06 04 2024 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda Packet
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
GORHAM (Sep) ______
EGGENBERGER (Jul) _ _
HUSKINS () ______
HOLKER (Aug) ______
JOHNSON (Jun) ______
COUNCIL LIAISON SANSCHAGRIN(Feb-Jun) ______
COUNCIL LIAISON ZERBY (Jul-Dec)______
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2024
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, that is not on
tonight's agenda, but related to the governance of the City of Shorewood, to the
attention of the Planning Commission. In providing this limited public forum, the
City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. We encourage all speakers to
be courteous in their language and behavior, and to confine their remarks to
those facts that are relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Anyone
wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand and wait to be called
on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your
first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments
to three minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on this
matter. The Commission may request the issue be forwarded to the City Council
or to staff to prepare a report and place it on the next agenda.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS- none
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A) Variance to front and side-yard setback for a non-conforming home
Location: 4825 Ferncroft Drive
Applicant: Scott Karo
Tentative review at City Council: June 24, 2024
B) Variance to rear-yard setback for a garage addition
Location: 22760 Galpin Lane
Applicant: Jeff Danberry, Danberry Properties
Request to continue to July 2, 2024
6. REPORTS
A) Council Meeting Report
B) Draft Next Meeting Agenda
ADJOURNMENT
1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
3 TUESDAY, MAY 7, 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 Gorham, Huskins, Holker and Johnson;
15 Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Callies
16
17 Absent: None
18
19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
20
21 Planning Director Darling noted that they do not have any materials for item 5B so it could be
22 removed from the agenda.
23
24 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the agenda for May 7, 2024, as amended.
25 Motion passed 5/0.
26
27 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
28
29 April 2, 2024
30
31 Commissioner Huskins pointed out a few typographical errors in the minutes.
32
33 Huskins moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
34 of April 2, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 5/0.
35
36 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
37
38 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
39 Chair Eggenberger explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the
40 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners
41 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in
42 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to
43 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make
44 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only.
45
46 A. PUBLIC HEARING – HELGESEN RAY ADDITION
47 Applicant: Patti and Paul Helgesen
48 Location: 6120 Strawberry Lane
49
50 Planning Director Darling reviewed the request and summarized the staff report for a Preliminary
51 Plat to subdivide the property at 6120 Strawberry Lane into four lots and explained that they were
52 planning to subdivide the property in two phases. She noted that the Preliminary Plat is dependent
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 2 of 23
1 on the vacation of Maple Avenue and explained that staff was recommending approval, contingent
2 on the vacation along with the other conditions listed in the staff report.
3
4 Commissioner Holker asked if the Commission was only being asked to look at the subdivision
5 for two lots tonight.
6
7 Planning Director Darling clarified that they were being asked to consider the subdivision into four
8 lots tonight. She explained that she noted the phasing plan so the Commission would have a full
9 understanding of how they planned to phase development of the project, much like the City did
10 with the Minnetonka Country Club subdivision. She noted that this will allow them to first create
11 a lot for their son to be able to build a home on Lot #2 and would give them time to rebuild their
12 own home on Lot #1.
13
14 Commissioner Huskins asked if, when there are 4 homes, would there be 4 separate driveways.
15
16 Planning Director Darling confirmed that there would be 4 separate driveways.
17
18 Chair Eggenberger asked where Maple Avenue goes.
19
20 Planning Director Darling explained that the right-of-way connects Strawberry Lane over to
21 Church Lane, but there are barricades on the Church Lane side, so it is not open to thru traffic.
22 She stated that what the applicants are proposing to do with this subdivision would be to vacate
23 a portion of Maple Avenue. Then the applicant would add a curb cut to the western end of Maple
24 Avenue to allow access to Lot #1 and their adjacent neighbor. They would then remove the gravel
25 driveway in the easterly portion and replace with turf. They would also likely have some barriers,
26 like a break-away chain/bollards so there would not continue to be vehicle traffic through this area.
27
28 Commissioner Holker confirmed that the other three lots would take access off of Strawberry
29 Lane.
30
31 Commissioner Huskins referenced the information included in the staff report related to tree
32 preservation where some information appears to be missing because the paragraph ended with
33 the word ‘and’.
34
35 Planning Director Darling clarified that was an error and the sentence should have ended after
36 the word ‘property’.
37
38 Commissioner Gorham stated that he was a bit confused because the Preliminary Plat has 4 lots,
39 but still shows the existing home and not the location of the new primary dwelling for the
40 applicants.
41
42 Planning Director Darling explained that the applicants have not yet designed their home but
43 noted that there is room on what is depicted as Lot #1 for the new primary dwelling. She stated
44 that they are proposing to first subdivide in order to have a lot for their son and then build a new
45 home for themselves on the westerly lot. She noted that once that was constructed then they
46 would re-subdivide the property with the other lots. She explained that if they platted all 4 lots at
47 this time, the existing home straddles the lot lines and the City would require the home to be
48 removed before the plat was recorded, which was why they were planning a phased approach.
49
50 Commissioner Gorham asked for details on the staff recommendation related to the driveways.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 3 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling explained that staff was recommending that either when the home on
2 Lot #1 is rebuilt, or Lot #1 is further subdivided, whichever comes first, that they provide a separate
3 conforming driveway on each lot, whichever comes first. She noted that a shared driveway
4 usually works well when it is a family situation, but that may not always be the case.
5
6 Commissioner Gorham noted that the recommendation is to require connection to the City water
7 system and asked if that had been done before.
8
9 Planning Director Darling explained that it is a code requirement when a subdivision contains 4
10 or more lots.
11
12 Commissioner Holker asked about the steps that will need to be taken in order to stop Maple
13 Avenue from being an official roadway and open it up to Church. She asked if it had always been
14 planned to go through to Church and if that was something that needed approval.
15
16 Planning Director Darling stated that in order to remove Maple as public right-of-way and leave it
17 only a drainage and utility easement, the vacation would have to be approved by the City Council.
18
19 Commissioner Huskins stated that if the Commission recommends this for approval, if the
20 applicant would be obligated to do the subdivision.
21
22 Planning Director Darling confirmed that the applicants would not be obligated to come back in
23 with a second phase.
24
25 Commissioner Holker asked if that also meant that Maple Avenue could remain exactly as it is.
26
27 Planning Director Darling explained that once the City approves the vacation, then the changes
28 would have to be made.
29
30 Commissioner Holker asked if there was a time limit for that action.
31
32 Planning Director Darling stated that normally it would be when the equipment is on site, so it
33 would likely happen with the construction of the home on Lot #2. She noted that if the vacation
34 was not approved and Maple Avenue stays exactly where it is, the 4 lot subdivision can move
35 forward, but they would need to request variances because they would be about 3.5 feet short for
36 their lot widths.
37
38 Commissioner Huskins asked if the only reason they were asking to vacate that access was to
39 be able to subdivide.
