PC-06-05-12
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Muehlberg; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet
Absent: Commissioner Hutchins
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Geng stated after Item 3 the Planning Commission will adjourn the meeting so the Commission can travel
to County Road 19 to walk around and inspect the one-third mile boulevard area on the east side of County Road
19 between the Tonka Bay Center and the LRT Trail. When that is done the Commission will return to the council
Chamber and the meeting will be reconvened and completed.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for June 5, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 3, 2012
Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2012,
as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicants: Mark and Amy Wagner
Location: 27785 Island View Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He
explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a June 25, 2012, Regular City Council
meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He stated Mark and Amy Wagner, 27785 Island View Road,
have requested a setback variance.
Director Nielsen explained Mark and Amy Wagner own the property at 27785 Island View Road. They propose
to convert their existing two-car garage into additional living space for their home and then add a new two-car
garage in front of that. In order to do that the Wagner’s requested a setback variance to build the new garage
closer than 50 feet from the easement for the street. Island View Road, the street along which the property is
located, is a private road located on its own platted lot. The property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family
Residential/Shoreland zoning district. The property is quite substandard in terms of area. Instead of being 40,000
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 2 of 9
square feet of area it only contains 21,659 square feet of area. The lot is a perfectly buildable lot. There is enough
room to do what they need to do.
Nielsen then explained the platted lot Island View Road is located on was platted as a half cul-de-sac. The land
Island View Road sits is only 36.5 feet wide. The cul-de-sac is basically a bubble off of that. The cul-de-sac was
never constructed as a street (referred to as a “paper street”). The street continues on to the west and serves at least
two more houses. What the applicants are proposing is 50 feet away from the straighter portion of the roadway.
The difficulty the applicants have encountered is the bubble creates additional setback. He reviewed the location
of things on the site survey document, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet.
Nielsen noted the applicants’ builder wrote a letter explaining their request. A copy of the letter is included in the
meeting packet. It explains how this request complies with the standard of practical difficulty which must be
demonstrated to be granted a variance.
Nielsen reviewed how the application complies with the variance standard. The criteria were taken from the
League of Minnesota Cities.
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The home, even with the added space, is quite modest compared to other homes on the block. It is
reasonable to add on and want to improve the house. The proposed bedroom additions and new garage are
considered to be a reasonable use of the property.
2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use.
The Code requires a 50-foot setback. The applicants wish to be 36.5 feet from the cul-de-sac.
3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.
The cul-de-sac was never built, and due to the topography on the north side of the street, it will likely not
be built where it was platted. Although closer to the road than the house to the east, it is farther from the
street than the house to the west. The garage is well back of the straight portion of the road
(approximately 58 feet). Therefore, the resulting green space is considered to be consistent with the open
space requirements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan.
4. The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use.
Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b)
circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not
alter the essential character of the area. Reasonableness was addressed earlier. The applicant did not
create the practical difficulties in this case. The “paper cul-de-sac” is extremely unique in Shorewood.
The location of a cul-de-sac, if the owners on Island View Road ever decided to build it, would be better
at the west end of the street. The home is relatively modest for the neighborhood. The proposed location
of the garage addition is in line with the two homes adjoining the subject property.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a front yard
setback variance as proposed. He then noted the Wagners are present as is their builder Bill Wurms.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the proposed walk will be built in the front yard proposed setback. Director Nielsen
responded it will be and noted it will be limited to four feet in width. Hasek then asked if Nielsen was able to find
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 3 of 9
any information about a drainage and utility easement along the property line. Nielsen stated he did find out that
the building does comply with the ten foot setback requirement and that coincides with the City’s easement
requirement. He did not find any information about the plat or a survey of there being an existing easement.
Bill Wurms, the builder, stated he brought things to a licensed surveyor. The surveyor did not find anything about
there being utility easements during his research. There is a lot close to Howards Point Marina where the
applicants have access to Lake Minnetonka. The only other easement was Lot 1, Island View Road and their
ability to use Island View Road. He noted he thought the survey was Torrens.
Director Nielsen stated the applicants have researched things enough to determine that there is an easement on the
common lot along Howards Point Road that the entire neighborhood has access to and through. They have
indicated knowing about the easement on Island View Road. There is no easement noted on the survey. Because
of that he is confident there is no utility easement there.
