PC-11-05-13
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2013 8:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 8:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Garelick, Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet
Also Present: Mayor Zerby and Councilmember Siakel (both departed the meeting after the first public
hearing)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda for November 5, 2013, as presented. Motion
passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 1, 2013
Davis moved, Garelick seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October
1, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. SUMMIT WOODS PUD – CONCEPT STAGE (Continued from October 1, 2013)
Applicant: Homestead Partners
Location: 23040 Summit Avenue
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. (it was continued from October 1, 2013), noting the
procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He noted that the Planning Commission is a recommending body
only. He stated this evening the Commission is going to consider a request for a Summit Woods planned
unit development (PUD) for Homestead Partners LLC to be located at 23040 Summit Avenue. He
explained that when this was considered on October 1, 2013, a lot of the time was spent taking public
testimony from residents living in the Cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen. This evening he will briefly
open the meeting up for additional public testimony because the Concept Plan for the PUD has been
revised since October 1. In the interest of brevity, he asked those in the audience who want to speak to
this item to keep their comments to three minutes or less each. He stated that similar to the last meeting he
asked that if a previous speaker has already addressed a point and the new speaker is in agreement he
asked that the speaker address other points that have not yet been made.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 2 of 26
Someone in the audience objected to Chair Geng’s requests because the information on this item was not
available until late in the evening on November 1 and people have had very little time to prepare.
Someone else in the audience seconded this.
Chair Geng clarified that the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing has not been opened. As a
point of order, he asked the audience to respect that. He noted that he does not want to be overly formal
and asked that the audience keep to the order.
Geng stated during the October 1 Public Hearing on this PUD there were a number of people in the
audience applauding residents after they finished commenting on the PUD. That was inappropriate. He
noted he does not intend for that to happen again this evening. He stated his intent is to conduct this
meeting in an orderly and business like manner. He asked people to refrain from demonstrations of
approval or disapproval.
Geng then stated he assumes the Planning Commission will make a recommendation on this item this
evening. If that happens, this item will be placed on a November 25, 2013, Regular City Council meeting
agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained that this public hearing is a continuation of the one held during the October 1,
2013, Planning Commission meeting to consider a Concept Plan for a proposed subdivision called
Summit Woods PUD. During that hearing a number of concerns were raised about the PUD by residents
of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen as well as the Planning Commission. Based on the discussion
during that meeting the applicant, Homestead Partners, has submitted a revised Concept Plan.
The site is located at 23040 Summit Avenue between Summit Avenue on the west, Galpin Lake Road on
the east and Mayflower Road on the north. The subject property consists of two parcels of land. The
topography is challenging and extremely steep; it drops off dramatically toward Galpin Lake Road and
Mayflower Road.
The developer originally came in with a traditional plat. A plat that created lots that met the current R-1C,
Single-Family Residential, zoning requirements which allows for half-acre lots. Staff met with the
developer and they decided that a PUD would better serve the project. The developer came back with a
plan showing six lots all of which would be clustered up on Summit Avenue. As part of that proposal,
roughly the back half of the lots were to be set aside as conservation open space. As part of the PUD plan
the developer had asked for reduced setbacks – 25 feet for the front yard setback and 7.5 for the sides.
Narrower width lots were also asked for. The developer had been asked to show what the houses may
look like on the narrower lots. The developer had provided illustrations of how those lots might look.
Nielsen summarized the proposed revisions, noting the developer’s revised Concept Plan explains them in
detail.
1. The project has been reduced in size. The northerly of the two parcels that made up the initial
Concept Plan has been removed from proposal. This will remain as an existing lot of record and
left for future development of a single-family residence. As a result of that, no conservation
easement will be dedicated over the northerly half of the parcel.
2. The number of homes proposed has been reduced from six to four.
3. The revised Concept Plan includes increased front yard setbacks. The houses were moved back
from the 25-foot front yard setbacks that were proposed in the original plan. The revised plan
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 3 of 26
shows front yard setbacks from 40 feet for the southerly lot to 20 feet for the northerly lot. The
required front yard setback in the R-1/C district is 35 feet.
4. The revised plan asks for eight-foot side yard setbacks; the initial plan asked for 7.5-foot
setbacks.
5. Instead of a ponding area at the bottom of the site near Mayflower Road the developer is
proposing to construct rain gardens on each of the lots to handle site drainage.
6. Staff has asked the developer to elaborate on what a traditional R-1C plat might look like,
including the site alteration required to accomplish such a development. He displayed a copy of
the revised Concept Plan, an aerial photo with a revised Concept Plan overlay, a traditional R-1/C
plat, and an aerial photo with a traditional plat overlay (a copy of each is included in the meeting
packet).
He reviewed the issues raised by staff.
1. The removal of the northerly parcel and reduction of project area has positive and negative
implications. Leaving the existing lot of record to future development eliminates any
conservation easement for that portion of the property. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact
that only one house would be allowed on the northerly large lot which is a challenging site. That
lot drops off substantially very quickly.
2. The elimination of one lot from the project results in only one additional home being proposed on
Summit Avenue. The trade-off is two less driveways on Galpin Lake Road if the project was
simply an R-1C plat. Even more significantly, the value of the conservation easement proposed
over more than half of the site cannot be overemphasized.
3. The developer has moved the proposed building pads back, based on staff’s earlier suggestions.
Although the buildings are staggered, the revised plan still shows a relatively straight line of
structures. Staff recommends the houses be pushed back further than the R-1/C district requires.
Staff recommends a minimum 40 yard front yard setback for Lots 3 and 4, a 35 foot setback for
Lot 2, and a 20 foot setback for Lot 1. The City has excessive right-of-way (ROW) in that
location and Lot 1 has more of it than the other three lots. The advantages of the increased
setbacks are as follows.
a. The increased front yard setback increases the width of the lot at the building line, allowing
for compliance with side yard setback requirements because two of the the lots are flared.
b. Staff appreciates that the developer wants the lots to have some amount of backyard. Yet,
staff feels there is an advantage to having larger front yard setbacks. Staff does not think
having longer driveways is a bad thing. They would provide more room for on-site parking. It
would also allow room for driveway turn-outs which would allow for people to pull out on to
Summit Avenue facing forward rather than back out on to a substandard street.
c. The increased front setback allows more room for the rain gardens that are proposed as the
drainage solution for the site.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 4 of 26
In addition to the recommended setbacks for Lots 3 and 4 exceeding the requirements of the
Shorewood R-1C zoning district they also exceed the requirements of Chanhassen’s zoning south
of the site for Lots 2 – 4.
The City has an 80 foot wide ROW in the project area. There is an old street vacation that reduces
that down but it is located on the west side of the street. The distance from the actual paved
surface of the street to the houses is going to be 40 feet but there will be another 20 or more feet
between the property line and the paved street.
4. Staff recommends the side yard setbacks be no less than 10 feet. That complies with the R-1C
side yard setback requirements. This provides for standard drainage and utility easements along
lot lines and should be relatively easy to accomplish in conjunction with the front setback
recommendations.
5. The ponding area in the earlier proposal was not a very viable option. Conversely, as mentioned
in the City Engineer’s staff report dated October 28, 2013, the proposed rain gardens are the
preferred means of handling drainage for this site. Rain gardens will have to be done in
accordance with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements.
6. The most significant element of the proposed PUD is the preservation of the steeply wooded
slopes on the easterly and northerly portions of the site. It’s proposed that 1.85 acres (over half of
the site) will be set aside as conservation open space.
A conforming R-1C plat would result in substantial site alteration (grading and tree removal) of
that same area in order to overcome topography. Also, the homes that would be built on Summit
Avenue could be built at the 35-foot front yard setback, closer than what can be imposed in the
PUD.
After considering the City’s zoning and subdivision codes and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, staff
believes a PUD is a better way of developing the site.
Summit Avenue is a very substandard roadway. The developer proposes to widen it to at least the Fire
Code standard for the portion in front of the plat. Summit Avenue is something that will have to be
addressed by the City Council and perhaps moved up in the City’s 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan
(PMP). Staff is even suggesting the possibility of making that portion of Summit Avenue one way. That is
something that would have to come out of a traffic study; not part of this development proposal.
Nielsen stated the developer has some slides he wants to show. He also has a flash drive from members of
the audience that contains something they want to show the Planning Commission.
