PC-04-06-10
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 6 APRIL 2010 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hasek, Hutchins, Vilett, Davis, and Arnst; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent: Commissioner Ruoff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 16, 2010
th
Commissioner Arnst stated that the discussion regarding Smithtown Crossing at the March 16 meeting
included reference to creating a mission statement, and would like to have that be part of the minutes.
She suggested approval of the minutes be tabled pending revision.
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, to Table Approval the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 16, 2010. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT
Applicant: Mary Edwards
Location: 6170 Ridge Road
Chair Geng noted the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing and explained that any recommendation
made would be placed on the April 26, 2010 Regular City Council meeting Agenda for consideration.
Director Nielsen reviewed his staff report, explaining that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing
home on the property and build a new one in its place. Since the lot is substandard in area for the R-1A/S,
Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which it is located, she has applied for a
conditional use permit.
Nielsen noted that there are two nonconforming structures on the property, a small two-car garage located
only ten feet from the edge of the street pavement, and a shed and deck structure located approximately
14 feet from the shoreline of Christmas Lake. Both structures are nonconforming in terms of setbacks,
and the Zoning Code requires that they be either moved into the buildable area, or removed.
Nielsen stated that the lot is substandard in terms of area and the Zoning Code allows that lots of record
are considered buildable if they are within 70 percent of the area and width required by the zoning district
in which they are located. They must also be in separate ownership from any adjoining lots. The
Shoreland (overlay) District however requires a C.U.P. to build on a substandard lot. The lot must meet
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 April 2010
Page 2 of 4
the same criteria and is subject to other restrictions as outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010.
The applicant’s lot does meet the criteria required by the Code, and the proposed house will conform with
the R-1A District setbacks.
Tom Velmer, the applicant’s contractor, said that they would like to keep the existing garage for storage
as it is currently being used and, if necessary, tear it down after the house is constructed. He said the
applicant would also like to keep the deck and shed by the lake if there is any way to do so.
Mary Edwards, property owner, reiterated that she would like to keep the garage and shed. She said there
is a motorized ramp for getting down to the lakeshore which ends at the deck and shed area and her
elderly mother couldn’t get down to the lake any other way.
Commissioner Vilett asked if the nonconforming structures would have to be removed if this were a
remodel rather than a rebuild. Director Nielsen responded that if just a portion of the house were being
replaced through remodeling, and the replacement represented 50 percent or more of its value, the same
conditions would apply. The same rule applies if an addition to a house equals 50 percent or more of
increase in gross floor area. Nielsen pointed out that the ramp and stairs are permitted to remain,
including a landing area near the lake up to 4 by 8 feet in size. The only option for keeping the
nonconforming structures is to apply for a variance and demonstrate a hardship.
Commissioner Arnst asked if the garage could remain during construction. Nielsen said the practice has
been to allow that and require an escrow deposit to ensure its removal after construction is complete.
Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M.
Commissioner Hasek asked if it was clear where the bluff is located on the lot because it appears that the
house could be moved closer toward the lake which would allow for a deeper garage to compensate for
storage space lost with the garage removal. Nielsen said the bluff line is very distinct at the site, but it’s
possible that there is room to shift the house location.
Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to
the recommendations outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010, and to recommend that the
existing garage be allowed to remain on the site during construction and removed no later than two
weeks after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CODE AMENDMENT FOR ZONING PERMITS
Director Nielsen said, as has been discussed at previous meetings, a system of Zoning Permits is proposed
to require a permit for activities that are not adequately covered by the State Building Code, but are
regulated by the Zoning Code. He said he plans to prepare a brochure for Zoning Permits as a means of
information and education about the requirements.
Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, to recommend approval of the Code Amendment for the
establishment of a system of Zoning Permits.
Commissioner Davis commented that, as a homeowner, she thought this amendment was a form of
micromanagement. Commissioner Arnst agreed. The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons
of the proposed code.
Motion passed 4/2 (Davis and Arnst opposed).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 April 2010
Page 3 of 4
3. REVIEW FINAL DRAFT AMENDMENT – CHAPTER 201 (BY-LAWS)
Director Nielsen distributed a draft of Chapter 201 of the City Code which contained all revisions made by
the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, and staff.
Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 201 of the City
Code. Motion passed 6/0.
Director Nielsen said this item will go to the City Council at their next meeting of April 12, 2010.
4. DISCUSSION – TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (T.I.F.)
Director Nielsen said this discussion will cover both Agenda Items Nos. 4. (T.I.F.) and 5. (Smithtown
Crossing Discussion) since Tax Increment Financing could be one of the incentives possibly available to
developers.
Nielsen said T.I.F. has multiple potential uses, such as write-down of the cost of land, clean up of
contaminated soils, demolition of dilapidated buildings, etc.
Nielsen explained the basics of how T.I.F. works. He said when a project is financed under T.I.F., the new
increased amount of taxes (the increment) generated by an improvement is used to pay for the improvement
itself. Existing taxes continue to be distributed to the taxing agencies (i.e. the City, School District, etc.)
without interruption until the project is complete, after which time they start receiving a higher amount of tax
based on the increased value.
Nielsen said there are certain criteria a project must have to qualify for T.I.F. He said the Smithtown
Crossing parcels contain three qualifications: a contaminated site, blighted buildings, and the need for
assembly of the land. Nielsen said he will consult a financial expert for other incentive options that may be
available in addition to T.I.F.
Commissioner Hasek questioned if the Commission should be prepared to be able to discuss T.I.F. when
talking with the interested parties involved in the Smithtown Crossing project. Nielsen said, along with the
list of desired features for the project, he didn’t doubt that, at a minimum, T.I.F. is what it will take to get it
done.
5. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING
See Agenda Item No. 4 above.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
th
The April 20 meeting will focus on Smithtown Crossing to determine the best approach for introducing
the vision to other interested parties.
Commissioner Arnst said she would still like to see “New Business” added as a regular Agenda item. She
also said she thought “Matters from the Floor” should be moved up near the beginning of the Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 April 2010
Page 4 of 4
Nielsen said the danger in that is losing control of the timeframe for the regular items, potentially keeping
scheduled applicants waiting unfairly. Commissioner Hasek said he actually experienced that himself, as
an applicant in a different city. Arnst suggested that “Approval of Agenda” also be added, placed in front
of “Approval of Minutes”.
8. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Chair Geng reported on items discussed and actions taken by the City Council at their meeting of March
22, 2010. He said the Council is planning to call for a joint meeting with both the Park and Planning
Commissions in the near future.
• SLUC
st
Commissioner Hasek gave a recap of the Sensible Land Use Coalition program on March 31: “Cap &
Trade Demystified: What does it mean for Development?”
• Other
Commissioner Arnst said she had information regarding a program about Mixed Use in Today’s Market,
for any of the Commissioners that were interested.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 6, 2010 at
8:38 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Patti Helgesen, Recorder