Loading...
02-07-2023 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY FEBRUARY 7, 2023 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE EGGENBERGER () _ _ HOLKER () ______ VICE-CHAIR RIEDEL (FEB) ______ HUSKINS () ______ COUNCIL LIAISON MADDY (JAN-JUNE) COUNCIL LIAISON CALLIES (JULY-DEC) 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 17, 2023 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) Conditional Use Permit for a collocation of antennas on existing tower Applicant: SMJ International, LLC (T-Mobile) Location: 24283 Smithtown Road 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Variance to setback to OHWL on Silver Lake Applicant: Gardner Building and Remodeling Location: 19960 Sweetwater Curve B) Variance to front and side setbacks Applicant: Todd Nelson Location: 20980 Ivy Lane 6. REPORTS A) Council Meeting Report B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2023 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Riedel called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Riedel; Commissioners Eggenberger, Huskins and Holker; City Administrator Nevinski, and Finance Director Rigdon Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice-Chair Riedel noted that there had been a request to move item 4.C. earlier in the agenda. Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, approved moving item 4.C. to become 4.A., and renumbering the remainder of the agenda accordingly. Motion passed 4/0. Holker moved, Huskins seconded, approving the agenda for January 17, 2022, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 6, 2022 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2022, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. Capital Improvements Program Review Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-wide City Administrator Nevinski noted that looking at the CIP is something that is relatively new to the Planning Commission and had not been done before. He stated that staff recently discovered that it is part of State statute and the City Code that the Planning Commission will review the annual budget to verify that there is alignment with the CIP and the Comprehensive Plan. Finance Director Rigdon noted that the Planning Commissions’ role in this review is not to analyze every project, but to conduct a general review of the overall implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. He gave a brief summary of the various funds and their purpose, including: Fund 201 (Community and Event Center); Fund 402 (Park Capital Improvement Fund); Fund 403 (Equipment Replacement Fund); Fund 404 (Street Reconstruction Fund); Fund 405 (Municipal CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 2 of 7 State Aid Street Construction Fund); Fund 406 (Trails); Fund 601 (Water); Fund 611 (Sanitary Sewer); and Fund 631 (Stormwater Management Fund). He explained that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission find that the CIP is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Holker noted that she was not aware that this was the first time the Planning Commission had taken a look at this and explained that if she looks at it with a broad brush, it seems like it falls within the plan for the City. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that this is the first time the Planning Commission was being asked to look at this and much of it is clearly not within the purview of the Planning Commission. He stated that he thinks the whole Commission is wondering a bit about what sort of guidance they are supposed to provide in this situation. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that if the Planning Commission was just being asked to take a general look and not analyze each project, he would say that this clears that hurdle. He stated that he would recommend that the Commission follow the staff recommendation and recommend approval. Commissioner Huskins explained that what was missing for him was the fundamental question that was before them of whether what has been presented is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it would have been very helpful to see the breakdown in order to see if the money was being put into ‘buckets’ like they are claiming in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked how staff felt about the concordance of this information with the Comprehensive Plan. City Administrator Nevinski stated that he thinks the Commission has raised some good questions and agreed that this was something that other Planning Commissions have struggled with because it does get into the details in a way that a Planning Commission normally does not. He explained that many times people think of Comprehensive Plans as being land use documents, which they are, but as the Met Council looks at it, they are also thinking about things like sanitary sewer, water supply, transportation, housing plans, and economic development. He noted that he has only been with the City for 3 weeks and had not been able to spend much time reviewing the Comprehensive Plan yet, but will make sure he communicates the questions that have been raised to Planning Director Darling to help with next year’s review. Commissioner Huskins explained that what was driving his question was that several years ago when the community across the street at the Country Club was being developed, there was a very strong concern about its impact on traffic. He stated that at the time, he served on a Citizens Traffic Study Committee and they brainstormed ideas for how they thought the City might consider handling the additional traffic. He explained that out of all the recommendations that were put forward, the only one implemented by the City did was the flashing stoplights on the corner of Country Club Road and Linden Drive. He stated that his recollection was that the City had claimed that there wasn’t money to fund any of the other abatement recommendations. He stated that if something like that were to occur again, where there were capital needs, he would like to know where they would appear in these breakdowns and documents, for example, Streets or Public Works. Commissioner Holker stated that she has spent some time reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, but explained that what it does not have is when they are looking at the City budget, how they can align rough percentages of the budget into the various categories of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that the Comprehensive Plan talks about Met Council and reviewing this gives her no visibility, for example, on whether the City is trying to go after something like lower priced housing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 3 of 7 She explained that she found tying this document and information to the Comprehensive Plan difficult. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that he thinks those are excellent points and would suggest for next year that many of the costs could be divided out costs into the ones that have zero discretionary components and those that would be discretionary for decisions made by the City. He stated that in order to line those up, he would think the Planning Commission would need to do some advance work to discuss priorities in the various categories and gave the example of traffic. He noted that he felt traffic was a good example because in the years that he has served on the Commission, he was not sure how many cases that come before them pertain to traffic, but when it comes to commercial development of any kind, it is perennial and is a concern that bubbles to the top. He stated that would a great example in that, if the Planning Commission felt that this was an area of deficiency in the City planning, that the Planning Commission could then provide guidance that there should be more spent on long term improvements to traffic flow patterns and traffic safety. He explained that could be the kind of recommendation that the Planning Commission could give if they had a bit more preparation time. He asked that staff make a note for next year on how to structure the conversation and prepare the Planning Commission prior to the discussion next year. Commissioner Huskins clarified that it was not that he necessarily thought that he had any insight in order to challenge how the City plans on distributing the money or which projects have bubbled up to the top, but he just goes back to the thought that he cannot say if this aligns with the Comprehensive Plan without some assistance and explanation on why things are the way they are. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that in reading through the analysis, for example, the goals and objectives, they all sound great, but he was not sure how to tie those to the individual numbers because it did not mean anything to him, which he found frustrating. Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, Recommending Approval of the 2023-2032 CIP Based on the Finding that it is Generally Consistent with, Implements, and/or the Projects are Contemplated by the City’s Comprehensive Plan and further that the Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission may execute and forward this finding to the City Council. Motion passed 4/0. Vice-Chair Riedel noted that he would be leaving the Planning Commission soon but stated that the Planning Commission tends to be ‘reactive’, however, he thinks the Commission would actually appreciate doing more long term planning and this may be an opportunity for them to do that at least once a year. B. Variance to Rear Yard Setback (Shed) Applicant: Gene German and Sara Lassila Location: 5925 Eureka Road City Administrator Nevinski explained that this item was initially before the Planning Commission on December 6, 2022 as a request for a shed to be located 3 feet from the rear and side property lines. He stated that the consensus of the Planning Commission at that meeting was that 10 feet from either setback seemed appropriate and they tabled discussion to allow the applicant time to verify whether that setback would work. Gene German, 5925 Eureka Road, noted that they have submitted additional information that shows the roof style requested and noted that he found out that it would mean a 35% increase in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 4 of 7 the cost to do lap siding as staff had requested. He stated that lap siding is really cosmetic and does not change the structure and explained that they are doing their best to get this out of sight. He stated that it would be a burden to them to put another $5,000 into something that is cosmetic. He asked the Commission to consider allowing them to go back to the original siding that their builder had proposed. Vice-Chair Riedel asked if the color of the shed would match the color of the house. Mr. German stated that they are planning to paint the house and explained that have picked a cream color for the shed and some sort of brown for the trim color. He noted that their intent is to match the house color as closely as possible. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that the City Code requires that it match the architectural style, but does not go down to the granularity of specifying the direction of the siding. He asked what style of siding the home has and asked what Mr. German’s request would be for the shed. Mr. German explained that the shed comes with vertical siding that are on most sheds. He stated that there is one shed in the neighborhood that has the same style as the house but noted that it was a tear down and rebuild and his home was built 67 years ago without a shed. He stated that if the Commission would look throughout their neighborhood they will only find the one shed that looks like the house. He noted that he wasn’t sure it was fair to insist that their shed match their house when others have not had the same requirement. He reiterated that they are doing their best to get it out of sight and is hopeful that it won’t be seen as much as if it were in a prominent location such as their north yard area. He stated that one of the suggestions from the last meeting was to rotate the shed 90 degrees and shared dimensions of the yard to explain how it would like and explained that his preference would be the option where the main door would face north. He noted that his concern with this is the proximity to the walnut tree and the potential for root damage as well as possible damage to the shed from the tree during the fall months. He stated that he would like to keep the shed as far away from the tree as possible and noted that he believes that corner is also a more level portion of the yard and noted that he thinks they can live with that placement. He noted that right now, the door is on the short side of the shed and explained that they may end up putting in a service door, perhaps a roll-up door, but the physical building would still be the same dimensions. Commissioner Huskins stated that what he understands from what Mr. German has presented is that there are two possible placements that would accomplish the 10 foot setback that the Planning Commission had requested. He stated that the applicant has altered the planned shed in order to match the roof of the house and has made a request that the Commission consider not having the exact siding as the existing home. He noted that Mr. German has told the Commission that he plans to paint the house to match the shed rather than the other way around. He stated that to him, he does not care about what orientation Mr. German chooses, because either way he has accomplished the 10 foot setback. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that staff had recommended horizontal lap siding and the roof. He explained that he agreed with Mr. German that there are plenty of sheds that do not match the color or style of the home. He stated that if someone applies for a permit for a shed, this is, in principle, a requirement, however you can repaint your shed without a permit. He stated that what the Code states is that the architectural style of the accessory building must match which he feels is subject to interpretation. He stated that because meeting this requirement would cost the applicant about an additional $5,000, he is inclined to drop that requirement within the Commission’s recommendation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Eggenberger moved, Holker seconded, Recommending Approval of the Request for a Variance to Allow an Accessory Building to be Constructed at 10 Feet from the Rear and Side Property Lines for property located at 5925 Eureka Road, and that the staff recommendations be followed, except for the requirement for horizontal lap siding. Motion passed 4/0. C. Variance to Rear Yard Setback Applicant: Clayton Tessness Location: 22430 Murray Street City Administrator Nevinski gave an overview of the request for a variance to a rear yard setback to allow a second story addition on a garage. He explained that the garage was currently constructed at about 37.5 feet from the rear property line where 40 feet is required. He noted that the City has the ability to allow for expansion of certain non-conforming uses but in a case like this where there is an encroachment, a variance would be required. Staff is recommending approval, but noted that one way to address this would be to combine the two lots that the owner has and eliminate the lot line between the two parcels. He stated that as staff has taken a look at this, there is a minimal impact since both lots are owned by the same party. He stated that he did not think there was public street access to the second lot, so if the lot were sold, gaining access may be difficult. He stated that Planning Director Darling had passed along the information that there is a non-conforming shed that is located on the property and crosses the property line and if the Commission is inclined to grant the variance request, there is a condition that this shed be moved. Vice-Chair Riedel stated that he would like to hear the property owners thoughts on the idea of joining the two lots and also on the history of the property and its non-conformity since it was built in 1978. Curtis Nordic, 22430 Murray Street, stated that he purchased both lots in 2012 with the existing house that was built in 1978. He stated that the request is for a 2.1 foot variance for the rear setback and stated that he believes at the time it was built, the setback was 50 feet. He stated that would like to go vertically up from the existing garage footprint and build a bedroom, bathroom and laundry room for he and his wife. He noted that his contractor is Clayton Tessness, whose name appears on the paperwork as the applicant. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if Mr. Nordic had thought about combining the lots. Mr. Nordic stated that he has talked about it a bit but if he did combine them it would limit his ability to ever construct on that parcel in the future. He stated that they are potentially looking at a generational use and explained that his oldest son is autistic, so they are unsure if he will ever actually leave the nest, or if they will simply want something close by for him. He stated that there is a private easement for the driveway to his neighbor’s so there is potential access for the second property from the existing driveway. Commissioner Huskins stated that staff has made a recommendation about moving the existing shed to a conforming location. Mr. Nordic stated that would be fine and explained that it is on existing skids and came about because of his dilemma in not knowing exactly where the actual property lines were located. He stated that he can move it to a location that meets the setback once he gets those details from Planning Director Darling. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Holker asked if Mr. Nordic was doing any other work on the property currently and explained that she had noticed some construction material near the garage. Mr. Nordic stated that material was dropped off because they had ordered it early, however, it came much sooner than expected. He clarified that all the material there is for his planned project and not anything else. Holker moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the Variance Request to Rear Yard Setback for property located at 22430 Murray Street, with the conditions as noted in the staff report, including that the existing non-conforming shed location be shifted to the appropriate setbacks in order to become conforming. Motion passed 4/0. City Administrator Nevinski noted that this was scheduled to come before the City Council on January 23, 2023 for a final decision. D. Volunteer for Liaison for February 27, 2023 City Council Meeting Commissioner Holker explained that she had previously volunteered to report to the City Council on February 27, 2023, however she will not be at the February 7, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. February – Vice-Chair Riedel 5. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Vice-Chair Riedel noted that he had received a message from Council Liaison Maddy that he would be unable to attend tonight’s meeting. City Administrator Nevinski gave a brief overview of recent discussion and actions taken by the City Council. He noted that they discussed various ways of promoting vacancies on Commissions and suggested that as the Planning Commissioners are talking with friends and neighbors that they encourage them to consider volunteering in this capacity as a way to get involved in the community. Commissioner Holker explained that a newsletter used to be sent out periodically which was where she found out about the opening when she applied but noted that she has not seen a newsletter in a while. City Administrator Nevinski explained that the City currently does not have a Communications Coordinator on staff but is hopeful that the position will be filled soon. He stated that he is hopeful that this individual will be able to start in February so the City can get back on schedule with communications. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda City Administrator Nevinski stated that he was not aware of what was scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 17, 2023 Page 7 of 7 6. ADJOURNMENT Huskins moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2023, at 8:13 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? ==x>286<!i>286<!o>CMBOL!.!TJH<!b>22?? Marie Darling From:Dan Neitge <dnbbdtech@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 3:20 PM To:Marie Darling Subject:Todd Nelson Proposed Home Addition Hi Marie, My name is Dan Neitge at 21000 Ivy Lane. Todd Nelson is my neighbor that has submitted home addition plans to the City of Shorewood. I looked at the plans and I approve what he would like to do. They are a very nice young family that need more room for their young family. Thank You Marie Sincerely, Dan Neitge 1