Chair Geng asked those members of the audience who wish to comment on the proposed PUD to state
their name and address for the record. It would be helpful if they would spell their last name.
th
Steven Bona, with Homestead Partners located at 525 15 Avenue South, Hopkins, stated Homestead has
worked hard with City staff to improve its Concept Plan. It took into consideration comments and
recommendations from staff, comments from the neighbors near the subject project and comments heard
during the October 1 public hearing. Significant changes have been made as previously described by
Director Nielsen.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 5 of 26
Mr. Bona highlighted concerns raised about the initial PUD Concept Plan.
Summit Avenue is a very substandard road.
The six houses proposed for the PUD made the area too dense.
The ponding area proposed for the bottom of the hill was not an acceptable solution for managing
stormwater.
Staff did not like the proposed side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side of the six lots.
The potential tree loss was a big concern.
Mr. Bona highlighted Homestead’s revised PUD Concept Plan.
The northerly parcel was removed from the proposed project area. That one parcel is currently
available for 1 building permit. It is possible that Homestead may build on that 1 parcel in the
future. But for now, essentially 2 lots were removed from the original proposal.
Removing the one parcel still allows for 4 lots on the other parcel. The average size of the 4 lots
is 35,373 square feet which is larger than on the original Concept Plan (34,410 feet). That equates
to 1.23 units per acre which is less than the density on the original Concept Plan (1.42 units).
There will be a rain garden on each of the 4 lots. The ponding area was removed.
The revised Concept Plan shows front yard setbacks of 20 feet for Lot 1, 30 feet for Lot 2, 35 feet
for Lot 3 and 40 feet for Lot 4. The reason for asking for a reduced front yard setback on Lot 1 is
because of the slope and to allow for some back yard. There is a very substantial ROW before the
pavement on Summit Avenue begins. The house on Lot 1 will be setback a long way from the
existing roadway. Homestead is willing to adjust the front yard setbacks to staff’s
recommendations of 20 feet for Lot 1, 35 feet for Lot 2, and 40 feet for Lots 3 and 4.
Homestead replaced the 7.5 foot side yard setbacks with 8 foot setbacks in the revised Concept
Plan. It is willing to increase the setbacks to 10 feet as recommended by staff.
Mr. Bona highlighted some facts about the Murray Hill neighborhood. The intent is to show that what is
being proposed fits in well with the existing neighborhood.
There are 13 existing lots on Hummingbird Road.
The average size of the lots is 1.05 acres. The Summit Woods site averages 0.81 acres.
According to tax records (which is generally lower than what the typical values are), the average
market value of the 13 lots is $383,000.
Six of the 13 lots are large enough to be subdivided.
Mr. Bona explained the largest contributing factor as to why Homestead thinks this plan is the best
proposal, one that is very good for the subject property and good for the neighborhood, is the proposed
conservation easement. The easement would be 80,532 square feet in size or 57 percent of the entire site.
The conservation easement is part of the tradeoff in what is being proposed instead of going with a
conforming traditional plat. The conservation area would never be graded, large trees on the site would
remain and no buildings will be constructed on that area. The tree preservation on the PUD proposal
would be 5 percent tree loss; it would be substantially more for a traditional plat.
Mr. Bona noted Homestead representatives have met with the City Engineer and the Engineer stated that
the increased number of trips on Summit Avenue per day that would be caused by the PUD plat is not
concerning to him. The Engineer believes the roadway could handle the increased traffic.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 6 of 26
Mr. Bona stated the proposed conservation open space area is substantially wooded. Looking up to the
area from Galpin Lake Road and from Mayflower Road a person sees the impact of the trees. It will be
important to residents down below to preserve that bluff.
Mr. Bona talked about developing the site with a traditional conforming plat which Homestead could do.
The site could be subdivided into 5 lots.
No variances would be needed with this type of plat. Therefore, Homestead would expect the plat
to be approved.
The average lot size would be reduced to 28,198 square feet; about 7,000 square feet less than in
the revised Concept Plan average size of 35,373 square feet.
The density would be 1.54 units per acre; larger than the 1.23 units per square acre currently
being proposed.
The side yard setbacks would be 10 feet and the front yard setbacks would be 35 feet.
There would not be any conservation easement.
The grading limits for the houses on the 5 lots would require substantial loss to the bluff because
of the amount of tree clearing that would be done because of the significant grading that would be
needed. There would be an approximate 60 percent tree loss on the entire project area.
The City Engineer has expressed concern about the additional driveways that would come out
onto a very busy road.
Mr. Bona compared the view of the lots in the proposed PUD to the lots in a conforming plat. He stated
the undisturbed area for the PUD would be 72 percent; work would only be done on 28 percent (or 0.9
acres) of the property. Within the grading limits for a conforming plat 83 percent of the site would be
disturbed.
Mr. Bona read a statement in the October 31, 2013, staff report. It states “The Summit Woods project is
exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development (PUD) tool was intended. It must be
remembered that the property owner has a right to develop his property under the rules established by the
City. In this instance, the PUD approach is considered to be far superior to traditional platting.”
Pete Knaeble, with Terra Engineering which is the civil engineer and land planner for the project, stated
with regard to the four driveways that are proposed to enter onto Summit Avenue with the additional
setbacks and wider ROW it is estimated that the driveways will be anywhere from 65 to 80 feet long
(from street to garage). That length is at least an additional third of what a standard driveway would be.
The driveways would accommodate additional off-street parking and the turn-outs would allow for people
to drive out on to Summit Avenue. He clarified that the PUD concept has less impact on the environment.
It would be safer from a traffic point of view especially for the houses that could be built along Galpin
Lake Road. The positive impact on tree loss with a PUD cannot be overstated. He stated he has been
working on development for more than 30 years and high tree loss is basically unheard of.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead originally came forth with a proposal for 6 houses and it revised the proposal
to 4. He noted another house could be built on the northerly parcel that is not part of the revised Concept
Plan, so the overall reduction is 1 house. He noted the conforming plat would allow 3 houses on Summit
Avenue. He stated during the October 1 public hearing there were comments from residents that they
would be okay with 1 or 2 houses. The City rules allow for 3 houses to get built there. Homestead has
asked to build 1 additional house and in return for that 1 extra house, which it thinks fits in very well, it
will give a conservation easement over the entire bluff. The project being proposed would be a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 7 of 26
substantially better project. The neighbors down below will be happy and the neighbors up above will
have to deal with 1 more house. Homestead believes their request is very reasonable.
Mr. Bona noted that he would like the opportunity to respond to any questions the audience may have.
Chair Geng asked if any of the Planning Commissioners have questions for the developer at this time.
Commissioner Labadie expressed concern that the driveways may not be wide enough for turn-outs. She
noted that the drawings show the driveways appear to get wider the closer they are to the house. She
asked how wide the driveways will be. Mr. Knaeble clarified Homestead has provided schematics; not
exact driveway and house design. Mr. Knaeble explained typically for a three car garage the driveway
might be 35 feet wide at the house and then it would taper down, noting most cities don’t allow a
driveway width of greater than 24 feet at the street. Homestead would propose a separate turnaround for
each driveway in addition to that 35 foot width. That would also accommodate additional parking on the
lot.
Labadie stated the revised Concept Plan drawings reflect 8-foot-wide side yard setbacks. Yet, Mr. Bona
indicated Homestead will comply with the 10-foot-wide requirement. Mr. Bona stated the side yard
setbacks will be 10 feet wide.
Commissioner Davis asked if the four houses would be custom built and what their square footage would
be. Mr. Bona stated they would be from 2,400 square feet on the low side up to 3,500 for a fully
completed home including basement. Davis asked what Homestead anticipates they will sell for. Mr.
Bona stated he thought they would start at around $500,000 and go up from there, noting Homestead is
not the builder. JMS Custom Homes will be. Davis asked if someone who will pay $500,000 for a house
will want to be on a substandard road. Davis stated her main concern is Summit Avenue. She would want
a real street in front of her property. Mr. Bona stated he thinks the residents like the roadway in its current
condition. If he were to build his own home up there he would like the roadway the way it is; he would
not want the City to increase its width. Mr. Bona stated from his perspective Summit Avenue is part of
the character of the neighborhood. Davis asked how long it will take to build the 4 houses. Mr. Bona
responded he anticipates the houses will be built within 12 – 18 months.
Commissioner Davis stated she assumes the developer uses AutoCAD. She asked if it has Auto TURN
and if so has it run auto simulations; for example, how to get a flatbed truck up to the project site. Mr.
Knaeble stated he does not anticipate there being any significant issues with delivering materials to the
site.
Commissioner Maddy asked who is responsible for the design and installation of the rain gardens. Mr.
Bona stated Homestead as the developer would install the rain gardens on the front end and it would
coordinate that process with the builder to make sure they are not disturbed after they are installed. If it
would work better for the excavation of the area or framing of the house to be done before the installation
of the rain gardens then Homestead would do that.
Chair Geng suggested residents be allowed to comment on the revised Concept Plan. He opened the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:44 P.M.
Chair Geng explained there are 3 stages in a PUD process – a Concept Stage (where the process was in
October and is this evening), a Development Stage and a Final Plan Stage. He noted this is not the last
opportunity for residents to be heard on this PUD as it develops. As part of this 3-stage process a lot of
the technical details are addressed in the Development Stage. He stated if there are questions that are
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 8 of 26
technical in nature that cannot be answered this evening that is okay. The questions should be raised so
they become part of the public record.
Sondra Traylor, 23115 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she and other residents do not feel the
proposed PUD fits with the quality and character of the neighborhood. She then stated Mr. Knaeble
indicated that he did not think there would be a problem with delivering materials to the project site. He
must not know about the curve in the roadway. She commented that a friend who was coming up the
Summit Avenue hill yesterday indicated she thought it was breathtaking. She noted that Summit Avenue
ends at the very high point of land; a point that could possibly be the highest in Shorewood or even
possible around Lake Minnetonka. A person can see downtown Minneapolis and across to the City of
Wayzata from the top of Summit Avenue.
She stated the surveyor commented that the neighborhood is special. She then stated she cannot
understand how the City would permit a PUD up there. She commented that a person out looking for a
new house was driving up the hill when he decided that is where he wanted him and his family to live and
he had not seen the house yet. She stated it was all about location. The neighborhood is private and
wooded with old mature trees in a pristine natural setting. She explained homes in her neighborhood have
deep setbacks, there are wide distances between homes, the lots are heavily wooded and they have narrow
tree-lined roads. The neighborhood is beautiful, private and peaceful. The proposed PUD with houses so
close together and to the street does not fit the quality of the neighborhood. She stated during the October
1 public hearing a comment was made about a driveway ascending from that steep north face would be
difficult to get up in winter. She views it a safety hazard because the sun does not shine on it and therefore
it can ice up.
Chair Geng asked Ms. Traylor to wrap her comments up because she has 15 seconds left.
Ms. Traylor stated there are 4 houses proposed to be built in Shorewood and 2 more in the City of
Chanhassen. That would be a row of houses. There is a drainage problem because the stormwater will
flow down from the hard surface. She noted that on October 21 at 3:00 P.M. she stood at the intersection
of Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake Road and in 12 minutes 5 cars stopped there. The residents will be
using that intersection for themselves when they cannot make it up Summit Avenue because it is icy.
Each year Summit Avenue ends up with many potholes because water seeps into the roadway’s surface.
And then driving on the potholes exacerbates the problem. She elaborated on potholes and repairing of
them.
Chair Geng again asked Ms. Traylor to wrap her comments up because they are many others who want to
speak.
Ms. Traylor noted the residents do not want a new roadway and they do not want it one way. She stated
the residents do not want Summit Avenue torn up. She stated large trucks tear into the side of the hill
around the hairpin curve. She displayed photos showing what happens. She noted that long axel vehicles
do the most damage to the hillside. They can barely make it around the curve. She stated she understands
that Summit Avenue is so old, so narrow and so steep that if it were to be damaged it could not be rebuilt
easily because it would not meet code.
Ms. Traylor stated there is a problem with radon at the top of the hill. She then stated houses built on the
hill have to be constructed for the long term because foundations end up cracking because of the hill.
(During her comments she displayed many pictures of various things).
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 9 of 26
Jay Benson, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, read an email written by his wife Krisan Osteberg to
Council.
“…. I am a planner and licensed landscape architect – with over 30 years of experience developing
sites across the country and in Minnesota. In addition I served on the Wayzata Design Review Board
for over 10 years. My comments stem from the understanding of the standards that I am held to in
other jurisdictions when dealing with similar issues – and that I would consider a sound basis for
weighing the merits of the Don Rix property.” He distributed copies of the material that was emailed
to the members of the Council earlier in the day.
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the Planning Commission received a copy of the email. Chair Geng
stated he did not think so. Woodruff suggested the entire email be read into the record.
Mr. Benson continued reading the email.
“After careful review of the drawing and text I cannot support or recommend this development. As a
Planned Unit Development, it does not provide a larger community value that could not be otherwise
achieved and that would warrant granting a variance to local zoning ordinances. My opinion is
based on the following observations and concerns.
1. Both the developer and the city planner reference the original parcel plat for the land –
created in 1926 and still present in Hennepin County Records dated 1980 available online.
[He distributed a map that was sent with the email.] The total development density was 4
houses across more than 4 acres. This density and parcel size is consistent with the
surrounding parcels adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill Road,
and Mayflower Road. It is also consistent with the environmental and circulation constraints
of the property. The proposed PUD would allow up to 5 houses in a constrained area. The
“Test Case” would allow up to 6 houses in potentially undeveloped areas. In both cases, this
additional density applies to more recent codes – suitable for flatter, open land – to the
detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and in favor of the financial
gain of the developer. This revised PUD is basically unchanged in the number of units
proposed for the larger 3.3 acre parcel.
2. Insufficient insubstantial detail is provided by the developer to answer key engineering
concerns.
a. No traffic study has been submitted to show the impact of increasing the end of the
neighborhood from 1 to potentially 5 occupied homes in an area of limited sight lines,
limited road width, no sidewalks, and steep grades. Traffic impacts on both Summit and
Hummingbird will include construction vehicles, personal vehicles, garbage/recycling
and other service vehicles that will magnify the impact of the homes. In addition no
recognition of the impact on adjacent Chanhassen streets is noted – including the
potential requirement for neighbors to pay Chanhassen assessed fees to upgrade
Hummingbird Road.
b. No detailed and convincing site grading plan has been submitted. Because of this, no
credible stormwater management plan has been submitted. There is no engineering
provided to assess the feasibility for the proposed rain gardens. There is nothing to
indicate that there is enough area or depth to handle year-round drainage from new roof
tops and pavement. Erosion is already apparent at the base of the slopes on Mayflower
Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 10 of 26
c. Stormwater runoff, meltwater and groundwater seepage already create dangerous
conditions on Summit Avenue from November to April when ice occurs on the streets.
There is also no specific engineering plan for how increased runoff will be handled to
prevent flooding on Murray Hill Road and adjacent properties.
d. In addition, it is critical to understand that rain garden technology is intended to slow
and filter precipitation, not prevent it from overflowing in significant storm events. It
does not dependably function during snow-covered winter months or when the ground is
frozen. In addition, rain gardens require periodic maintenance of native plantings. For
that reason they are most properly used in locations where there is a knowledgeable and
dependable party that undertakes the work. This cannot be guaranteed under private
home ownership.
e. No detailed and convincing roadway grading and layout plan has been submitted that
demonstrates Summit Avenue will be made safe for vehicles and fire trucks 365 days a
year. To achieve national and state standards, a 20 foot road of not more than 7% slope
is required. This would require a concept plan from Melody Hill to Hummingbird Road
with vertical and horizontal curvatures, along with cut and fill and required retaining
wall, and feasible utility corridors. Utilities would have to be routed on the south side of
Summit as it ascends the hill to avoid the existing electric lines and poles. In addition, no
detailed design has been submitted that indicates how the proposed 20 foot width of
Summit would transition to the current width of Hummingbird Road.
f. Without improvements to Summit, due to the impassability in the winter, additional traffic
for all homes will voluntarily choose to use Murray Hill, Melody Hill and Hummingbird
Roads – further exacerbating problems of increased traffic volume, road degradation and
temptation to speed on the relatively flat and straight sections of road. (He inserted that
he has been a resident for 13 years on Hummingbird Road. He works at home and he is
there almost all of the time. Because Summit is basically impassable due to safety from
November to April that doubles the amount of traffic that goes down Hummingbird for
those months. Hummingbird is narrow and trees come right up to the street. Snow
removal is what it is in those conditions. Because Summit is impassable garbage trucks
backup the entire way along Hummingbird Road to be able to service Summit and the
entire length of Hummingbird. On some days there are three separate garbage providers
and there are recycling vehicles as well. They all back down the street and when personal
vehicles come along they have to wait and take turns. With the proposed density between
Shorewood and Chanhassen that is likely to happen, the traffic during those months on
Hummingbird will probably triple.)
g. No detailed soils and water table information has been submitted. There is no recognition
nor concrete plan by the developer to deal with the ramifications of the buried lenses of
water and seeps that are known to occur throughout the neighborhood. In the winter,
these seeps contribute to icy roads.
3. Zoning legislation was approved by the courts to protect the property value of surrounding
landowners, protecting their health safety and welfare from unsympathetic development. The
legal basis of zoning is not to maximize the value of proposed development for individual
property owners. The origin of Planned Unit Developments is to provide a legal means for
granting variances to zoning ordinances in exchange for gaining a greater community good
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 11 of 26
or benefit that would not otherwise be possible – especially for properties with distinct value
or characteristics. Neither of these litmus tests appears to be true for this development. The
proposed Conservation Easement does not add a new benefit to the city – it recognizes a
benefit that already is present on the land. Given the City of Shorewood Comprehensive Plan
specifications limiting home development to 3:1 slopes, erosion control requirements,
difficult soils, and tree preservation standards, the bluff line and trees are likely to remain on
the majority of the site. Indeed, the entire area of wooded slopes is protected from
development in Chanhassen through their Bluff Ordinance. In addition, the conservation
easement is an area without public access and distinctly private by virtue of lying in the
backyards of the new homes. No identifiable or useful parkland is created.
4. The PUD provides no other substantive benefit to Shorewood. This includes the proposed
extension of the existing Chanhassen trail along the west side of Galpin Boulevard. That trail
would dead-end at either Mayflower Road or Old Chaska Road – both of which are
dangerous intersections for pedestrians, without linkages to other sidewalks, in low-lying
areas that frequently flood, and would require cutting into the base of the bluff to achieve.
The east side of Galpin / north side of Mayflower does not connect with the existing trail and
borders land that drops off into wetlands. In addition cars frequently slide off Galpin in this
location because the road cross-section is not super-elevated to match the curve of the road
(he added in winter). Recognizing these dangers and inconveniences, most pedestrians
choose to walk through the neighborhood rather than stay on Galpin and Mayflower.
5. Because the revised PUD is basically unchanged in the number of units proposed for the 3.3
acres, it still creates a totally new, uncharacteristic, and financially devaluing design. The
resulting multi-story “track home” appearance does not fit the neighborhood character. The
footprints shown for the homes – including garages – are clearly smaller than any along the
surrounding streets. The houses will require multiple stories to achieve the market value of
the surrounding homes. (He stated this is referring to information that had not been updated
on the City’s website.) An 8 foot side yard / 16 foot corridor between houses is clearly less
than existing neighborhood standards. This also makes unresolved questions of grading more
critical. The proposal claims that the homes will be staggered from the street. No evidence
has been provided that this can be substantively achieved and still meet tree preservation,
erosion control, and slope requirements.
In closing I urge the City of Shorewood to deny the PUD due to its complete lack of community value
and numerous unresolved engineering concerns.
Respectfully,
Krisan Osterby-Benson”
Mr. Benson clarified that the reason he read the email on his wife’s behalf is she is out of town on a
business trip. He thanked the Planning Commission for its time.
Elizabeth Birkland Daub, 6180 Murray Hill Road, Shorewood, explained on Wednesday, June 9, 2004,
she placed an emergency call to the City of Shorewood. She reached a recording from Brad Nielsen, the
city planner, and she ended up in Larry Brown’s voicemail. In her emergency alert to them she let them
know her property was flooding. Her property is located at the base of Summit Avenue. The water was
racing down Murray Hill Road right on to her property. She noted she has pictures that validate this. She
explained she did receive a call back and was told they would send an emergency crew out to start to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 12 of 26
sandbag. That did happen. Two days later a lot more rain came so she placed another emergency call and
let people know her basement was flooding again. That time she was told the City was not responsible for
sandbagging. The City had done her a favor the first time and this time she would have to deal with it.
The sandbags had been destroyed due to the heavy rain. She stated she thought the stormwater flow was a
result of the construction that was done up on Murray Hill Road when the footprint was expanded. There
is a lot of hard surface on the top and it overwhelmed the storm sewer system. She was given $10,000
from State Farm Insurance for her damages even though out-off-pocket expenses for her to restore her
property were over $25,000. She routed pictures that were taken for her claim. She noted that the radiant
heat she had installed under the slate in the lower level of her home has not worked since then.
She stated her biggest concern with the proposed project is if it is going to overwhelm the entire
neighborhood with runoff and rain. She then stated she thought it cost the City $300,000 to put in a
drainage system in/along Murray Hill Road. She believes it will be likely be totally overwhelmed with the
runoff coming off of Summit Avenue because of the hard surfaces that will be created by the PUD. She
went on to state there is no proof that things such as rain gardens will be an adequate way to manage
runoff or that the properties in the area will be protected. She commented that Murray Hill Road the way
it used to exist was in her yard; there is asphalt curbing there. She noted the residents had asked for
concrete curbs on Murray Hill Road and they were told the City could not afford them. She expressed
concern that asphalt curbing will again end up in her yard. She noted the roadway was done in 2011.
Dick Lane 6120 Murray Court, Shorewood, stated his property is located east of Galpin Lake Road. There
are four houses along Murray Court. All of them overlook the bluff. He then stated from his perspective
the PUD is a far better approach than the conforming traditional plat. He commented that the bluff is
really a deer run. During the winter there are deer running back and forth all of the time. It is a wildlife
area. He stated that once the weather turns warm in the spring Galpin Lake Road becomes a raceway.
Motorcycles speed up and down the roadway. He then stated he thought it would be dangerous for people,
under a conforming plat, coming on to and going off of their driveways. He noted he supports further
development in Shorewood. He stated he is not worried about the development obstructing his view if
done as a PUD.
Jason Mills, 6281 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated he put together some pictures and aerial
photos. He combined Carver County information with Hennepin County information to show the
neighborhood. From an overhead view people can see the homes. He outlined the homes as they sit on the
properties. It provides a visual picture of the density, the distances from the roads, the distances between
houses, the size of the lots and so forth and roughly what is being proposed with the PUD. He explained
there are 17 existing houses on Hummingbird Road, Summit Avenue and Murray Hill Road. He
explained he also took some measurements. He displayed a slide for one area that showed the average lot
width is 168 feet, the average size is 1.14 acres, the average front yard setback is 129 feet, and the
approximate average between the houses is 91 feet. He displayed a slide for another area which showed
the average lot width is 168 feet, the average lot size is 1.14 acres, the average front yard setback is 89
feet including the ROW roadway which he thought is 40 feet from the center of the roadway, and the
approximate average distance between the houses is 91.6 feet (that is an average side setback of 46 feet).
The numbers and pictures show it is a very unique neighborhood with lots of room and privacy and there
are lots of old trees. The neighborhood is a beautiful place to live. Thirty adult residents live in the 17
existing homes and 100 percent of them oppose the PUD and they are greatly concerned.
He displayed some comparisons between the PUD and the average measurements he just presented. He
explained that for the proposed PUD there would be 62.6 percent less average width of the properties, the
average size would be 69 percent less, the front yard setbacks would be 65 percent less, and the side
distance between the houses in the PUD would be 82 percent less. The narrow distance between the sides
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 13 of 26
of the houses is very concerning to him. That narrow distance does not fit with the character of the
neighborhood. He stated the character of the PUD would negatively affect the value of other properties in
the neighborhood. The PUD would stick out like a sore thumb from his perspective. It would look like
track homes. He displayed a slide showing the current value of the properties in the neighborhood. He
displayed a slide showing the current properties/house locations when compared to the R-1C zoning
requirement. He explained the existing average lot width is 68 percent wider than the R-1C zoning
requirement, the average lot size is 148 percent greater, the average front yard setback is 156 percent
greater, and the average distance between the homes is 358 percent greater. These figures to him show the
uniqueness of the neighborhood.
He stated the neighbors have been meeting on this and they have put together a list of their names,
addresses, phone numbers and emails. All of them oppose the PUD. He reiterated every one of the 30
adult residents living in the17 neighborhood homes oppose the PUD. He provided some printed copies of
the overhead.
Lena Petrosian, 23130 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated she is the newest member of the
neighborhood. She explained based on her research a PUD is supposed to benefit neighborhoods by: 1)
providing for more efficient site design; 2) preserving amenities such as open spaces; 3) lower the cost of
street construction and utility extensions for the entire development, the developers and the city; and 4)
lower maintenance costs.