Mark Wagner, 27785 Island View Road, expressed his and his wife’s appreciation to the Planning Commission
for it considering their request this evening. He commented they were relatively new property owners in the City
of Shorewood. He stated they look forward to making improvements to their property. He asked the Commission
give the variance request due consideration.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Mary Ellen Abramson, 27880 Island View Drive, stated she thought the Wagners’ proposed changes are
commensurate with the improvements in the neighborhood and harmonious with the neighborhood. She
welcomes the changes. She expressed hope that the Planning Commission will recommend approval of the
Wagners’ variance request.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained that because Island View Road
is a private street and the cul-de-sac was never constructed as a street it cannot be vacated. It would have to be
done by the people that have interest in it. He then stated the property immediately to the left of the applicants’
property could be affected by cul-de-sac if they wanted to add on and go closer to the road because that property
is closer to the bubble.
Chair Geng asked if it is correct that the private road including the platted half circle is owned by the neighbors.
Director Nielsen responded that is correct.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen explained he thought there would be a
number of legal things that would have to be addressed for that private property to be vacated.
Davis moved, Hasek seconded, recommending approval of the front yard variance request from Mark and
Amy Wagner, 27885 Island View Road.
Commissioner Hasek stated he spoke with Director Nielsen earlier in the day about the need for public safety and
he thinks that may be why the cul-de-sac may have been platted in the first place. He then stated he is pleased to
learn that there is a lot to the west that might serve that purpose. He went on to state he has no problem with the
setback request being granted. He does have a problem that public health, safety and welfare will no longer be
provided for. He suggested there be a discussion between the City Engineer and the fire department. He stated the
road is wide enough for people to get by. He questioned if the road is wide enough for a fire truck to get through.
He suggested the motion be amended to require Staff to check with the public safety and the Engineering
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 4 of 9
Department to ensure a situation will not be created that will interfere with providing something that might be
needed in the future.
Commissioner Davis asked how recommending approval of the variance will interfere with public safety.
Commissioner Hasek responded by basically saying the cul-de-sac doesn’t have to be there. Chair Geng
expressed his disagreement with Hasek’s conclusion. Davis stated the request is for a setback variance. Hasek
suggested that maybe the Ordinance should be amended so as not to require a variance for this. Hasek commented
that ultimately the City Engineer and public safety may have no problem with granting the variance.
Director Nielsen stated the lot to the west extends down to the next street. That could be divided between the
property owners and be the logical spot for a cul-de-sac. He noted the fire department has designs in addition to a
cul-de-sac for turnarounds that could be looked at as part of a subdivision. He stated the hope for a turnaround
would be on that lot.
Commissioner Hasek asked if that lot is not subdivided, then by granting the variance would a situation be created
that hampers public safety?
Director Nielsen noted that no one is suggesting that the cul-de-sac goes away. He stated he does not recommend
changing the zoning standard for private roads in the R1A zoning district. That would have a drastic impact on
similar neighborhoods. He again noted this is a unique situation. He stated he would not recommend a zoning
change to deal with one or possibly two unique cases.
Commissioner Hasek asked Commissioner Davis if she was willing to entertain his proposed amendment to the
motion. Commissioner Davis clarified that she thought public safety should always be considered. Davis stated
this is a unique situation and that there is never going to be a cul-de-sac there. If there is ever one it will be located
at the other end.
Commissioner Hasek stated he disagreed with Director Nielsen’s statement that a cul-de-sac could not be
constructed in the area one is platted for. It would be a partial one.
Chair Geng stated that public safety will not be affected by granting the variance in any way. There is nothing that
indicates to any emergency vehicles that there is even a paper platted half circle there.
Commissioner Hasek stated when streets are constructed in the City cul-de-sacs are built for public safety. He
then stated he wondered if the public safety aspect of this should be looked at more closely. Chair Geng stated
that is not the question to ask with regard to this variance request because the private street is owned collectively
by a number of property owners. He assumed it was Tenants in Common. Geng then stated there is no reason to
hold up this application or to even consider that as part of this request. Hasek stated he does not recommend
holding approval up but he just wants engineering and public safety to make sure there will not be any negative
ramifications for providing public safety services. Geng responded that is not procedurally correct because the
variance request does not give rise to any safety concerns. Hasek stated in his mind it does.
Chair Geng clarified that the motion had been seconded by Commissioner Hasek. Hasek stated he seconded the
motion with clarification. Hasek then stated if Commissioner Davis will not accept his proposed amendment to
the motion he will withdraw his second to the motion and then someone else can second the motion. Hasek then
stated he will just second the motion [which he already had done] without any proposed modification.
Motion passed 6/0.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 5 of 9
Ms. Abramson stated that residents along the street welcome any public safety vehicle to turn around at the end of
the street where the unconstructed cul-de-sac is. The residents living along the street are loyal to the City and the
residents are committed to keeping people safe.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
RD
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3 Draft
Director Nielsen stated there is a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission scheduled for
June 11, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. During that meeting there will be discussion about the third draft of the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) Report (the Report). He explained that during the Commission’s
March 20, 2012, and April 3, 2012, meetings the Commission suggested revisions to the earlier draft of the
Report. Many of the revisions were in response to feedback received from property owners who live near the
vicinity of the Study Area during an open house meeting and public hearing that was held after that.
Nielsen noted the Introduction page needs to have the acreage numbers corrected to reflect the numbers that are in
the revised inventory. He stated if any additional revisions are recommended this evening they will incorporated
into the Report and the Commission and Council will be provided a copy of the updated Report prior to the joint
meeting. A Zoning map with the Study Area overlaid on it will be included in the Introduction section.
Nielsen reviewed other revisions that will be included in the third draft of the Repot. They are as follows.
a. The Executive Summary will be placed at the front of the document. References to increased height and
densities have been removed from the summary.
b. A Site Location map (Exhibit B), using the aerial photograph of the area in question will go in the front of
the report. The two residential lots at the west end of the Study Area are shown with a dashed line.
c. Numerous changes were made to the Study Area map some of which include labeling and lightening of
the topo lines. The elevations seem to be lost in our system. They will be added once we find them.
Gideon Glen, the South Lake Public Safety facility property and the Southshore Community Center are
no longer included in the Study Area. Gideon Glen has been labeled as a conservation area. The map
reflects the properties for reference purposes.
d. Page 7 has been revised to reference the Unified/Coordinated versus Piece-meal table on Page 8. The
language revisions recommended by the Commission are included in the table.
e. Page 11 (Exhibit E) has been revised to include Redevelopment Guiding Principles instead of a Vision
Statement. The Principles include discussion about transitional lots.
f. Page 13 (Exhibit F) has been revised to address the transitional lots.
g. The bottom photograph on Page 15 (Exhibit G) has been replaced. The previous graphic had been of a tall
building at Glen Lake. The new graphic is of the Town Square in Golden Valley.
h. The Concept Sketch presented at the public meetings will be included at the end of the report. It shows
the relative locations of the various uses. A brief text explanation of the Sketch still needs to be written.
i. The Planning Inventory in the Appendix has been revised to update the City’s ownership and include
acreages for all of the Study Area parcels. Each property is listed with its acreage and square footage. The
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 6 of 9
inventory reflects the actual land for potential redevelopment. The numbers in the Inventory will appear
on the Introduction page of the report.
Commissioner Davis recommended the soils comment be removed regarding property owned by the American
Legion at 5680 County Road 19. The soil testing has proven the property does not have soil contamination issues.
Director Nielsen stated he thought there was a caveat about that. Nielsen noted he will check into that and if what
Davis said is true he will remove the comment.
Chair Geng stated the Inventory reflects that the vacant property owned by the City of Shorewood has a structural
value. He questioned if that should be removed being there is no longer a structure on it. Director Nielsen agreed
it needs to be revised.
Commissioner Garelick stated next to the American Legion there was an empty lot that up until a week ago said it
was either for sale or lease. Now the sign only says for lease. He asked Director Nielsen if he knew what is going
on with that property. Nielsen explained the vacant lot owned by the Legion is up for sale. The Legion has
approached the City about purchasing the property. That lot is the last of the commercial properties in that zoning
district. It abuts residential property and therefore it has to have a 50-foot setback buffer from residential. That
takes out about one half of the property for use. The property up for lease has a pole barn on it and it recently
came up for lease.
Chair Geng stated that Exhibit F titled Smithtown Crossing – Plan states “From the very beginning of this study, it
has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually.” He asked if may it
should be changed to “…may develop collectively or redevelop individually” or to “…may develop in a unified
fashion or redevelop individually”. Director Nielsen explained that first sentence is just talking about developing
or redeveloping. Later on it talks about collectively or individually. Geng expressed his comfort with leaving it as
written.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek about the Study Area boundary, Director Nielsen explained
the homes on the easterly side of Christopher Road back up to a long deep lot. Nielsen explained there are two
lots between the most westerly edge of the Study Area and the long deep lot.
Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission is ready to present the third draft of the Report which will
include the changes just discussed to Council.
There was Planning Commission consensus to incorporate the changes discussed into the Report as draft 3 and
th
then provide that to Council for discussion during the joint meeting on June 11.
3. TRAIL PLAN – WALK COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 7:55 P.M. to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to travel
to the site of a potential County Road 19 trail segment. The meeting will be reconvened at the site.
Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 8:39 P.M.
Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it had any comments to make after touring the site.
Commissioner Garelick suggested the Commission take the opportunity to go to sites for substantial items of
consideration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 7 of 9
Commissioner Davis stated the Park Commission takes a tour of the City’s parks annually. It takes multiple
meetings to complete the tours. Council Liaison Hotvet stated it still does that.
Chair Geng stated there is consensus that this has been a worthwhile excursion.
Director Nielsen stated he will make an effort to have the Commission go on more site visits as issues arise. He
explained Staff is meeting with representatives from Xcel Energy to talk about trail alignment opportunities and
granting the City an easement. Staff is still trying to reach the owner of the property where the bus company is
located to talk to him about granting the City a tiny easement. Staff will contract Three Rivers Park District this
coming week to find out when it is going to initiate discussions with the communities about the proposed LRT
Trail and County Road 19 overpass.
4. DISCUSSION
Zoning Permits
Director Nielsen explained the topic of potentially amending the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits will be
on the June 11, 2012, joint Council and Planning Commission meeting agenda. He explained early in 2010 the
Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. At that time Staff researched what the City of
Chanhassen does. Chanhassen put together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required
and how to apply for one. Staff had a difficult time finding out what other cities do. Some cities have driveway
permits, some have fence permits and so forth. Those are similar to what is collectively being recommended as
“zoning permits”. The main four items covered by these various types of permits are fences, driveways, sheds less
than 120 square feet in area and signs.
Nielsen went on to explain the intent of the zoning permits is to make residents aware of what the City’s rules are.
In the long run it will benefit residents to know what they can and cannot do. Within two weeks of Council not
taking action on the Commission’s recommendation to establish zoning permits during Council’s April 26, 2010,
meeting the City received a call from a property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be
constructed. That individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to that individual’s
property. He noted that he thought zoning permits are a useful tool. He expressed hope that Council is open to
considering zoning permits.
Nielsen stated he hoped the discussion during the joint meeting will be brief. He then stated if Council is not
receptive to the idea of zoning permits the Commission will have to drop it.
5. GREENSTEPS STATUS/UPDATE
Director Nielsen stated that earlier in the day he emailed the Planning Commissioner’s somewhat of a status
report of the City’s progress with regard to the GreenStep Cities Program. He noted that the City has completed a
lot of its steps. Some of the steps had been completed before signing up to participate in the Program. He
explained the City has completed enough steps to achieve what is termed a Level 1 GreenStep City. GreenStep
has invited the City to accept its award for achieving that during a League of Minnesota Cities conference that
will be held in the City of Duluth on June 21, 2012. He stated he will find out if a member of the Council wants to
go and accept the award. He commented he thought there are 44 cities participating in the Program.
Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission’s next effort with regard to the Program is to review the City’s
weed ordinance. GreenStep wants ordinances adjusted to allow residents to have prairie grass for landscaping. He
noted the City does not have a grass-length ordinance because there are many natural areas in the City. The City
does not prevent someone from having a prairie grass landscape. The City does prohibit noxious weeds.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 8 of 9
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. OLD BUSINESS
In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated the government training session will
be held this fall. It will likely be held in September.
