Loading...
101607 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 16 OCTOBER 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Meyer, and Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: Commissioner Ruoff APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7 August 2007 • Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2 October 2007 as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1 with Gniffke abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. S T U D Y S E S S I O N 1. L-R ZONING DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT AND C.U.P AMENDMENT (continued from 2 October 2007) Applicant: Shorewood Yacht Club Location: 600 West Lake Street Chair Schmitt clarified this was not a public hearing. The public hearing was held at the October 2, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. This discussion was to provide Staff with direction from the Planning Commission to prepare a draft resolution with findings of fact which would be considered at a November 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen recapped the Planning Commission’s discussion on October 2, 2007, regarding this request. He stated there was consensus to allow some number of rental slips at the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) for powerboat use. There was also consensus to grant the request through the use of an “interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.)” for a trial period; if the SYC had substantially complied with the C.U.P. a permanent C.U.P. would be considered. The SYC asked to have up to 50 percent of its currently allowed 117 boat slips available for powerboats; the Commission thought that number would not keep with the character of a sailing facility. There had been discussion to limiting the number to the slips to those on pier 4 (35 slips) or possibly 25 percent. There was discussion regarding the maximum length of powerboats that would be allowed based on the existing dock configurations; it appeared the maximum length possible would be 30 feet. With regard to requesting a quiet waters designation, a designation existed 150 feet out from all shorelines and from structures (e.g., docks). The City could request an expansion of the quiet waters designation from the LMCD; a relatively easily defined and logical area CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 2 of 10 was described by drawing a line from the shoreline north of the Timber Lane cul-de-sac to Duck Island to Frog Island to the peninsula at Lafayette Avenue. Chair Schmitt asked Mike Mahoney, who represented the SYC, if he had any new information he would like to present to the Commission after hearing the Commission’s discussion on October 2, 2007. Mr. Mahoney he was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Director Nielsen stated it had been brought to his attention that the residents along Timber Lane had not been individually notified in advance of the public hearing that was held on October 2, 2007; they were outside of the 500-foot notification boundary. He questioned if the Commission would be willing to take public comment from anyone present who lived on Timber Lane even though public testimony had been heard at the public hearing. The Commission had no issue with that. JoAnn Schaub, 5465 Timber Lane, stated that most of the residents on Timber Lane had not been aware in advance of the public hearing that was held on October 2, 2007; she knew because Peter Watson had told her. She also stated some of the residents had attended the neighborhood meeting Gabriel Jabbour had hosted. She then stated from her vantage point the Lawtonka Drive residents attended in mass because they had received written notification. She went on to state the majority of the Timber Lane residents had expressed their perspectives to the City and Planning Commission in written form. There was ensuing discussion with regard to the parameters that should be included in the draft resolution. Regarding allowing any slips to be rented for powerboat use, Commissioner Gniffke stated he was not present at the October 2, 2007, meeting but he did think the SYC should be allowed to rent slips for powerboat use. Based on the October 2 discussion and Gniffke’s support all the Commissioners agreed to allowing powerboats. Regarding the number of slips that could be rented for powerboat use, Commissioner Gniffke made the following clarifications – restricting powerboats to pier 4 would mean a maximum of 35 powerboats which equated to 29.9% of the total available slips; restricting the maximum to 25% of the total available slips would result in 29 rental slips for powerboat use; and, a maximum of 25 powerboats would equate to 21% of the total number of slips. Chair Schmitt stated restricting slip rentals for powerboats to one pier would make it easier to regulate. Commissioner Gagne stated he wanted to restrict the maximum to 25 rental slips on pier 4 for use by powerboats. Commissioner Meyer stated the reason he had support the 50% request at the last meeting was he unsure of what the “magic” number should be, but he heard most of the Commissioners state that could be too many. Meyer then stated he would support some number of powerboats. Gniffke suggested the initial number could be smaller (e.g. 25%), and then it could be adjusted each subsequent year of the interim C.U.P. if the situation warranted it. Gagne stated for year one the number could be smaller (e.g. 25 powerboats), and then the number could be increased (e.g. by 5 powerboats) each subsequent year if the situation warranted it. Gagne then stated if the SYC could not rent 25 slips for powerboats, then he did not think there was a reason to increase that number. Meyer stated he could support all the slips on pier 4 (35) being rented for powerboat use. Commissioner Geng stated he would support limiting the number to all of the slips on pier 4 as it would be easier to manage and 35 slips was a reasonable number. Geng questioned if reviewing the situation after one year may be too soon. Chair Schmitt stated he also thought evaluating the situation after one year (one summer) may not provide the SYC with adequate time to market the rental of the slips for powerboat use. Schmitt then stated he would support restricting slip rentals for powerboat use to pier 4. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 3 of 10 Chair Schmitt questioned what measurable criteria would be used to evaluate the interim C.U.P. when it concluded to determine if a permanent C.U.P. should be considered. To consider complaints received as one of the criterion there would have to be a way to determine if they were legitimate; there also had to be away to assess the type of complaints as well as the number. The complaints must also have some connection to the SYC. Director Nielsen explained that the City received complaints at City Hall or as reported by the SLMPD. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on the public testimony given at the public hearing, non-lakeshore property owners and SYC members were supportive of allowing the SYC to rent slips for powerboat use. The residents on Timber Lane and/or those that owned lakeshore property were not as supportive. He questioned if the issue of the environmental impact of powerboats could be measured. Mr. Mahoney stated the previous owners of the SYC had done soil borings near the docks, out in the middle of Gideon’s Bay, and in front of Howards Point Marina; the results of the study indicated the phosphorous levels were almost identical in all three areas suggesting powerboats did not have any additional impact on phosphorous levels. Hutchins questioned if an environmental impact analysis should be considered when considering a permanent C.U.P. Commissioner Geng stated concerns had been raised at the public hearing about the environmental impact, but there was no evidence presented to justify the concerns. Geng commented that a large part of the Bay was largely impassable (a topic discussed at great length during the public hearing), and boats had been going through the same channels for years. Geng questioned the value of doing an environmental study. Commissioner Gagne stated if the City did receive a lot of legitimate complaints, he questioned if it would be more appropriate to evaluate the situation on a yearly basis. He also questioned what number of complaints would have to be received to reverse the interim decision to allow slip rentals for powerboat use. In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Director Nielsen stated the SYC’s existing C.U.P. specified many rules that should be included in the interim C.U.P. Meyer then questioned if the interim C.U.P. review period was 2 – 3 years long, would the City have to wait until to the end of that time period to rectify the situation if it became problematic. Nielsen stated the interim C.U.P. should include a provision to address a situation of a zoning violation and what action could be taken before the interim C.U.P. expired. Nielsen then stated an annual review could be incorporated into the conditions of the interim C.U.P.; the review could be conducted on the anniversary of granting the interim C.U.P. Commissioner Gniffke stated a review should focus on the positive outcomes as well as the negative outcomes. Commissioner Meyer clarified that when the interim C.U.P. expired, a permanent C.U.P. would be considered. There was unanimous agreement for a maximum of 35 slip rentals, slips located on pier 4, for powerboat use. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if it would be possible to rent all of the 35 slips on pier 4 for powerboat use. Mr. Mahoney explained some of those slips were not very usable (e.g., some were pie shaped). He commented that there were slips at the base of pier 3 that were not usable for sailboats. Chair Schmitt stated that if the SYC could reconfigure pier 4 to fully utilize all 35 slips for powerboats that was okay; if it could not the slip rentals for powerboats was still restricted to pier 4. Commissioner Gagne agreed with that statement. Mr. Jabbour stated the SYC could not extend the dock. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 4 of 10 With regard to the length of the interim C.U.P., Chair Schmitt stated there would likely be a hypersensitivity to the powerboats during the first year of the change; he questioned if a one-year timeframe would be adequate to evaluate the success or failure of the situation. Commissioner Geng stated one year would not be long enough to fairly assess the powerboat situation, and the interim C.U.P. would have a condition for terminating the C.U.P. early should circumstances warrant it. Director Nielsen stated he had suggested the interim C.U.P. be in effect for three years; Staff would provide the Commission with a status report once a year. Commissioner Gniffke stated he would support a three year interim C.U.P. The other Commissioners agreed with that. Chair Schmitt clarified there would be an annual Staff update to provide the Commission with a summary of complaints and a status report. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated the applicant had not proposed a fuel dock as part of the application. There was consensus that at the end of the three years the SYC performance would be evaluated to determine if it was satisfactory. Chair Schmitt questioned if the Commissioners were comfortable with it being subjective. Commissioner Geng stated the decision to allow powerboats was in itself largely subjective. Commissioner Meyer stated if at the end of three years the SYC had sufficiently complied with the conditions of the C.U.P. a permanent C.U.P. should be granted. Council Liaison Callies suggested the interim C.U.P. be conditional for three years, and at the end of the three years a permanent C.U.P. would be considered taking into consideration the number and nature of complaints, the compliance with conditions in the C.U.P., environmental considerations, and other factors the Planning Commission and City Council considered relevant. That approach would allow discretion, and it would allow the number and nature of the complaints to be compared against complaints regarding sailboats. In response to a question from Commissioner Meyer, Director Nielsen recommended a public hearing be held to convert the interim C.U.P. into a permanent C.U.P. Meyer then questioned the purpose of the public hearing. Nielsen stated to let the public know what the results of the three-year trial, and based the SYC had been substantially compliant the interim C.U.P. would be converted to a permanent C.U.P. Nielsen commented if there had been a number of complaints or issue, the Commission may want to consider extending the interim C.U.P. Commissioner Geng stated the question of whether or not there was sufficient parking had not been discussed. He suggested the parking situation be monitored and be evaluated when the conversion to a permanent C.U.P. was considered. Director Nielsen explained the SYC parking was related to the number of slips. Nielsen agreed that it would be appropriate to monitor the situation to ensure overflow parking did not become an issue. With regard to expanding the quiet waters designation, Director Nielsen stated the City could not regulate the exit from and entrance to the SYC. Nielsen then stated the City could petition the LMCD for an expanded quiet waters designation. Nielsen went on to state the SYC had previously agreed to advise the members to exit and enter on the northwest side of Frog Island. Mr. Mahoney stated legally anyone can go anywhere on the lake. He then stated the current handbook boaters are asked to go that way today. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 5 of 10 Geng moved, Gagne seconded, directing Staff to prepare a draft resolution with findings of fact granting an interim conditional use permit for the Shorewood Yacht Club which included the rules in the SYC’s existing C.U.P, as well as the following additional conditions: the rental of boat slips for powerboat use would not exceed 35 and the slips would be restricted to pier 4; Staff would provide the Planning Commission with an annual update report on the situation at the SYC; the interim C.U.P. would be in effect for three years at which time it would be considered for conversion to a permanent C.U.P. taking into consideration the number and nature of complaints, the compliance with conditions in the C.U.P., environmental considerations, parking conditions, and other factors the Planning Commission and City Council consider relevant. Commissioner Gniffke questioned if the Commission wanted to include something about expanding the quiet water designated area in the C.U.P. Mr. Mahoney stated if the distance from the SYC dock’s out 150 feet, the distance 150 feet in from Frog Island, and the distance 150 feet from the channel markers were mapped out there could possibly be a distance of 20-foot circle that was not already designated as quiet waters. Mahoney explained the channels are clearly marked as quiet waters. Mr. Jabbour cautioned if the LMCD were to classify the entire area as quiet waters that would prohibit property owners from activities such as skiing. There was consensus not to include any changes to the designated quiet waters area in the C.U.P. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt stated the draft resolution would be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation at its November 20, 2007, meeting and would be considered by Council after that. 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicants: Dan and Milissa Nelson Location: 25865 Birch Bluff Road Chair Schmitt stated this item was continued from a September 4, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicants were asked to provide the Commission with additional information. Director Nielsen explained the Commission had asked for the following additional information from the applicants. The impact on future subdivision and development of Block 5 (located immediately to ?? the east of the applicants), including a proposed plan for how it could be developed in conformance with the City Ordinance, and input from the current Block 5 property owners. An updated survey to reflect setback requirements, and accurate and correctly labeled ?? topography information. A code analysis which identified how the plan would conform to the City Code. ?? Nielsen stated on October 15, 2007, the City received a drawing from the applicants. Staff was unsure of what the drawing was intended to convey. Part of the drawing showed lots 1 – 13 which had been platted several years ago as Watten Ponds, and Watten Ponds had been fully developed. The proposed cul-de-sac extending through Block 5 and onto the Nelson’s property did not comply with any R-1A zoning district standards or Shorewood’s wetland regulations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 6 of 10 Nielsen then stated he had prepared a brief sketch showing how Block 5 might realistically be developed. He explained Block 5 was approximately five acres in size. The property was constrained by wetlands and steep slopes; it may be possible to subdivide the property into two buildable lots. One of the lots could be accessed from Mapleview Court in Watten Ponds; the other lot would be accessed from Second Street, just as the Nelson’s existing home was. Access to the new lot would be by a common driveway with the Nelson property since only two lots would be served by it. Nielsen explained Second Street was a platted but undeveloped right-of-way which was approximately 22 feet wide, and the Nelson’s current driveway existed over part of Second Street. If the applicants were to subdivide their property, it would necessitate at least a private road which would require the applicant apply for a variance. While private roads were highly discouraged, the Comprehensive Plan allowed them where no other alternative existed, where no more than three properties were served, and where a 50-foot wide easement with an adequate turn-around was provided. A Fire Code access road (a 20-foot paved surface) was the minimum design for a private road. Even a private road design could not be achieved within the 22-foot wide Second Street right-of-way. Nielsen stated at the September 4, 2007, Planning Commission meeting there was confusion regarding the existing and proposed contour lines on the applicants’ survey. Staff had indicated the existing contours appeared to be consistent with the topography of the site; the applicants stated the proposed contours were what currently existed. After Staff field-checked the site again and contacted the applicants’ surveyor, Staff maintained the existing contours were consistent with the topography of the site. Nielsen went on to state the City Engineer had expressed concerns about sewer service to the property. The proposed lot would have to be served with a lift pump, as would another lot on Block 5. At some point a sanitary sewer main must be installed to serve more than one lot. The subject lots would likely still require lift pumps, but there would only be one sewer line within the Second Street right-of-way. Nielsen then stated based on the information received to-date, the proposed subdivision was inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Code. Therefore, Staff continued not to recommend the minor subdivision. Nielsen commented that if someone were to build on Block 5 or place a conservation easement on Block 5 so it could not be developed in the future, that could have some impact on the existing access concerns (the applicants’ properties could both be accessed by the existing private driveway). The issue of site alteration would remain. Chair Schmitt questioned if the applicants’ were proposing a different subdivision because of the drawing they had submitted. Director Nielsen stated they were not. Dan Nelson, the applicant, stated the Planning Commission had asked them to submit a plan showing how Block 5 could be developed. He explained the drawing was a result of a study done prior to Watten Ponds being developed, to determine what could be done if Blocks 3, 5, and 6 were purchased for development. The drawing depicted four lots could be developed on Block 5. Block 5 and Block 6 (the applicants’ property) were not sold at the time of the Watten Ponds development. He explained that in a document dated February 27, 1996, prepared by Director Nielsen, it stated Mapleview Court had a 66- foot wide opening to access Blocks 5 & 6. The document also stated that sanitary sewer must be stepped out to the property, which suggested that it was understood that Block 5 would be accessed from Mapleview Court when it was developed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Nelson stated with regard to setback requirements they were only asking for a minor subdivision and not a building permit. If or when the proposed new lot was developed, setback requirements would have to be addressed. He stated he had been required to put in a fire suppression system, and he assumed any house developed on the proposed new lot would also require a system. With regard to road width, Mr. Nelson stated they had done some comparisons to other roads’ widths. He stated you could not pass by another car on Ridge Road; yet there were 35 mailboxes at the access to Ridge Road, and in many areas the road was not wider than 15 feet. He questioned how Ridge Road complied with the Fire Code access road requirements. He stated Third Street was adjacent to their property; there were three properties accessed from that road and that road did not comply with the Fire Code access road requirements. He commented that a subdivision was recently approved in the Third Street area which could result in there being four properties accessed from Third Street. He asked that one additional house could be accessed from Second Street. He stated based on Director Nielsen’s document of February 1996, the City would recommend all development on Block 5 would be accessed from Mapleview Court. With regard to the sewer system, the sewer system to their house was off a lift station. The list station was located in the house (similar to a sump pump). It was connected to the manhole in Birch Bluff Road by tunneling underground to install 1.5 inch pipe. He assumed if a house was built on the proposed new lot he did not foresee any issues with doing the same thing for that house. He was only asking for one additional sewer line. If Block 5 were to be developed, he assumed any sewer and water access would be from Mapleview Court where water and sewer were already stubbed in. He commented his property did not have City water. He also commented the sewer system to their existing house was originally supposed to be a gravity-flow system; water conditions under Birch Bluff Road prohibited that. With regard to the topography of their property, Mr. Nelson stated the surveyor had a grading plan he could make work. He then stated the grading on Ridge Road did not comply with the 33% grade requirement; yet a new house was just built on a property that had been subdivided recently. Mr. Nelson stated he did not think they should be discriminated against by asking for a minor subdivision that would result in one additional buildable lot. He thought their property met the standards and lot size requirement, the subdivision would not result in any intrusion on the wetlands, and the subdivision would comply with the City code although a fire suppression system would have to be installed if another house were built. He then stated on the drawing depicting how a house could be built on the new lot while adhering to zoning regulations, the surveyor located a driveway to the house starting at the corner of Second Street and Clara Avenue. If the driveway was moved 30 feet the loss of trees would be reduced to two. Gene Ruffenach, 25725 Birch Bluff Road, stated he owned Block 5. He commented the cul-de-sac was located at the corner of Block 5 and it had a 66 foot wide opening at Block 5. He noted that Block 5 was not for sale, and he did not have plans to sell it in the near future. He also noted he owned Lots 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, and two portions of 21. He if were to sell, all of the land would be sold together and the existing house would be taken down; that would result in two lots on Birch Bluff Road. There would be access from the cul-de-sac on Mapleview Court, and there would also be two lots available for access to Lots 7, 8, 19, 20, and the two portions of 21. If the NURP pond was in the way, the access to the pond could be moved. He commented there were hydrants on Mapleview Court; therefore, there was no reason to access Block 5 from Second Street. He thought Mapleview Court provided a much better access. He stated he did not oppose the proposed subdivision. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 8 of 10 Chair Schmitt clarified that the Planning Commission was not trying to tell Mr. Ruffenach how to develop his property. The Commission only wanted an idea of what could possibly happen. Chair Schmitt stated he did not think the Planning Commission had been provided sufficient information to make a recommendation. He explained the Commission had asked the applicants to provide the Commission with additional information (e.g., compliance with the City’s code); it did not ask for the applicants to provide information regarding how other properties did not comply with the City’s code. Commissioners Geng and Hutchins stated they did not think there was sufficient information to make a recommendation. Chair Schmitt stated the Planning Commission could either continue this item or make a recommendation to deny the request. Director Nielsen stated the application was subject to the 120-day rule; he thought action would have to be taken in November, but he would verify that. Schmitt stated the applicant needed to provide the correct information. Mr. Nelson questioned what additional information they needed to provide. Chair Schmitt stated they did not comply with City code (e.g., the Fire Code access road). The proposed plan for subdividing the property must comply with the City code as it was currently written. He stated the applicant must provide all information Director Nielsen requested if they would like the Planning Commission to continue the request to a future meeting. Hutchins moved, Gagne seconded, continuing the request for a minor subdivision for Dan Nelson, 25865 Birch Bluff Road, to the November 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, subject to the applicant providing the additional information requested at the September 4, 2007, meeting. Commissioner Gagne questioned if the applicants knew exactly what information they needed to provide. Director Nielsen stated his original request was for the lot to be platted, and that process would address all of the issues that had been discussed. The applicants had chosen to apply for a minor subdivision instead. Staff did not recommend the minor subdivision. At a minimum a grading plan that would work must be presented. Nielsen stated the applicants’ house complied with requirements today because they had a single house on a single narrow driveway. If there were to be two houses on a single narrow driveway, both would have to be on a fire suppression system. Once there were three lots that would be accessed from one road (two lots on Block 6 and one on Block 5), a Fire Code access road was required (the road must be 20 feet wide with a 50-foot easement). There could eventually be a buildable site on Block 5 that could have to be accessed from Second Street. If a plan was supplied which showed how Block 5 could be developed without requiring access from Second Street, the access issue would be resolved. Mr. Nelson stated Director Nielsen’s document dated February 1996 stated how Block 5 would be developed off a Mapleview Court. Chair Schmitt questioned if someone wanted to build a house on Block 5 could that house be accessed from Mapleview Court. Director Nielsen questioned what would happen if Mr. Ruffenach sold the property to someone else who then built a house on it; then at a later date the new owner wanted to subdivide the property but was turned down because they did not have a Fire Code access road for the new house. That was the reason Staff originally stated the applicants request would result in a premature subdivision. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 9 of 10 Chair Schmitt explained the document prepared by Director Nielsen in February 1996 may not reflect the current City code requirements. Mr. Nelson stated another property owner had put a restriction on development of their property; therefore, Second Street could not be widened. Commissioner Gagne stated Mr. Ruffenach had indicated there were ways to develop Block 5 without requiring access to it from Second Street. Director Nielsen stated if Mr. Ruffenach legally combined his land the City would have some control over the development of and access to the land. He was concerned that Mr. Ruffenach mentioned moving a wetland. Nielsen stated with unanswered questions regarding how all of the land in the area would be developed, it would be premature to grant a minor subdivision. He explained the reason the City had not vacated Clara Street was because the City did not know how the land would be developed. Gagne questioned if it was appropriate to deny the applicants’ request because Mr. Ruffenach was not ready to sell or develop his properties. Nielsen again stated it would be a premature subdivision. Chair Schmitt stated he did not think there was sufficient information to demonstrate that Block 5 could be developed without requiring access from Second Street. He would be more confident if a plat were done to address all of the issues. The Planning Commission needed a plan that would show how Block 5 could be developed. Director Nielsen stated a grading plan that would work must be provided. Chair Schmitt stated the applicants must demonstrate to the Planning Commission that a minor subdivision was appropriate. Ms. Nelson questioned why they would be required to have an engineering plan prepared showing how someone else’s lot could be developed. She stated she perceived there was prejudice against them. Chair Schmitt stated that was not the case. Motion passed 6/0. Ms. Nelson requested a list explaining specifically what additional information was needed. Commissioner Gagne agreed with the request. Chair Schmitt asked Director Nielsen what exactly the applicants had to do to be able to do a minor subdivision. Nielsen stated at minimum a grading plan must be submitted for how a house could be constructed on the new lot. He then stated Staff could consider Mr. Ruffenach’s plan, but he would not support moving a wetland. Schmitt asked Nielsen to inform the applicants of what detailed information they needed to provide. Schmitt stated it would be worthwhile for the applicants to prepare a plan showing Watten Ponds, the applicants’ property, Block 5, and how Block 5 could be developed without moving a wetland, and having the properties be compliant with minimum size requirements. The burden of proof was the applicants’ to provide sufficient information to the Planning Commission so it could consider the request. Commissioner Meyer questioned what the impact would be if Mr. Ruffenach placed a restriction on his property so there would never be access to Block 5 from Second Street. Director Nielsen stated Mr. Ruffenach could do a protective covenant. Mr. Ruffenach stated he would do that. Mr. Nelson stated he assumed they would not have to show how Block 5 could be developed if Mr. Ruffenach put the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 October 2007 Page 10 of 10 restriction on his property. Nielsen stated that would probably be sufficient with regard to the access issue. Mr. Nelson stated Mr. Ruffenach must provide something stating that Block 5 would never be accessed from Second Street. Chair Schmitt clarified that must be recorded with the property. Mr. Nelson then stated they needed to provide a workable grading plan for a house on the proposed new property. Director Nielsen noted that taking the minor subdivision approach, there would not be a requirement for a public hearing and the neighbors would not be notified. Chair Schmitt stated providing the information requested would not guarantee the Planning Commission would recommend the minor subdivision request for approval. The Commission would consider the request even though it thought the platting process would be more appropriate. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the continuation of the Shorewood Yacht Club’s request and the Nelson’s request were slated for the November 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. 5. REPORTS Liaison to Council • Commissioner Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 8, 2007, Regular City Council and Work Session meetings (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). SLUC • No report was given. Other • There was no other business presented this evening. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 16 October 2007 at 9:46 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder