Loading...
03 02 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gorham, Eggenberger (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Callies Absent: Commissioner Gault 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gorham moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for March 2, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 2, 2020 Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2021, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 3/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Minor Subdivision Application: Michael and Melissa Foster and Janet Malotky and Steve Dietz Location: 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road Planning Director Darling explained that the property owners are jointly requesting a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of property to the other party. She explained that the request is for the rear portion of 24680 Smithtown Road to become part of the 5675 Christopher Road property. She noted that both lots exceed the minimum lot requirements before and after the subdivision and have submitted all the necessary legal descriptions needed in order to draft easements. Staff recommends approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Riedel confirmed that both properties are fully conforming in every respect both now and if this lot line adjustment is granted. Planning Director Darling confirmed that the lots are conforming to lot area and width. The house on the Smithtown Road property is currently non-conforming to the side property line but it will be no more non-conforming after this exchange of property than it was before. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 2 of 12 Chair Maddy asked if there is concern about putting a drainage and utility easement directly under an existing structure. Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks she may work with the applicants to alter the legal description so that it is not over the top of the home. She stated that detail could be included within the Planning Commission recommendation. Michael and Melissa Foster, 5675 Christopher Road, explained that they are attempting to purchase the land behind their home which is the back portion of the Smithtown Road lot. He stated that their goal is to preserve the land as open space and keep it undeveloped. Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, stated that they are happy for this lot line adjustment to happen because that back part of his property is more realistically the backyard for the Fosters. Commissioner Gorham noted that the letter from the Foster’s stated that they were planning on adding additional plantings and asked what type of plantings they would be planning to do. Mr. Foster explained that about half of the area is wooded and there is also a portion that is fairly open directly behind them which is open space. He noted that there are a few dying trees that they may replace. Chair Maddy opened this item for public testimony at 7:10 p.m. There being no public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 7:10 p.m. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment request for properties located at 24680 Smithtown Road and 5675 Christopher Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, and direct staff to work with the applicants to re-write the legal descriptions of the 10-foot drainage and utility easements. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. B. Variance Applicant: Cyclone Construction Location: 25360 Birch Bluff Road Planning Director Darling explained that this property is located at the bend in Birch Bluff Road at the boundary with Tonka Bay. She noted that the applicant would like to demolish the existing home and detached garage and construct a new home. She stated that the current structures are non-conforming in both setbacks and because there are two dwellings on the same property. The request is to construct the new home and maintain the current setback of 1.2 feet from the east property line and noted that the home has areas that are outside the existing footprint and would be closer than permitted to the side property line as well as proposing a garage that would be 24.7 feet from the east property line where 35 feet is required. The applicant is unable to relocate the sewer line and will need to reduce the size of the garage so that the garage is not located within the easement which also reduces the amount of variance requested to 30 feet where 35 feet is required. Staff received one e-mail from Thomas and Susan Hallin in opposition to the request. Staff also received a call from the adjacent property owner who was not able to attend tonight’s meeting expressing their support for the request. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Riedel asked about the setback exhibit that showed the minimum buildable area on the lot. He stated that he feels this shows how unrealistic it is to aim for a conforming structure on this site. Planning Director Darling agreed that this is a tricky lot. Commissioner Riedel stated that the proposed construction still shows the dwelling over the garage and asked if that will be eliminated. Planning Director Darling stated that their proposal is to remove the entire building. Commissioner Gorham asked if there was also a shed that would be removed. Planning Director Darling stated that staff is recommending that it be removed, but the applicants would like to keep it. Commissioner Riedel stated that he believes that structure is both a shed and a boathouse. Commissioner Gorham asked about the storage container. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes it holds their personal items until their new home is constructed but that can be answered by the applicants. Commissioner Eggenberger asked why staff was recommending the shed be removed. Planning Director Darling explained that when a house is demolished it would leave the property without a principal building and the shed is an accessory building, so the accessory buildings are removed at the same time as the principal structure is removed. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if that would still be the case even though the plan is to rebuild a new principal structure. Planning Director Darling stated that staff would still recommend that the accessory structure be removed because it is nonconforming. She explained that usually staff attempts to get conformity with the accessory structures when a home is demolished. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the variance for the home is granted whether the applicant would be able to rebuild the shed/boathouse again or would he need another variance. Planning Director Darling stated that the City could not administratively allow him to construct a shed that close to the property lines. Commissioner Gorham confirmed that the applicant could install a shed in a conforming location. He asked about the e-mail that was submitted from a resident opposed to the project. He stated that the e-mail is vague and asked if there were any additional details that describe what the issue is with the project. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agrees with Commissioner Gorham that the e-mail was a bit vague and simply stated that they were opposed to the project but did not say why. Councilmember Callies asked if the City needed to hold a public hearing on this item since it was a variance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 4 of 12 Planning Director Darling stated that a public hearing is not required for a variance request, but the Planning Commission does take public testimony. Mike Melnychuk, 25360 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he and his wife purchased this home in May of 2019 with the original intent to keep it intact the way it is with some improvements, however, the buildings are in dire need of some TLC in many different ways. He explained that they had been looking for a lake home for about three years prior to finding this property. He stated that in 2010, his wife was diagnosed with MS and as a result of that she has very limited mobility and noted that along with that she has fatigue and sensitivity to heat and humidity. This property was unique in that there was a breeze coming off the lake and shade for his wife. The shed and boathouse being discussed is enormously important to them and noted that frequently his wife needs to rest after getting off the boat and spends time inside the boathouse to recover before she can make it into the house. He stated that he feels this is much more than just a request to keep a non-conforming structure on their property and is a request to allow them to enjoy the property in the manner that they purchased it. He reiterated that they purchased this property for very specific reasons related to his wife’s health challenges. He stated that builders have told them it is more practical to rebuild the foundation of this home rather than remodel because it is in many respects over 70 years old. He stated that he believes the boathouse is at least 70 years old and believes it was in place before there were any rules on setbacks. He stated that if they are unable to use this property for the purpose that they purchased it, its value to them would be greatly diminished and reiterated that the boathouse is much more than just a boathouse for them. He stated that the boathouse is a physical necessity and an aid to his wife. He stated that the proposed garage has been shrunk down because they were unable to move the sewer line, so they are losing storage that they were planning on in that structure, which makes the boathouse even more important for that purpose. Ryan Seifert, Cyclone Construction, stated that he has been working with Planning Director Darling on this property for about 6 months as they have attempted to do their best to build the home around the City’s restrictions for this lot. He stated that their plans remove two nonconforming structures and noted that they are pulling the home back from the lake to meet the setback requirements and explained that the only reason a variance is needed is because of the unique shape of the lot for the front side that faces towards Birch Bluff Road. He explained that the neighbor to this portion of the lot is the fire lane. Mr. Melnychuk noted that the e-mail that was submitted from the individual opposed to this project lives in Tonka Bay not in Shorewood. Commissioner Riedel stated that Mr. Melnychuk has been part of the ongoing discussion in relation to the fire lanes in the City. He asked for his comment on the design of the home and the potential for there to be snowmobiles using the fire lane to access the lake. Mr. Melnychuk explained that if you go walk this fire lane, you will quickly realize that it is impossible to navigate anything through this corridor, including most human beings. He stated that they have lived there for about 2 years now and 100% of all winter lake access is done through the beach over in Tonka Bay. He stated that there are about 1-2 snowmobiles per week that come down Birch Bluff Road and everything else is trailered and driven onto the lake through the beach itself. He stated that to specifically answer Commissioner Riedel’s question, he has zero concerns about anybody in their right mind utilizing this fire lane to access the lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Riedel stated that he would disagree a bit with Mr. Melnychuk because he has been on site a few times this winter and stated that it looked as though a few snowmobiles made the effort to travel on the Shorewood side, but agrees with everything else he said. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he used the term ‘in their right mind’ for a reason because he believes the individuals that may have attempted to utilize the fire lane may have been under the influence of something that happened out on the lake. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that in the future, that fire lane could be cleared out so there could potentially be snowmobile traffic in that location. He clarified that just because there is not snowmobile traffic now does not mean that there couldn’t be snowmobile traffic at some point in the future. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he believes then that his driveway would have to be removed. He stated that he does not see any reason for the City to spend the money to clear out the fire lane when the beach access is available right next door in Tonka Bay and noted that he doesn’t see what the public good would be for spending that kind of money. Commissioner Gorham asked how the plans have been affected by the City asking the applicant to reduce his storage space. Mr. Seifert stated that he had actually just submitted some revised drawings to Planning Director Darling. He stated that they shrunk the garage by 16 feet or so and will essentially change it from a 4-car garage to a 3-car garage. He stated that the total area lost is about 16x35 feet, which is significant. Commissioner Gorham stated that the revised plans are it definitely not as attractive as the original proposal. He asked about the plans for the second floor of this space. Planning Director Darling showed the plans for the second-floor space. Chair Maddy opened this item for public testimony at 7:41 p.m. Peter Lehman, 21265 Radisson Road, noted that this project does not have any direct impact on him, but would like to comment on the boathouse. He stated that he believes the boathouse has historical significance and thinks there is some value in having historical structures kept in place that otherwise would be removed. He stated that the City has, in the past, allowed accessory buildings that are grossly nonconforming to remain due to their historical significance with some evidence and other input from the community. He stated that he has lived in Shorewood for over 35 years and has seen quite a bit of construction as well as preservation of structures but there does not appear to be formalized rules around how it happens and seems a bit ad hoc. He reiterated that he does not believe the City should remove something that has some historical significance. He gave the example of 5620 Covington Road where there is a garage that is literally on the road and believes it even exceeds the property boundary that was allowed to remain while variances were given for accessory space. He gave another example of one on Christmas Lake where there are quite a few properties that have boathouses that are adjacent to the lake that are quite large and have burned down and been rebuilt. He noted that there had also been instances where large homes were allowed to be built on properties and there was no requirement that the boathouses be removed. He reiterated that he believes this boathouse structure should be allowed to remain because it is important for the City to retain that history. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 6 of 12 Kristin Viger, 60 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, noted that she serves on the Tonka Bay City Council and is also the Parks Liaison. She stated that the beach is a Class 1 fire lane, so technically there is not supposed to be motorized traffic across that area. She stated that it is something that their city struggles with enforcement and wanted to make sure that everyone knew this information. She stated that her only concern with the plan is the proximity to the drainage ditch, but thinks it is a beautiful proposal and likes many of the things that it accomplishes. She stated that she hopes when the drainage plan is created that it is mindful that there needs to be some kind of buffer between what is running off the roof of the house so it does not drain directly into that ditch because that goes straight into the beach and lake area. Mr. Melnychuk stated that there is a book that celebrates boathouses on Lake Minnetonka and one of the most famous ones is located with the City and they would like to continue the tradition of maintaining the boathouse. He stated that there are many examples around the lake in nearby communities where the boathouse structures have been allowed to stay when homes were torn down and completely rebuilt. Mr. Seifert assured Ms. Viger that the home will have gutters on it and part of their stormwater management plan notes that the water will be drain tiled into the northwest corner into a rain garden in order to keep their water on their property. There being no additional input, Chair Maddy closed the public testimony at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Gorham asked for more details about the boathouse because it has transitioned from being a nonconforming accessory structure into something that apparently may, at least locally, have historical or cultural significance. Planning Director Darling showed a picture of the boathouse. Chair Maddy stated that if the argument is going to be made that it is historically significant the City will need more evidence. Commissioner Gorham stated that he is also wondering if there is a determination made on cultural significance whether that has tails to it, for example, restrictions on repairs that can be made. Planning Director Darling explained that there are some specific standards in the ordinance for historic structures in order to make that claim. Mr. Melnychuk stated that they are not making any claims on a historic structure. He stated that he doesn’t know the definition of that but could take a look and possibility have a discussion on it. He stated that his point is that boathouses are celebrated and there are many historical boathouses on the lake. The main argument that they are making is that there is an almost daily functional use for the boathouse. He stated that they have had to make significant modifications to their plans and now the boathouse is also needed for storage because of the sewer easement. He reiterated that it is not his intent to proclaim that Abraham Lincoln slept in the boathouse in 1860 or something. Commissioner Riedel asked what the Commissions thought about the variances as stated without the removal of the boathouse. He stated that he agrees with staff that the proposal reduces the