Based on that she drew parallels of what the proposed PUD would do to the neighborhood. With regard to
more efficient site design, the PUD proposed five lots with the houses to be located back together. That
does not represent the neighborhood. The neighborhood has 1 plus acre lots with a lot of open space. It is
not a more efficient site design. With regard to preserving amenities such as open spaces, the
neighborhood already has open spaces that were created by nature. The beautiful hill with a very steep
slope was created by nature to be self preserving. It is not possible or feasible to build a house on that site
without completely destroying it. It is already protected by current zoning. The original plans that were
there from the beginning of the century have 4 lots. She surmised the original intent of the 4 lots was to
preserve the hill and its beauty. The PUD does not serve any preservation benefit. Conservation is not
needed from her perspective. With regard to lower cost of street construction and utility extensions, the
homes along Summit Avenue are serviced with well water and the residents there are satisfied with it. The
gas and electric utilities are already in place. The PUD will not provide any extra benefits to those
residents for utilities. The PUD will not provide any benefits for street construction. If the roadway is
widened it will create additional soil erosion issues, retaining walls will be needed and the vegetation will
be destroyed. Changing the roadway will change the beauty of the neighborhood. No matter how wide the
roadway will be the slope problem will remain the same, the drainage problem will be the same and soil
erosion may get worse. The issue with ice on the roadway in the winter will be the same; all the traffic
will continue move to Hummingbird Road during the winter. From her vantage point she has a unique
perspective because her parents live on 6300 Hummingbird Road in Chanhassen. The reason they bought
that property is because they wanted the quiet and unique feel of the neighborhood. The additional traffic
on that roadway will have an impact. With regard to lower maintenance costs, she does not think the PUD
will result in lower maintenance costs to the City because snow removal will be the same.
In summary, she stated it is not hard to find a lot to build a house on or to find a house. It is hard to find a
unique neighborhood to live in. She explained when she and her husband found this unique neighborhood
with its unique terrain and varying houses they decided they wanted to live there. She noted she is against
the proposed PUD for all of the reasons she just explained.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 14 of 26
Marilyn Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated their property is just about directly across
from the land that is to be developed in Chanhassen as part of the overall development. She noted she
showed photos during the October 1 public hearing. She displayed photos of the property being talked
about and noted it is a beautiful piece of land. She also displayed a photo of Hummingbird Road and
noted that area is also very beautiful. She stated she could envision a small number of houses located
away from the roadway that would fit in with the existing property and the rest of the neighborhood. That
is what she is hoping for.
Jon Rienstra, 23120 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated his property is located at the bottom of Summit
Avenue. He expressed his concern about stormwater runoff. He explained he hired a company this past
summer to repair and patch his driveway. He stated if a bunch of houses and additional hardcover are
going to be stacked on the top of Summit Avenue he asked how much more that is going to exacerbate the
runoff problem. He explained a couple of times a year he has to clear 2 – 3 inches of dirt and road debris
off of his driveway.
Rick Bateson, 6180 Murray Court, Shorewood, stated from his perspective if anyone owns land they
should be able to develop it providing it would be conforming. He suggested that the neighbors that are
objecting to this come up with the money to purchase the site. He stated he has a beautiful sightline to the
subject property and regardless of if it would be developed as a PUD or a conforming traditional plat he
cannot envision anyone wanting to build a house that would cut into the hillside. There would have to be
a tuck under garage and there would be a lot of tree loss. He noted Shorewood has a stringent tree
replacement policy which he thinks is in excess for a heavily wooded property. He stated that from his
perspective the City should change the garbage collection methods. The City has 3 refuse haulers and 2
recycling collectors. He encouraged the City to consider having just one hauler/collector. That would
eliminate a number of the residents’ concerns. He noted that he favors the PUD over a conforming
traditional plat. He reiterated the owners of the property should be able to develop it the way they want to
providing drainage concerns and other issues are addressed.
Charles Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated his property is adjacent to the Ted Rix
property [the subject property]. He lives there with his wife and 3 children. He noted they are not against
development. He does not think the other residents in the neighborhood are either. He stated people have
expected development for many years. People always thought that there would someday be 1 – 3 new
homes on that entire property. People anticipated they would be very nice homes. People assumed the
developer would take the time to get to know the neighborhood and more importantly the neighbors. They
expected a developer to come up with a proposal that would be a win-win for everyone. Not the win-lose
one that has been proposed. From his vantage point the revised Concept Plan for the PUD is marginally
better that the first one. He noted that from his perspective it is a “false choice” to say it is either this PUD
or the R-1C [traditional plat] because the residents think there may be inherent problems with the R-1C
(e.g., building on a bluff that should not be built on off of a county road). He does not think the R-1C
would be approved.
He highlighted the gifts that would be received from the developer. One is a conservation easement.
Those are trees that the residents already benefit from located on a historic bluff that one quarter of a mile
down the road could not be developed because of best practice bluff ordinances. Another is the area
would get a trail; a trail to nowhere. From his perspective no one is asking for it; no one wants it. Another
is there would be 6 inches more distance between the homes. This evening people learned it would be a
little more. The average distance between homes in the neighborhood is 45 feet. He stated he does not
consider those items gifts; to him they are tokens.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 15 of 26
He stated he understands that this is the Concept Stage of the PUD but at some point someone needs to
decide if this is a good concept. He noted there will be more traffic. Short term during construction and
long term affecting safety, noise levels and the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. He asked how many
more vehicles will pass per day on Hummingbird Road and Summit Avenue short term and long term. An
analysis of that has not been done. He stated many people of all ages and animals use the 2 roads. He
commented that one day when he was driving on the roadway he saw Ted Rix, the deceased father of the
current owner of the property, walking along throwing tree branches onto the road. He stopped and asked
Ted what he was doing. Ted told him that people were driving too fast and the branches were a natural
speed bump; it slows people down.
He stated the likelihood of an accident will increase because of the PUD. The roads in the neighborhood
will become more dangerous. He asked who would be in favor of more dangerous roads. He asked how
many additional pedestrian and/or vehicle accidents there will be. He is not aware of analysis being done.
He stated construction trucks will be using Summit Avenue and/or Hummingbird Road and he asked how
much they will damage the roadways. He asked who will pay to repair them. He stated long-term there
could be up to 7 new houses. He asked how much the increase in traffic from the new residents will
accelerate the deterioration of the roads and who will pay to repair that. He stated if there is one half inch
of rain he asked how much more will go down Summit Avenue. He asked how many rain gardens there
will be and how big they will be. How much runoff will they prevent? He stated from his perspective the
new houses will be track homes, while noting he was sure they would be nice. The houses will be on lots
smaller than any others in the neighborhood. They will be closer to the road and closer together. No one
in the neighborhood likes the idea of track homes. They do not fit with the character of the neighborhood.
They will affect the residents’ welfare.
He stated his hope is that the discussion about this PUD ends this evening. Prolonging it will not benefit
the welfare of anyone. He reiterated it is not between PUD and R-1C which cleverly pits people against
people. There are more choices than that.
Vicki Franzen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that Greg Fisher, 2340 Hummingbird Road,
asked her to read a letter from him because he was not able to be here this evening. The letter read as
follows.
“Dear Planning Commission members,
Since the first proposal I have conducted extensive research on PUDs, consulted with legal experts as
well as planning directors in other cities. I have learned something very important and significant.
PUDs were not designed to be imposed on mature neighborhoods such as ours. They are designed to
allow for major developments where dozens or even hundreds of homes are to be constructed to
support economic development and increased population density. PUDs are also intended to provide
additional benefits to the neighborhood in lieu of zoning variances like community playgrounds,
pools, nature area etcetera. The revised plan is suggesting that they won’t remove trees and that is
the benefit we are all supposed to appreciate. This is nothing more than a token ploy in my opinion.
I believe PUDs are an important tool and useful in the right place. Summit Avenue and Hummingbird
Road are not the place for a PUD. It is important to note that Summit and Hummingbird are one in
the same. Any impact on Summit directly impacts each and every resident on Hummingbird from a
safety, traffic, road use and quality of life standpoint. The residents on the Carver side Chanhassen
side of the street deserve to be heard equally and treated as such. The vast majority of traffic flows
down Hummingbird to the north toward Summit especially in the winter when navigating up the steep
slope of Summit.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 16 of 26
I have read and understood the City Engineer Paul Hornby’s comments as they relate to the proposed
PUD. It is a sound and objective summary in my opinion. There are still many technical,
environmental, safety and engineering questions that need to be answered.
On the contrary I have also read Planning Director Brad Nielson’s memorandum dated October 28
[actually dated October 31] regarding the Summit Woods Concept Plan. I understand that Mr.
