10 01 2024 Planning Commission Packet
1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
3 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 7:00 P.M.
4
5 MINUTES
6
7
8 CALL TO ORDER
9
10 Vice-Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
11
12 ROLL CALL
13
14 Present: Commissioners Gorham, Huskins, Holker and Johnson; Planning Director Darling;
15 and Council Liaison Zerby
16
17 Absent: Chair Eggenberger
18
19 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
20
21 Holker moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda for September 17, 2024, as
22 presented. Motion passed 4/0.
23
24 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
25
26 August 20, 2024
27
28 Planning Director Darling noted that she had received two e-mails earlier today that noted some
29 typographic errors within the minutes and had made revisions.
30
31 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
32 of August 20, 2024, as amended. Motion passed 4/0.
33
34 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
35
36 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
37 Vice-Chair Huskins explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the
38 City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners
39 are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in
40 determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to
41 hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make
42 a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only.
43
44 A. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT, FINAL PLAT AND VARIANCE FOR
45 ASAKENAS ADDITION
46 Applicant: Audrius Asakenas
47 Location: 6180 Cardinal Drive
48
49 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request to subdivide the property at 6180
50 Cardinal Drive into three lots. She reviewed the property location, topography of the parcel,
51 Shoreland District regulations, zoning and land use designation of low density residential, utility
52 plans for sewer and water, stormwater controls, right-of-way dedication plans, easements, tree
53 removal plans and potential impacts. She explained that the biggest issue with this subdivision
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 2 of 31
1 request was the proposal for less than required lot widths and frontage for the two southerly lots.
2 She noted that as proposed, Lot 2 would have no direct frontage to a public street and Lot 3 would
3 only have a small finger of frontage. She explained that the City requires 100 feet of lot width and
4 the subdivision regulations require adequate street frontage for each lot. She stated that the
5 applicant was proposing to provide access to each of the southerly lots via a shared private
6 driveway with easements over the top of it. She explained that the regulations for a variance for
7 a subdivision are different than a standard variance request and reviewed the criteria to be
8 considered. She stated that this property was guided within the Comprehensive Plan for low
9 density residential development which means three to five units per acre, which for this parcel
10 would be challenging because of the 68 feet of topography change with the bluff in the middle.
11 She explained that staff had concluded that the applicant had met the criteria for a variance
12 application with their subdivision and was also recommending approval of the subdivision subject
13 to the conditions listed within the staff report. She stated that the City had received several e-
14 mails about this application that were either attached to the report or had been distributed just
15 prior to the meeting.
16
17 Vice-Chair Huskins gave an overview of the procedures used in a Public Hearing.
18
19 Commissioner Johnson stated that Planning Director Darling had stated that for traffic with this
20 subdivision, the expectation would be that there would be 10 ingress and egress actions per day
21 which would not be a problem and asked how staff had come to the conclusion that this would
22 not be a problem.
23
24 Planning Director Darling clarified that she had said that the difference in the number of trips that
25 would be accessing the shared driveway on the south side would not be a substantial difference
26 than what there would be now and additionally, if the property were to subdivide into two lots, with
27 each lot having the required 100 feet along Cardinal Drive, it would be likely that those lots would
28 have to access Cardinal Drive from the shared driveway which would again result in 20 trips
29 because it was not functional to provide a driveway up and down the steep slopes through the
30 middle of the property. She stated that, to her, having the variance or not, would not have much
31 of a change on what would happen on the shared driveway on the south end of the site.
32
33 Vice-Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Darling to display the plat and indicate the location
34 of the current structure and driveway.
35
36 Planning Director Darling reviewed the current location of the home and driveway.
37
38 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Darling could tell them anything about the history
39 of the driveway since it was non-conforming and did not have sufficient frontage.
40
41 Planning Director Darling explained that the property, at present, was conforming because the
42 zoning district requires 100 feet of lot width and adequate frontage to a public street. She noted
43 that they are running the driveway on the south side of the property because of the steep slopes
44 in the middle of the property.
45
46 Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the driveway leading into Cardinal Drive and whether it
47 conformed in terms of distance from other driveways.
48
49 Planning Director Darling stated that it would not be conforming and noted that there was an
50 existing private drive to the south located just off the property but noted that it was located within
51 the City of Chanhassen. She explained that there were a number of homes that use it including
52 one lot that is located within the City of Shorewood.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 3 of 31
1
2 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if that meant that there would be two private drives right on top of each
3 other.
4
5 Planning Director Darling explained that the City’s regulations defined them separately and stated
6 that a shared driveway is a driveway that serves two homes, a private drive serves more than two
7 homes.
8
9 Commissioner Johnson stated that one lot has absolutely no frontage and asked how and why
10 the City requirement was for 100 feet of frontage.
11
12 Planning Director Darling stated that there are several single-family zoning districts and they
13 regulate the size of the lot in order to provide, in some cases, more green space and identify
14 which areas of the City can be developed with less green space. She explained that some zoning
15 districts require 120 feet of frontage and this particular zoning district requires 100 feet of frontage.
16 She noted that the width was typically measured at the front setback which is along the public
17 road and this case, for this lot, that would mean that there is not a front setback, except as
18 assigned through a variance application.
19
20 Commissioner Gorham referenced the engineers report and noted that it has a lot of
21 recommendations related to drainage and erosion control and asked how that would get resolved.
22
23 Planning Director Darling stated that they would be resolved through revised plans.
24
25 Commissioner Gorham asked how the Commission would know those things were resolved, if
26 they recommended approval.
27
28 Planning Director Darling stated that they would typically be resolved before staff would allow the
29 recording of the Final Plat with Hennepin County. She noted that there are some conditions that
30 they put before they get a home or permits for the home and in this case, since it is 3 lots, they
31 had suggested that the applicant could provide the landscaping plan prior to each building permit
32 rather than providing those details before recording the plat, but explained that the other
33 conditions would have to be met before they recorded the plat.
34
35 Commissioner Gorham stated that it looks like the applicant had revised their drawings a few
36 times and asked if it would be fair to say that the comments from City Engineer Budde were okay
37 to get them to this point.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that they had given them previous comments and the applicant
40 had altered their plans to meet those comments. She stated that the memo from City Engineer
41 Budde was based on the revised plans.
42
43 Commissioner Gorham asked what had brought it to the level of it not needing to be revised again.
44
45 Planning Director Darling stated that the changes that engineering and staff had noted in the
46 report were generally those that are fairly technical and were revisions that would be reviewed
47 administratively. She reminded the Commission that the City has a specific amount of time that
48 they can review a Preliminary and Final Plat, so with every subdivision there are a series of
49 conditions that have to be met.
50
51 Commissioner Gorham asked about the definition of a variance and noted that in some places it
52 says ‘special and highly unique circumstances’ and others say ‘unusual hardship’.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 4 of 31
1
2 Planning Director Darling explained that was generally what the City’s code has in it and noted
3 that the only difference is that the City code has, instead of ‘unusual hardship’, they have ‘extreme
4 hardship’, which exceeds the State Statute requirement so they cannot require it.
5
6 Commissioner Gorham asked if that was old or conflicting language.
7
8 Planning Director Darling stated that it was part of the language in the current code that the City
9 would be updating with help from a consultant in order to update the City’s subdivision ordinances.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham asked if that meant that the Commission should interpret it using the State
12 requirement or if it was open to their own judgement.
13
14 Planning Director Darling explained that the State code would supersede in this case, so they
15 cannot review it by ‘extreme hardship’ the way it is written into the City code.
16
17 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if it was because of the topography of the property that it would be
18 impossible to locate the three homes in a way where two of them could be accessed from the
19 north off of Cardinal so the existing driveway would just continue to serve one home.
20
21 Planning Director Darling stated that she would hate to use the word ‘impossible’ because there
22 are times engineers can redesign area, but she would say that building a road that goes through
23 the property and provides cul-de-sac access would be a really bad idea because it would have a
24 terribly steep slope. She reminded the Commission that the bluff located in the middle of the
25 property complicated things, but noted that there was also wetland nearby as well as a required
26 buffer area.
27
28 Commissioner Johnson asked about the trees and noted that it appears as though a pretty
29 wooded lot would be going down to one that has about 22 little trees.
30
31 Planning Director Darling stated that they would be removing about 50 trees and would replace
32 them with 22 trees. She explained that in the City’s tree replacement policy says that the trees
33 need to be 3 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 6 feet for conifers which means they will be
34 a bit smaller.
35
36 Commissioner Johnson asked if that meant that taking down the large trees and putting in the
37 little trees was in conformance.
38
39 Planning Director Darling stated that was in conformance.
40
41 Commissioner Johnson asked where the new trees would be placed and also where the ones
42 removed were located.
43
44 Planning Director Darling reviewed the plans for tree removal.
45
46 Commissioner Holker asked about the placement of the sewer line and if it would take down some
47 of the hill when it is put in.
48
49 Planning Director Darling stated that it would usually be directionally bored from two separate
50 points.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 5 of 31
1 Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the neighbors had mentioned that there was damage
2 to their property as a result of other homes being built next door and asked if the City could put in
3 any conditions that would alleviate their concerns in this situation.
4
5 Planning Director Darling stated that they can put something in, but that is typically a private issue
6 and noted that, usually, the developers make amends.
7
8 Commissioner Johnson stated that the e-mail that was submitted stated that the City had to get
9 involved in order to make the developer cooperate and asked if the City could just put something
10 in that was more proactive.
11
12 Planning Director Darling reiterated that they could put something in the conditions if that was the
13 direction from the Commission.
14
15 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
16
17 Audrius Asakenas, 6180 Cardinal Drive, stated that he was a builder, but also had Tom Goodrum,
18 Moore Engineering, with him tonight in order to answer any questions the City may have about
19 their request.
20
21 Commissioner Holker reiterated her question regarding the sewer line and if it would be bored or
22 trenched.
23
24 Tom Goodrum, Moore Engineering, stated that typically when there is a slope like this it would be
25 done with directional boring. He explained that they would work with City staff and the City
26 Engineer on what would be the most appropriate way and noted that their purpose was to protect
27 the steep slope. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan was looking for three homes on this site
28 and noted that the site is actually large enough to accommodate more than that. He noted that
29 there was a comment made about 10 trips earlier in the meeting and stated that he wanted to
30 make it clear that 10 trips was an industry rule of thumb for any single family home. He noted
31 that related to driveway separations, in most ordinances they are allowed to have a driveway 5
32 feet from the property line so having 10 feet between driveway in most cities is considered
33 reasonable and acceptable but acknowledged that he did not know the specifics from
34 Shorewood’s ordinance. He stated that related to the 100-foot width they were trying to use the
35 existing driveway, preserve the slope, and also try to meet the character and intent of the City
36 codes. He explained that Lots 2 and 3 were over 100 feet wide. He stated that the previous
37 comments from the City Engineer were mostly because their first plans had shown one retaining
38 wall on Lot 1 instead of the split wall that is shown now. He stated that they know that there will
39 be retaining walls down there but do not know how big or how many may be needed because the
40 home on the site will be custom designed. He noted that most of the of the other comments
41 received were pretty standard engineering comments. He stated that their goal is to minimize
42 any grading and a swale would technically work, but if the City had more comfort in the use of
43 piping, they would support that and reiterated that they will work with the City staff on what will be
44 the most appropriate way to bring stormwater down the side of the bluff/slope.
45
46 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the applicant understood the recommendations that City staff had
47 included in the staff report.
48
49 Mr. Goodrum stated that they understood them and reiterated that most of them were pretty
50 standard comments frequently seen in the metro area and noted that they had worked with Bolton
51 & Menk in other cities and would be happy to work with them on this project.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 6 of 31
1 Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant would have any problem with an additional
2 condition that covered not damaging any nearby properties or driveways.
3
4 Mr. Goodrum stated that they could include that in the conditions but noted that the work would
5 be done by contractors, but assured the Commission that they did not want to damage anyone’s
6 property and would be more than happy to fix any damages that may occur.
7
8 Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public
9 Hearing.
10
11 Nancy Feller, 22535 Murray Street, asked where the driveway for Lot 1 would be located. She
12 stated that one of their concerns is that with Cardinal Drive being such a small street and the only
13 other house going up the drive from there is on the right side and it is difficult to see the cars
14 coming out of there. She explained that she was hoping that there would not be a driveway
15 between Murray Street and the top of the hill on Cardinal because it is very steep there. She
16 stated that they were also concerned with run-off and noted that a new culvert was just put in at
17 their property but there has still been water sitting there.
18
19 Mr. Goodrum reviewed the driveway location using the grading plans and explained the reason
20 for its placement. He noted that they wanted to have some separation from Murray in order to
21 make sure there was enough space for people to come down, but noted that it could slide
22 anywhere along Cardinal south of that corner. He stated that they had tried to move it as far north
23 as possible, but were open to adjusting it, if the City felt that having a greater distance from Murray
24 was the safest place for a driveway.