nonconformity, which is essentially the unofficial standard. He said that the intent is that the new structure being built is less nonconforming, but this is a large house going on a small property and much larger than the existing home. He stated that he is considering approving it based on CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 7 of 12 the fact that it does not increase the nonconformity, but noted that it is not an obvious choice to him. Commissioner Gorham stated that the graphic that shows the limitations on the site was pretty powerful because it showed the actually buildable area. He stated that between that fact and the fact that this is less nonconformity and the Commission has consistently recommended livable houses on a lot and he believes this is consistent with that. He stated that he does not think their plans are inappropriate and the City has already asked them to reduce the size of their garage which a big deal because that is a significant amount of storage in that area. He stated that he feels there are practical difficulties on the site and the City is also asking them to do with the minimum which, for him, are two big check marks. Commissioner Riedel stated that reducing the size of the garage was due to the location of the sewer line and not anyone’s choice. He stated that if this is approved it will only be about 1.5 feet from the east property line. He stated that this point may warrant a bit more discussion. He stated that he would suggest adding language to the motion that proper landscaping be completed to handle drainage issues on that side of the property. Chair Maddy stated that he is having trouble with the idea of “minimum to alleviate difficulty” scale in this situation. He stated that they have taken an 8,000 square foot house and whittled it down to 7,000 square feet and still want to keep the boathouse, which does not sound like a minimum to alleviate difficulty on a nonconforming lot that is too narrow. Commissioner Riedel stated that he is not in favor of recommending that they can keep the boathouse, but with that issue set aside, he is in favor or recommending the other variances. Chair Maddy stated that he was happy that the neighbor to the west expressed their opinion. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he does not have any issue with the proposed structure itself other than the fact that it is so close to public property, but there is no way around that. Regarding the boathouse issue, he asked if just because a building is 70 years old whether that makes it historical. He stated that based on the photo he has seen he cannot see anything significant about the structure. Commissioner Gorham asked how the City differentiates between a boathouse and shed when it is close to a lake. Commissioner Riedel stated that he does not think there is a distinction in the code because they are both just considered accessory structures. He stated that boathouses along a big lake like Lake Minnetonka have huge value, but at the same time, code has a 50-foot setback on structures. He stated that the question becomes, if a homeowner decides to completely demolish the existing structure and chooses to build on a new footprint whether the boathouse should remain or not, which can be considered subjective. He stated that in essence, it is City policy that when everything is going down, then the City tries to increase the conformity with respect to the accessory structures. He noted that everyone else that does not have a boathouse has to live with the 50-foot setback restriction. He reiterated that he thinks this is a subjective decision surrounding the boathouse. Commissioner Gorham stated that he questions the argument that the property was purchased because of the structures on the site but they plan to demolish the central structure. He stated that he is sympathetic at how much storage they are losing and also to the health restrictions for Mr. Melnychuk’s wife. He stated that he was thinking of the situation from a few months ago when CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 8 of 12 the Planning Commission allowed a patio along the lake to remain because they made the argument that it was the reason that they had purchased the property. He stated that he is inclined to recommend allowing this structure to stay. Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels there is a difference between those two situations because with the patio situation, the applicant was just proposing to rebuild a stoop and not a completely new structure. Chair Maddy stated that with the situation of the patio, they also did not have a place on their property where they could actually place a conforming patio and this parcel has other places where a shed could be placed. Commissioner Gorham stated that he understands their point and admits that it is an apples and oranges comparison. Mr. Melnychuk stated that he appreciates the dialogue that the Planning Commission is having and asked them to consider the total amount of square feet that they are demolishing with the two structures, and noted that the new structure is not much larger than that combined space. He stated that they have spent quite a bit of time working with builders in trying to keep the existing footprint of the existing structure, but all of them concluded that it is not wise to build on a foundation that is 70 years old. He stated that he feels they are conceding quite a bit and are eliminating a usable garage and an apartment and asked the Commission to take into context the entire project given the framework of the footprint that they are trying to operate within. He stated that he feels what they are asking for is very reasonable and hopes that the Commission does not minimize the needs of his wife’s medical condition. He stated that it is very important to her because she gets fatigued from walking across the dock and needs to sit down for a few minutes before she is able to proceed to the home. He stated that he could put it elsewhere on the lot, but it is functional where it is currently located and if the City is asking him to tear it down, he wonders if that could be considered eminent domain because it is taking property away from him without due compensation. He stated that they will lose value on their property with this requirement and asked what consideration would be taken for that issue. Chair Maddy stated that he felt that the discussion was digressing and reiterated that it is City policy to bring things into conformance when there is a new rebuild, unless there is some extra circumstance like historical value. Commissioner Riedel reviewed the conditions that were recommended by staff. Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the variance requests for setbacks for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject to conditions as outlined in the staff report, including that the shed/boathouse be removed. Commissioner Gorham stated that he may be in the minority, but for the reasons stated by the owner regarding losing a ton of storage, an additional structure, the medical condition of Ms. Melnychuk, and the possible cultural significant of the boathouse, and feels that the Commission should grant his request to keep the boathouse. He noted that the Commission has done some trade-offs in the past in this kind of situation and reiterated that he feels the owner has traded off a lot of things and that he feels the Commission should grant the request to keep the boathouse. Commissioner Riedel stated that he felt that was a fair and reasonable argument because this is a subjective situation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 9 of 12 Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel; Nay – Gorham, Eggenberger, and Maddy. Motion failed 1/3. Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the variance requests for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject to conditions as outlined in the staff report, except removal of the shed/boathouse. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Gorham, Eggenberger; Nay – Riedel, Maddy. Motion failed 2/2. Commissioner Gorham asked if Chair Maddy had a motion to bring forward. Chair Maddy stated that he is still held up by the setbacks and the size of the home, nor does he think the argument has been made to keep the nonconforming lakeside shed. Commissioner Riedel asked if Chair Maddy’s vote of Nay on the first motion was because he wanted more strict conditions on the setbacks as well as demolishing the boathouse. Chair Maddy stated that was correct. He stated that he does not like the idea of a 1-foot setback over a drainage ditch and does not think the home needs to be designed that way. He stated that he had made his peace with the 10-foot setback on the opposite side because of the support by the neighbor, but thinks they are trying to shoehorn in a house that is too big for this nonconforming lot. Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks that is fair and reasonable. Commissioner Gorham stated that is one thing the Commission did not discuss much. He questioned what the Commission is supposed to do if they feel the request is too big. Chair Maddy noted that the Planning Commission does not regulate size of houses, just setbacks and floor area ratio. He stated that if everyone else on the Commission is comfortable with the setbacks, he could possibly be swayed. Commissioner Riedel stated that he is usually not the one to advocate for leniency, but staff made the observation in the report that it is 1.5 feet which is almost unheard of for a setback for new construction, but it abuts public property and a busy public beach and not in the neighbor’s face. He asked if the drainage ditch was about 20 feet wide. Planning Director Darling stated that the majority of it is not quite that large but noted that it is not one that could easily be jumped over. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that this is where he was going when he originally asked the applicant if they were aware that the fire lane could be used in the future as public lake access. He stated that Mr. Melnychuk seemed to be comfortable with the fact that his home would only be 1.5 feet away from the public easement which settled things in his mind regarding that issue. Commissioner Gorham asked if the existing structure was about as close as the proposed structure. Planning Director Darling stated that they are the same and are both 1.2 feet from the easement. Mr. Seifert stated that he believes the 1.2 feet is only for the point of the structure that is closest and explained that the house does not run parallel along the entire property line. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 10 of 12 Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was correct it does not run parallel and it would just be the closest point that is 1.2 feet from the property line. Commissioner Gorham asked if the shed stays whether they could replace the shed on the same footprint. Planning Director Darling stated that once a nonconformity is taken away, you cannot replace it. She explained that if the Commission approves the variance with the condition that they must remove the nonconforming shed then they could not replace it. Commissioner Gorham asked what would happen if the Commission approved the variances and removed the condition that the shed needed to be removed, could they replace the shed in in the same location. Planning Director Darling stated that they could if they rebuilt it on the same footprint as it is existing. Commissioner Gorham stated that his point is that perhaps a rebuilt shed would have more character and more value to the City along the lakefront than in its current form. Chair Maddy stated that the idea is that you do not want impervious surface that close to a body of water. He stated that the Commission holds everyone else in the City to that regulation and explained that he does not see the argument for keeping the shed if they are rebuilding the primary structure. Commissioner Riedel stated that he is of the same mind and noted that there are many people who don’t have boathouses who would like them, but there is a 50-foot