Nielsen is a long time City employee and part of his job is to work with the builders. However, when I
read his report it is written in a tone favoring the developer and I don’t understand this. City
employees work for the people and is it not the Planning Director’s duty to enforce the City’s existing
zoning regulations first and foremost. Does the Planning Director work for the developer or does he
represent the people of Shorewood. Shouldn’t his recommendations and comments be objective and
based on facts and data? The last paragraph of his memo states the following “The Summit Woods
project is exactly the type of project for which the planned unit development (PUD) tool was
intended. It must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop his property under
the rules established by the City. In this instance, the PUD approach is considered to be far superior
to traditional platting.” Mr. Nielsen contradicts himself in the concluding paragraph where he
references individual property rights afforded under the rules established by the City. This is what we
are asking for. Is it Mr. Nielsen’s opinion that the proposed PUD is far superior to traditional
platting? Is this the Planning Commission’s opinion? The people who actually live here disagree. I
vehemently disagree with the statement that the PUD tool was intended for this type of project. I
strongly agree that property owners have the right to develop their property under the rules
established by the City as stated by Mr. Nielsen. The rules should not be changed for this proposed
development.
Again, I respectfully request the Planning Commission reject this latest PUD and strongly consider
the people’s voice. The people who actually live here deserve to be represented. It is your duty as
elected officials to represent your constituents appropriately. I ask you to consider how many
constituents are in the room tonight who are in support of the PUD. There is nothing logical about
the PUD other than it maximizes the profit of the people who will never live here.
I knew Ted Rix. He was a kind respectful man who cared about the neighborhood and people who
lived here. There is a massive tree trunk still lying in the backyard of his home. I offered to cut it up
for him once. He said he wanted to keep it the way it was. While we can’t expect anyone who owns
the property to keep the things the same we can expect the changes to be respectful and abide by the
existing rules. I am quite certain the PUD is not the legacy he envisioned for his property.
Sincerely,
Greg Fischer”
Commissioner Labadie stated that for the record she asked Ms. Franzen to give the address of Mr.
Fischer. Ms. Franzen stated his address is 2340 Hummingbird Road.
Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that he had not realized that the Planning
Commissioners volunteer their time. They do not get paid. He thanked the Commissioners for what they
do. He stated he had known the now deceased Ted Rix; the former owner of the subject property. He
commented that when he first met Ted Rix when he and his wife came to look the vacant lot that they
ultimately built on Ted introduced himself as the crudest person in the neighborhood. He stated he
thought that if Ted Rix were present this evening he would have more forceful opinions than those heard
this evening. From his perspective Ted Rix would be really disappointed with what is being proposed. He
does not think he would have agreed that the significant 1.85 acre tree conservation area would be a
lasting legacy from the Rix family to this neighborhood.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 17 of 26
He explained his home is 5,600 square feet in size and it has every conceivable upgrade in it. He stated if
he were to put his home on the market and if he were to tell a person interested in is property that the
proposal is to build six new homes across the street from his property he thinks the interested party would
take pause. He then stated it is his opinion that what is being proposed will probably reduce the value of
his property by $200,000. He does not like the thought of that happening.
He asked who owns the subject property now. Someone in the audience responded Don Rix. He stated if
that is the case this is an open ball game. He noted that he hopes the PUD is denied. He stated from his
perspective the easy way to develop the lot north of the county line is to build 3 beautiful houses a long
way back from the road. Everyone would be happy.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:42 P.M.
Commissioner Labadie stated the copy of the Concept Plan included in the meeting packet indicates 9
trees would be lost. If the proposed houses would be setback further from the road she asked if
substantially more trees would be lost. Mr. Bona responded they would be.
Commissioner Davis stated her main concern continues to be the road and the drainage. From her
perspective they are astronomical issues. She noted that she does not believe to the slightest degree that
the rain gardens will control runoff. She also noted that she does not think a 50-foot-long delivery trailer
can make it around the corner of the road. She stated there is construction going on near her home and
sometimes construction vehicles make it difficult to use the roadway. She then stated the proposed
development will contribute to an already horrible drainage problem that should be solved before more
houses are constructed in the area. She went on to state Summit Avenue is just not wide enough.
Mr. Bona stated Homestead plans to address all of the concerns the City Engineer listed in his
memorandum dated October 28, 2013. It will do all of the analysis that is required for the drainage as part
of the preliminary plat. He noted that the City Engineer will not allow more stormwater to flow down
Summit Avenue. The site will have to be designed in a way that it will retain the stormwater in the rain
gardens.
Commissioner Labadie stated Mr. Rienstra had indicated that he had to replace his driveway and that
debris was in the driveway. She asked if the contractor who replaced the driveway thought the damage
was caused by the erosion issue or was it because it was an old driveway that was in need of replacement.
Mr. Rienstsra stated the person who repaired his driveway had indicated the rest of his driveway was in
excellent condition. His driveway only had to be repaired down by the road.
Commissioner Garelick asked Director Nielsen if it will ever become mandatory to widen Summit
Avenue to at a minimum comply with the Fire Code. Nielsen stated for this proposed development staff
is recommending the road be widened to at least 20 feet (which is the Fire Code standard) in front of the
plat. Staff has also talked about the fact that the City will likely have to advance its study for the
remainder of Summit Avenue going down the hill. Nielsen noted that Shorewood cannot dictate what
happens in Chanhassen to any degree. Garelick stated when the City makes improvements to the road he
asked if the City will pay that cost or if the property owners will pay it. The developer would pay the cost
to widen Summit Avenue in front of his plat. Nielsen noted that Shorewood does not assess for roadway
improvements at this time. Therefore, additional improvements would be paid for out of City funds.
Ms. Foli stated from her perspective there would be plenty of room to move the houses further back on
properties without impacting trees a lot. She then stated yards could be on the sides of the houses.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 18 of 26
Chair Geng noted that he is also concerned about the substandard roadway and stormwater runoff. He
stated he agrees that the City should move up consideration of making improvements to Summit Avenue.
He then stated that it is his understanding that rain gardens can be designed to work well and that they do
work well if maintained. He expressed concern that private individuals may not be committed to doing
that forward. He asked is some type of covenant would be acceptable to the developer. Mr. Bona
responded yes and explained that is typically how Homestead solves that type of problem. He stated
maintenance of a rain garden is complex and there needs to be rules each property owner would follow.
Geng noted there is some precedent for this type of thing with other PUDs in Shorewood. Mr. Bona stated
Homestead’s two PUDS it recently developed in the City of Minnetonka each had rain gardens and there
are recorded covenants to ensure they are maintained.
Commissioner Labadie stated she shares some of the same concerns about the rain gardens and the
maintenance of them even with a covenant. Relying on rain gardens in Minnesota could prove to be tricky
during the spring when the snow is melting on the hill and the ground is still frozen. She questioned
where that stormwater will flow. She noted she is extremely concerned about drainage. Chair Geng noted
that drainage is a problem no matter what when the ground is frozen. Labadie stated she is not sure that
having only rain gardens is sufficient.
Commissioner Davis agreed that drainage is a major concern and stated stormwater is part of road
construction.
Chair Geng stated drainage will be addressed during the next stage.
Heidi Welbig, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated widening Summit Avenue would not be an
ordinary undertaking. It would cost a tremendous about of money.
Mr. Foli stated there has been a lot of discussion about trees. He pointed to something on the screen and
noted there was a large tree in two different spots and he thought they could be 50, 60 to100 years old. If
the houses are constructed further back on the lots those trees will not have to be removed.
Commissioner Maddy stated on a conceptual level all of the site’s challenges can be ignored (e.g.,
drainage management and trees). They will have to be dealt with in the next stage of this project. He
suggested the discussion be focused on the PUD. Some think a PUD is not appropriate for this site. He
thinks it is. The PUD is consideration of one gift to the City (a gift of conservation open space) for the
relaxing of a rule. He asked if the building of 1 extra house as part of the PUD up at the top of Summit
Avenue would be worth it (a conforming plat would allow for 3 houses to be built). He noted he has
difficulty justifying that because of the cost to build on the site. He stated he does not think the PUD at
that grade is worth the City relaxing its rules. He asked if 1 extra house is actually the issue at hand or
should be Planning Commission be delving into things such a drainage, erosion and trees.
Chair Geng stated the public hearing is about the appropriateness of the Concept Plan being proposed. It
is not about a traditional plat. The public hearing was noticed as a PUD. The focus needs to remain on the
PUD. He noted there would not be a conservation easement with a conforming traditional plat and there
will be 1 less house.
Commissioner Maddy stated he just wanted to understand the actual worth of the conservation easement.
He then stated the zoning in the area is different than the actual conditions of the site. He questions if this
is the place to relax the rules.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 19 of 26
Mr. Bona explained if Homestead were to come back with a conforming plat similar to what was shown
earlier this evening it would be a 3-lot layout up at the top of Summit Avenue. It would also come back
with a house plan for the bluff. Homestead is going to build on top anyway; at least 3 three houses.
Building on the extra 2 lots would be an added benefit. Homestead’s choice would be not to do anything
on the slope and instead do something on the 2 lots. He noted that he agrees the issue this evening is the 1
extra lot on the parcel being discussed. He acknowledged that there are a lot of other issues. He stated the
conservation easement is very substantial. People take for granted that what is there now will be there
forever. But, the property owner has the right to develop the property the way Homestead has shown and
the owner hired Homestead to make that happen for him. The owner is in full support of what is being
proposed.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to
City Council that the PUD is or is not an acceptable solution.
Chair Geng stated the question at hand from his perspective is if the PUD is appropriate for this site. He
does share concerns raised about drainage, the substandard nature of Summit Avenue and so forth. He is
still not convinced that what is being proposed is the right solution from an aesthetic perspective. He
thought the revisions the developer made to the Concept Plan are substantial. He noted that he
understands that what has been presented in the Concept Plan is not meant to be a certain type of
architecture for the houses. He stated he understands the houses would be much closer together than
others in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Garelick noted that he has been in the real estate business for more than 40 years. He
stated it would be helpful if Shorewood were to have a definition of neighborhood. He commented in
some areas in the City of Minneapolis residents take great pride in their neighborhoods. And, they make
an effort to preserve their neighborhoods including the value of their properties. He expressed concern
that the addition of the houses as proposed, including being so close together, will change the character of
the neighborhood. He did not think it would be appropriate to change such a unique and beautiful
neighborhood. He questioned if it might be worthwhile to go to the next stage in this process in order to
be provided with more detail. He stated at this time he supports the residents and keeping the character of
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated he is not wild about the PUD. He noted that a traditional plat may
become a reality. He asked if people can live with the traditional plat.
Alex Petrosian, 23130 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, stated based on information presented this evening
he stated there were originally 4 lots on two existing parcels on the site. He asked why that plan is being
changed. He then asked why it would be allowable to put two houses on the bottom to begin with. He
stated there was never a plan to have more than 4 lots on that subdivision. He asked if it is a new City rule
that would allow an extra 2 houses on the bottom. He stated he would be okay if just 3 houses were built.
A property owner has a right to build on their property and the 3 houses would be conforming. He noted
he does not think the area next to him could be built on.
In response to a question from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained Mr. Rix owns 2
parcels of land in Shorewood and another 1 in Chanhassen. Woodruff stated three residents have stated
that the lower parcel was to be 3 lots. Nielsen noted he is not aware of anything that indicates that. The
plat shows it as one lot.
Mr. Foli suggested a compromise. He stated from his perspective it does not have to be framed between
the PUD and a conforming traditional plat. He then stated residents do not need the threat that if people
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 20 of 26
don’t go with the PUD then it will be developed under a conforming traditional plat. He thought there is a
middle ground. He noted people are not against a PUD. They object to the PUD in this form. He asked the
developer to come back with a different PUD.
Someone in the audience expressed her objection to the PUD.
Chair Geng asked where this application is in the 60-day rule timeframe. Director Nielsen responded it is
approaching the second 60-day period. Nielsen explained if a recommendation is not made this evening
the City needs to send the applicant a letter that this consideration will take longer than 60 days and up to
120 days.
Geng stated recognizing that this proposal is in the Concept Stage and that detailed engineering work
would not be done until later on in the PUD process he asked if there is any information the Planning
Commission needs at this time before it can make a recommendation.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated he would like to hear more from the engineer about how drainage will be
handled. Drainage is a big concern to him. Chair Geng stated that is typically handled in the Development
Stage. Muehlberg asked how the Planning Commission can make a recommendation either way without
knowing enough about this.
Director Nielsen explained the way a PUD is handled through the 3 stages (Concept Stage, Development
Stage and Final Plan) was designed to raise the issues for the next level of review (e.g. the preliminary
plat, the Development Stage). A developer cannot prepare detailed plans for every concept that comes
along. There has to be some acceptance or denial of the Concept Plan. If there is acceptance it can be
accepted with a direction that they have to address the drainage issue satisfactorily. He noted those
questions were asked during the October 1 public hearing and they were addressed by proposing rain
gardens instead of the pond below. The rain gardens would have to be sized to Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District standards and City standards. To delay this for information that is provided during the
Development Stage may not be the appropriate thing to do.
Chair Geng clarified he was not suggesting this be delayed for that reason. He stated the engineering
questions would be addressed during the Development Stage. He then stated this proposal is somewhat
unusual because of the topography of the site. He noted that he does not recollect there being a PUD
proposal that is as challenging as the one being discussed.
Labadie moved, Maddy seconded, recommending denial of the proposed Planned Unit
Development for the property located at 23040 Summit Avenue.
Commissioner Garelick stated he does not think the Planning Commission has enough information to
make a definitive decision on the future of the proposal. He then stated he agrees that it should be an
unfavorable recommendation at this time unless information can be provided that shows the concerns will
be dealt with.
Chair Geng reiterated that type of detail is provided later in the PUD process. He stated he did not think
any developer would provide that type of detail during the Concept Stage. If the developer cannot provide
answers during the Development Stage then the project may die at that point.
Motion passed 5/1 with Geng dissenting.
Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission recommends Council not approve this Concept Plan.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 21 of 26
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:27 P.M.
Chair Geng thanked the members of the audience for coming this evening and sharing their views.
Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 10:27 P.M.
Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 10:30 P.M.
2. 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – INTERIM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR A BICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS
Applicant: James Steinwand
Location: 5680 County Road 19
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
stated this hearing is for an interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and site plan review for a bicycle
repair business at 5680 County Road 19. The applicant is Jim Steinwand and he is present this evening.
He explained if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this item this evening it will be
placed on a November 25, 2013, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and
consideration.
Director Nielsen explained that during its June 4, 2013, meeting the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider a request by James Steinwand for a conditional use permit for a bicycle repair and
auto detailing business at 5680 County Road 19. After a number of issues were raised about that
application the Planning Commission decided to continue the hearing to its next meeting. Mr. Steinwand
took issue with a number of staff’s conditions listed in the staff report dated May 30, 2013. After the
meeting he indicated that he intended to withdraw his application. Mr. Steinwand had explained that his
use was likely to be short term and that he did not want to make the investment in a long-term site plan.
During the hearing, staff suggested another approach that may work for the site which is an interim
C.U.P. The interim C.U.P. is a tool in the City’s Zoning Code that allows for uses of property that may
not be consistent with a long-term plan for the area but are a reasonable use for the property until the
property is developed or redeveloped. One of the stated purposes of the interim C.U.P. is “To allow a use
that is presently judged acceptable by the City Council, but that with anticipated development or
redevelopment, will not be acceptable in the future; or …”.
When the application was first being considered the applicant had objected to the condition of having to
remove the driveway on to County Road 19. He also objected to having to remove pavement that was
non-conforming under current code and to put curbing around the entire parking lot. The interim C.U.P.
allows the City to make those exceptions on a short-term basis.
Based on the analysis of the case, staff recommends an interim C.U.P. be granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The initial approval should extend for three years, after which the property will be reviewed for
its relationship to redevelopment activity in the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment area. If
redevelopment is not imminent at that time, the permit would be extended for an additional two
years, after which the nonconformities listed in the May 30, 2013, staff report would be brought
into conformance or the use would be removed from the site.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 22 of 26
2. By the time the City Council reviews this application, it will be too late to do any paving. It is
recommended that the applicant obtain a bid for paving the gravel portion of the parking lot and
removal of the small area of bituminous mentioned above. From that bid, a letter of credit or cash
escrow for one and one half times the amount of the bid should be required in order to ensure that
the work will be done no later than June 1, 2014.
3. Similar to Item 2, landscaping will not be able to be done until next spring. Again a letter of
credit or cash escrow should be required to guarantee that the landscape plan is implemented by
June 1, 2014.
4. Any proposed signage for the site must comply with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning
Code.
5. No outdoor storage, display or service is allowed on the site. All service work is to be performed
within the building. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles or trailers is not allowed on the
property except inside.
6. The proposed use of the property is subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 Subd. 4. of the
Shorewood Zoning Code which sets forth the interim C.U.P.
Nielsen noted the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that was prepared by a professional landscape
firm. The plan is consistent with was discussed the first time around and it is generally consistent with the
County Road 19 Corridor Plan.
Chair Geng asked Mr. Steinwand if he has anything to add or respond to.