25
26 Mark Sass, 22690 Murray Street, stated that he had owned this property for 40 years. He stated
27 that Cardinal Lane is really narrow and does not have curbs but noted that the City did do some
28 work on the drainage issues at the bottom to get the water to drain to the pond. He stated that
29 this had been a problem causing flooding across the street both ways, so he was not sure how
30 that would affect the house in that area because the grading is pretty steep. He stated that he
31 did not realize that the City allowed flag lots and asked why they couldn’t make a public drive or
32 something instead of having a shared driveway. He asked about the setbacks for a home that
33 would be totally landlocked and what the rules and regulations would be in the City. He stated
34 that he had concerns about traffic, no frontage, utilities that would be driven through private
35 property in order to get to another private property and explained that it seems like this request
36 doesn’t meet the City’s requirements because it needs a variance. He stated that these proposed
37 lots are also going to be smaller than all the lots in the area and explained that he was not here
38 trying to fight anyone or to make an enemy, but he was a contractor for 35 years and, in the past,
39 he did not think something like this would have ever been considered. He stated that it just seems
40 like there are a bunch of things piled up on this request, with everything being a challenge and
41 asked why the City would even consider approving it.
42
43 Tyson Barrett, 6204 Cardinal Avenue, Chanhassen, stated that he lives on the shared driveway
44 in Chanhassen right next to this property. He explained that his biggest concern was having that
45 many residents on two shared driveways that are right next to each other. He stated that it has
46 already been difficult for things like, recycling week, to have that amount of bins out at the street
47 from the three homes on the shared driveway and the one existing driveway. He stated that when
48 all is said and done, they could end up having 12 containers in this location. He stated that there
49 were small children in the area so he was also concerned about extra congestion this may bring.
50
51 Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He asked Planning Director Darling
52 is there had been any issued raised by the people that staff would like to respond to.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 7 of 31
1
2 Planning Director Darling stated that for the question related to drainage at the street, the City
3 Engineer was recommending that they put in curb and gutter in order to direct the water down the
4 street and into the new ditch that was constructed to ensure there is no additional pooling or
5 destruction of the edge of the roadway.
6
7 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there may be water that may be able to make it across the street.
8
9 Planning Director Darling stated that was not raised as a concern and noted that she would
10 assume that there was a crown in the street, but explained that she would follow up with a specific
11 question on that. She stated that flag lots were generally not approved in the City, which is why
12 a variance was needed.
13
14 Commissioner Johnson asked for an explanation of a flag lot.
15
16 Planning Director Darling drew a picture of what type of lot would be considered a flag lot. She
17 stated that she had already tried to address the concerns about traffic during her initial
18 presentation. She noted that there were concerns raised about the lot sizes and the frontage and
19 explained that the property was zoned R-1C and they were not proposing a change in zoning.
20 She stated that the proposed lot sizes were more than what was required in the R-1C district and
21 noted that setbacks were also not an issue as long as the City approves the variance request as
22 long as they set the front of the lot to the south end for those 2 lots. She reiterated that the
23 Comprehensive Plan guides this for between three and five homes on the parcel which is another
24 reason to consider granting the variance request. She stated that she did not have a solution for
25 the concern raised by Mr. Barrett for the recycling bins and noted that she also had not heard
26 about conflicts between the private drive and the shared driveway. She stated that both of them
27 are pretty low traffic generators and was not sure if Chanhassen had a limit on the number of
28 homes allowed on a private drive the way Shorewood currently does.
29
30 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he thought there had been something in Planning Director
31 Darling’s information that there would need to be some document put in place that anticipates
32 conflicts with the use of the shared driveway.
33
34 Planning Director Darling explained that as a planner, she did not love shared driveways because
35 some neighbors end up not getting along well and gave examples of someone being obstinate
36 and blocking the driveway or blow their snow on the other’s drive to irritate each other. She stated
37 that if there was another way to design this without a shared driveway she would recommend it.
38 In this situation, because of the bluff in the center of the property, it was not practical.
39
40 Commissioner Johnson asked how it would work if the City was providing fire and emergency
41 service to someone on a shared driveway in a situation where the neighbors hated each other.
42
43 Planning Director Darling stated that was a reason to make sure that there was an easement in
44 place over the top so that there is some recourse for the other property owner. She stated that
45 she usually has them identify some means of staying out of the court system to settle any disputes
46 over maintenance or the financial side of the shared driveway.
47
48 Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a way that the garbage container situation could be
49 addressed.
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 8 of 31
1 Planning Director Darling stated that she had not put anything in place previously for subdivisions
2 and noted that perhaps they could narrow the driveway to ensure that there would be room on
3 each side for the containers.
4
5 Commissioner Johnson stated that she would like to have something included that would address
6 this issue. She read aloud a comment from one of the e-mails about the City’s wish to increase
7 housing density that the zoning regulations should be changed in order to have a more thoughtful
8 plan for redevelopment of the entire neighborhood and asked if that was something that could be
9 done because what seemed to be happening was that people were addressing a one-off kind of
10 situation.
11
12 Planning Director Darling stated that it could be done but noted this was not an area where the
13 City was assuming higher density and reiterated that nothing had been changed for this area and
14 has the same land use designation that it has had for decades. She explained that some
15 applications are reactionary which means the City reacts to what is submitted. She noted that
16 the City could do a study in order to look at the broader neighborhood, but that would mean that
17 if someone wanted to develop they would likely have to acquire properties which would be
18 voluntary.
19
20 Commissioner Gorham noted that the Commission did not see a lot of subdivision requests and
21 stated that, to him, this feels like it comes down to the interpretation of ‘unusual hardship’. He
22 asked if it was unusual that the site was steep for Shorewood and if the thought was that it was
23 unusual enough that the City should allow all the machinations that are required to try to fit three
24 homes on the lot. He asked if that meant that every site like this in the City would get three
25 properties if they were the same size. He stated that he felt the site would be a mess with
26 everything planned and will look dramatically different that what is there now. He read aloud
27 plans for tree removal and some of the conditions in the engineer’s memo related to drainage.
28 He reiterated his earlier question about whether this situation and explained that he did not think
29 this situation as really that unusual. He stated that he did not feel that everyone would be able to
30 get a subdivision and noted that while this was a tough lot, there were lots just like it all over the
31 City. He stated that he did not feel the City should bend their ordinances in order to accommodate
32 wedging three lots onto this property. He reiterated that he did not think this was really an unusual
33 hardship and noted that he also looks at the loss of trees and the change in the neighborhood as
34 being impactful to the community.