setback requirement. Commissioner Gorham stated that if he is hearing Chair Maddy and Commission Riedel correctly, they value the language that says if you want to keep it, you have to keep it to the same physical footprint which is something that should be a tenant of the zoning code. Commissioner Riedel stated that it is not quite written that way, but that is essentially the policy of Shorewood and many other cities. He stated that there is nothing in code for grandfathering, but when it comes to nonconformity, something that was legal when the new ordinances were passed can remain, almost indefinitely. He explained that this means you can rebuild, but only to the same footprint and in this situation, the owner could rebuild a house with the exact same footprint and no variances would be required. He stated that if they are planning to tear it all down then those rules do not apply. He stated that it is more a policy than something written into the code. Planning Director Darling stated that the nonconforming rules are written into the code. Commissioner Riedel asked what would satisfy Chair Maddy in terms of the 1.2-foot setback. Chair Maddy stated that this is the trouble with nonconforming lots because you work, over time, to make things more conforming, but this is not the minimum to alleviate the difficulty, which is the point he is still hung up on. He stated that he would like to see more reduction in the encroachment. Commissioner Gorham stated that he would like to hear from the property owner if the Commission would like to go down that road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 11 of 12 Chair Maddy stated that the Commission could recommend denial of the variance request and have the applicant come back with a better drawing. Commissioner Eggenberger asked how much of a reduction Chair Maddy would like to see. Chair Maddy stated that if they are planning to expand the house to this size, he just does not think 1.2 feet is enough. He stated that he thinks he is the only member of the Commission who has a problem with the setbacks and suggested the discussion concentrate on the items that the Commission agreed upon. He suggested that the motions be separated and one vote be taken on the variances and another vote be taken on removal of the shed. Commissioner Riedel stated that since the Commission only has 4 members present this evening, it is likely to be a tie vote. Chair Maddy stated that item could be sent to Council with a 2/2 vote and they will have to revisit it a bit more on their end. Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, to recommend that the City Council approve the variance requests for setbacks for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the staff conditions included in the staff report, with the exception of removal of the shed. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel, Gorham, Eggenberger; Nay – Maddy. Motion passed 3/1. Riedel moved, Maddy seconded, to recommend that the City Council require the removal of the nonconforming lakeside shed for the property located at 25360 Birch Bluff Road. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Riedel, Eggenberger, Maddy; Nays – Gorham. Motion passed 3/1. Commissioner Gorham stated that he appreciated the arguments made by both Chair Maddy and Commissioner Riedel on strength of the code that if you decided to do it, you have to go all the way, but in the end feels there were a lot of arguments for him that went the other way. Planning Director Darling stated that this will be on the March 22, 2021 City Council meeting. C. Election of Officers and 2021 Work Program Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, to nominate Dustin Maddy to continue serving as Chair and Marc Riedel to continue to serve as Vice-Chair. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed. Planning Director Darling explained that the Commission did not need to have an official vote on the 2021 Work Program but she would like a verbal approval. She noted that she had tried to take the priorities from the City Council and put them into the Planning Commission typical review calendar. Chair Maddy stated that he stated that there was some discussion, based on input from the Council, that the Commission loosen up additions to front steps and asked if that had been included in the Work Program. Planning Director Darling stated that has already been approved. The Commission discussed items in the proposed 2021 Work Program. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 Page 12 of 12 There was a consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed 2021 Work Program. Commissioner Gorham stated that he had a question about the PUD last month for the project on Eureka Road. He stated that there was a question about street lights for the development and asked if question of how the City should address that issue, for things such as uniformity. Planning Director Darling stated that the Council recommended approval but prior to the Council seeing the request, the applicant changed their proposal so they would not have two traditional street lights but proposed bollards instead. This will allow the residents to see their driveways but would alleviate the concerns with the offsite visibility of those lights. Commissioner Gorham asked about the height of a bollard. Planning Director Darling explained that they are about 3 feet high. Commissioner Gorham asked if any other developments had bollard type lighting. Planning Director Darling stated that there are a few developments that have private lighting but does not think there are others with bollard lighting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Callies reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s February 22, 2021, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there are currently no development applications slated for the next Planning Commission meeting so it is possible that the Commission may not meet next month. 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2021, at 8:44 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.