Jim Steinwand, the owner of My Car Guy and the applicant, stated he has contacted an asphalt contractor
and he has received a bid from them. He also has received something from Mom’s Landscaping. He noted
he can enter into a contract with both companies to get those things done in the spring. Each will require
him to put 25 percent down. He stated he will be as excited as anyone to get those two things done. He
stated he is new in business with his My Car Guy business. He questioned the need to provide an escrow
or line of credit when he already has to put money down with those two companies. He noted he is
anxious to get the bicycle repair business started.
Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Steinwand if he would be running the bicycle repair business.
Mr. Steinwand noted he is already doing bicycle repair in the My Car Guy building. What he is requesting
now is basically an extension of that business. He clarified that in the new location he will be doing
bicycle repair, rental and sales. He noted that is stated in his application. He explained the infrastructure
will go through his existing computer system at his My Car Guy building. The individual who used to run
Area Wide Cycle is his pseudo bicycle repair manager now and he will be staged in the building located
at 5680 County Road 19. He stated because the two buildings will be so close he will be able to go
between buildings at any time.
Commissioner Garelick stated the bicycle repair business is something the area needs.
Mr. Steinwand stated he thought it will be fun. There are a lot of local people that will be excited about it.
There are bicycle groups that are excited about it.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:39 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 23 of 26
Lowell Day (Boone), 25 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, and a representative for the American Legion Post
259 located at 24450 Smithtown Road, noted the Legion owns the 5680 County Road 19 property. He
stated he thought that for the interim everyone believes this is the best solution for this property. With
regard to curbing the parking lot area, American Legion representatives and Mr. Steinwand have
discussed that if Mr. Steinwand’s bicycle business goes well curbing would be installed before the five
years is up and maybe within three years. He then stated with the approach proposed he believes everyone
wins and the site gets cleaned up.
Commissioner Garelick asked if the utilities in the building are in working order. Mr. Steinwand stated
they were when the building was closed up a few years ago.
Commissioner Maddy asked if Mr. Steinwand intends to connect to power, water, gas and other utilities.
Mr. Steinwand stated he does.
Commissioner Davis stated that lot is used as a cut through off of County Road 19. She asked if Mr.
Steinwand is going to put a stop to that. Mr. Steinwand noted he will; it is dangerous.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:43 P.M.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated the information in the meeting packet does not clearly state the use the
Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation on. He recommended the motion explicitly
state what the use will be. He stated he understands that information would have been provided last May
but he has not seen it. He then stated the copy of the landscape plan included in the packet indicates
screening between the 5680 County Road 19 building and the American Legion building. He noted that
he does not think the City should dictate screening between two properties owned by the American
Legion.
Director Nielsen stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study talked about having a backdrop of
landscaping behind the commercial businesses along County Road 19.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated from his perspective if the American Legion wants screening the Legion
should work that out with its tenant Mr. Steinwand. He noted he will make that comment when Council
considers this if the landscape plan stays the same. He stated if the City Council approves this application
the permit will be issued immediately on the basis that some work will be done next spring. The City
needs a guarantee that the work will be done. That is the purpose of the escrow.
Chair Geng asked if a letter of credit is onerous. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he assumes the City
will accept a non-revocable letter of credit. Director Nielsen noted a cash escrow or letter of credit is
fairly typical. Geng asked what a letter of credit costs. Director Nielsen stated it used to be 1.5 percent but
he is not sure what it is now.
Geng stated with regard to the staff recommendation that the interim C.U.P. be for three years and then be
reevaluated and if redevelopment is not imminent then the C.U.P. be extended for another two years. He
asked why it is important to define how long the extension would be for at this time. Nielsen stated an
interim C.U.P. should have a deadline on it. Nielsen clarified he is not saying the bicycle repair, rental
and sales business can’t be a long-term use for that area. Nielsen noted that for now the City is waving
requirements that everyone else has to comply with. Geng clarified he is fine with the three years but he
does not want to tie Council to a two-year extension. Nielsen clarified it is for up to two years without
having the improvements made.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 24 of 26
Commissioner Muehlberg asked what kinds of signage would be allowed. Director Nielsen explained the
applicant is allowed three signs on the property, two of which can be wall signs and one can be
freestanding. He thinks, but is not entirely sure, that the existing freestanding sign on the sight is based on
the size of the allowable area. The bicycle business could use the pylon sign if it wants. The amount of
signage that is allowed is up to three signs, with the total area based on 10 percent of the building
silhouette. Because the property is a corner lot they can use both the south and east elevations. Maddy
asked if the signs have to be for the bicycle business. Nielsen responded yes and noted offsite advertising
is not allowed.
Mr. Steinwand noted the legal name of the company is My Car Guy and he has checked with legal
counsel on that. He stated he has a couple of other companies that are an extension of that. The bicycle
business will be My Car Guy doing business as South Lake Cycle. He then stated based on his
calculations the freestanding sign is the sign limit. He explained he envisions the top square having the
My Car Guy logo and the second saying dba South Lake Cycle.
Davis moved, Garelick seconded, recommending approval of the interim conditional use permit for
a bicycle repair, rental and sales business for the property located at 5680 County Road 19 subject
to the conditions in the staff report. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:54 P.M.
3. DISCUSS ATTENDANCE
Chair Geng explained that he had asked that the topic of attendance be placed on this agenda. For the
October 1 meeting there was not a quorum of the Planning Commission for almost one-half hour.
Unfortunately, for that meeting there were quite a few people in the audience. That reflected poorly on the
City and it is an embarrassment for everyone. He noted that in the code of ordinances it states that if a
member of a Commission attends less than half of the meetings in a year or if they miss four consecutive
meetings that is considered their resignation. He suggested that going forward people email Director
Nielsen and him and copy the rest of the Commission if someone cannot attend an upcoming meeting or
if they are going to be late. If people know during a meeting that they will not be able to attend the next
meeting that they bring it up during the draft next agenda topic.
Commissioner Muehlberg noted that he was the guilty party the last meeting. He explained that he drives
bus part time and he got delayed bringing the children back because it was an overtime situation. It would
be helpful if there was a phone number he could call when situations like that come up. Director Nielsen
stated he will give all of the Planning Commissioners his cell phone number and he asked them not to
give it out.
Chair Geng noted he did not bring this up to single anyone out.
Commissioner Maddy asked if it would be better to let just Director Nielsen know.
Chair Geng stated it would be nice if all of the Planning Commissioners know. He noted that he had
asked staff to put a reminder in the email that is sent out with the meeting packet.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 25 of 26
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Maddy stated that the City of Chanhassen has a hill/bluff zoning regulation. He asked if
the Planning Commission should know more about that. Director Nielsen stated the Commission could
review that and noted that it is probably similar to what the City has for its shoreland district. The City
has a bluff section for riparian lots. Maddy commented that the City is a pretty flat town except for the
Summit Avenue hill.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there are two relatively simple conditional use permits (C.U.P.s) slated for the
December 3, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. One will require a rezoning in order to get the C.U.P.
the applicant is requesting. The Commission has to schedule a neighborhood meeting for the Galpin Lake
Road trail segment and the Mill Street trail segment. He anticipates the open house meeting will be late
November or early December. He suggested maybe having the open house from 5 P.M. – 7:00 P.M.
before the December meeting.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked if there is anything new with the trail budget.
Director Nielsen noted that Council has pushed the Mill Street segment out for at least a few years
because of the expense and the lack of right-of-way on the County road. He stated Hennepin County is
really disappointed with that. He then stated as of now it appears that the Galpin Lake Road segment will
move forward.
Commissioner Davis asked if the Mill Street segment being talked about is the trail to nowhere. Director
Nielsen explained if from the City of Excelsior to the City of Chanhassen is nowhere then that is the one.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the October 28, 2013, City Council work session and regular
meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings).
• SLUC
None
• Other
Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needed to establish Council Liaisons for the next seven
months.
Council Liaisons were selected as followed:
November 2013 Commissioner Davis
December 2013 Commissioner Garelick
January 2014 Chair Geng
February 2014 Commissioner Muehlberg
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 5, 2013
Page 26 of 26
March 2014 Commissioner Maddy
April 2014 Commissioner Labadie
May 2014 Commissioner Charbonnet
Council Liaison Woodruff asked if any Planning Commissioner terms are up in 2014. [Commissioner
Charbonnet’s and Commissioner Garelick’s terms are up in February 2014.]
Commissioner Davis stated from her perspective a person has to do one term just to figure things out.
Then in the second term they can make more of a contribution.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Muehlberg moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November
5, 2013, at 11:10 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder