10 05 2021 Planning Commission Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY OCTOBER 5, 2021 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MADDY (SEPT) ______
EGGENBERGER (DEC) _ _
GAULT (AUG) ______
RIEDEL (NOV) ______
HUSKINS (OCT) ______
COUNCIL LIAISON JOHNSON (JUL-DEC.) ______
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 7, 2021
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
(This portion of the meeting allows members of the public the opportunity to bring up items that are
not on the agenda. Each speaker has a maximum of three minutes to present their topic. Multiple
speakers may not bring up the same points. No decisions would be made on the topic at the
meeting except that the item may be referred to staff for more information or the City Council.)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) Registered Land Survey, Variances and Special Home Occupation Permit
Applicant: Peter & Marie Lehman
Location: 21265 & 21285 Radisson Road
B) Conditional Use Permit
Applicant: Ben Becker
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
C) Comprehensive Plan 2040 Amendments to the Land Use Map
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: Multiple
5. NEW BUSINESS
A) Variance
Applicant: Gianfranco & Bonnie Cuneo
Location: 26020 Birch Bluff Road
B) Variance
Applicant: City of Shorewood
Location: 5655 Merry Lane
6. OTHER BUSINESS – None
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Page 2
7. REPORTS
A) Council Meeting Report
B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda
8. ADJOURNMENT
c:\\users\\chris.hopp\\desktop\\lehman rls 20.02069\\lehman preplat_2021.dwg07/09/21
Save Date:
Shorewood, MN
KMK
CMH
Web: www.ulteig.com
LEHMAN'S ADDITION
20.02069
1
07/09/2021
Shorewood, MN 55331
21265 Radison Road
of
Peter & Marie Lehman
PRELIMINARY PLAT
1
2.3.4.5.PROJECT NO.:DATE:
REVISIONS 1.DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:
PETER & MARIE LEHMAN
~
r
o
f
~
JY
D
A
O
R
N
O
S
S
I
D
A
R
PRELIMINARY REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
432
BA
129'515/32"
Galvalum
GalvalumRidgeFlashing
Ridge
Flashing
1
SMR1:Prefinishedsheetmetal,standingseam
SMR1:
Prefinished
sheetmetal,
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
standingseam
www.salmelaarchitect.com
R1
12"
/
12"
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
Snowguard
Snowguard
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
Roof
Roof
E1
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
117'9"
117'9"
1'4"
1'4"
1'6"1'6"
DavidSalmela,FAIA
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
0"0"
W6060W6060W6060W6060
W4848W4848W4848W4848
5'
4'4'
0"
W8484W8484
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
7'
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
4"4"
0"
2'2'
2'
Floor2
Floor2
E1
109'77/8"
109'77/8"
E3
0"
W2424
0"
W4848W4848
2'
4'
0"
W4848 SAFETY
0"
0"
EGRESS
EGRESS
E2W84842CW84842CW84842C2C
01
W8484
03
4'
7'
7'
6"
EGRESS
0"
4'
0"
3'
SAFETY
SAFETY
2'Floor1
Floor1
E2
100'0"
100'0"
Footing
Footing
95'10"
95'10"
WESTELEVATIONSOUTHELEVATION
12
A301
A301
1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0"
234
AB
Galvalum
GalvalumRidgeFlashing
Ridge
Flashing
1
SMR1:
Prefinished
SMR1:Prefinishedsheetmetal,standingseam
sheetmetal,
standingseam
12"
R1 BECKER
/
12"
Snowguard
Snowguard
E1
RoofRoof
6180CathcartRoad
117'9"117'9"
1'6"1'6"
Shorewood,MN
E1
1'4"
1'4"
0"
W3636
0"0"
W2424W3636
3'
0"0"
6"
2'3'
W4848W4848W4848W4848W4848
REVISIONS:
W3030
4'4'
2'
EGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESSEGRESS
No.DescriptionDate
0"0"
6"
0"
0"
W8484W8484
4"4"
4'4'
3'
7'
3'
2'2'
Floor2Floor2
109'77/8"109'77/8"
10"
0"0"
W2424W2424
2'2'
0"
W4848W4848
19'025/32"
4'
SAFETY
0"
EGRESSEGRESS
CUPSET
2C2CW84842CW84842CW8484E2
02
7'
0"0"
5'5'
0"
E2 08.24.2021
E2
3'
Floor1Floor1
EXTERIOR
100'0"100'0"
ELEVATIONSHOUSE
FootingFooting
95'10"95'10"
A301
EASTELEVATIONNORTHELEVATION
43
A301A301
1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
50'0"
3'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"3'2"1'0"4'0"6"4'0"3'4"2'0"5'0"
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
E1
02
A
W8484W8484W8484W4848W4848W2424
www.salmelaarchitect.com
B 0"B
1'
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
A5016"
2
10
2"
3'
UP
A401
03
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
1
6"6"
ENTRY
3'
A5012
10
6'6'
85SF
0"
BATHROOM supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
0"
W2424
11
0"
2'
1'
41SF
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
2'
I1
11
DavidSalmela,FAIA
0"
Refrigerator
I1
2'
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
W8484
8x8Posts
10'6"8'0"
7'
3E1
wrapped
0"
1
inpainted2x8
D
4
0"
boards
A301
LIVING/DINING
20'
A301
A5014
14
4'KITCHEN
I3
500SF
13
5
0"
188SF
6"6"
1'
0"
13'13'
3'
0"
W4848
MECHANICAL
4'
6
12
92SF
A501
10'0"3'0"2'0"
10"
E3
2'
AA
01
W8484W8484W8484W4848W4848W2424
E1
4'6"10'10"3'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"3'2"1'0"4'0"6"4'0"3'4"2'0"5'0"
31
A401A401
2
A301
4321
2
Floor1
2
A202
1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
1
4'6"
BB
4"
BECKER
1'
2
A401
6180CathcartRoad
Shorewood,MN
4"0"
1
1
18"dia.
1
4
REVISIONS:
concretepiers
A301
17'20'
A301
w/36"x36"x
12"footings
No.DescriptionDate
4"
1'
AA
CUPSET
4'6"
1
08.24.2021
15'4"50'0"
HOUSEPLANS
3
1
A401A401
431
A202
Footing
1
A202
1/4"=1'0"
630W.4thStreetDuluthMN55806
www.salmelaarchitect.com
6"
1'
BB
Iherebycertifythatthisplan,specification,or
2
reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirect
A401
supervisionandthatIamadulylicensedarchitect
12"
/
underthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota
12"
DavidSalmela,FAIA
08.24.2021
RegistrationNo#18009
0"
R1
20'
12"
/
12"
AA
6"
1'
1'4"65'4"1'4"
3
1
A401
431
A401
Roof
2
A203
1/4"=1'0"
3
A301
65'4"
6'4"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"7'0"1'0"4'0"1'0"2'6"6'6"3'0"6'0"
E
W4848W4848W4848W4848W8484W8484W4848W3030W3636
BB
6"6"
BECKER
E1
2
0"
2'2'
A401
9"I3
4'
7
5'
0"
9'9"4'6"3'0"6'9"
W3636
A501
15'4"11'0"15'0"
3'
BATH
6"28
0"
27
67SF
W8484
I1
3'
7'
I1
9"
6180CathcartRoad
2122
I1
HALL
I1
3'
I12"
Shorewood,MN
21
11
292SF
6'
2426 0"0"
25
0"
TVROOM
1
4
E1
22
A501
A301I3
1'
20'20'
A301 REVISIONS:
281SF
I3
8A5019
10
0"
No.DescriptionDate
W2424
MASTER
2'
MASTER
6"
BATHROOM
0"
BEDROOM
W8484
24
6"
BEDROOM
12'BEDROOM
I1
7'23
95SF
25 BEDROOM?
26
145SF
10'
86SF
27
87SF
88SF
4"
I1
I1
6'
23
15'7"12'9"8'9"9'3"9'3"9'9"
6"
E1
2'
65'4"
AA
W6060W6060W6060W6060W4848W4848W4848W4848
CUPSET
1'0"1'0"
E1
2'51/2"5'0"1'0"5'0"3'11/2"5'0"1'0"5'0"4'6"4'0"2'0"4'0"8'6"4'0"2'0"4'0"4'9"
08.24.2021
15'4"42'0"8'0"
HOUSEPLANS
65'4"
31
2
4321
A401A301A401
Floor2
1
A203
1/4"=1'0"
A203
#2
MEETING TYPE
Worksession
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Title / Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Meeting Date: November 23, 2020
Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: NAC Response Letter to Metropolitan Council
Strikeout/Underscore Version of Land Use Chapter
Final Draft Version of Land Use Chapter
A copy of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan sent to the Metropolitan Council last summer is available on the
City’s website
Background:
The City’s consultants have finalized the revisions necessary to resubmit the Plan to the Metropolitan
Council. For most of the revisions, the changes are minor; and staff did not include a full copy of the
plan for your review this evening. The most significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan were made
to the land use chapter, with those changes repeated in the housing chapter. Due to the length of the
Chapters and the amount of repetition, staff did not include the housing chapter language in your
packet this evening.
The significant changes to the land use chapter include amending the land use map and the text in the
following areas per the previous Council direction:
19905 State Highway 7: A paragraph was added within the text of the land use chapter indicating
that this site is a mixed-use site. (P. 115 of the strikeout/underscore version of the land use chapter)
23400, 23425 and 23445 Smithtown Road were changed from Commercial to High Density
Residential
Changes to the tables throughout the chapter to be consistent with the land use map.
The Metropolitan Council’s direction was to add enough locations to produce 155 dwelling units and 48
units of affordable housing. Both need to be at a density of 5 units per acre or greater.
Using the Metropolitan Council’s calculations, these sites, plus other properties classified for a density
over five units to the acre would produce 95 of the required dwellings including 30 of the required 48
affordable housing units. In a meeting held between the Mayor, City Staff and the Metropolitan Council
staff and appoint representative, the Met Council staff also told the City that the city could be complete
but not compliant in this regard. However, staff could also include the Shopping Center at Hwys 41 and
7 as a mixed-use site, which would bring the numbers even closer to meeting the requirements.
Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a
healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial
management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
S:\\Planning\\Comprehensive Plan\\Comp Plan 2019\\Council Action\\20 11 23 Worksession Cover.docx
Page 2
Staff would like direction on the following:
1. Are the changes that were directed by Council adequate as shown on the map? Or should staff
include the shopping center property at Hwys 41 and 7 as mixed use to approach the original
direction of the Metropolitan Council?
2. Level of review with the public: The changes to the land use map are not required to be
reviewed again by the public. However, they are substantial changes and staff recommends
allowing some public notice and public comment, even if it is a generic notice regarding the
review of the final document changes. Notice also could include the City of Excelsior, residents
within 500 feet of the affected properties, etc.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2020 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; City
Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown;
City Engineer Budde, and Nate Sparks, Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC)
Absent: None
B. Review and Adopt Agenda
Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote:
Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
2. Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s consultants have finalized the revisions needed
in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She stated that most of the changes are relatively minor. She
stated that staff wanted to have one more informal meeting to discuss the more substantive
changes needed in the Land Use map. She stated that the Met Council had sent back the
Comprehensive Plan to the City stating that there needed to be more opportunities to produce
one hundred fifty-five more dwelling units including more opportunities to provide forty-eight more
units of affordable housing. She noted that the City already held public hearings on the
Comprehensive Plan, however there will be changes made to the Land Use map, which infers
some property rights. She stated that she feels it may be appropriate to notify property owners
within five hundred feet of the properties proposed as changes and staff will also meet individually
with the property owners. She noted that staff is looking for direction from Council on whether
they would like them to hold a full public hearing at the Planning Commission or if bringing the
changes to the December 14, 2020 Council meeting would be adequate.
Nate Sparks, NAC, gave an overview of the information included in the Comprehensive Plan and
explained how the City made the calculations. He gave a brief explanation of the staging plan
and noted the possibility of certain areas being designated as mixed use in order to come up to
the numbers determined by the Met Council. He stated that some of these areas could be
included but the likelihood of them actually being developed is questionable because some of
them are fairly successful business areas where the economic incentive for this is not necessarily
present. He reviewed the proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan surrounding affordable
housing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 2 of 4
Councilmember Johnson noted that he is inclined to include parcels seven and forty-one as mixed
use. He stated that he would support taking out the Shorewood Yacht Club property as well as
the ones across Smithtown.
Planning Director Darling noted that the parcel shown is the dredging company.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks it makes the most sense to put the most density
along corridors. She asked about the businesses off of Vine Hill Road and asked if that was
considered mixed use.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he believes that this is mixed use and would consider from
Valvoline to Holiday as potential mixed use.
Mayor Zerby stated that he would go further to the self-storage facilities.
The Council discussed the issues related to access for the dredging company.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like to clear up the border issues with Excelsior
and then revisit this topic.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she would agree with Councilmember Johnson and asked
Planning Director Darling for her opinion.
Planning Director Darling stated that the reason the dredging company was originally included
was because the property owner is interested in redeveloping it for residential uses and have
been softly marketing the property.
Councilmember Labadie asked if that would cause issues with the neighboring property that is
divided between two cities.
Planning Director Darling explained that the complication would be more of a social complication
rather than a land use complication.
Mayor Zerby noted that this is a long-range plan and not for the next year or two. He stated that
he thinks this is a City-wide topic and deserves public input. He stated that he would propose a
public hearing at the Planning Commission and invite residents to give their input.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she agreed and asked if the resident comments would be
shared with the Met Council.
Planning Director Darling stated that her understanding is that if it is a public meeting, the
comments have to be shared with Met Council.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she thinks it would be good for the Met Council to get the
public comments.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she disagreed about holding a public hearing, because this has
already been provided to the public and there has not been much feedback surrounding
redevelopment. She stated that the City rarely has anybody give feedback and the
Comprehensive Plan is usually used as a reference to prevent change or as opposition to a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 3 of 4
development. She stated that she thinks a public hearing at the Planning Commission will create
more work for staff with the ultimate result being the same as if they had not held the public
hearing. She stated that she is comfortable moving forward at a Council meeting.
Mayor Zerby stated that he disagreed because the information being reviewed tonight is new and
the public has not seen this yet.
Councilmember Siakel reiterated that she does not think the results will be any different.
Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed with both Mayor Zerby and Councilmember
Siakel. She stated that she does not think the result will be any different, but feels the right thing
to do is to make the process transparent and give people the opportunity to give feedback.
Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not see any harm in proceeding with a public
hearing.
Councilmember Johnson suggested that Planning Director Darling put a blurb in the newsletter.
He asked if the Council wants to consider adding the adjacent parcels along the Highway 7
corridor and noted that including these properties may get the City where they need to be
according to the Met Council.
Mayor Zerby stated that he does not like the phrase “need to be” and noted that the City has
spoken with the Met Council who indicated that it would be all right if the City submitted a proposal
that did not meet all of their requirements. He stated that he thinks the numbers are a bit arbitrary
and thinks the City does not need to strive to get where it “needs to be”, but just to do the right
thing.
Councilmember Johnson stated that when he drives by that area, he thinks it would be a great
place for a restaurant with some apartments above.
Mayor Zerby stated that he would agree, but feels the intersections need to be examined more
thoroughly.
Planning Director Darling asked if the Council would like staff to add a ‘Mixed Use’ category and
include them on the map or just continue keeping them in the text of the document.
Mr. Sparks stated that if the City created something that allowed mixed use in commercial areas,
it would meet what the Met Council says the parameters are for the City. He stated that they
would also define what the City considers mixed use and could potentially reject sites that don’t
work because of transportation or access issues. He noted that there are both vertical and
horizontal options for mixed use and gave examples of horizontal mixed-use projects in the City
of Mound.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he would support that idea.
Mayor Zerby stated that he likes the idea of adding a percentage to the amount of commercial
and residential allowed as suggested by Mr. Sparks.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there was a conclusion around including the dredging company.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 23, 2020
Page 4 of 4
There was Consensus from the Council to include the dredging company.
Planning Director Darling asked if the Council was comfortable including the Garden Patch site
and the small storage building.
There was Consensus of the Council to include those locations.
3. ADJOURN
Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting
of November 23, 2020, at 6:36 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.
ATTEST:
Scott Zerby, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
__________________________________________________________________
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner
DATE: July 29, 2021
RE: Shorewood - 2040 Comprehensive Plan
BACKGROUND
Based on Metropolitan Council comments, a revised version of the Land Use Plan
chapter of the draft plan was created for review. The City Council reviewed the
revisions at the November 23, 2020 work session. Based on the discussion at the work
session, some minor modifications were made to meet the remaining requirements from
the Metropolitan Council.
PLAN CHANGES
The Land Use Plan was slightly adjusted to include specific parcels that are identified
for potential future development and the minimum number of housing units that can be
provided (Pages 122-123).