40
41 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not believe that was the sole purpose for requesting
42 the vacation. She noted that the petitioners include more than just the Helgesen’s and explained
43 that she believes that they would like to cut down the amount of traffic that goes through Maple
44 Avenue because it is close to the homes and has also caused problems with delivery vehicles
45 trying to go down the road and having to back up the full length of the roadway. It shows up as a
46 thru street to Church Avenue and it is not.
47
48 Commissioner Johnson asked about tree preservation and noted that it looks like there were 12
49 mature trees removed and another 6 will be removed when the other lots are developed. She
50 stated that it looks like the City is only requiring 12 new trees be planted and asked why they
51 would not require 18 trees be planted.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 4 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling explained that the required restitution within the Tree Preservation
2 Policy is limited based on the number of acres. She stated that the maximum amount would be
3 8 trees/acre, which in this case would equate to 12 trees for a lot size of 1.5 acres.
4
5 Chair Eggenberger asked about the reference in the staff report to additional driveways on Maple
6 Avenue and asked which those would be.
7
8 Planning Director Darling stated that for Lot #1 there would be a driveway on Maple Avenue and
9 noted that there was already a driveway for the adjacent property.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham asked if they would access the homes then through Church Avenue to
12 Maple Avenue.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct.
15
16 Commissioner Gorham asked if part of their proposal was for the City to give them Maple Avenue.
17
18 Planning Director Darling stated that she thinks they are asking for that to be removed as a public
19 street in order to cut down on the traffic that goes through the area. When vacations are approved,
20 the land returns to the lots in the plats where the right-of-way was acquired.
21
22 Commissioner Gorham asked if the applicants were required to do any traffic modeling for this
23 type of request.
24
25 Planning Director Darling stated that they were not, because the amount of traffic that is typically
26 produced by single family homes is very low.
27
28 Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not necessarily mean for their home, but for traffic
29 movement in the area.
30
31 Planning Director Darling stated that the City had not required any traffic modeling for this request.
32
33 Commissioner Huskins noted that in his reading through the material, the Commission was not
34 be asked to make any comment about the request to vacate Maple Avenue because that would
35 take place at the City Council level.
36
37 Commissioner Holker asked if the City had gotten any letters from residents on Church Avenue.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that the City had not received any correspondence.
40
41 Commissioner Gorham stated that the Commission would not be approving the vacation of Maple
42 Avenue but would be recommending a Preliminary Plat that shows the vacation.
43
44 Planning Director Darling reiterated that their recommendation of approval would be contingent
45 on the vacation of Maple Avenue.
46
47 Commissioner Gorham stated that the Planning Commission would essentially be blessing the
48 vacation with that action and asked why they would do that.
49
50 Commissioner Huskins stated that he had a question about why the Commission was discussing
51 this subdivision request prior to the Council’s decision related to the vacation request. He stated
52 that he agreed with Commissioner Gorham that if the Commission makes a recommendation on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 5 of 23
1 the subdivision tonight then they would essentially become a de facto petitioner for the vacation
2 request. He suggested that perhaps the Commission recommendation could be amplified by
3 saying that the Commission was taking no position on whether or not there is a reason or value
4 in granting the vacation.
5
6 Planning Director Darling clarified that it would be a contingent approval and reiterated that she
7 felt the plat could move forward without the vacation of Maple Avenue because there would only
8 be a difference of 3.5 feet for lot width.
9
10 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City needed Maple Avenue. He stated that he understands
11 that the applicants would like it be quiet for the homes immediately adjacent to it, but questioned
12 how the rest of the community felt. He shared an example of someone who lived in the cul-de-
13 sac area and wanted to cut through in order to get to Minnewashta Elementary.
14
15 Commissioner Holker stated that could not be done right now because the cul-de-sac just curves
16 into the house on the west side and does not go out to the cul-de-sac even though it looks like it
17 does.
18
19 Planning Director Darling stated that they would open up Church Avenue and noted that there are
20 currently barriers for traffic so it cannot go through.
21
22 Commissioner Johnson referenced the findings and recommendations and suggested that they
23 clarify the point in the second bullet to make it clear that they were referring to Lot #2.
24
25 Planning Director Darling noted that she believes it could be for either lot.
26
27 Commissioner Johnson explained that she had been confused about lot references throughout
28 the staff report and shared other examples where she felt the language wasn’t as clear as it could
29 be.
30
31 Commissioner Gorham asked for further explanation of the complaints about delivery trucks on
32 Maple Avenue.
33
34 Planning Director Darling explained that delivery trucks go down Maple Avenue assuming it is a
35 thru street so when they get to the end, there are barriers, which means that they have to back-
36 up the entire length of the roadway in order to get back out.
37
38 Commissioner Huskins stated that within the proposed conditions, there is a requirement to pay
39 utility connection fees and park dedication fee for one additional lot and asked what would happen
40 when Lot #1 is subdivided into 3 parcels.
41
42 Planning Director Darling stated that there would also be additional fees at that time, but noted
43 that she could clarify that point within the conditions.
44
45 Commissioner Johnson reiterated that she would also like there to be additional clarification on
46 which lot is being referenced and not simply use the phrase ‘new lot’, in order to make it clearly
47 understood.
48
49 Planning Director Darling stated that she would make sure it is clear when she puts together the
50 resolution language.
51
52 Chair Eggenberger invited the applicant to address the Commission.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 6 of 23
1
2 Patti Helgesen, 6120 Strawberry Lane, admitted that she understood why there was some
3 confusion about what they were requesting. She explained that the zoning district and the
4 Comprehensive Plan density requirement was what was pushing their subdivision to 4 lots and
5 explained that was not actually something they had been looking to do. She explained that they
6 just wanted to create one additional lot for their son to be able to build a home. She stated that
7 they had to create plans to show the 4 lots in order to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan guidance.
8 She shared some background related to the vacation request and the current usage of Maple
9 Avenue.
10
11 Commissioner Holker stated that her understanding was that the applicants were not under any
12 obligation to put the 2 additional lots for sale.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that they would not be obligated at the present time, but when
15 they come in with the Final Plat they could choose to use those for some of their other children or
16 they could sell them.
17
18 Commissioner Holker asked if the other 2 lots would have to be built on.
19
20 Planning Director Darling explained that they would have to eventually be subdivided. She stated
21 that in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, they needed to show those other lots.
22
23 Commissioner Holker stated that, on paper, it is platted to be 4 lots.
24
25 Commissioner Huskins asked if Ms. Helgesen had been able to take a look at the
26 recommendations from staff and if she had any concerns about those recommendations.
27
28 Ms. Helgesen stated that they wanted to have a conversation about the tree preservation and
29 noted that this mainly had to do with the swale. She stated that it was done last minute so it may
30 need to be revised prior to recording the Final Plat. She noted that there may end up being a
31 minor correction to the grading plans but thinks it may be able to be handled administratively.
32 She stated that she agreed with the recommendations related to the driveways and explained
33 that sharing access initially would simply be a matter of convenience.
34
35 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
36 Hearing.
37
38 Cliff Laughlin, 26505 Maple Avenue, thanked the City and the Commission for giving him what he
39 fought for, as a veteran, which is the right to assemble and speak. He stated that he had received
40 a card from the Planning Department at the end of March to come and view the plans and
41 explained that he felt it needed to be stressed that this is for a ‘partial’ vacation of Maple Avenue.
42 He stated that Planning Director Darling has been helpful and showed him all the maps and
43 information. He noted that he agreed with everything that the Helgesen’s were trying to do and
44 felt their plans will help beautify the neighborhood. He stated that he felt the City should grant
45 them permission to proceed with their plans, but had asked Planning Director Darling if the City
46 would continue to maintain and snow plow the portion of Maple Avenue that would not be vacated.
47 He stated that he was told that she could not guarantee that action, which to him, sounds like it is
48 close to a ‘no’. He explained that Planning Director Darling had checked into it further and got
49 back to him with an official answer of ‘no’ and that the City would not continue to maintain the
50 other portion of Maple Avenue that would still be owned and controlled by the City. He asked if
51 the Commission was aware that the City’s Planning Department had gotten together with the
52 Public Works Department and made this subjective decision.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 7 of 23
1
2 Commissioner Huskins explained that what the Commission had been made aware of was the
3 application by the Helgesen’s for a subdivision and noted that the possible vacation was not a
4 matter for the Planning Commission to decide on and would be handled by the City Council. He
5 suggested that Mr. Laughlin share this information with the City Council, because they would be
6 considering the vacation request, not the Commission.
7
8 Mr. Laughlin asked if the Commission would be making any recommendation to the Council about
9 the vacation request.
10
11 Commissioners Huskins stated that he believed the Commission was planning to be silent
12 regarding that issue.
13
14 Chair Eggenberger clarified that the Commission had discussed this earlier in the meeting.
15
16 Commissioner Huskins explained that any recommendation the Commission makes would be
17 contingent upon whatever the City Council decides to do relative to the vacation request.
18
19 Mr. Laughlin stated that the only grievance he had was related to the vacation part of their request
20 and reiterated that it would be a ‘partial’ vacation and noted that his address will still be Maple
21 Avenue. He explained that there was also a fire hydrant located on Maple which will continue to
22 need to have access. He stated that, in his opinion, the City has to continue to maintain Maple
23 Avenue, including plowing the snow and stated that he hoped that the Commission would stand
24 behind that and include it in their communication with the City Council.
25
26 Commissioner Huskins noted that Mr. Laughlin’s statements tonight will be included in the record
27 which will be sent to the Council.
28
29 Mr. Laughlin stated that if the City approves the request by the Helgesen’s that means that there
30 would be 2 driveways on Maple Avenue which he feels is another reason that the City should
31 continue to maintain the roadway.
32
33 Commissioner Gorham asked about the location of the fire hydrant.
34
35 Mr. Laughlin stated that it is on the portion of Maple Avenue that would not be vacated. He noted
36 that he had an e-mail from the Fire Department where they stated that they were working with the
37 City to keep the access open because they felt it was very important. He explained that he did
38 not mind exiting out of his driveway and going to Church.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham asked if the City currently handled plowing on Maple Avenue.
41
42 Planning Director Darling explained that Maple Avenue was plowed up to Mr. Laughlin’s driveway.
43
44 Mr. Laughlin stated that it was actually plowed beyond his driveway from Strawberry all the way
45 down to Church.
46
47 Commissioner Gorham asked if part of the deal was that if the vacation was approved that it would
48 be a full vacation and the City would no longer maintain it.
49
50 Planning Director Darling stated that would be the staff recommendation that the City no longer
51 maintain it, but noted that it would not be a full vacation. She explained that this would not be
52 something that would be uncommon in the City.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 8 of 23
1
2 Commissioner Gorham asked where else this had happened in the City.
3
4 Planning Director Darling stated that there are several locations on Birch Bluff.
5
6 Commissioner Johnson asked if that had happened at the time the homes were built or some
7 other time.
8
9 Planning Director Darling explained that they have private driveways that they have constructed
10 and maintained.
11
12 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt that was a bit different than this situation where there
13 was already an existing roadway.
14
15 Mr. Laughlin stated that his only question was whether the Planning Department and the Public
16 Works Department had the right to stop that service because they still pay taxes in the community.
17 He stated that he did not feel that the City had the right to stop maintenance on the portion of the
18 roadway that would not be vacated. He referenced the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment
19 and explained that he was exercising his right to petition the government for a redress or
20 grievance.
21
22 Chair Eggenberger closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M.
23
24 Chair Eggenberger asked if with the vacation that the part that goes to Church would then become
25 a driveway.
26
27 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct.
28
29 Chair Eggenberger explained that was why staff was recommending that it would not be
30 maintained, because it would no longer be a street and would become a driveway.
31
32 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be a private encroachment into the public right-of-
33 way. She noted that currently it was a maintained driveway on an unimproved public right-of-
34 way. She stated that for some reason, when the previous owner lived there, the City maintenance
35 crew started plowing the driveway for them.
36
37 Commissioner Holker asked where the City currently plows.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that they plow to Maple Avenue, but it is not a thru street because
40 there are barriers.
41
42 Commissioner Holker asked where the vacation would begin, if approved.
43
44 Planning Director Darling pointed out the location on a map.
45
46 Commissioner Gorham asked if it was a question of access for the crews and why the City would
47 choose not to plow it anymore since it was just a partial vacation.
48
49 Planning Director Darling stated that it would be considered a private improvement in an
50 unimproved public right-of-way and reiterated that this would be consistent with areas within the
51 City.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 9 of 23
1 Commissioner Holker asked about the fire hydrant location.
2
3 Planning Director Darling pointed out the location of the fire hydrant on a map.
4
5 Chair Eggenberger stated that he thought that would mean that the City would want to plow that
6 in order to maintain access to the hydrant.
7
8 Planning Director Darling stated that the City does not plow them in other circumstances and the
9 adjacent neighbors usually clean out the hydrant area.
10
11 Chair Eggenberger asked why the vacation was not all the way to the roadway and why they
12 were leaving it as a partial vacation.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that the reason they asked for it was in order to leave a portion
15 of the Maple Avenue right-of-way so they can have lot frontage.
16
17 Commissioner Gorham stated that he assumes that the applicant thought it would remain a City
18 street and be plowed.
19
20 Commissioner Johnson asked who owns the parcel to the west.
21
22 Planning Director Darling stated that Mr. Laughlin owns that parcel.
23
24 Commissioner Gorham stated that he feels like there are a few issues that are being conflated
25 with relation to the vacation and City maintenance of the roadway. He stated that it seems like
26 another issue for the Council to consider and suggested that if the Commission felt strongly about
27 it that they make a recommendation, but it was really not up to the Commission to make that
28 decision.
29
30 Commissioner Huskins stated that the Commission was not being asked to make a
31 recommendation about the vacation at all.
32
33 Commissioner Gorham stated that he will have a hard time recommending approval of the
34 subdivision request knowing that the vacation issue was embedded in it.
35
36 Commissioner Huskins stated that was why he had originally questioned why the Commission
37 was discussing this tonight rather than waiting for the Council to make a decision on the vacation
38 issue.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham stated that it appears to be a bit of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation. He
41 asked why the Council could not make the decision regarding the vacation prior to the
42 Commission making a recommendation about the subdivision.
43
44 Planning Director Darling stated that her direction on this application was to have both items
45 before the City Council at the same time so they would only be looking at the issue once.
46
47 Commissioner Gorham stated that it was just a preference or suggestion and he felt the
48 Commission did not have to follow that direction. He stated that he felt the Commission could tell
49 the Council that they planned to table this item until the Council makes a decision related to the
50 vacation.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 10 of 23
1 Chair Eggenberger asked if the Commissions would vote a different way depending on the
2 outcome of the vacation issue.
3
4 Commissioner Holker stated that she did not think she would vote differently based on that
5 outcome.
6
7 Commissioner Johnson stated that if the Council decides not to vacate the street then it would
8 still get plowed.
9
10 Commissioner Huskins stated that the platting that the Commission was reviewing was predicated
11 on the vacation moving forward.
12
13 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would vote differently based on the outcome of the
14 vacation. He explained that he would not want to approve the vacation of Maple Avenue knowing
15 that it would take away the access to have it plowed by the City.
16
17 Chair Eggenberger stated that if the Council votes not to vacate Maple Avenue if they would open
18 it up to Church. He asked why it was currently blocked if Maple Avenue was a City street.
19
20 Planning Director Darling stated that it was blocked so they do not have traffic going through
21 there.
22
23 Chair Eggenberger stated that he understands that, but if it is a City street, there will be traffic.
24
25 Paul Helgesen, 6120 Strawberry Lane, stated that Shorewood Oaks Drive is right there and
26 accesses Strawberry Lane. He noted that there are two roads that are too close together which
27 creates a hazard because they are close, but not aligned. He explained that this was why it wasn’t
28 a through street and should not be, in the future. He stated that if the plan was for it to become a
29 through street, he suspects everyone from Church would also be down here demanding it not
30 happen.
31
32 Council Liaison Callies stated that this issue has not come before the Council but with relation to
33 the vacation, the Commission would be operating without all the information, because some of
34 the circumstances surrounding the vacation have to do with public purpose. She stated that they
35 are not hearing from Public Works staff about why the road is closed or about the maintenance
36 aspect. She noted that as Commissioner Gorham pointed out, it is kind of a ‘chicken and egg’
37 situation. She reiterated that she did not believe that the Commission had all the information
38 related to the vacation, future maintenance, and what portion is actually vacated.
39
40 Commissioner Huskins asked if the Commission could make a recommendation that if this platting
41 were to be approved by the Council that the plowing must be taken into account and service of
42 the non-vacated portion of Maple Avenue.
43
44 Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission could make that recommendation, but noted
45 that it would be outside of their defined statutory role.
46
47 Commissioner Huskins noted that the City Council could do whatever they wanted to with regard
48 to the Commission recommendations and explained that he wanted to make sure that the
49 Commission would not actually be violating anything if they chose to include that
50 recommendation.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 11 of 23
1 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it was within the Commission’s rights to ask for an issue
2 to be dealt with prior to them making a recommendation on the subdivision. He noted that he felt
3 the Commission making a requirement that the City continue to snowplow would be overstepping.
4
5 Council Liaison Callies stated that her understanding was that this was coming before the
6 Commission because the applicant needed the extra square footage in order to move forward
7 with this plat without requesting variances for the lot width. She stated that they were asking for
8 a portion of this to vacated because it was not really being fully utilized as a public street because
9 it is blocked off and made of gravel.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham suggested that they summarize this in the report and make it clear that
12 the Commission has concerns about plowing and general maintenance of Maple Avenue.
13
14 Chair Eggenberger suggested that the Commission try to limit themselves to the issue of the plat
15 and then consider possibly attaching additional recommendations for the Council once they make
16 a decision on the plat issue. He asked if anyone on the Commission had any issues with what
17 has been proposed for the platting.
18
19 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt it was weird for the Commission to allow the subdivision
20 with them taking the street, but because it is coming from a dead end, he thinks he would be okay
21 with it just because Maple Avenue is not a thru street.
22
23 Mr. Laughlin stated that it is impossible for a vehicle to drive from Church onto Maple because of
24 the barriers and the sign that is in place.
25
26 Commissioner Huskins clarified that the presumption is that those barriers would be removed.
27
28 Mr. Laughlin agreed and noted that a new driveway would also be installed.
29
30 Commissioner Gorham asked what the sign said and who put it up.
31
32 Mr. Laughlin stated that the City put up the sign and believes it says ‘no thoroughfare’.
33
34 Commissioner Johnson asked if removal of the barrier was included in anything that the
35 Commission was supposed to be discussing today.
36
37 Planning Director Darling stated that it was not intended to be part of the discussion.
38
39 Commissioner Gorham noted that the barrier would have to be removed in order for them to be
40 able to get access to their homes.
41
42 Commissioner Johnson noted that she understood that but that was not what was before the
43 Commission tonight.
44
45 Chair Eggenberger repeated his suggestion that the Commission try to focus their discussion on
46 the platting request.
47
48 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat subject
49 to the conditions included in the staff report for property located at 6120 Strawberry Court;
50 and direct staff to include a note in the summary report about the Commission’s
51 reservations related to loss of snowplowing and services for Maple Avenue.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 12 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling noted that these items will have two separate reports, but noted that
2 she can add that concern within the report.
3
4 Motion passed 5/0.
5
6 B. PUD Amendment for Boat and Marine Sales
7 Location: 19675 Highway 7
8
9 Planning Director Darling reviewed the request by MM Capital Shorewood, LLC for an
10 amendment to the Waterford PUD to allow marine sales and services with outdoor boat storage.
11 She explained that the Waterford PUD specifically identified this property to be used for a bank
12 and the entire PUD prohibits outdoor storage or display. She reviewed details of the proposed
13 changes to the site and the additions to the building. She explained that staff was recommending
14 approval, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. She noted that staff was also
15 recommending that the applicant provide more information on the turning radii in the southeast
16 corner of the property and also identify where the service area would be within the building, prior
17 to this moving onto the City Council. She explained that the City had received 14 letters that were
18 primarily in support of this request and noted that a few had listed some concerns which were
19 addressed within the response put together by staff.
20
21 Commissioner Holker stated that whole area where they are proposing to have some additional
22 density by adding trees is a little thin and asked why the City would not require even more trees
23 to be put along the berm that backs up to the southern properties.
24
25 Planning Director Darling noted that the last time she was in the area, the existing trees and
26 bushes had not yet budded out, but the area is heavily planted. The City could have the applicant
27 fill in those areas a bit more. She noted that as you move easterly there is a drainage pond that
28 also shows up on one of the wetland inventories, which means they would have to be very
29 cautious about disturbance in those areas.
30
31 Commissioner Huskins asked about the school bus access and if the City had a sense of what
32 time the buses arrive and depart.
33
34 Planning Director Darling stated that she believes it was both morning and late afternoon.
35
36 Commissioner Huskins noted that the afternoon timeframe would likely be during the hours that
37 the business would be open for business and asked if the morning bus time would be before the
38 business would open.
39
40 Planning Director Darling stated that according to the applicant she believed that they open at
41 10:00 a.m. so she would assume the buses would be there prior to them being open for business.
42
43 Commissioner Huskins asked about parking and asked who would be documenting complaints
44 or issues with parking.
45
46 Planning Director Darling explained that it would generally be complaint driven and stated that
47 those would be directed to her or her staff in order to document these issues.
48
49 Commissioner Huskins confirmed that the boat servicing would take place inside the building and
50 not outside.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 13 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and noted that she had included a condition to
2 that effect.
3
4 Commissioner Gorham asked Planning Director Darling to elaborate on the comment made within
5 the staff report that stated ‘vehicle sales are generally uses that require a great deal of code
6 enforcement’.
7
8 Planning Director Darling explained that the issues that she has noticed for vehicles sales are
9 accumulation of materials, signage, and expansion of display vehicles into parking spaces that
10 are supposed to be reserved for customers or employees.
11
12 Commissioner Gorham asked if staff had spoken with the City of Excelsior regarding complaints
13 related to boat sales.
14
15 Planning Director Darling stated that she had not spoken with the City of Excelsior on that issue.
16
17 Commissioner Gorham noted that the landscape plans show concrete slabs on what is now a
18 berm and asked if staff had a sense for how that will work.
19
20 Planning Director Darling stated that she believes they will be grading in those areas and noted
21 that they plan to put in an underground vault for stormwater containment so that area will be
22 disturbed anyway.
23
24 Commissioner Gorham asked if that meant that there would not be a berm in the front anymore.
25
26 Planning Director Darling stated that they may still have it a bit higher so the boats have greater
27 visibility, but noted that she did not think it was proposed to be terribly high.
28
29 Commissioner Holker noted that the staff recommendations was to not have the two display areas
30 in this location.
31
32 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would imagine that having a boat in display up front is a
33 ‘thing’ for this type of business.
34
35 Planning Director Darling agreed that it would increase their visibility, but may not be in the interest
36 of the city.
37
38 Commissioner Johnson stated that the comments from the homeowners association seem to
39 mostly be related to lighting, noise, and ensuring that there is a full landscaping barrier. She
40 asked if the concerns related to the possibility of security lighting shining into the adjacent homes
41 had been addressed.
42
43 Planning Director Darling explained that it is likely that the lights would need to be full cut-off in
44 order to meet the City’s lighting regulations.
45
46 Commissioner Huskins stated that he thought there was also a concern raised about trash
47 removal and noise with the HVAC system.
48
49 Commissioner Gorham asked if staff had a sense of what reinstalling barrier curb and landscaping
50 elements may do to boat movement on the site.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 14 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling stated that she would assume it would be much easier without those
2 elements.
3
4 Commissioner Johnson asked if the HVAC would only operate during the hours of operation.
5
6 Planning Director Darling stated that HVAC can run outside of business hours which meant it
7 would kick on when it was needed.
8
9 Chair Eggenberger invited the applicant to address the Commission.
10
11 Michelle Mueller, Minnesota Inboard Watersports, 720 Galpin Lake Road, Excelsior, shared some
12 background and history on their family-owned business that was founded by her husband’s
13 parents about 32 years ago. She noted that they are looking to find a new dealership location for
14 the Excelsior location, but explained that they also have sales showroom locations in Baxter and
15 Detroit Lakes and service locations in New Germany, Brainerd, and Detroit Lakes. She stated
16 that their company actively supports the communities where they do business, but noted that this
17 region is especially important to them because they also live here. She stated that they have
18 operated out of Excelsior for 32 years and the only reason that they are considering making this
19 move is because their current location and corporate headquarters lacks showroom space,
20 parking, and additional office space that is needed. She explained that they have a strong desire
21 to remain within the Lake Minnetonka community and believe that this property would satisfy their
22 needs moving forward. She reviewed the recommended staff conditions included in the staff
23 report. She noted that they generally do not wash the boats on site, but staff will go outside and
24 wipe them down and polish the boats. She explained that ‘servicing’ can get a bit tricky and noted
25 that the service that would take place in this location would be very light because it is not
26 technically a service department. She stated that she is not sure she could 100% say that they
27 would only provide service inside the building. She shared the example of someone needing a
28 propeller swap and explained that in that situation, they would not typically unhook the boat and
29 bring it indoors in order to do that swap and would generally happen in the parking lot. She stated
30 that she thinks that the City may be imagining ‘servicing’ a bit differently than what actually takes
31 place at a sales location.
32
33 Commissioner Huskins asked if they currently provide this kind of servicing at the Excelsior
34 location.
35
36 Ms. Mueller confirmed that they do this same kind of service outdoors. She stated that in their
37 current location they have neighbors very near and there is not much buffering. She noted that
38 the screening and buffering they have planned for the Shorewood location would be very different
39 than what they have in Excelsior. She stated that they have never received a complaint from their
40 neighbors in Excelsior. She noted that the condition relating to having to convert display spaces
41 back to parking should the City document repeated shortfalls for parking could potentially create
42 a problem. She explained that she was sensitive to the City’s concerns, but she was also
43 concerned about how the shortfalls would be measured, and stated that it was not uncommon for
44 them to be targeted because of the boats that they sell and losing the ability to display boats
45 outside would be a big deal. She stated that she was afraid that there could be a couple of ‘bad
46 actors’ that could simply create a real problem for their business.
47
48 Commissioner Huskins stated that he believes he read in the staff report that there would be the
49 opportunity for having a joint agreement with some of the other businesses nearby.
50
51 Ms. Mueller stated that her understanding is that there are shared covenants so technically
52 S.A.I.L, the strip mall patrons, and New Horizons can all park on their property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 15 of 23
1
2 Commissioner Holker asked if that meant that their business would have no way of limiting access
3 if, for example, a bunch of students from the S.A.I.L building from parking in their location.
4
5 Ms. Mueller stated that was correct and noted that technically none of them can limit things
6 because it is all shared parking.
7
8 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt that the initial concern was based on the reduction in
9 parking stalls and asked Ms. Mueller to share with the Commission how many vehicles they
10 usually see in a day.
11
12 Ms. Mueller stated that she can share that information but asked to continue moving through her
13 comments on the recommendations from staff within the report. She stated that they may need
14 to request a sign variance to differ from the current Waterford PUD requirements in order to have
15 their signage depicted the same as it was in the renderings. She described their signage and
16 explained that she did not believe it would be oversaturated and would be aesthetically pleasing
17 compared to the strip mall signage. She noted that she believes that they would be looking to
18 allow one more sign over what is allowed in the agreement. She referenced the portion of the
19 staff report that says ‘revise plans to:’ and explained that they would like to keep the pads in order
20 to showcase their boats and explained that they have similar pads in their other sales locations.
21 She stated that their plans for the Shorewood location would be anchored with an American flag
22 in the middle and would have tightly manicured landscaping around it and stated that she felt their
23 plans would be tastefully done. She stated that she believes they can conform with the
24 requirements for landscaping and trees as long as they have some say in where they are installed
25 because they want to be able to keep the line of site between Highway 7 and the dealership nice
26 and clear. She stated that they are open to beefing up the area between them and the southerly
27 neighbors and possible along the east side of the building as well. She stated that related to
28 relocation of the trash storage area her understanding was that staff would like to see a 10 foot
29 setback from the property line and noted that she believes their proposal sits too close to the
30 property line, but noted that she believed the Aleris enclosure would also be non-conforming to
31 this rule. She stated that they would like to keep the enclosure close to the building and did not
32 feel the neighbors would like it to be moved any closer to their property. She stated that the
33 request for removal of the glass overhead doors and changing them to solid doors was something
34 that they looked at very carefully and stated that she thinks they could agree to make a change
35 so they are solid on the bottom half of the doors and glass on the top half. She explained that the
36 glass is important because it is likely that they will use some of the spaces to show boats which
37 have metallic flake in them which requires natural sunlight to be seen well.
38
39 Commissioner Huskins noted that from a lighting standpoint he did not think there would be a
40 difference in having a door made completely of glass or having it be half solid material.
41
42 Ms. Mueller noted that they close at 6:00 p.m. which means the lights in the building would be
43 turned off in the back. She stated that for the show floor space in front, closer to Highway 7, they
44 would want lighting in there that is dim at night so it is not totally dark, for safety purposes. She
45 stated that they would like to dimly light the space in front and noted that it may be possible to
46 see a bit of that through the back at nighttime. She noted that there is already a bit of screening
47 in back where the pond is, but noted that it had not fully leafed out yet, but believes it will be fairly
48 dense. She stated that if it becomes a problem, they are open to trying to resolve it with the
49 neighbors because their goal is to be a good neighbor.
50
51 Commissioner Holker asked if Ms. Mueller was concerned about not being able to have lights on
52 the parking lot.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 16 of 23
1
2 Ms. Mueller stated that she was not concerned about not having lighting for the parking lot and
3 noted that she believed the City’s requirements were very similar to that of Excelsior. She stated
4 that it has worked okay for their business because it is dim but provides enough lighting so that it
5 is not completely dark.
6
7 Planning Director Darling explained that they would be allowed to have lights in the back but they
8 would be required to be full cut-off.
9
10 Ms. Mueller stated that the barrier curbing that is in the parking lot will be a problem for them and
11 explained that they would plan to put in striping on most of the areas where curbing currently
12 exists. She stated that most of the curb areas are currently filled with rock but assumes that the
13 original intent had for them to be filled with landscaping. She explained that they want to remove
14 them in order to provide more space for turning radii because boats are different than vehicular
15 traffic.
16
17 Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the biggest things related to parking for her would be
18 parking on the frontage road and asked if there would be a way to keep that from happening.
19
20 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that parking on the frontage road was already
21 prohibited and noted that the Commission could also add a condition that would say, ‘no parking
22 or loading’ on the frontage road.
23
24 Ms. Mueller agreed that would make sense and agree that they should not be parking on the
25 frontage road.
26
27 Commissioner Holker stated that she recalls that their Excelsior location had a blow up Santa
28 around Christmas time. She noted that the City had just done a lot of work on their sign
29 regulations and asked if that was something that they would need to get approval for.
30
31 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not be permitted.
32
33 Chair Eggenberger asked if they would need to get a variance in order to have 3 signs.
34
35 Planning Director Darling explained that they would need a PUD amendment.
36
37 Chair Eggenberger opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 P.M. noting the procedures used in a
38 Public Hearing.
39
40 Paul Christopher, 19827 Waterford Court, stated that he lives in the townhouses near the back
41 of this proposal. He stated that he has spoken with many of the residents and their HOA president
42 has also put out a survey in order to get feedback from the residents and explained that, currently,
43 everyone is in favor of the bank being sold to this company. He noted that Minnesota Inboard
44 Water Sports has shown themselves to be a good neighbor and explained that they held a meet
45 and greet event with them about a month ago where they were able to go through the details and
46 listen to their concerns. He stated that since that time, there have been many conversations and
47 communications between the two sides and stated that he believed that most of the residents
48 were satisfied with the outcomes, for example, how they will deal with the lighting issue. He
49 expressed his appreciation to Planning Director Darling and her staff for their communication and
50 response to the residents. He reiterated that everyone he has talked to about the possible sale
51 of the bank to Minnesota Inboard Water Sports were in favor of it and believes that they will be a
52 very good neighbor.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 17 of 23
1
2 Joseph Huber, 19762 Waterford Court, asked if there was a prohibition in the PUD documents or
3 zoning related to recorded music or loud speakers playing outside.
4
5 Planning Director Darling stated that, off the top of her head, she was not sure, but there may be
6 something within the Nuisance Ordinance that could address those concerns.
7
8 Mr. Huber stated that if there was not anything that existed, he asked if that could be added so it
9 would apply to any future owners of the building in order to keep things quiet in the neighborhood.
10 He thanked the Planning Commission for volunteering their time to help make the City better and
11 Planning Director Darling and her staff for their response to the resident questions and concerns.
12 He stated that he supports the recommendations presented by staff.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham asked if the PUD documents superseded the noise ordinance in the City.
15
16 Planning Director Darling noted that the Holiday station has stereo speakers on the individual
17 pumps so she did not think there was anything that actually prohibited it within the PUD
18 documents.
19
20 Brad Rosenberger, 19722 Waterford Court, stated that he liked how Ms. Mueller has been able
21 to address most of the issues that had been raised. He asked about the fire lane being moved to
22 the front of the building and if that meant the back portion of the property would be considered
23 private, so if the police found someone back there that they could force them to move along. He
24 stated that the reason he asked is that there are individuals who go to the CBD shop and go back
25 to that area and use their merchandise and has also seen people go back there and drink alcohol.
26 He stated that they had residents had brought up concerns with the security camera and the
27 potential during the winter months that the privacy of individuals in their bedrooms may be invaded
28 if they happen to leave their blinds open. He stated that because he has seen some of the
29 activities that have happened in the back if there may be the possibility of adding fencing. He
30 noted that the additional trees that they are proposing will work well for additional privacy, but with
31 the boats being parked there he would be concerned about people breaking in for parts and them
32 going up the hill because it is currently open. He stated that he was in favor of this project moving
33 forward.
34
35 Mark Henning, 19627 Waterford Court, stated that he serves on the HOA board and stated that
36 he has been working on gathering input from the homeowners and noted that they have been
37 passing along this information to Ms. Mueller and Planning Director Darling. He stated that he
38 can assure the Commission that all of the feedback about this proposal has been positive. He
39 stated that one of the comments that they have been getting was that they want to have good
40 neighbors, but they just don’t want to see them.
41
42 Chair Eggenberger closed the Public Hearing at 9:01 P.M.
43
44 Commissioner Huskins stated that he heard four additional pieces of information and asked Ms.
45 Mueller to comment on them. He stated that the first was related to noise or music and asked if
46 they intended to have music playing outside.
47
48 Ms. Mueller stated that do not typically use music outside and noted that what may happen is that
49 a stereo may be turned up outside, for example, if a customer is outside looking at a boat, but
50 that would be intermittent. She stated that one of the things they addressed in the neighborhood
51 meeting was that they do hook up to a hose to the boats and turn them on in order to simulate
52 them being in the water which does sometimes happen outside. She stated that this would be
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 18 of 23
1 something that only lasts a short amount of time and would be very intermittent. She noted that
2 they use a tractor to move boats on the lot which does create a little bit of noise.
3
4 Commissioner Huskins asked about the fire lane being moved to the front and the police patrolling
5 the back. He asked if Ms. Mueller planned to have their own security presence.
6
7 Ms. Mueller answered that they would be putting in security cameras inside and outside and would
8 also have traditional armed doors and windows on the building. She stated that any directional
9 cameras in the back will be kept below bedroom window height in order for the neighbors to be
10 able to maintain their privacy.
11
12 Commissioner Huskins asked if their security measures would include humans.
13
14 Ms. Mueller stated that they would not include a human presence.
15
16 Commissioner Huskins stated that there was also a request from a neighbor for additional fencing.
17
18 Ms. Mueller stated that they would be open to installing fencing, but noted that they would have
19 to figure out what they may look like and referenced the wetland area that may provide some
20 obstacles. She stated that they would be open to putting up a fence whether it is on their own
21 property or the neighboring properties.
22
23 Planning Director Darling stated that a concern was raised that there has been some activity
24 behind the shopping center and noted that no on-site liquor consumption has been approved for
25 that property, so if residents see liquor use or loitering, they can go ahead and call the Police in
26 order to have that addressed.
27
28 Commissioner Huskins stated that several of the conditions suggested by staff were contested
29 by the applicant and asked Planning Director Darling if she could respond to those items.
30
31 Commissioner Johnson stated that perhaps many of them just needed to be modified in order to
32 take into account Ms. Mueller’s input for things like wiping down the boats outside.
33
34 Planning Director Darling stated that she would doubt that toweling off the boats outdoors would
35 be an issue, but there would be concerns using washers or bringing hoses over and constantly
36 having servicing happening outside. She stated that the Commission could modify the proposed
37 conditions, but noted that one of the items mentioned by Ms. Mueller was related to the barrier
38 curb which is a code requirement for commercial properties. She noted that there was also a
39 comment made by Ms. Mueller related to turning the display spaces back to parking and explained
40 that this was already a sizeable reduction to the parking requirement. She stated that they were
41 required to provide 79 spaces, per the ordinance, and are proposing to provide 43 spaces. She
42 explained that she felt that the City needed some assurance that, if there is a problem created by
43 the lack of parking spaces, that the City has recourse and redress for that situation.
44
45 Commissioner Holker asked about the location of the trash enclosure.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission can propose something else if they felt this
48 location was fine and noted that, to her, it seems a bit close to the property line.
49
50 Commissioner Huskins asked Planning Director Darling to address the comments related to the
51 display spaces between the northerly curb area.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 19 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling stated that she would stand by her initial recommendation to not have
2 those boats in that location.
3
4 Commissioner Huskins stated that the Planning Commission can take input from the residents,
5 which is very valuable, but at the same time, they are also charged with looking at City Codes
6 and recommendations. He stated that he hopes everyone present can recognize that they are
7 attempting to find a balance in order to be fair to the entire City.
8
9 Commissioner Gorham asked if there was another location that has a wide turning radius, for
10 example, the school, and if they have barrier curbs in place.
11
12 Planning Director Darling stated that the school has quite a few barrier curbs.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham stated that he felt this proposed usage was kind of unique and wonders
15 if there may be areas where curb makes sense for example, where there are cars, but allow the
16 applicant some flexibility where the boats will be located. He stated that generally speaking there
17 is a lot of support for this project and that it would be a good fit for this site. He stated that he
18 would agree with Commissioner Huskins that the mission is to find a balance.
19
20 Commissioner Johnson asked where the curbs would be located.
21
22 Planning Director Darling pointed out the curbs and landscape islands that the applicant was
23 proposing to remove.
24
25 Chair Eggenberger asked about the purpose of the curbing.
26
27 Planning Director Darling explained that the purpose of the curbs would be to protect the
28 landscaping and provide a finished edge for the parking spaces.
29
30 Commissioner Holker asked if there would be curbing on the back side of the boats on the south
31 side and the front side on the north side or if those would also be gone.
32
33 Planning Director Darling stated that she believed that those were still shown along the edge of
34 the landscaping.
35
36 Commissioner Johnson stated that it seems as though Planning Director Darling wanted to
37 maintain a firm stance on the two display spaces to the north and asked for her reasoning.
38
39 Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s ordinance, especially the landscape ordinance
40 talks a lot about peripheral landscaping. She stated that she thinks that provides a consistent
41 distance between the parking area and the public street and also provides an overall spacious,
42 green area.
43
44 Commissioner Gorham asked if she was recommending that they not put the two boats there in
45 order to make it more ‘green’.
46
47 Planning Director Darling confirmed that she would recommend keeping it green space rather
48 than using that area for display of boats.
49
50 Commissioner Huskins asked if she was also firm in her recommendation regarding the
51 ornamental trees to the northern berm.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 20 of 23
1 Planning Director Darling stated that she would recommend that there be a little bit more
2 landscaping because there is not much left in there. She noted that what they have proposed is
3 perennial grasses, which will look lovely, but it would be nice to have some additional trees in that
4 area as well.
5
6 Chair Eggenberger asked Ms. Mueller about the display spaces and if there would be a time that
7 they would not have boats in those spaces.
8
9 Ms. Mueller stated that they would pretty much always have boats in those display spaces.
10
11 Adam Fletcher, stated that he has worked for the Mueller’s for almost 20 years and explained that
12 the two pads would be ideal to have boats there year round.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham asked if they would switch the boats out.
15
16 Mr. Fletcher confirmed that they do switch out the boats as they sell.
17
18 Ms. Mueller stated that most of the display boats end up getting moved and rotated.
19
20 Commissioner Huskins stated that the issue for this area appears to be landscaping. He asked
21 if they were permitted to have those display spaces if there was something else that they could
22 provide within their plans relative to the landscaping.
23
24 Ms. Mueller stated that she believes that they have already made plans for landscaping around
25 the pad areas in order to help soften the area a bit. She stated that if they are looking for a net
26 increase in landscaping, she would say that there is probably room in the south berm area
27 between the residential neighbors and the back of the property and also an area on the east side
28 of the building that is currently just grass.
29
30 Commissioner Huskins explained that he felt the concern was along the northerly portion.
31
32 Ms. Mueller stated that their goal was to have visibility so they do not want to create a barrier
33 there.
34
35 Chair Eggenberger asked if the plans were to ever put anything other than boats on the display
36 areas.
37
38 Ms. Mueller stated that it was always boats and noted that there was a ‘Santa’ boat for Christmas.
39
40 Commissioner Johnson stated that the comment Planning Director Darling made about the
41 curbing was related to separating the vertical and horizontal parking spaces and asked Ms.
42 Mueller if they had trouble with the two curbs that she referenced.
43
44 Ms. Mueller stated that when they are moving their own boats with a tractor it is a bit easier, but
45 when they have customers dropping off or picking up a boat that area would be ideal for them
46 because they would have a straight shot. She stated that if they were able to stripe the area
47 rather than having a barrier that would be ideal and would be a safer alternative for their
48 customers. She stated that there is the same situation on the front where they would have the
49 ability to pull straight out.
50
51 Commissioner Gorham asked if cars would be parked in that area.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 21 of 23
1 Ms. Mueller stated that cars could potentially be parked there and explained that there would only
2 be 12 employees on site and 5 to 10 customer vehicles on a busy day.
3
4 Commissioner Huskins asked where the 12 employees would park.
5
6 Ms. Mueller explained that it is most likely that they would park on the south and east side.
7
8 Commissioner Huskins asked if the cars were parked there if they would still have easy in moving
9 the boats or if the cars would have to be moved.
10
11 Ms. Mueller explained that they would like try to keep that area open so they would not park there.
12
13 The Commission reviewed the recommended conditions line by line and made some language
14 modifications.
15
16 Planning Director Darling reminded the Commission that they were crafting changes for one user
17 but explained that this would be a permanent change for any subsequent users and urged caution.
18
19 The Commission continued their discussion related to details included in the conditions
20 recommended by staff.
21
22 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment for
23 Boat and Marine Sales for 19675 Highway 7, subject to the conditions included in the staff
24 report, as amended, per discussion. Motion passed 5/0.
25
26 5. OTHER BUSINESS
27
28 A. Variance to front and side-yard setback for a non-conforming home
29 Location: 20980 Ivy Lane
30 Applicant: Todd Nelson
31
32 Planning Director Darling reviewed the requests for a variance to the front and side yard property
33 lines in order to expand a non-conforming home. She explained that the Commission had
34 previously recommended approval of a similar application over a year ago, however the variance
35 expired prior before the applicant began the project. She stated that they are now ready to move
36 forward so this application is for a very similar variance request for an addition to the property.
37 She noted that this application is for a one-story addition on the front of the home, rather than for
38 one story addition with a basement. She reviewed details of the variances that would be required
39 for the front and side-yard setbacks. Staff recommends approval of the variance requests.
40
41 Commissioner Huskins asked if it was possible to summarize what was different from this
42 application compared to the last variance that the City had approved.
43
44 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the differences between the two requests and
45 explained that the size of the addition is the same, but the last version was a one-story addition
46 with a basement.
47
48 Commissioner Holker asked for more details on how far out the addition will go in comparison
49 with the home next door.
50
51 Planning Director Darling utilized a picture in the presentation to give a general idea of where the
52 addition would be located in relation to the home next door.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 22 of 23
1
2 Commissioner Huskins asked if there had been any discussion about building a second story
3 rather than moving closer to the street.
4
5 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not.
6
7 Commissioner Gorham asked how the ‘living space’ in the addition would be used.
8
9 Planning Director Darling stated that it was essentially a living room.
10
11 Chair Eggenberger invited the applicant to address the Commission.
12
13 Todd Nelson, 20980 Ivy Lane, stated that the garage to the neighbors is 3 feet from the house
14 and his request would be for 16 feet, and explained that it would almost be flush with where the
15 end of the garage line is located.
16
17 Commissioner Gorham asked Mr. Nelson to describe the plans for the addition.
18
19 Mr. Nelson stated that their original plans were for a single room with a stairwell to the basement
20 and move the existing stairwell from the kitchen to the new addition, but that cost was prohibitive.
21 He stated that they decided to dial back the plans and just make one large room and a four season
22 porch with no basement. He stated that they are also not planning to have the portico off the side
23 because it would extend out too far and make the roof hard to maintain.
24
25 Huskins moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the variance to the front
26 and side-yard setback for a non-conforming home located at 20980 Ivy Lane, subject to
27 the conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0.
28
29 6. REPORTS
30
31 • Council Meeting Report
32
33 Council Liaison Callies stated that she did not have a specific report but gave a brief overview of
34 items discussed at the recent Council meetings.
35
36 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda
37
38 Planning Director Darling stated there were two variance applications slated for the next meeting.
39 She noted that Jason Carlson had tendered his resignation with the City.
40
41 Commissioner Gorham noted that he had not been assigned to present at any upcoming Council
42 meetings.
43
44 Planning Director Darling explained that he was not present at the meeting where they made
45 upcoming assignments and didn’t want to sign him up without knowing his schedule. She noted
46 that she believed August and September were open.
47
48 Commissioner Holker stated that she also was not assigned to cover any meetings.
49
50 August Planning Commission Report to the Council – Commissioner Holker
51 September Planning Commission Report to the Council – Commissioner Gorham
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 7, 2024
Page 23 of 23
1
2 7. ADJOURNMENT
3
4 Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May
5 7, 2024, at 10:37 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
6
4/18/2024 (update 5/12/2024)
I am requesting a variance for a garage addition due to my current garage space not being
adequate for my vehicles and boat. I have a wooden boat that has been 90% restored and
really would like tom be able to work on it inside a garage, and not have it out in the
driveway. I’m sure my neighbors would appreciate this change as well. Not only will my
front of house not have vehicles or a boat, but it will be a much more attractive house to
look at.
VARIANCE APPLICATION CHECKLIST ITEMS:
1. This variance request adheres to the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning
regulations.
2. The practical di?iculties I am encountering are the fact that there is a retaining wall
and steep hill on the backside of my garage, and on the front side I am looking to go
6 feet towards the road which will result in approximately 28.6 feet from the property
line. So the variance is for the mere 1.4 feet of the NW corner of the garage.
I am keeping the character of the neighborhood, just bringing the design up to more
modern standards.
3. This request is not based on economic considerations.
4. This variance would not a?ect light or air from the adjacent property. It would also
not increase congestion or a fire hazard and not impose any obstacle for fire and
rescue.
5. The variance would not be detrimental to public welfare and have no e?ect on the
land.
6. This is the minimum I would need to create a useable garage for the items I currently
have in my driveway (boat and vehicles).
Thank you for your consideration.
Scott Karo
owner