum of 2 -
4 feet if it was widened at all. Mr. Simon questioned why the berm height was being reduced to
accommodate the additional parking spaces. The consultant stated it was to eliminate the need to install a
retaining wall. Mr. Simon stated the existing berm blocked his sight line to the Church; because of the
denseness of the existing brush on the berm he could not see the Church in the summer, and in the winter
he could not see the majority of the Church. He was concerned that his sight line would be affected. He
commented the elevation of his property was equivalent to the roofline of the Church; therefore, he
looked down on the building. Director Nielsen stated the high point of the new berm would be
approximately 12 feet (it was approximately 16 feet now); the proposed tree plantings on top of the lower
berm should eventually provide sight line coverage to the same height that existed now.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Simon then questioned if the City had conducted a study with regard to the impact on Hooper Road -
would the road be able to handle the increase in traffic. Hooper Road was very narrow, and at one time it
was not a thru street. The neighborhood currently used Hooper Road as a cut-through street, which had
resulted in an increase in traffic. He stated it was at times difficult for two vehicles to pass on the street.
He suggested the City assess the impact a significant increase in the Church's membership would have on
the road even though the road was located in Deephaven. Director Nielsen stated the increase in
membership was not expected to increase the traffic activity significantly; the membership growth would
be accommodated by the addition of consecutive services. He commented a church with a membership of
600 was not a "large" church. Nielsen did not anticipate the membership would use Hooper Road; the
increase in traffic would occur on Excelsior Boulevard or Vine Hill Road.
Mr. Anderson stated Phase 1 construction was scheduled to commence in the spring of 2007.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 28 P.M.
In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, the consultant stated the HV AC installed would
accommodate the majority of the Phase 2 expansion, and there would need to be some additional
standalone furnaces installed inside of the building.
In response to a series of questions from Commissioner Woodruff, Director Nielsen made the following
clarifications. The total amount of hardcover would be 41 % after Phase 2 had been completed, and the
maximum allowed without a C.U.P. was 66%. The proposed stormwater treatment pond would not be
located on the right-of-way; it would be located adjacent to Highway 7. A stormwater treatment pond was
required because the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) required stormwater be treated prior
to flowing into a wetland area, and there was not room to construct a treatment pond next to the existing
wetland. It was the property owner's responsibility to maintain the pond. The maximum structure height
allowed was 35 feet, and the proposed structure would be 30 feet at its high point; the height of a structure
was measured from the grade to the mid-point between the eave and the peak of the structure. There were
no height restrictions on steeples. The current plan was to keep the old steeple (to avoid the cost of tearing
it down) and to build a new one, one that would be visible from Highway 7. The building permit would
address the requirement to abandon the existing well which was located in the construction area. The
existing shed near the southwest corner of the parking lot was allowed without a permit based on its size.
The structure located on the right of the detached garage (located on the northeast corner) had been
granted as part of the C.U.P. for the garage.
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Mr. Anderson stated the additional parking spaces
would be added during Phase 1.
Acting Chair Gagne expressed concern with the exit from the property - the nose of a car needed to be
fairly far onto the road to see around the trees on the right of the exit off of the property. Director Nielsen
explained it was quite likely the watermain would go through that location; therefore, a significant portion
of the trees and brush would be removed. Gagne suggested the structure by the garage be painted.
Mr. Anderson stated the new exterior brick would be an exact match to the brick on the existing structure.
Meyer moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Proposed Building Expansion for Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Boulevard. Motion
passed 5/0.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 6of8
.
2.
7: 15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN - BOWMAN ADDN
Applicant: Mark Kawell
Location: 20025 Manor Road
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M.
With regard to the history of the case, Director Nielsen stated Mark Kawell, who represented Richard
Bowman who was the owner of the property located at 20025 Manor Road, was granted concept stage
approval for a residential P.U.D. in October 2006. The applicant had proposed subdividing the property
located at 20025 Manor Road (which straddled the Shorewood/Deephaven boundary) into four single-
family residential lots. The result of that subdivision would be three new building sites (Lots 2 - 4, which
would be located in Deephaven), plus Mr. Bowman's existing homesite (Lot 1).
Nielsen then stated the City Engineer's staff report relative to the Kawell/Bowman P.U.D. development
stage plan covered the very technical requirements associated with road, driveway and utility
construction. For example, the watermain must be moved to the opposite side of the road than was
originally planned.
.
Nielsen explained that from a planning perspective, the most significant change between the concept plan
that was approved in October and the current development stage plan was Lot 4 would now be served
from the northerly driveway instead of the southerly access. The concept plan called for a common
driveway serving Lots 1 and 2, and a private road serving Lot 3, Lot 4, and the property at 20005 Manor
Road. The Bowman Court right-of-way would be vacated with the construction of a private road. When
Deephaven approved the concept plan on December 4, 2006, it stipulated the private road must be
connected in order to provide a circular pattern for public safety vehicles.
Nielsen then explained the City's main concern was that the private road complied with the State Fire
Code; therefore, the developer had been asked to provide written comments from the Excelsior Fire
District as to the acceptability of the northerly access as a fire access road. Assuming the Fire District
approved of the plan, the final plat should include a 50-foot easement for the northerly access, and the
easement should include the turn-around on Lot 1. That was basically accomplished with the setback area
on Lot 1.
In addition, Nielsen explained when the City had approved the concept plan, Deephaven wanted the
utilities to be publicly owned and maintained. Therefore, the City granted concept state approval subject
to Deephaven owning and maintaining the sanitary sewer and water systems from Manor Road
throughout the development. Deephaven had since decided that it was not necessary for the utilities
within the plat to be publicly owned and maintained. The private utilities would be addressed in the
development agreement prepared for the final plan stage, and it would be clearly stated that the utilities
would be owned and maintained by the property owners.
Nielsen stated Staff recommended approval of the development stage plan subject to the above changes.
He noted Peter Knaeble, of Terra Engineering, Inc., was present to answer any questions the Commission
may have.
.
Mr. Knaeble stated Terra Engineering was working with Richard Bowman, the property owner, and Mark
Kawell, the architect, on the project. He distributed an updated site plan reflecting the changes discussed.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 7of8
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Cyril and Norma Peterson, 4755 Regents Walk, stated their property was located in proximity to Manor
Road. They questioned where the new driveway would be. Director Nielsen explained it would be
approximately 50 feet south of the existing driveway. He clarified the private road would be used by Lots
1, 2, and 4 and in case of an emergency Lot 3.
Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
Commissioner Gniffke questioned if the Fire Marshal had approved the private road and common
driveway configurations. A member of the public stated the EFD had been present at the 4 December
2006 Deephaven City Council meeting and had made some of the recommendations.
Gniffke moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Development Stage Plan for a
Residential P.U.D. for Mark Kawell, who represented Richard Bowman who was the Owner of the
Property Located at 20025 Manor Road, subject to Staff Recommendations. Motion passed 5/0.
Director Nielsen clarified the concerns expressed by Vytas Rimas, 19715 Hillside St., Deephaven, via
email were for Deephaven's consideration.
3.
MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Bob Morlock
Location: 24995 Glen Road
The matter was postponed to a 2 January 2007 Planning Commission meeting when the applicant would
also be applying for a variance.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there was a variance / minor subdivision request, and a draft amendment to the
City Code regarding nonconforming structures slated for the 2 January 2007 Planning Commission
meeting.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff would be the Council Liaison for the December 11,2006, City Council meeting.
Commissioner Gagne would be the Council Liaison for the month of January 2007.
. SLUC
. No report given.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 5, 2006
Page 8 of 8
. Other
In response to a question from Commissioner Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated Frostad Development, the
developer of the Shorewood Nursery site, had developed according to its original plan and there was no
need to come before the Planning Commission again.
With regard to the newly developed Shorewood Nursery site, Councilmember Turgeon expressed concern
with the amount of stormwater runoff generated from the site. Director Nielsen stated he would approach
the City Engineer on this matter.
Acting Chair Gagne stated Staff should approach the storage facilities owners regarding their excess
display of signage. Director Nielsen stated he would address the issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Schmitt moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 5 December
2006 at 8:07 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Christine Freeman, Recorder