Some of the parcels are commercial in nature being reclassified as residential. Others
are residential but have the land area and capacity for new development. These
properties provide for new units that can be used to come close to meeting the required
forecasts.
Additionally, there was a new land use designation added to the plan, called
“Commercial-Mixed Use.” This designation allows for the potential introduction of
housing units to certain specified commercial areas. This allowed for the plan to
provide the number of units and density required by the Metropolitan Council.
The Metropolitan Council requested that the City provide 155 new units of housing at 5
units per acre. The plan now meets these standards.
The Metropolitan Council also requested that the City provide 48 units at a minimum of
8 units per acre to qualify as meeting the affordable housing requirements. With the
provided areas of high density and mixed use, the plan now meets this standard.
RESPONSE TO MET COUNCIL
The following is a summary of stated “required information” (necessary in order to deem
the Plan complete) as well as a City response which describes the changes which have
been made to the updated version of the Comprehensive Plan or provides related
comments.
WASTEWATER
The City must include a copy or copies of intercommunity service agreements
entered into with an adjoining community, or language that confirms the Council’s
understanding that the communities reimburse each other for the municipal
wastewater charges that each will occur by receiving flow from the adjacent
community; including a map of areas covered by the agreement.
Response. The agreements will be attached as Appendix G to the plan. The plan
will reference reimbursement policies between the cities.
TRANSPORTATION
Transit. The Plan must be revised to include a full description of Shorewood’s
Transit Market Areas (TMA), which include both TMA 4 and TMA 5, which includes
the portion of the City west of Eureka Road.
Response. The Transportation Section is updated to include references to all
Transit Market Areas in the City on page 180.
Advisory Comment
The Plan should include reference to Metro Mobility or Transit Link in the transit
section. Both are available in Shorewood, and the document should directly mention
these dial-a-ride services.
Response. The two dial-a-ride services mentioned above have been referenced in
the Transit section of the Plan on page 180.
Bicycling and Walking. The Tier 1 and 2 Regional Bicycle and Transportation
Network (RBTN) corridors / alignments must be mapped in the Plan. The RBTN
could be added to the local park and trail system map or provided in a separate map
identifying the. The RBTN GIS file can be located here:
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-trans-regional-bike-trans-netwrk.
2
Response. The proper Regional Bicycle and Transportation Network
corridors/alignments are illustrated on the updated Regional Parks and Trails map
on page 46.
PARKS
The Plan must describe, map and label the Lake Independence Extension Regional
Trail Search Corridor. A description of the Lake Independence Extension Regional
Trail Search Corridor is available on page 34 of Shorewood’s 2015 System
Statement, and available online at:
https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-Planning-Assistance/System-
Statements/System-Statements/02395877_Shorewood_2015SS.aspx.
A map of the Regional Parks System in the City, including the regional trail search
corridor, appears on page 36 of Shorewood’s System Statement.
City Response. The Regional Parks System map (prepared by the Metropolitan
Council) which includes the Lake Independence Extension Regional Trail Search
Corridor has been added to the Plan as a new map which illustrates regional Parks
and trails in both the City of Shorewood and surrounding areas on page 46.
The Plan must also include a capital improvement program for parks and open
space facilities as part of the implementation section.
City Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific
programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix C.
FORECASTS
The Land Use Chapter must include an analysis specifying what quantities of land
will be developed over the next two decades, and at what densities. While the Plan
includes a map of vacant and undeveloped land supply, estimated at 202 acres,
there is not enough information in the Plan to determine that the land supply
accommodates the growth forecast (155 additional households during 2018-2040).
A housing capacity and staging table needs to be added to the Plan.
City Response. The staging plan is on Page 123 depicting the number of units
provided. Pages 122-123 depict the specific parcels with the future units associated.
The Council requires some measure of employment-bearing land use intensity for
commercial and industrial land uses to be added to the Plan. Acceptable
measurements of intensity include Floor Area Ratio (FAR), or building footprint
coverage, or jobs per acre, or setback and height restrictions. Any of these would
meet the requirement of measuring of employment-bearing land use intensity.
3
City Response. The City is not increasing the commercial and industrial properties
within the plan, as the City is currently meeting the employment forecasts.
Advisory Comments
Council staff find that recent employment growth and population growth have
significantly exceeded what was expected in the current decade. The City can
request that the employment numbers be increased with the Plan update. Council
staff recommend adding +200, +300, and +400 population respectively to each of
the 2020, 2030, and 2040 forecasts. The households number can remain as is.
Further, we recommend resetting the employment forecast to 1,600 jobs for each of
the future forecast years; Shorewood reached 1,600 jobs in 2018.
Shorewood
Census Previous Council Estimates Council staff
Forecasts recommendation
2010 2020 2030 2040 2018 2020 2030 2040
Population 7307 7400 7500 7600 7693 7600 7800 8000
Households 2658 2800 2910 3000 2845 2800 2910 3000
Employment 1113 1300 1340 1400 1600 1600 1600 1600
Response. The City accepts the revised forecasts and uses these assumptions in
the revised version of the Land Use Plan.
LAND USE
Community Designation. The Plan must include a map acknowledging the City’s
regional Community Designation as Suburban. The Plan does acknowledge the
overall density expectations for Suburban Communities at five units per acre, but the
Community Designation Map is not included. The map is available on the City’s
Community Page of the Local Planning Handbook.
Response. The Community Designation map has been added to the Plan on
page 111.
Existing Land Use. The Existing Land Use table states 2016 land uses and the
Existing Land Use map states 2017 land uses. This information must be consistent.
4
Response. The Existing Land Use table has been modified to be convey 2017
information such that the table and map are consistent and is included on page
127.
Right-of-way is included on the table and not in the map legend. This information
must be represented consistently.
Response. Right-of-way has been added to the legends on both the Existing
Land Use map and the Land Use Plan on pages 116-117.
Future Land Use
Land use categories must include types of allowed uses and include a description of
allowable housing types such as single family, detached, duplexes, townhomes, etc.
Response. The land use categories in the previously submitted version of the
Plan and the revised Plan both reference types of allowable uses and housing
types. Further clarification of this has been added on pages 118-120.
The Plan must address missing information or resolve inconsistencies within the
Plan regarding the density ranges for planned land uses.
Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. There are no
longer inconsistencies. It may be found on pages 118-120
The Plan should provide a table of identified redevelopment or new development
areas that includes future land uses, acreages, density ranges, and total residential
units in 10-year increments.
o The narrative describes areas that could be developed for residential or a
mix of uses and also need to identify a timeframe.
o The narrative describes areas for potential high-density residential
development and needs to assign a timeframe and depict these areas on
a map.
Response. A table with staging has been added to the revised Land Use Plan
on page 123.
For mixed used districts, the Plan must include estimates of the percentage of land
that would be used as residential.
5
o These percentages should reflect the Plan’s flexibility in defining mixed
use districts as either vertical mixed use (e.g., 100% residential with
integrated non-residential uses) or some combination of a horizontal mix
of uses (e.g., 50% of parcels developed as residential).
o For example, the narrative describes two areas that could be developed
with a mix of uses on page 114. The section should include the share and
density ranges for those uses.
Response. The description of the Commercial Mixed Use designation can be
found on page 120.
Advisory Comment
Staff encourages the City to develop a table that simplifies and clarifies the future
land use analysis and policy, and one that would fulfill the Plan requirements.
Information could be added to the Existing and Proposed Land Uses table on page
120. These elements include the following:
o Guiding land use
o Acreage anticipated to develop
o % of land anticipated to develop as residential
o Timeframe (e.g., 2021-2030)
Response. A revised land use table is included with a diagram showing parcels
included for meeting the forecasts and is on pages 122-123.
Density Calculations
More information is needed to determine the average net residential density for the
City. The Plan must Identify where forecasted residential growth will happen on the
Future Land Use Map or a separate map showing expected new development and
re-developed areas and focusing on areas of change. Show which planned land
uses have changed from the City’s previously approved plan and where new land
uses (change or development intensity) are planned/expected. This information
must match the future land use table recommended above.
Response. This has been included in the revised Land Use Plan. The City is
delivering new development at the required levels (over 5 units per acre) as
demonstrated on page 123.
Staged Development and Redevelopment
A staging table noting the number of acres potentially available for development
within each 10-year planning period must be included in order to clarify the City’s
6
ability to meet the minimum required density for a Suburban Community of five units
per acre.
Response. A staging plan is included on page 123.
Identify potential local infrastructure impacts for each 10-year increment.
Response. The plan has been revised to account for this on page 169.
Demonstrate that the City is capable of providing services and facilities that
accommodate its planned growth in the included a capital improvement plan or
similar document.
Response. The capital improvement plan is attached as Appendix C.
The staging plan or likely development phasing must be consistent with the volume
of anticipated sewer flow identified in the City’s Local Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
Response. This is revised in the Sewer Plan on page 194.
HOUSING
Existing Housing Need
Plans must provide the number of existing housing units that are affordable within
each of the three bands of affordability (less than 30% Area Median Income (AMI),
31-50% AMI, and 51-80% AMI).
Response. The number of housing units for the three bands of affordability have
been added to the Housing Plan on page 137.
Plans must state the number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing
units available within the City, even if that number is zero.
Response. The number of publicly subsidized or income-restricted housing
units available within the City, has been added to the Housing Plan on page 136.
Plans must provide the number of existing households that are housing cost
burdened within each of the three bands of affordability.
Response. The number of existing households that are housing cost burdened
within each of the three bands of affordability have been indicated in the Housing
Plan on page 136.
7
Maintenance and senior housing options have been identified as existing housing
needs. Once the missing data is provided, the Plan should consider if they reveal
any additional existing housing needs. Once existing housing needs are clearly
stated, a description of all widely recognized tools Shorewood would consider using
to address those needs, and in what circumstances, is required for the Plan to be
complete.
Response. Within the Housing Plan, the description of housing tools has
expanded in a manner similar to the example provided by the Metropolitan
Council on pages 140-145.
Projected Housing Need
Land guided to address Shorewood’s 2021-2030 allocation of affordable housing is
not sufficiently described for review. A staging table noting the number of acres
available or likely to develop within the Medium Density Residential and the High
Density Residential land uses in the 2021 decade is necessary to determine if
sufficient land is guided to address Shorewood’s allocation.
Response. As explained on page 137, the City is providing the affordable
housing units in a manner consistent with regional policy.
Implementation Plan
The Plan must describe and provide policy direction on what available housing tools
it is likely or unlikely to use with respect to identified housing needs. As a reminder,
housing needs include those identified through the existing housing assessment
narrative and the affordable units allocated between 2021 and 2030. This includes
tools that are not locally controlled but require local support, application or
administration to be successfully used. Tools mentioned by the Plan that don’t
adequately describe the circumstances of their use include:
o Tax Increment Financing
o Hennepin County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF)
o Hennepin County HOME funds
Referring to the Local Planning Handbook’s list of recognized housing tools does not
meet the requirement to describe and consider available housing tools to meet
identified housing needs. As a reminder, housing needs include those identified
through the existing housing assessment narrative and the affordable units allocated
between 2021 and 2030. Tools not mentioned in the Plan include:
o Tax Abatement
o Housing bonds
8
o Fair Housing Policy
o Participation in housing-related organizations, partnerships, and initiatives
(basically committing to ongoing education about housing tools available
to meet housing needs)
o City support or direct application to specific resources within the
Consolidated RFP put out by Minnesota Housing
o Preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, including
partnership with Homes Within Reach to create land trust homes in
Shorewood, local 4d tax incentives, Housing Improvement Areas, and
promoting/supporting/applying for resources to preserve naturally
occurring affordable housing such as MN Housing, Greater Minnesota
Housing Fund’s NOAH Impact Fund, and others.
Staff has provided an example of another community’s housing implementation table
that meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and is consistent
with Council housing policy, in case it is helpful.
Response. As previously indicated, a description of housing tools is provided in
the Housing Plan. The description is presented in a manner similar to that
provided by the Metropolitan Council on pages 140-145.
Advisory Comment
Both pages 74 and 137 include policy direction to encourage owner-occupied
housing. This policy could be considered exclusionary. Council staff encourage the
City to consult with their attorney to consider if this statement leaves the City
vulnerable to a Fair Housing complaint under the Fair Housing Act.
Response. These comments were removed.
WATER SUPPLY
The City must attach the final local water supply plan template, as submitted to
DNR, as an attachment to the Plan so that all components of the Plan are accessible
together.
Response. The plan has been attached as Appendix E.
COMMUNITY WATEWATER AND SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The Plan indicates that there are four individual SSTS and no public or privately-
owned Community Wastewater Treatment Systems in operation in the City. Text on
page 52 of the Plan states that SSTS locations “are shown on the map on the
following page” of the document, however a map depicting the locations of operating
9
SSTS in the City was not found in the Plan. The Plan needs to be revised to contain
the referenced map.
Response. The ISTS map has been inserted into the Plan on page 56.
The Hennepin County Plan indicates that the City has delegated the responsibility of
permitting, inspection, maintenance management, and compliance enforcement of
remaining SSTS in the City in accordance with Hennepin County Ordinance 19. The
Plan is silent on this issue and needs to have text added to the Plan to either confirm
that the County actively oversees the City’s SSTS program, or detail how the City
oversees its SSTS maintenance management program.
Response. This has been included on page 55.
AGGREGATE RESOURCES
The Plan is silent on the presence of aggregate resources in the City. The Council’s
aggregate resources inventory information contained in Minnesota Geological
Survey Information Circular 46 indicates there are no known viable aggregate
resource deposits available for extraction within the City. The Plan needs to be
revised to include this information.
Response. Plan has been revised to state that there are no known viable
aggregate resource deposits available for extraction within the City on page 18.
IMPLEMENTATION
Define a timeline as to when actions will be taken to implement each required
element of the Plan.
Response. This has been included beginning on page 233.
The Plan must include a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation,
sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilities. Specify the timing and
sequence of major local public investments.
Response. The City’s capital improvement program, which includes specific
programs for parks and open space has been attached to the Plan as Appendix
C.
The CIP must align with development staging identified in other parts of the Plan and
include budgets and expenditure schedules.
10
Response. This has been included as Appendix C.
Include your local zoning map and zoning category descriptions. Identify what
changes are needed to ensure zoning is not in conflict with the new land use plan
and consistent with regional system plans and policies.
Response. The City’s zoning map and zoning district descriptions have been
inserted into the Plan, followed by the zoning map. This is found on pages 22-
26.
REQUESTED ACTION
City Officials need to review the plan changes and direct Staff to resubmit the plan for
final approval.
11
Marie Darling
From:Kurt <khwehrmann@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 6:54 PM
To:Planning
Cc:Kristi Luger
Subject:Land use changes 23400/23500 Smithtown Road
Comments for the October 5, 2021 Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting
RE: Parcels 23400/23500 Smithtown Road
I am all for growth and higher density if it is planned well. However, I am very concerned about the existing
access to West Lake Street from 23400 Smithtown Road.
Prior to granting density changes two things must happen. The first is creating access for these properties
directly to County Road 19. The second is closing the current access to West Lake Street
indefinitely. Furthermore, the City of Shorewood, Metropolitan Council and the City of Excelsior need to
ensure that the responsibility of both creating the County Road 19 access and closure of the West Lake Street
access are in place in order to remove this burden from anyone who owns or develops this land.
Your time is appreciated.
Kurt
Kurt Wehrmann
444 West Lake Street
Excelsior, MN 55331-1749
iPhone: 612-968-6200
KHWehrmann@gmail.com
1
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · 952.960.7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us · cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Emma Notermann, Planning Technician
Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: October 5, 2021
REQUEST: Variances to construct an attached garage and addition to an existing home
APPLICANT: Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo
LOCATION: 26020 Birch Bluff Road
REVIEW DEADLINE: January 14, 2022
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential
ZONING: R-1C/S
FILE NUMBER: 21.25
REQUEST:
The applicant requests a variance to allow a two-story addition
to be located 10.3 feet from the west property line, where the
code would require 15.7 feet. The combined side-yard setbacks
would be 24.6 feet where 30 feet is required.
Notice of this application and the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the
property at least 10 days prior to the meeting.
The original request and notices also included a request for a variance to the impervious surface coverage,
but the applicant was able to revise their application to construct the addition to maintain the current
nonconforming situation.
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Context:
The existing home was originally constructed around 1900 with multiple additions after that time. The lot
was created as part of the Birch Bluff Upper Minnetonka subdivision recorded in 1881. The lot abuts Lake
Minnetonka to the north and is within the shoreland district.
There was a detached garage located roughly in the same location as the proposed and that was
demolished in 2013. That garage was 5.3 feet from the east property line.
The adjacent properties are all developed with single-family homes and zoned R-1C/S.
Applicable Code Sections:
Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 2.u. of the zoning regulations states that the maximum amount of impervious
surface coverage on properties within the shoreland district is 25 percent of the lot area.
Chapter 1201.26 Subd. 5.a. of the zoning regulations states that the combined side yard setback for lots
abutting the water is 30 feet total with a minimum of 10 feet on each side.
Nonconformities
Since 2018, the previous property owners added a patio and fire
pit improvement within the 50-foot setback to the OHWL at the
top of steep slopes. The area must be returned to turf. The
referenced patio and firepit are shown on the aerial photo.
Other decks and improvements that were added between 1969
and 1989 may continue as legally nonconforming structures.
Additionally, in 2013, the previous property owners received a
zoning permit for an 8-foot by 15-foot shed on the south side of
the driveway to store the contents of the garage. The survey
indicates an 8 by 20-foot shed was constructed. Consequently,
the shed is nonconforming as well.
Staff will require both improvements removed prior to issuance of a permit.
Impervious Surface Coverage
The impervious surface coverage for the property is currently at 33.5 percent, where a maximum of 25
percent is permitted by the zoning regulations. The property has been over the allowed amount for
some time and the City had approved some of the improvements that count toward the additional
coverage and others pre-date any permitting or impervious surface coverage requirements. The
applicant has designed their proposed addition so that the proposed improvements would not exceed
the existing.
Page 3
ANALYSIS
The applicants’ narrative is attached and indicates that they propose to add an addition which contains
an attached garage and living space on the second floor. The narrative indicates that the addition
design necessitates the variance because of the constraints on the side yard setback. The house is
located 14.3 feet from the east side yard, which requires that the west side yard setback be no less than
15.7 feet to reach the combined total side yard setback of 30 feet. The applicants have proposed 10.3
feet from the west property line, which is 5.4 feet less than required. The addition would include about
a 900 square foot garage (three car garage with extra storage space) and mudroom on the lower level
and recreational space/home gym above.
Variance Criteria:
Section 1201.05 subd.3.a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance
requests. These criteria are open to interpretation. Staff reviewed the request according to these
criteria as follows:
1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the
property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with
either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district’s allowed uses.
2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met.
Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the lack of a garage on a
property in Minnesota and the presence of the home on the lot with multiple additions
construction prior to modern zoning requirements.
a. Reasonable: A garage is a reasonable use of the property.
b. Unique Situation vs. Self-Created: This is a situation unique to this property. The applicants’
have purchased a home that was built prior to modern zoning and did not anticipate the
need for attached garages, multiple vehicles per property or lake storage.
c. Essential Character: Homes in the area have widely varying setbacks with many older homes
constructed that do not have 30 feet of combined setback between the two side lot lines.
The variance if approved, would not alter the essential character of the area.
3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance solely based on
economic considerations, but to provide a garage and living space that suits their family’s needs.
4. Impact on Area: The property owner is not proposing anything that would impair an adequate
supply of air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire, or significantly increase the impact
on adjacent streets. There was previously a smaller garage on the property in a closer to the lot
line.
5. Impact to Public Welfare, Other Lands or Improvements: The applicants are not proposing anything
that would negatively impact the supply of air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or
significantly increase the impact on adjacent streets.
Page 4
6. Minimum to Alleviate Practical Difficulty: A two-stall garage is typically adequate to eliminate the
practical difficulty of not having a shed. With the location of the home on a lake, more storage is
typically desired to avoid having more recreational equipment stored outside on the property. The
applicant is proposing a three-stall garage with additional storage space 5.5 feet closer to the
property line than permitted and also has a nonconforming shed. Consequently, staff
recommends requiring the removal of the shed to reduce the impact of the request on the
neighborhood. With this removal, the request would be the minimum to eliminate the practical
difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance application, subject to the list of conditions shown below,
but acknowledges that the variance criteria are open to interpretation. Consequently, the Planning
Commission could reasonably find otherwise.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requests, staff recommends that the
applicants be required to:
1) Acquire all necessary permits prior to construction.
2) Prior to the issuance of a permit, remove the patio within the setback to the OHWL and restore
the area to turf.
3) Prior to the final inspection for the new garage, remove the shed and deck on the south side of
the driveway.
ATTACHMENTS
Location map
Applicants’ narrative and plans
Correspondence Received
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 20, BIRCH BLUFF UPPER MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:
1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our
services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal
description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is
correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been
shown.
2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.
3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property.
4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing
easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey
does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.
5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding
and or stucco of the building.
6.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such
governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown
before proceeding with construction.
7.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We
have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The
elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least
one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before
beginning construction.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.
LEGEND
D
A
O
R
F
F
EXISTING HARDCOVER
U
L
B
House 2,214 Sq. Ft.
Existing Decks 728 Sq. Ft.
Decks by the lake 414 Sq. Ft.
H
C
Bituminous Driveway 3,483 Sq. Ft.
R
I
B
Shed 159 Sq. Ft.
Concrete Surfaces 33 Sq. Ft.
Wood Steps 124 Sq. Ft.
Porch 243 Sq. Ft.
Stone Areas 279 Sq. Ft.
Ret. Walls 556 Sq. Ft.
Cantilever 17 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 8,250 Sq. Ft.
AREA OF LOT TO OHW 24,630 Sq. Ft.
PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 33.5%
DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE
SHEET SIZE
CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
MARCH 23, 2021
DATE SURVEYED:
Thomas M. Bloom
DRAWING NUMBER
17917 Highway 7
## 42379MARCH 24, 2021
DATE DRAFTED:
SCALE - 1" = 20'
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
S1
LICENSE NO.
02040
Phone (952) 474-7964
MARCH 24, 2021
Web: www.advsur.com
DATE SHEET 1 OF 1
October 1, 2021
Planning Department
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Madams and Sirs,
We are the owners of 25990 Birch Bluff Road directly east of 26020
Birch Bluff Road owned by Gianfranco and Bonnie Cuneo.