Commissioner Garelick stated he is on the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization. He noted that the
appraiser for the City of Shorewood did such a great job that there were no appeals to the County.
Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s May 29, 2012, meeting Council considered an application for a
conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on a property located at
5355 Elmridge Circle. The applicant had an existing garage on his property and he proposed to build a detached,
single-story garage at the south end of his property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
C.U.P. subject to locating the proposed garage an additional eight feet to the northwest in order to better protect a
large linden tree that would be behind the proposed garage location.
Nielsen went on to explain that the Commission also qualified it by asking Staff to check with the neighbor about
the proposed change in location. Nielsen explained the Commission also recommended that property owners to
the east agree to the new location. They had already agreed with the plan as submitted. He, Mr. Christensen (the
applicant) and the neighbor Mr. Hotvet met on site to review where the proposed garage would be. Mr. Hotvet
preferred the garage be built in the original proposed location. Moving it to the northwest would block some of
his view.
Nielsen noted that Mr. Christensen is very concerned about his trees. He explained Mr. Christensen hired an
arborist to provide him advice about the trees that would be located near the proposed garage location. The
arborist recommended chemically treating the linden tree to put it into a state of dormancy to reduce stress on the
tree during construction and when it comes out of dormancy. He stated that he had recommended Mr. Christensen
speak with his arborist about saw-cutting the roots at the back edge of the building. The arborist recommended
saw-cutting the roots around the proposed garage. Saw-cutting the roots of the trees would be easier on the trees
than ripping the roots out of the ground. The arborist also agreed to place a bed of wood chips over the nearby
root systems near the back of the proposed garage to cushion the ground where construction activity will take
place. He noted that these three measures are the most comprehensive tree preservation plan he has seen
submitted. They clearly demonstrate the applicant’s desire to save his trees.
Nielsen explained that he provided Council with two resolutions for consideration during the above referenced
meeting. One was specific to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The alternative followed the arborist’s
plan. He noted that Staff recommended going with the arborist’s plan. Because the Commission recommended
Staff meeting with the neighbor about the Commission’s proposed change in location and finding out the
neighbor preferred the original location, Staff thought it appropriate to recommend leaving the building in the
applicant’s proposed location.
Nielsen noted Council adopted the alternative resolution which included the arborist’s plan. He stated the plan is a
good example of how tree preservation should be addressed.
Chair Geng asked if the arborist had offered up his recommendations prior to the Planning Commission
considering the C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated for sure the arborist had spoken about putting the linden tree into
dormancy before then. The other two items, the saw-cutting and the bed of wood chips, were discussed after that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 9 of 9
Nielsen noted Mr. Christensen is extremely interested in tree preservation.
Director Nielsen stated he has taken note that the site plan provided by the applicant was not of the quality it
should have been.
8. NEW BUSINESS
None.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there are at least three items on the July 3, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda.
There may be a public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment for accessory apartments. There will be
consideration of a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Our Savior’s Church for a dynamic sign. There will be
consideration of an after-the-fact C.U.P. for a six-foot-high fence in the front yard setback area. The fence was
built far enough back, and there will likely have to be some landscaping done. Discussion about the zoning
ordinance general provisions will resume.
Nielsen explained there is an owner of a property that fronts Lake Minnetonka who is very upset because a
neighbor planted arborvitae along the property line. The complainant considers that to be a fence. He related that
he had explained to the woman that the City consciously chose not to include that type of type of thing as a fence
long ago. The City’s policy has been the more vegetation the better. It prefers vegetation over fences. The woman
wants to the City to consider an ordinance that would make vegetation subject to the same requirements as a
fence. He noted the arborvitae was planted all the way down to the beach. On the other side of the complainant’s
property is a regular fence that went only as far as 50 feet back from the Lake shore. It is unobtrusive.
10. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Commissioner Charbonnet gave a brief report on the May 14 and May 29, 2012, City Council meetings (as
detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
• SLUC
Director Nielsen stated he will be sending out the agenda for the next Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting.
• Other
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 5, 2012, at 9:07
P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder