05-07-24 Planning Comm mtg Agenda Packet
1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
3 TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2024 7:00 P.M.
4
5 MINUTES
6
7
8 CALL TO ORDER
9
10 Chair Eggenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 Present: Chair Eggenberger; Commissioners Huskins and Holker; Planning Director
15 Darling; and, Council Liaison Zerby
16
17 Absent: Commissioners Johnson and Gorham
18
19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
20
21 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the agenda for April 2, 2024, as presented.
22 Motion passed 3/0.
23
24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
25
26 March 19, 2024
27
28 The Commission outlined a few revisions and clarifications that were needed in the minutes.
29
30 Planning Director Darling stated that she would review the recording, where necessary, and make
31 the necessary changes.
32
33 Holker moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
34 of March 19, 2024, as revised. Motion passed 3/0.
35
36 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
37
38 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
39
40 5. OTHER BUSINESS
41
42 A. Variance to Redevelop a Non-Conforming Lot
43 Location: 25955 Wild Rose Lane
44 Applicant: Colson Custom Homes
45
46 Planning Director Darling reviewed the request and staff report for the application. She explained
47 that staff had reviewed the application according to the variance criteria, found that the criteria
48 was met and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. She noted
49 that they had received one letter from Calvin Elander, 26005 Wild Rose Lane, outlining concerns
50 related to the construction impacts on the neighborhood, including noise, construction vehicles
51 on the narrow roadway, and privacy.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 2 of 8
1 Commissioner Holker expressed some confusion about applicable code sections Part A where it
2 talks about the lot being in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in
3 the same ownership but there are two lots owned by the same person and asked if she was
4 reading this wrong.
5
6 Planning Director Darling explained that what she was referring to were conditions in order for her
7 to be able to administratively approve a building permit on the property. She said that because
8 they don’t meet the conditions, they needed to request variances.
9
10 Commissioner Huskins referenced the notation in the staff report regarding height that had an
11 asterisk that clarified that the proposed height was well within the maximum allowed but must be
12 recalculated according to the zoning definition.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that she believes that they were measuring it from grade up tjo
15 roof, but the measurement must be taken consistent with code by measuring from the lowest point
16 of grade within 5 feet of the structure. The height should be compliance when measured per
17 code.
18
19 Commissioner Huskins noted that under the ‘background’ portion of the report it said that the lot
20 is currently legally non-conforming for lot width but not lot area. He stated that he believes that
21 sentence could be confusing and noted that he was able to understand it better once he read the
22 whole report.
23
24 Planning Director Darling thanked Commissioner Huskins for making that observation.
25
26 Lewis Colson, Colson Custom Homes, stated that they have been building homes for 30 years
27 and would like to build a single-family home on this site. He assured the Commission that they
28 would work closely with the City throughout every aspect of the project.
29
30 Commissioner Huskins asked if Mr. Colson had any plans for the other lot.
31
32 Mr. Colson stated that there would also be a single-family home and noted that he was
33 considering moving into this house or the next one they build.
34
35 Chair Eggenberger asked if Mr. Colson had read through the conditions suggested by staff.
36
37 Mr. Colson stated that he is aware of some of the conditions and assured the Commission that
38 they plan to honor what the City puts forward for them.
39
40 Colleen Johnson, 5015 St. Alban’s Bay, stated that Mr. Colson had also built her house which
41 required a few variances and explained that all of their neighbors have been very happy with the
42 results. She stated that Mr. Colson’s son had reviewed the conditions and had acknowledged
43 the recommendations from staff. She stated that Colson Custom Homes has been in business
44 for over 30 years and have built many homes in the City.
45
46 Karen Anderson, 25920 Smithtown Road, explained that her property abuts this property. She
47 stated that she has no objections to the proposed plans but asked about the tree situation and if
48 they had to do a new survey to identify where the corner markers were located on the property.
49 She stated that she would like to know what they will do to ensure that they know which trees are
50 theirs and which trees are hers.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 3 of 8
1 Planning Director Darling stated that the lot corners have already been identified and are shown
2 on the survey so it should be much more apparent whose trees belong to who.
3
4 Ms. Anderson noted that she had not seen any markers.
5
6 Planning Director Darling explained that they may not be above grade markers, but according to
7 the survey there are corner monuments that have been installed which are at or just below grade.
8
9 Ms. Anderson explained that she had been out there with a metal detector and could not find a
10 corner marker.
11
12 Planning Director Darling stated that she can put the applicant in contact with Ms. Anderson about
13 the corner markers and reiterated that the survey shows that there is a marker out there. She
14 asked Ms. Anderson to leave her phone number with her so the applicant can get in touch with
15 her.
16
17 Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt the staff recommendation makes sense and did not see
18 anything that caused him concern.
19
20 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the Variance to Redevelop
21 a Non-Conforming Lot located at 25955 Wildrose Lane for Colson Custom Homes subject
22 to the conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 3/0.
23
24 Planning Director Darling stated that this request would be reviewed by the City Council on April
25 22, 2024.
26
27 B. Discussion of Amendments to Implement High-Density Housing Land Use Classification
28 and Related Amendments
29 Location: City-Wide
30 Applicant: City of Shorewood
31
32 Planning Director Darling reviewed the proposed amendments to implement high-density
33 residential land use classification. She reviewed details from the items discussed at the last
34 Planning Commission meeting.
35
36 Chair Eggenberger referenced the first paragraph in the staff report related to background and
37 asked if the City was required by the State to provide 55 new high density housing units.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that is correct and would be the City’s share of the amount of
40 growth that is forecasted for the metro area.
41
42 Chair Eggenberger asked what the parameters were around this requirement and gave the
43 example of the City only creating 50 high density units.
44
45 Planning Director Darling explained that the City has to create ‘opportunity areas’ where these
46 units ‘could’ be created. She stated that when there are development proposals for these parcels
47 the City would need to ensure that they are between the 8 to 30 units/acre and meet the minimum
48 land use density.
49
50 Commissioner Holker stated that of the 3 additional parcels staff has identified on the map it says
51 8-30 units/acre and asked how many acres those 3 lots add up to.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 4 of 8
1 Planning Director Darling noted that it adds up to about 4 acres.
2
3 Commissioner Holker noted that they are oddly shaped lots and asked if it was possible to get
4 the minimum of 8 units on those oddly shaped lots.
5
6 Planning Director Darling acknowledged that the two lots in the south are more challenging and
7 noted that she could lay that out for the Commission at a future meeting.
8
9 Commissioner Holker stated that she feels that would be interesting to see how a building could
10 be structured within the lots. She asked if the City could, at some point, change some of the
11 commercial areas to high density residential.
12
13 Planning Director Darling stated that there are two commercial areas of the City that they identified
14 for the potential of higher density land uses and are currently developed with PUDs. She
15 explained that she was referring to the shopping center around Cub and the Waterford Shopping
16 Center and both are considered ‘opportunity areas’. She explained that these properties would
17 not need to be rezoned and noted that the reason she was focusing on in these particular 3
18 parcels tonight is because they are guided for high density land uses but they are zoned
19 incompatibly.
20
21 Commissioner Huskins asked if there were businesses located on these 3 lots.
22
23 Planning Director Darling confirmed that there are businesses currently located on these lots and
24 outlined their use.
25
26 Commissioner Huskins asked about the rights of the business owners on these properties. He
27 asked if those business owners would be allowed to sell or change their business.
28
29 Planning Director Darling stated that they would be allowed to sell but changing their business
30 would be harder to do and explained that under the current ordinance you cannot change a non-
31 conforming use to another non-conforming use, but you can continue the existing non-conforming
32 use indefinately.
33
34 Commissioner Holker gave the example of someone wanting to come put a single family home
35 on the dredging company site.
36
37 Planning Director Darling stated that would not be allowed because that use would not be
38 conforming. She reviewed details of the proposed language changes in the ordinance. She
39 explained that she proposed removing the two-family dwellings because she did not believe that
40 was a viable use in this zoning district.
41
42 Commissioner Holker asked if it would be on a different piece of property and explained that it
43 seems like townhomes should stay in, if a future parcel could get the density with townhomes.