The Cuneo’s would like to build an attached two story, 3-car garage with
living space above. They are asking for a hard cover variance to
increase their hard cover from the standard surface coverage limit of
25%. They indicate their present hardcover is 33.5%.
Part of the Cuneo’s hard cover includes a driveway and stonewall, and a
portion of that driveway and stonewall is actually on our property.
An easement agreement was signed in this regard between a previous
owner and ourselves. That agreement indicated the driveway and
stonewall on our property would be removed if the Cuneo’s house no
longer existed or the driveway was relocated. The easement agreement
runs with the land and the Cuneo’s were aware of it at the time they
purchased the property.
Although the home will not be demolished, the 2 story, 3-car garage is a
significant addition to the home and the driveway is being adjusted as
portions of it are being removed.
We have suggested to the Cuneo’s that as they are removing hardcover
along their driveway to accommodate the building of a garage, this
would be a good time to remove the part of their driveway and stone
fence on our property. We thought we had an agreement with the
Cuneo’s to do this. We prepared a written agreement to that effect but
they have not returned a signed copy to us.
The plans submitted to the planning commission do not indicate a
removal of the driveway and wall on our property. We suggest that
removing the easement on our property would help to decrease the
hard cover issue for the Cuneo’s. If in fact, the hard cover on our
property was not included in their hardcover calculations, then they are
actually exceeding 33.5 % coverage.
Furthermore, the excess hard cover could possibly be reduced further if
the Cuneo’s relocated their drive way to the west of their property
directly in line with the new 3 car garage.
There is significant flooding and accumulation of water just below and
west of the Cuneo residence if there is a large amount of rain in the
spring. Excess hardcover just exacerbates the situation.
Finally, we are asking that the hearing of this matter be adjourned to a
later date. We are leaving for the East Coast on Oct 1 and will not be
returning until Oct 11. Hopefully we can reach a written agreement
with the Cuneo’s before then and if not, we would like to be present and
speak to the matter before the planning commission.
If the planning commission is not prepared to adjourn the hearing, and
are inclined to approve the hardcover variance, we would ask that it be
approved on the condition that the Cuneo’s remove their hardcover
portion on our property so our Title will be clear of any easements or
encroachments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bonnie McPhee -- 952-237-9023
Jim Prokopanko -- 612-961-3719
Project Narrative
The Christmas Lake Boat Landing parcel PID: 3511723130038 is zoned R-1A. Permitted uses within R-1A
includes public parks, public playgrounds public recreational areas, and public wildlife areas.
The existing parking lot includes seven car & trailer parking stalls and vehicles enter/exist in a clockwise
direction within the parking lot. The DNR and the Christmas Lake HOA coordinate to keep aquatic
invasive species (AIS) out of Christmas Lake by monitoring the public boat landing and providing a
cleaning station to inspect and remove AIS.
The current cleaning station needs to be located near the entrance so that vehicles/boats can be
cleaned prior to using the boat landing. The cleaning system requires a small trailer. The trailer is
currently parked in one of the seven available car & trailer parking spaces therefore making it unusable
to the public. Demand for the boat launch area is increasing and staff were tasked with looking for
options to allow for another location for the trailer.
The goal is to create a usable space to allow the cleaning trailer to be located out of the stalls so that all
seven car & trailer parking stalls can be used by the public. The existing parking lot is located 9 feet
from the Ordinary High-Water Level (OHWL) at its closest point and averages about 15 feet.
Christmas Lake is classified as Recreational Development and there are two variances being proposed.
In researching new locations for the AIS trailer, staff reviewed two options. One along the drive-aisle
and the proposed location in an existing parking lot island.
At their August 10, 2021 meeting, the Parks Commission reviewed the two options and selected the
parking lot island as the preferred location because the other option included creating a pad that
would have been nearly up to the OHWL of the Lake, involved more tree removal and would have been
even closer to the homes to the north.
The proposed location would be within an existing parking lot island as shown on the attached plans. A
300 square foot concrete slab would be installed in a location that would be 40 feet from the OHWL of
Christmas Lake, maximizing the distance to the shoreland. One tree would need to be removed along
with some adjustments to the existing storm sewer.
Two variances are required with this option:
Variance 1: 1201.26, Subd 5a3 – 75-foot setback from OHWL using an existing parking island to create a
new concrete slab. Although within the existing parking lot, the location is 40 feet from the OHWL
where 75 feet is required.
Variance 2: 1201.26, Subd 5a5 – Max 25% impervious surface area
The existing parcel is 0.62 acres and currently has impervious on the site at 17,200 SQ FT or 0.400 acres
and is at 64.52%. The concrete pad will add 300 SQ FT of new impervious bringing the site total to
17,500 SQ FT (0.402 acres) or 64.84%.
Variance Criteria:
The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to provide a
public boat launch at this property and to maximum the number of parking spaces.
There are practical difficulties related to the request, including:
Providing a concrete pad for the AIS equipment is a reasonable use to protect the lake at the
boat launch.
The situation is unique to this property that were not created by the City. The desire to have
a public access on Christmas Lake is beneficial to all residents of Shorewood and the public.
The selected option is a minor addition to the property and the least impactful. Driving by
the improvements would not be noticeable to the traveling public, but would allow for one
less trailer circling through the area waiting for an open parking space.
The variances would not be based exclusively on economic considerations but to maximize the number
of existing parking spaces and protect the lake to the extent possible.
The variances would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, cause any
additional congestion to the public street or increase the danger of fire or public safety.
The variances as proposed would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to
other lands or improvements in the neighborhood.
The variances as proposed would result in the least amount of change to the site to relocate the
equipment out of one parking space and minimize the requests for setback and impervious surface
coverage.