44
45 Planning Director Darling confirmed that they can include townhouses as a use because the city
46 could apply the district to other parcels in the future where townhouses would be appropriate and
47 they could get at least 8 units/acre.
48
49 Commissioner Huskins asked if the City had any flexibility in changing the 8-30 unit requirement
50 because he believes that is a large distribution. He asked if they could change it to something
51 like 12-30 units in order to alleviate the possibility that they would be creating lower density
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 5 of 8
1 Planning Director Darling explained that they could preserve the zoning district for apartment use
2 and save the townhomes for the medium density areas of the City.
3
4 Commissioner Huskins asked what would prevent someone from coming with a project for one of
5 these three properties that were townhomes that fell within the 8-30 units/acre.
6
7 Planning Director Darling explained that they could either amend the zoning district or come in
8 with a PUD in order to have an alternate use.
9
10 Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not want to create a bottleneck or headache for the City,
11 but explained that he was uneasy with the 8 to 30 units/acre.
12
13 Planning Director Darling explained that this was the number was included in the Comprehensive
14 Plan so to change it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She stated that the goal
15 with the current proposed amendments was to implement the Comprehensive Plan that the City
16 has right now. She stated that the City could make the change being suggested by Commissioner
17 Huskins, but would recommend waiting a year because the system statements for the next round
18 of Comprehensive Plan amendments will be coming out next year.
19
20 Chair Eggenberger stated that the ‘con’ of leaving townhomes in is that the City would not have
21 a way to tell an applicant ‘no’ when they want to build this type of unit on these properties.
22
23 Council Liaison Zerby stated that he was looking at the Excelsior development at 1 West Drive
24 which is a mixed use development with three row houses which could be called townhomes as
25 well as apartments and asked if the City may consider that there may be a mix of types of housing
26 within a development.
27
28 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that the specific parcels that they are looking
29 at tonight are pretty small so she did not know if they would get a hybrid use like what he was
30 describing. She read aloud the proposed definition of a multiple-family dwelling design and noted
31 that she thinks it would work for both situations where there is multiple housing types within the
32 same development.
33
34 Commissioner Huskins confirmed that the City would not make any distinction between renting
35 verses owning.
36
37 Commissioner Holker asked about the downside of leaving townhomes in this zoning district.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that the downside would be having to say no to projects that
40 come in that do not meet the minimum density requirements or there may be a lot of variance
41 requests in order to get the units to fit on the parcel.
42
43 There was a consensus of the Commission of to remove townhomes from this zoning
44 district.
45
46 Planning Director Darling described details of the current ordinance related to conditional uses
47 and permitted accessory uses and noted that she believes they should be added in and listed
48 specifically and not simply refer them to another section of the document.
49
50 The Commission reviewed the proposed document, asked questions, and suggested wording
51 changes throughout the document.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 6 of 8
1 Commissioner Huskins noted that Shorewood is not an urban downtown area and believes that
2 the City can expect to see projects come in that are between the 8-10 units/acre range and not
3 up to 30 units/acre.
4
5 Chair Eggenberger stated that he agreed but if you consider what cities like Hopkins and St. Louis
6 Park they are putting up higher density units and believes that is most likely coming this way. He
7 asked if there was consideration for what would be beside these units and gave examples from
8 the past where some of the buildings effected sunlight into other homes.
9
10 Planning Director Darling stated that it would come in a play a bit more when they consider the
11 height in the next section of the document. She reviewed the proposed changes to lot area per
12 dwelling unit requirements.
13
14 There was consensus of the Commission to include ‘not less than 1,800 square feet’ in
15 Subd. 7 related to lot area per dwelling unit and up to 30 units with a CUP, if they provide
16 affordable housing or sustainable building options.
17
18 Planning Director Darling asked if the Commission would like to see this in draft form one more
19 time before the Public Hearing is scheduled.
20
21 There was consensus of the Commission to direct staff to bring back one more draft of the
22 document before the Public Hearing is scheduled.
23
24 Planning Director Darling continued reviewing proposed language for the remainder of the
25 ordinance.
26
27 Commissioner Holker explained that she was struggling trying to fit the 3 specific parcels they are
28 discussing to fit within the guidelines versus what the Commission really wants those guidelines
29 to be.
30
31 The Commission discussed lot width, setbacks and the possibility of reviewing what other cities
32 have done for multi-family properties to help guide Shorewood’s decision making process.
33
34 Planning Director Darling noted that during the last discussion, Commissioner Huskins had raised
35 concerns about increasing the setbacks and making the parcel difficult to develop. She stated
36 that in the ordinance, she left the side yard setbacks the same as what they are right now and
37 moved on to outline the proposed language for lot requirements and setbacks.
38
39 Commissioner Holker asked if it may make sense to set the building height requirements a bit
40 lower if they abutted residential.
41
42 Planning Director Darling confirmed that could be done.
43
44 Chair Eggenberger asked if the exposure would matter, for example, if the residential area was
45 to the south rather than north of the taller building.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that it would make a big difference and noted that they could take
48 it into consideration if they were doing a CUP for extra height to ensure that they would not be
49 casting shadow onto the adjacent uses.
50
51 Commissioner Huskins referenced their past conversation related to the pickle ball club project.
52 He explained that he recalled them talking about setbacks because there was a residential home
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 7 of 8
1 nearby and had discussed the transition going from residential to commercial because it would
2 help smooth it out. He stated that he wonders if the City wants to have some consideration for
3 the zoning district that abuts or is adjacent to these areas.
4
5 Planning Director Darling explained that this would be addressed in another section of the
6 proposed ordinance. She asked if the Commission would prefer to see language for building
7 height that indicates that they can go closer to the property line the shorter the building would be.
8
9 There was Consensus of the Commission to include language that states structures can
10 go closer to the property line the shorter the building would be.
11
12 Planning Director Darling reviewed some suggested language that would address the side yard
13 setbacks for properties abutting commercial versus residential properties. She reviewed the
14 proposed language amendments for Section 3 related to screening and landscaping.
15
16 There was Consensus to remove ‘income producing’ and ‘townhouses’ from this section.
17
18 The Commission discussed landscaping and screening requirements. and suggested changing
19 the landscaping screening requirements abutting residential areas by changing it from 15 feet to
20 20 feet.
21
22 Chair Eggenberger recessed the meeting at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
23
24 There was Consensus to change screening and landscaping requirements abutting
25 resident property be as deep as one-half the required building setback, with a minimum of
26 20 feet.
27
28 Planning Director Darling reviewed Section 4 and noted that the current code has a typo so they
29 will also correct that error when they make these proposed revisions. She noted that she would
30 also remove the townhouse section from this portion of the ordinance. She reviewed the proposed
31 language changes in Sections 5, 6, and 7.
32
33 Commissioner Huskins asked about the reference to ‘cooperative’.
34
35 Planning Director Darling stated that she would take a look at the definitions of cooperative and
36 condominiums to see if ‘cooperative’ could be removed.
37
38 6. REPORTS
39
40 • Council Meeting Report
41
42 Council Liaison Zerby reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s
43 recent meetings.
44
45 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated at the next meeting the Commission will take another look at the
48 multiple-family zoning district, consider a variance application, a preliminary plat for a parcel
49 located on Strawberry Lane, and a possible reuse for the Alaris building on Highway 7.
50
51 Commissioner Huskins what was happening with the sign code amendment recommendations
52 the Commission had made.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 2, 2024
Page 8 of 8
1
2 Planning Director Darling explained that it would go to the Council for review on April 22, 2024
3 and could also possibly be discussed at the Council Work Session on April 8, 2024.
4
5 7. ADJOURNMENT
6
7 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April
8 2, 2024, at 9:01 P.M. Motion passed 3/0.
9
April 25,2024
Marie Darling PlanningDirector
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE:Ray Helgeson Addition
City of Shorewood
ProjectNo.: 0C1133935
Dear Ms. Darling,
As requested,we have reviewed the information provided for the Ray Helgeson Addition prepared by
Advance Surveying& Engineering dated4/23/2024. Below are our engineeringrelated comments for
your consideration.
1.Further consideration should be given to the location and placement of required storm water
treatment for Lot 2.
a.Ideally impervious surface run off is routed to the treatment areas butdoes not always
need to be the case. In future phases of this plat, this treatment area will be starved of
runoff and no longer provide treatment or rate control. The treatment basin should be
positioned so that future improvements do not reduce its effectiveness.
b.It appears that each future lot will have its own treatment basin and a combined
drainage outlet route for all the lots should be considered. In the proposed lot
configuration,it is anticipated that a combined drainage route could be within the
eastern side D&UE of Lot 1 and the western rear D&UE of Lot 2, 3, &4. As currently
shown, future runoff from Lot 3 & 4 would likely route through the treatment basin on
Lot 2, and if that occurs, a drainage & utility easement over its discharge route should
be provided.
2.The existing swale through Lot 1 should be relocated to the proposed drainage easement as part of
this plat. This will ensure future phases will function without the need to encroach into adjacent
properties and remove trees for drainage purposes.
3.One additional water service and sewer service will need to be added for one of the future lots and
can be addressed/installed at that time.
4.Applicant should consult with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for any required permits.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Andrew Budde
City Engineer
H:\\SHWD\\0C1133935\\1_Corres\\C_To Others\\2024-04-25 Prelim & Final Plat Review-Ray Helgeson Addition.docx
April 24, 2024
Dear Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
We are asking for your approval of preliminary and final plats which would allow us to subdivide
one lot from our property at 6120 Strawberry Lane. The lot would be approximately 15,000 sq.
ft.. Our youngest son would like to build a single-family home to live there with his family.
Hopefully, they will begin construction this summer
Our property contains approximately one and one-half acres of land. It is capable of further
development, and we do envision another lot in the future for our other son but he currently lives
in Ohio, and the location of our existing house is in the way of further subdivision at this time.
However, the Comp Plan 2040 that was just adopted in December was changed so the
designated density for our little R-1D zoning area went from 2-3 units per acre to 3-6 units per
acre. Therefore, a parcel of one and one-half acres is now required to provide a minimum of 4
lots. Although this is not what we want, the preliminary plat demonstrates how 4 lots could be
arranged. The final plat shows just the one new lot we desire at this time.
We plan to rebuild our existing house next year and will apply for an Interim Use Permit which
would allow us to build a new home and then demo the old one. We would situate it further
west, to the back of the property to leave space available for future lots on Strawberry Lane.
After the existing house is demolished then a second phase final plat can be brought back for
approval to establish the remaining lots as shown on the preliminary plat.
Lastly, a part of the current application includes a request to vacate a portion of right-of-way
(r.o.w.) known as Maple Avenue. This r.o.w. abuts the length of our north boundary. It is a dirt
and gravel road that was built 1978 by the then owner of property west of ours when they built
their home. The property was sold a few years ago to Mr. Cliff Laughlin.
In 1991, Church Road was rebuilt to its full length, ending in a cul-de-sac that now aligns with
the westerly end of the Maple Avenue r.o.w.
We and some of our neighbors have talked over the years about the desire to see the Maple
Ave road/driveway reoriented. We have discussed this with Mr. Laughlin as he is the sole user
of the road/driveway. He states he is agreeable and in favor of seeing Maple Ave r.o.w. change
access to Church Road, instead of Strawberry Lane.
Our plan to rebuild our home at the west portion of our property includes having its driveway
access onto the west end Maple Ave r.o.w. and also exit to Church Road. The portion of Maple
Avenue right-of-way requested to be vacated would be the east half, a little over 200 feet of its
length. As is usually the case, vacated right-of-way reverts to the land it came from. So one-
half of its width would be combined to the neighboring property to the north and the south half to
our property. The approximate 12 feet of additional width to our property would be necessary to
get the 3 lots on Strawberry Lane in order to satisfy the new Comp Plan requirement.
Vacating the portion of Maple Ave. right-of-way that connects to Strawberry Lane would be a
benefit to the safety of Strawberry Lane by eliminating an access point. An access that is very
close to a fairly busy intersection (Shorewood Oaks Drive).
Thank you for considering our requests.
Patti and Paul Helgesen
000182 32/117/23 HALGESEN, PATTY
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: PATTY HALGESEN
SURVEYED: April, 2000 DRAFTED: April 5, 2000
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The North 250 feet of Lot 35 and that part of Lots 36 and 37 lying North of the South 225 feet thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
SCOPE OF WORK:
1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. 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 shown on the survey, have been shown.
2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important.
3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"•" Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise
noted.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct €.upervision and that I am a
Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET
1 inch = 30 It.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MAPLE S 89'37'40" W A VENUE
--292.20--
!I
1 STORY FRA
„�1aO
68.7
w
'
1 1)
I
i00
rr\
a
P u0i
�
O N
O (
NI
1
i
SHED --�I r.
a
;�—i
_________ 1045
I �I
I20
I I
�
I I
W
Q
I I I
I � I
2 I
4
� I I
I I
I I o I
I � I
I � I
I � I
THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOLITY 225 FTTT .JF LOTS 1 - I—� I
36 AND 37
fWND CAP jW1B
I -- --19 35-- _,
N 89'31 32" E
Ii
N 89'37'40" E
I I I I
I I I I
r� I
I
I I I I I
I I I I
RECEIVED
MAR 19 2024
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
JOB N•D. 000182
Jason Carlson
From:BlancheHamilton <bb.hamilton@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 29, 2024 2:44 PM
To:Planning
Subject:PUD for marine and service at Alerus bank building
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
I’m a homeowner residing in the Waterford Court Townhomes behind the proposed boa?ng sales building ( 19765 Hwy7)
. As I follow the developments my concern is the privacy the new owners will provide. My understanding is they have
agreed to provide ample privacy with trees and possible fencing. With this said , I want to be assured the trees are
planted with a mindfulness and purpose to growth and placement to provide the privacy required. The previous owners
did some small plan?ngs but the trees were unfortunately planted too low on the berm and will take quite a few years
before they are effec?ve as a barrier between business and our backyards. My request is the landscaper take this into
considera?on and plant as high up the hill/ brim as possible. Also if fencing is used it be of a material that is no
maintenance and not chain link . We take great pride in our neighborhood and want to keep it “pleasing to the eye” for
all. Thank you……
Blanche Hamilton
19760 Waterford Court
Sent from my iPad
1
Jason Carlson
From:Marie Darling
Sent:Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:53 PM
To:Jason Carlson
Subject:Fwd: recent application for new development at 19765 Hwy 7
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Bourgeois, Paul" <Paul.Bourgeois@minnetonkaschools.org>
Date: April 28, 2024 at 5:37:25 PM GMT+2
To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Cc: "Law, David" <David.Law@minnetonkaschools.org>
Subject: RE: recent application for new development at 19765 Hwy 7
Marie,
Thank you for providing this updated proposal to us.
The main concern the District has is that there continues to be unimpeded access around the common
areas so that school buses as well as Excelsior Fire District pumper trucks and 107’ ladder truck and EMT
vehicles can circumnavigate the building as they currently are able to do.
It appears that the current revised plan will allow that to happen, as the Interstate Freeway System Lane
width is 12’ wide.
To the extent that the passage around the south side of the building exceeds that width, the current
design should uphold the District’s right to access that portion of the common area that it is entitled to
have access to.
As to the added “cut through” connection of the front driveways on the northeast side of the Alerus
property and the northwest side of the District property, that is not a necessity for the District, so I am
assuming that connection is being proposed for the convenience of MN Inboard.
The District is neutral on that proposed connection.
Thank you!
Paul
From: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:11 PM
1
To: Bourgeois, Paul <Paul.Bourgeois@minnetonkaschools.org>
Cc: Law, David <David.Law@minnetonkaschools.org>
Subject: RE: recent application for new development at 19765 Hwy 7
The applicant did submit a revised site plan. Please take a look and let me know if this resolves
your concerns or if there are still design issues. I’m not well-versed in turning radii for
buses. Thanks!
MARIE DARLING
Planning Director
<image001.png>
City Hall: 952.960.7900
5755 Country Club
Direct: 952.960.7912
Road
Shorewood, MN
mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us
55331
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/dd8f5860/peoxlm2LhE6nMh44Bt9D4g?u=https://www.shorewoodmn.gov/
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
From: Bourgeois, Paul <Paul.Bourgeois@minnetonkaschools.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 2:47 PM
To: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Cc: Law, David <David.Law@minnetonkaschools.org>
Subject: Re: recent application for new development at 19765 Hwy 7
Marie,
I just had a meeting with Michelle Mueller of MN Inboard this mornign.
First off, the District has no objection to them being the owner and running their business there.
However, I told Michelle that the District has permanent easement rights to the common area, which
are the parking lots and driveway, and that is critical to the operation of the District's SAIL Program.
I told Michelle that we need to keep access of at least 12' wide around the building to enable our buses
to traverse to the student loading and unloading area.
Michelle asked if there were any other options and proposed cutting through the District front parking
lot into the child care parking lot.
There are issues with that - we would have to modify our building internally for wheelchair staging etc..
2
I left Michelle with the comment that she can go ahead and look at other options - it never hurts to look
- but the District is not committing to anything other the current setup.
Our preference is that we continue to maintain access to the building with the current circulation
pattern.
Also, if there were ever a need for fire trucks to access that back side of the MN Inboard building and
the SAIL Building, it would be very difficult without the current access.
I would be glad to set up a meeting to meet with you and any fire or emergency personnel to discuss the
District access.
At this point in time I could not in good faith recommend to Superintendent Law or the School Board
that the District relinquish its permanent easement access to the common areas including the access
along the south side of the MN Inboard building.
Again, we are fine with MN Inboard as a neighbor.
We need to maintain our access.
Thank you!
Paul
Paul Bourgeois, CPA
Executive Director of Finance & Operations
Minnetonka Independent School District 276
We have our righFrom: Marie Darling <MDarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Transportation Student Accounting <transportation@minnetonkaschools.org>; Law, David
<David.Law@minnetonkaschools.org>
Subject: recent application for new development at 19765 Hwy 7
We recently received an application regarding the property to the west of the building on
Hwy 7 that houses the sail program. The proposal appears to eliminate the southerly
connection between your two properties. Their design team may already have reached out
to the school district.
Attached is a copy of the proposed site plan. Please let me know if you have any questions
or comments.
3
MARIE DARLING
Planning Director
<image001.png>
City Hall: 952.960.7900
5755 Country Club
Direct: 952.960.7912
Road
Shorewood, MN
mdarling@ci.shorewood.mn.us
55331
https://link.edgepilot.com/s/77f3d4c6/3IeVOsijaUOWFgGk6mnnoQ?u=https://www.shorewoodmn.gov/
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
4
Todd Nelson
20980 Ivy Lane,
Shorewood, MN 55331
The Nelson family at 20980 Ivy Lane consists of a mother, a father and their 6 year old son. We are
raising our son in this neighborhood, and we have family in this neighborhood. The current congested
space we live in makes it very burdensome and difficult to function as a family. We are going to be living
in this house for the rest of our lives, and our child will be here through graduation in 2036. This is our
home, and we are struggling to function with the limited space. The addition proposed will greatly
increase the quality of our lives, as we can then use the extra space for dining and other activities
virtually all year.
The property at 20980 Ivy Lane, Shorewood MN 55331 is very narrow and forms a wedge type shape
and as a result, has significant constraints that create an unfair and unreasonable burden on the family.
The practical difficulties are apparent when observing this lot. The lot protrudes to the north in a
narrowing fashion, which creates increasing constraints as well as visual encroachments on the
neighbors and the lake views. The close proximity of the houses to the property lines of neighbors on
both sides of the subject creates an unfair challenge and hardship that requires a variance to solve.
The owner is proposing a 16’ X 24’ 3 or 4 season porch for additional livable space in the form of 1
single room. The roof pitch will remain the same (5/12) and blend seamlessly into the existing structure.
New cedar/cottage type siding and roof as well as doors and windows will create an appealing structure
for the neighborhood. The Nelson Addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in
any way, in fact, the new structure will blend in well with the current and new homes in the area.
The owner is also seeking a side yard variance. The current structure’s East side property line distance
from the house is 3.4 feet. The New Addition will have a distance of 5.4 feet at its closet east side
corner. (see site plan). The west side closest distance to property line will be unchanged. This is a net
improvement in east side distance that will benefit all parties concerned.
The proposed structure is consistent with other homes and structures in the area. To name just a few
homes and structures that are closer to the property line and street than the proposed structure would
be, and in our immediate 2 block area:
1) 20960 Ivy Ln, Shorewood, New large garage
2) 4880 Rustic Way, Shorewood Garage, which is next to 20960 Ivy Lane
The variance, if approved would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance and its use is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations
The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner, but which is not
permitted by the chapter.
The plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the
landowner
The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
This variance is the minimum variance necessary to address and alleviate the hardship and
burden historical property line decisions have placed on the owner.
Existing and Proposed Impervious Surface Calculations:
These calculations include the current structure and the asphalt driveway.
Existing Impervious surface calculation:
Current structure 625 sqft + driveway 325 sqft + 75 sqft sidewalk divided by total sq ft of lot 8712
sqft = .117
Proposed structure 960 sqft + driveway 325 sqft – 75sqft sidewalk + 36 sqft new sidewalk divided by
total sqft of lot 8712 = .143
LAKE yV1i.LUdA41
-V4'
t S sb 4,r /
3089
t\ 1
r~
�
r+
N
N
N
U
N,
Q
a
rh
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
i
PREPARED FOR:
TOOD NELSON
20980 IVY LANE
SHOREWOOD. MN 55331
SIDa�R b Fir1
0 20
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ill of LP[ 10, ."w tMt far[ 4Rrri Yed R4 rallor•! CwPr•cLo[
at [hP $oocp.4;gems carPRr of aR 14 La ifl, Th•ft grft•riv ■L4%.
cbe 6apt herlY 11•• of ff}d l.or l9 f d}•bos• ff 14 1PP[, [hPnLP
09r[h•rtr •Arallol to tb4 RPsgrrls 11af oN ••Ld Lo[ W 4 di•[49a•
Pt a0 (fft, [1fnc4 ERPf4rls f•r111R1 tf ibf $99"#FLY 11Rf 91
fald
Lot 10 4 41f[••FP of 14 fr•t, [h•a.R SfutbRlll •SaPf the i•RfRf1r
1In4 9f •Pi1 Lat 10 40 4Pf Po1Pi P[ 1!aa[a[i•f. i• flfsk 7. Mt a•rtoat•
tllnar. NRR•rD1a Grntr, h[99•fa 1•,
t-ECEND:
FOUND IRON PIPE
(AS NOTED)
O SE
SEr Maa NAIL
W/WASHER #444109
OVERHEAD UnUTY UNE
WOOD FENCE
N f ,1�T lw w,tMNDI,s SUA`E RECEIVE D
t�
erc./GP,1a" DEC 2 o 2022 �
vua i �t 1S 88a5256" W CITY OF S -�OF�f"VMO7
v sol
1�209801
NOTES1) TMS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WHOM THE
BEMEFTT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT.
t" 2) P.I.D.: 26-117-23-14-0024
3) PARCEL AREA: 8,696 SQ. Fr.
4) BEARING BIl4S IS ASSUMED.
O 5) DATE OF LAST FIELDWORK 6-1-2021
O
MOLL- f I gp1}ryiTERLY
v 1 / �� F OF Lor 10 CEWIFICATTON
I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
" / was prepared by me or under my direct
8a52'S6 W so MVV UW ar supervision and that I am o duly Licensed Land
46.00 tm io Surveyor under the laws of the state of
Wmnesota.
Troffs Z Nm dlmh. FYolfarad Swlgw 946M
JOB / Yr M14 MUM 5-1-Zd4o E�
DRAM BY: I Mt RE1k I12—Zw
sc1J.L I,-M FEErr
VAN NESTE SURVEYING J
PRO rtM 619;n M
4612 HAW'SHIRE AVE. NORTH, MNMFAPOU,S MN 55428
(952) 686-3055 VAIRAMESURVEYMOM SHM 1 OF t