35
36 Commissioner Holker stated that Commissioner Gorham had used the word ‘wedging’ a few times
37 and according to the code they are not actually wedging 3 lots onto this parcel, if you ignore the
38 frontage.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham stated that he would agree that the lots were well sized but to drain the
41 lots there is all sorts of things that need to happen like retaining walls, swales, and would also
42 need to remove essentially every tree. He stated that the whole design has been highly
43 engineered in order to get 3 lots on this parcel.
44
45 Commissioner Holker stated that she felt that anytime you are going to develop and get three lots
46 on a piece of property you will see massive trees go down. She stated that she has seen that
47 happen when any kind of lot is developed but noted that whether she liked it or not would be
48 another question. She stated that she believed that this was within the landowner’s rights and
49 explained that her biggest challenge with the request was having no frontage on the third lot. She
50 stated that the code says that they can develop three lots on this property, so she would depend
51 on staff with regard to the water issues because she cannot weigh on those details.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 9 of 31
1 Commissioner Gorham agreed and noted that was the engineer’s job for the City.
2
3 Commissioner Johnson stated that she believed what Commissioner Gorham was talking about
4 was whether this application met the requirements of a variance. She stated that the question
5 was whether there were highly unique circumstances or conditions that are not common to other
6 properties that would deprive the property owner of reasonable or minimum use of the land.
7
8 Commissioner Holker stated that was where she disagreed even though she understood the point
9 that was being made.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham stated that the applicant was saying that this was so unusual which was
12 why they had to use this reasoning in order to justify the access.
13
14 Commissioner Johnson read aloud a portion of the variance requirements where it was noted that
15 this type of variance had been allowed for several neighboring lots and asked for clarity about
16 what that comment meant.
17
18 Planning Director Darling explained that what she was referring to was the applicant’s justification
19 of their request. She stated that the applicant had pointed out a number of lots on the aerial photo
20 that have less frontage than is required but noted that many of the lots referenced were developed
21 some time ago so there may not have been many rules in place at the time and shared examples
22 from homes on the south side of Galpin Lake.
23
24 Vice-Chair Huskins explained that for him, the lack of frontage is a big issue. He stated that he
25 does not find it necessary to describe this property as unique to any other property in the City and
26 is simply a unique application for what the property owner wishes to do with the property. He
27 stated that, by code, they can fit three homes on the property and are not asking for any variances
28 for setbacks or lot size. He noted that he was concerned about the proximity of this driveway with
29 the adjacent neighborhood’s driveway and also the safety/practicality of everyone putting out their
30 trash bins. He asked if the timing was the same for pick-up in Chanhassen and Shorewood or if
31 they would be done on different days. He stated that he would like to see something included in
32 the recommendations to present a solution to that potential issue before final approval. He stated
33 that he has confidence in the City’s Planning and Engineering Departments that whatever may
34 get approved would be sufficient to take care of the water issues. He stated that other than having
35 the extra concerns and desire for a condition related to the potential driveway issues, he would
36 vote in favor of this request.
37
38 Commissioner Johnson read aloud language from the staff report that stated that the variance
39 was to correct inequities resulting from the unusual hardship limited to topography, soils or other
40 physical factors of the land. She stated that she doesn’t understand because when you buy the
41 property you know what you have and questioned if they were now claiming that it was unusual
42 and is a hardship. She asked whether having steep slopes meant that it was unusual topography
43 and represented a hardship.
44
45 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that it may be as simple as a homeowner purchasing a property
46 because of the attributes of the property for a single family residence, and then life or
47 circumstances change and were now considering other options for the use of the property. He
48 stated that he did not see it as a burden on the part of the homeowner to be held accountable for
49 the attributes of the property throughout the life cycle of their use of it.
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 10 of 31
1 Commissioner Holker stated that she liked the suggestions made by Vice-Chair Huskins
2 regarding the possible congestion at the two driveways and explained that she would also be
3 voting in favor of this request.
4
5 Commissioner Gorham asked Vice-Chair Huskins what he felt was so unusual about this
6 situation.
7
8 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that to him, there is the right for there to be three lots on this parcel
9 and in exploring the potential locations of the homes/driveways. He stated that the owner has the
10 right to explore this possibility and he has been persuaded that if you are going to subdivide this
11 property they have selected the most reasonable and possibly the only locations on the property,
12 given the unusual circumstances of this particular property with the grading, bluff and the slope.
13 He stated that if this were different property that did not have those constraints, then it may or
14 may not be something he would support. He stated that he felt the applicant was providing the
15 most appropriate solution that would provide them with the opportunity to subdivide the property.
16
17 Commissioner Gorham stated that Planning Director Darling’s report said that staff was
18 recommending approval based on the steep slopes, but noted that there were steep slopes all
19 over the City, so that would not be ‘unusual’.
20
21 Mr. Goodrum, stated that there has been a lot of discussion about the uniqueness and the slope
22 of this property but thinks they are missing the point that half of this site is a bluff and was
23 something that could not be touched. He stated that they could engineer things so they would be
24 able to touch the steep slopes, but this site has the bluff area that is protected by the Shoreland
25 District. He explained that the interpretation of the variance requirements related to topographical
26 issues, it was the bluff area that brought them to the position and why they were coming forward
27 with the proposed design. He stated that they believe that this is the best plan to suit this lot to
28 get the three lots, but also be as environmentally sensitive as they can.
29
30 Holker moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, Final
31 Plat And Variance Request For Asakenas Addition for Applicant Audrius Asakenas at 6180
32 Cardinal Drive, subject to the conditions included in the staff report and the additional
33 condition related to refrain from damaging nearby properties, and further investigation of
34 the possible congestion at the proposed driveway near the Chanhassen driveway. Motion
35 passed 3-1 (Gorham opposed)
36
37 Vice-Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
38
39 B. Minor Subdivision and Variance
40 Applicant: Tony and Amy Denman
41 Location: 26275 Smithtown Road
42
43 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the minor subdivision and variance request for
44 property located at 26275 Smithtown Road. She reviewed the property location, existing
45 conditions, background history, and explained that they were proposing to split the lot in two and
46 noted that the variance request was because the southerly lot would only have 22 feet of frontage
47 along Smithtown Road. She noted that the plans call for removal of 70 ash trees on the site that
48 would need to be removed regardless of the subdivision because of Emerald Ash Borer. She
49 stated that the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for minimum density residential which is
50 up to one unit/acre and this site is 2.38 acres so they could have one or two lots on this parcel.
51 She explained that the proposal is to access both lots from Smithtown Road from private
52 driveways and outlined details of the variance request related to lot width. She noted that staff
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 11 of 31
1 was recommending approval of the minor subdivision and the variance request, subject to the
2 conditions included in the staff report. She stated that the City had received a number of letters
3 from the public that included some questions and suggested that at the end of the Public Hearing
4 she go through and answer some of the questions that were raised.
5
6 Commissioner Gorham asked how the intermittent creek created the L-shape of the lot.
7
8 Planning Director Darling explained that the creek made it challenging to access the property to
9 the rear and used an aerial photo to help show the area more clearly.
10
11 Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the existing property that fronts Smithtown Road and what the
12 total distance was of the existing lot.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that the total distance for the existing lot was a little over 142
15 feet.
16
17 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if the 22 feet that was being proposed for the driveway would allow the
18 rest of the property to conform with the frontage requirements.
19
20 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and explained that of the northerly of the two
21 proposed lots would conform because it would have 120 feet of lot width at the front setback and
22 also met the square footage requirement.
23
24 Commissioner Holker asked about the distance between the existing home and the new driveway.
25
26 Planning Director Darling stated that the distance between the existing home and the new
27 driveway would be about 20 feet.
28
29 Vice-Chair Huskins invited the applicant to address the Commission.
30
31 Amy Denman, 26275 Smithtown Road, noted that her father-in-law Rick Denman with the Charles
32 Cudd Company had been helping them with their application and could help answer any technical
33 questions that may arise. Ms. Denman explained that she was from England and she and her
34 husband had moved from there to Los Angeles before settling in Shorewood about four years
35 ago. She stated that they moved here in order to be closer to family and also to have a better
36 neighborhood and school options for their children. She stated that they would love to build a
37 new home on the back of their property and believed that the variance they were requesting would
38 not impact any of the nearby residents or the community. She noted that Shorewood is a very
39 sought after place to live, but has very few lots to build on so this subdivision would allow another
40 family to move to the City and enjoy all the benefits that Shorewood has to offer.
41
42 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if Ms. Denman knew the square footage of Parcel A and Parcel B.
43
44 Ms. Denman stated that Parcel A was just over 40,000 square feet and Parcel B was around
45 63,000 square feet.
46
47 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there had been any consideration for a different configuration for the
48 driveway.
49
50 Ms. Denman stated that she did not believe so because their property sits right in the middle of
51 that piece of the street frontage.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 12 of 31
1 Vice-Chair Huskins explained that he was only asking because of the idea of having just one
2 driveway off of Smithtown Road that could serve both parcels.
3
4 Ms. Denman explained that there was an existing structure and would it be close to their neighbors
5 house which is why they had the idea of having the driveway on the eastern side because they
6 felt it would cause the least disturbance.
7
8 Rick Denman, 5885 Glencoe Road, explained that the reason that they felt the driveway worked
9 best where they were proposing is was because it would not impact any other neighbors in terms
10 of traffic and would serve as its own private driveway.
11
12 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that conceptually there could be a shared driveway so it would conform
13 with the requirements.
14
15 Mr. Denman stated that he felt it would be the same whether it was on the right of the left side of
16 the parcel and that a variance would still be needed. He stated that one of the neighbors had
17 their attorney from Larkin and Hoffman send a letter to the City with information that was incorrect
18 and explained that there was a second letter that had apologized for the mistake. He asked if the
19 City had received the second letter.
20
21 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the City had received the second letter.
22
23 Commissioner Holker stated that Ms. Denman had stated that they had made improvements to
24 the existing home and asked if they had considered tearing it down and then building on the back
25 portion of the lot.
26
27 Ms. Denman stated that they felt it would be a shame to tear it down because it is a nice house,
28 well-built, and clad in cedar. She noted that just one family had lived in it prior to their purchase
29 of it and reiterated that it was a really nice home.
30
31 Vice-Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m.
32
33 John Hasselbalch, 26350 Peach Circle, stated that they are directly south of this property. He
34 noted that his attorney had sent the letter and then acknowledged the mistake. He stated that he
35 and his wife had also sent a letter to the City outlining the reasons that they were opposed to this
36 request. He explained that tonight he wanted to broach the subject of the water table in the City
37 and whether their plans to cut out 48 mature trees, recontour the property, and put on a new home
38 would change the water table. He explained that they would like the City to ask for a soil
39 hydrologist to look at this proposal in order to see how it would impact them because they believe
40 it may potentially negatively impact them and their property. He stated that their sump pump does
41 not run, but their neighbor to the south has one that runs frequently. He explained that their other
42 issue was the trees because losing 48 mature trees after the City had already come through and
43 clear cut a swatch through the woods to put in piping, was clearly a negative impact to them. He
44 stated that between the City’s actions and this potential action, the woods would be gone and
45 reiterated that they would like a soil hydrologist to study the proposal.
46
47 Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that his property was on the southeast corner of the
48 proposed project’s new property. He stated that he bought his home 13 years ago with woods all
49 around and had no indication that they would lose the woods or the habitat for all the animals. He
50 stated that in a short span of time they have lost 5 acres and close to 1,000 trees on their west,
51 close to 400 trees during the process of the City installing a drainage pipe behind the homes, and
52 now they are faced with losing even more trees to their north with this proposed subdivision. He
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 13 of 31
1 stated that even the ash trees are playing a substantial role in absorbing ground water and noted
2 that there is a very high watertable in the area. He stated that he had just had some trees planted
3 in his back yard and noted that when they dug down 4 feet they hit water. He explained that the
4 Smithtown Ponds project has not helped their water table issue and has hurt it. He stated that he
5 has lived in Shorewood for 40 years so he has seen what happens downstream as well. He
6 asked if he would be allowed to address the Commission again after his questions had been
7 answered to add any follow-up comments.
8
9 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that as long as they keep the public meeting open, Mr. Yelsey would
10 have the opportunity to speak again.
11
12 Mr. Yelsey asked that the Commission hold some time for him following the answers to his
13 questions. He explained that they have been severely impacted by the Smithtown Ponds project,
14 but the cut through, and now will again be impacted by this proposal if the City approves because
15 of the loss of additional trees and habitats. He stated that he had 22 turkeys on his property today
16 that he believed lived in the woods that are part of this property. He stated that there are rules
17 that the City has for zoning that need to be followed but, to him, there is more than just numbers
18 and what the ordinances say, because there is also damage to the ecology, environment,
19 streams, hydrology, and nearby basements that may be possible. He stated that one of his issues
20 is the abutment of this driveway and the proposed subdivision with Smithtown Ponds and outlined
21 some of the reasons that this concerned him. He noted that the creek itself was not an unusual
22 circumstance and explained that he loved that the previous developer recognized the value of the
23 creek which was flowing more fully in the past until the City interacted with it and artificially
24 reduced the flow of the creek. He stated that developer had constructed the homes along
25 Strawberry Lane in concert with the creek and left it alone. He stated that he felt that this creek
26 was very important to the entire area and felt that this proposal would cause even more damage
27 to the flow. He noted that there has also been damage done to the Freeman Park creek which
28 was currently not even running. He stated that he reiterated that rather than being unusual, the
29 people who had originally developed the property appreciated the creek and laid out their plans
30 accordingly. He asked how close the driveway would be to the sidewalk at Smithtown Ponds. He
31 asked if the City had done a study about the impact of this potential development on the flow of
32 the creek. He asked if the City had studied the hydrology of the area and taken a look at what
33 impact the development may have, especially with taking out this number of trees because they
34 take a lot of water out of the ground. He noted that he had not seen anything included that
35 addressed impervious surface for the new lot and would like to see those numbers. He asked if
36 the City had taken a look at visibility from the neighbors, particularly from Peach Circle. He stated
37 that he would like to know if they would be losing what they had originally bought their homes for
38 with hundreds of mature trees buffering them. He stated that buffers are required for streams and
39 asked if the City had looked at the regulations from the DNR, the Army Corps of Engineers.
40 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He stated that he felt that the City should be considering
41 what the overall impact would be to the nearby residents, their quality of life, and private
42 enjoyment of their property.
43
44 Ann Straka-Leland, 5825 Strawberry Lane, stated that the property being discussed was, at one
45 point, adjacent to her property, but there was now a new home in between. She stated that she
46 was in favor of this request and noted that she felt the City needed to make more room for young
47 families in the community. She stated that the trees that are there are not old growth forest
48 because there was a lot of farmland in the area prior to 1968 when this area was developed. She
49 noted that she felt what was being proposed was responsible and felt that the Denman’s had
50 done a great job of doing their due diligence and making sure the property would be developed
51 sustainable and respectfully.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 14 of 31
1 Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m.
2
3 Commissioner Holker stated that she felt it would be good to get answers to some of the questions
4 that were raised prior to the Commission holding their discussion.
5
6 Planning Director Darling noted that some of the questions asked she would defer to the applicant.
7 She stated that a question was raised related to the water table and if the City would require a
8 hydrologist to review the plans. She explained that the City required that the lowest floor elevation
9 of the new home has to be 4 feet above any observed water in the ground table and also has to
10 be 2 feet above any historic evidence of groundwater. She stated that those are rather new
11 regulations for the City and have been applying them as developments come in which means that
12 there are fewer basements going in that may affect the ground water in the area. She stated that
13 there was also mention of negative impacts to the area from the tree loss and noted that there
14 will be a considerable number of trees removed, and as she stated earlier there would be more
15 trees removed regardless of whether this subdivision is approved or not because of the Emerald
16 Ash Borer that is present. She stated that there were concerns shared by another resident about
17 the number of trees removed in the area, the water table and the belief that Smithtown Ponds has
18 increased the ground water, the overall ecology of the wildlife in the area. She stated that from
19 watching construction projects, she can tell them that animals depart during construction and
20 come back after the homes are in place. She stated that if that were not the case, there would
21 not be any animals in the area because this was all part of a previous subdivision. She stated that
22 this individual had also expressed concerns about how close the new driveway would be to the
23 trail but she did not know the measurement off the top of her head, but may be able to calculated
24 it by reviewing the plans more closely. She stated that she had the City Engineer do a review of
25 the development and he was not concerned about the stream flow and noted that they were
26 proposing an infiltration basin that would overflow into the creek which is an acceptable outlet.
27 She explained that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Army Corps of Engineers
28 would also be reviewing the plans to see if there were any impacts proposed to the creek, if they
29 chose to apply their jurisdiction to the review which would occur prior to recording the subdivision.
30 She stated that there was also a question about impervious surface coverage which is something
31 that is typically included in her reports, but this is a concept house plan, so they are limited to 33%
32 coverage and noted that the applicant had assumed a certain amount of impervious surface in
33 order to provide the drainage calculations to the City. She stated that related to the concerns
34 raised about assurance that their views would be protected is something that she cannot
35 guarantee or require, because property owners can make changes to their property, such as
36 putting up fencing or clear cutting their trees and noted that the City does not have a lot of control
37 over these types of things. She stated that the tree preservation ordinance is used when
38 subdivisions occur which does require some restitution for when the trees are removed. She
39 referenced the questions from the letters that had been submitted and suggested that she take
40 this time to answer those.
41
42 Vice-Chair Huskins asked about the impervious surface measurements and whether it not being
43 included in the report was because it wasn’t necessary because the applicants were not asking
44 for a variance.
45
46 Planning Director Darling stated that was correct and noted that they would be limited to 33% of
47 the total lot area and explained that the long driveway would be included and would eat up much
48 of their impervious surface coverage, which will limit the size of the home and amount of
49 impervious surface that they can put on the remainder of the property.
50
51 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if impervious surface was a non-issue for the Commission tonight
52 related to the issue under consideration.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 15 of 31
1
2 Planning Director Darling stated that the applicants were not asking for a variance and noted that
3 she usually looks to provide that information and believed that it was submitted in their materials,
4 but she did not have it in front of her at the moment. She stated that Mr. Yelsey had submitted a
5 letter and his comments tonight essentially repeated those that were shared in the letter. She
6 stated that there was a letter from the Corsons who shared concerns about construction noise
7 but there was not anything the City can do about regular construction noise. She noted that they
8 had also shared concerns about the diminished look and feel of the area but reiterated that she
9 could not guarantee that the neighboring woods would be kept or that property owners would not
10 make changes to their lot or home. She noted that Mr. Hasselbalch had submitted a letter that
11 had a question about whether the City required 20 feet of frontage to subdivide a property and
12 the answer was ‘no’ and noted that it was the reason for the variance request because the City
13 requires 120 of frontage in this particular district. She explained that when she says frontage she
14 means lot width as measured at the front setback. She noted that Mr. Hasselbalch was concerned
15 that the property had already been subdivided and platted as one lot, and had a sewer stubbed
16 in the street at Smithtown Road. She stated that more sewer connections can be added into the
17 existing mains and has happened across the City when new homes are built. She noted that Mr.
18 Hasselbalch stated that he had reviewed plans that had Jylund Homes written on them, but was
19 not sure where that reference was located nor was she familiar with that company. She explained
20 that the sewer and utilities would be located under Pebble Creek and noted that the trucks would
21 have to use the proposed driveway because that would be their only access to the property. She
22 stated that Mr. Hasselbalch had also raised questions about the tree preservation ordinance and
23 it if were merely symbolic. She explained that she did not believe that it was symbolic and
24 providing the required amount of trees has caused some financial pain to developers throughout
25 the City.
26
27 Commissioner Holker asked if the homeowner wanted to clear a ton of trees, if they would still
28 have to do the replacement, even if they did not build a new home.
29
30 Planning Director Darling stated that the only time that someone has to provide restitution for
31 removing trees off of your own property is when you have a significant construction project, such
32 as a new home or if they were building an oversized garage. She stated that there are diseased
33 trees on the property that will have to be removed regardless of whether this project moves
34 forward and if they wanted to remove more trees, they are their trees, so they could remove them
35 as they saw fit.
36
37 Commissioner Johnson noted that one of the trees is an oak tree that the City owned and asked
38 why that tree had to come down.
39
40 Planning Director Darling answered that it would be damaged during construction and noted that
41 there would have to be some restitution provided to the City for removing one of their trees. She
42 referenced the letter received from Larkin Hoffman and explained that she would respectfully
43 disagree with his review of this request, because he used the criteria from the zoning ordinance
44 and not the subdivision ordinance. She stated that she would go through item 4 from this letter
45 where he pointed out that residential driveways must adhere to a 5-foot side yard setback and
46 noted that the driveway is a little bit close to the side property line, so the Commission could
47 include a condition in their resolution to require it to be moved over. She noted that the City
48 Engineer has looked over the location of the driveway and having it within the drainage and utility
49 easements would be unavoidable in this situation. She stated that the applicant had provided an
50 additional easement on the northerly parcel that would allow for snow storage on that side of the
51 property but also allow for separate maintenance of the driveway without effecting the first parcel
52 but they will need some additional room to maintain the culvert under the driveway.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 16 of 31
1
2 Vice-Chair Huskins asked how close the proposed driveway would be to the trail.
3
4 Planning Director Darling reiterated that she would have to look up those details later when she
5 had time to review the plans. She stated that the other issue brought up by the Larkin Hoffman
6 attorney was that a property is only allowed one driveway per 120 feet of frontage and she would
7 say that is partially true. She explained that all properties are allowed to have a driveway in order
8 to allow access which is what their ordinance says and noted that it was actually saying that they
9 only get 1 driveway access per each 120 feet of frontage, but all properties were allowed to have
10 at least 1 driveway on their property.
11
12 Commissioner Holker asked the applicant to address the question raised about impervious
13 surface.
14
15 Mr. Denman clarified that they have a proposed home that is essentially a worst-case scenario in
16 terms of the footprint of the home. He reminded the Commission that the back lot was 63,000
17 square feet, and 33% of that would be over 20,000 square feet and noted that he did not think
18 they would even come close to that amount of impervious surface, including the driveway.
19
20 Vice-Chair Huskins asked Mr. Yelsey if he would like to address the Commission again as he had
21 requested during the public hearing. He re-opened the Public Hearing at 9:46 p.m. and noted
22 that he would like to grant Mr. Yelsey up to 5 minutes to address the Commission now that he
23 has heard the answers to his questions.
24
25 Mr. Yelsey stated that he was still awaiting answers on a few items, such as the DNR, Army Corps
26 of Engineers, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules. He asked how the City would
27 proceed without having the information from them on how they will deal with this project. He stated
28 that he felt that notifications to those agencies should have occurred quite some time ago. He
29 asked what rules were in play for the basin, watershed, buffers, contamination with sediment,
30 cause of non-flow for the creek, and the characterization of the area as a wetland. He stated that
31 the water table is a very important issue for the area and noted that they had done drilling for
32 Smithtown Ponds and when the first holes were drilled, they filled with water almost immediately,
33 which he felt showed that the ponds were not necessarily for stormwater alone and are also due
34 to ground water. He explained that he felt that they put pressure to force the water up into the
35 nearby homes and reiterated that he felt an analysis of that will confirm that they have been
36 negatively impacted by that area and noted that there was still standing water right in the cut
37 behind this particular property. He stated that he felt that the proposed roadway would be very
38 close to Smithtown Ponds pathway and would be visible from the pathway along with the home.
39
40 Vice-Chair Huskins closed the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m.
41
42 Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant had submitted a wetland delineation for the
43 creek and their delineator found that the creek did not meet the criteria for a wetland She stated
44 that the City required that they show the delineations and information, but noted that the
45 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was the LGU for wetland impacts so they will have to provide
46 that information to them for a more robust review of the information. She explained that she had
47 submitted that information along with the subdivision information as a courtesy to the watershed
48 and they did not provide comments back other than to let her know that it would be the standard
49 permits. She stated that it was similar with the Army Corps of Engineers and noted that she did
50 not send them courtesy notices and explained that the applicant would be responsible for
51 acquiring the necessary permits and working with them. She stated that if there is no wetland,
52 City ordinances do not require any buffers.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 17 of 31
1
2 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if, in general, for any application, there were findings,
3 recommendations, and permits required that protected the integrity of the codes and use of the
4 property. He stated that the applicant would still be subject to taking the risk that a finding may
5 occur from one of those entities that change their mind on whether they wish to proceed or not.
6
7 Planning Director Darling gave the example of the Commission recommending approval of the
8 variance request which the Council also approved. She explained that the City cannot authorize
9 them to do work until they have the other necessary permits in hand from other agencies.
10
11 Commissioner Johnson stated that in one of the comments there was a point made about the
12 driveway impeding the safety of walks and bikers entering or exiting and asked if there was a
13 sidewalk along that area that the driveway would cross.
14
15 Planning Director Darling stated that Smithtown Road has a trail on the south side, so this
16 driveway would have to cross it. She explained that was the reason that she had mentioned the
17 condition about removal of vegetation from around the driveway connection area in order to
18 ensure that they have a better view for both sides of the trail.
19
20 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was a requirement for any landscape buffer between the
21 easement and the trail.
22
23 Planning Director Darling stated that there was not a requirement for any landscape buffer in that
24 location. She noted that because this was a variance, the City could ask them to put something
25 in. She noted that they could be asked to plant more trees on the City property in the area. She
26 stated that she does not have the exact distance between the driveway and the trail and would
27 have to pull out the actual project files to find that information.
28
29 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt that there may be some value in that approach.
30
31 Commissioner Holker stated that she agreed.
32
33 Commissioner Johnson asked about the statement made in one of the conditions about
34 consideration of revising the tree preservation plan to indicate fewer trees to be removed, and
35 explained that she would be in favor of this, but was also in favor of restitution. She stated that
36 was hoping that they would not actually have to take down the City’s oak tree and asked if the
37 City could make that a bit stronger rather than just ‘consider revising’ it.
38
39 Planning Director Darling reviewed the language from the tree preservation ordinance and noted
40 that she would recommend that they cut back on some of the proposed grading because she
41 believes that they have shown the maximum amount of disturbance on the site so they have some
42 leeway to pull it back a bit in order to save more trees.
43
44 Commissioner Johnson suggested that they change the language to ‘attempt to revise the tree
45 preservation plan’ because it would be more of action rather than just thinking about it.
46
47 Commissioner Holker stated that the reason that she had asked about tearing the house down
48 was not because she was advocating for it, but to point out that somebody could buy that property,
49 tear the house down and build a house on the back side of the property without any variances.
50
51 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that one of the themes that the Commission heard during the public
52 hearing were related to visibility from the nearby properties and asked the applicant how they felt
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 18 of 31
1 about creating a landscaping buffer on the south side of the proposed plans as well as along the
2 east side along the driveway.
3
4 Mr. Denman stated that for the trees that they will be required to plan based on the tree
5 preservation ordinance, he would be more than happy to work with the City to figure out the best
6 place for those to be placed. He stated if they felt the best place would be a buffer towards the
7 back, they would be open to that but noted that along the trail corridor he was not sure how many
8 trees they would have to plant to provide a buffer, and noted that, in his opinion, that may be a bit
9 of overkill.
10
11 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the buffering along the trail may not need to be something that
12 would completely block the trail.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham stated that he had previously asked Planning Director Darling about the
15 connection between the creek and the variance and was told that the creek had created the L-
16 shaped lot configuration. He stated that the creek created 63,000 square feet but the language
17 in the report says that the variance was to correct inequities and he would say that the creek was
18 actually creating a benefit because it created so much space for them. He stated if you go back
19 to the previous item when they were discussing slope and the bluff were considered the inequities
20 and, in this situation, they were traversing the creek fairly easily. He stated that he did not feel
21 that the creek has created any real hardship and had just given them a lot that would be above
22 the minimum lot area. He stated that he was not seeing that there were actually inequities that
23 needed to be corrected or were an unusual hardship. He stated that, to him, this was just an
24 average L-shaped lot and questioned whether the City would grant every L-shaped lot that has
25 more than 40,000 square feet the ability to subdivide.
26
27 Commissioner Holker stated that, in her mind, a lot of the objections have to do with visibility and
28 tree cover. She stated that whether or not the variance was granted did not necessarily prevent
29 that from happening because they could clear the trees off the lot without any permission or they
30 could sell the property and someone could tear down the house. She stated that she could
31 acknowledge what Commissioner Gorham was saying, but explained that this was one of the
32 things she kept going back to, because the trees could go away under lots of different
33 circumstances.
34
35 Commissioner Gorham asked what Commissioner Holker was making an argument for.
36
37 Commissioner Holker explained that her gut was telling her to go ahead and approve the request,
38 but noted that she understood Commissioner Gorham’s point.
39
40 Commissioner Gorham stated that the Commission’s job was to interpret City code.
41
42 Commissioner Johnson stated that she felt there could be an argument against what
43 Commissioner Gorham had stated related to the creek itself. She noted that just because you
44 could put a bridge over it did not mean that it was not an unusual thing that was making the
45 property unable to be developed. She stated that she felt that the creek could be considered
46 unusual enough to grant this variance request.
47
48 Commissioner Gorham stated that the only real effect that the creek was having on this site was
49 that it created the L-shape.
50
51 Commissioner Holker stated that she would guess that the original lot was more rectangular and
52 they sold off the rectangle shaped section.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 19 of 31
1
2 Commissioner Gorham stated that the creek was having no impact on the shape of the lot.
3
4 Commissioner Johnson stated that they did not know if that was true or not.
5
6 Planning Director Darling stated that the Pebble Creek Addition that was approved in 1968
7 created these two lots as two separate lots. She noted that the previous property owner had
8 purchased both of the lots and used them as one property, but they were always two separate
9 lots that were shaped exactly like what has been shown. She stated that when they decided to
10 sell the property, they sold the two lots separately, but reiterated that it has always been two lots.
11
12 Commissioner Johnson stated that the applicant has stated that the unusual circumstance was
13 not solely tied to the creek, but that the shape of the lot has always made it difficult to use.
14
15 Planning Director Darling agreed that was what the applicant’s narrative had stated, but she went
16 back to what she felt the original impact was to the subdivision was in the area which is why she
17 had pulled out the creek.
18
19 Commissioner Gorham stated that makes him even more convinced that this was not a strong
20 enough argument to recommend approval of the variance request. He noted that between this
21 item and the previous item one of them seemed way more impacted by the topography than the
22 other.
23
24 Commissioner Johnson stated that, in her view, she did not feel it was necessary to be impacted
25 by the topography and could just be impacted by the shape of the lot.
26
27 Commissioner Gorham stated that he did not think that was true and read aloud from the report
28 that stated ‘to correct inequities from topography’.
29
30 Vice-Chair Huskins noted that it also says the shape of the property.
31
32 Commissioner Gorham clarified that it stated ‘other physical factors of the land’ and asked if an
33 L-shaped lot was an inequity from the physical factor of the land. He reiterated his question on
34 whether every L-shaped lot would get a frontage variance and explained that his answer to that
35 question would be ‘no’.
36
37 Commissioner Johnson asked Planning Director Darling to weigh in on that point and if she still
38 stood by her statement about the creek being the unusual hardship.
39
40 Planning Director Darling confirmed that she did and had put that opinion into writing.
41
42 Commissioner Gorham stated that his opinion stands and noted that he could see the point that
43 was made about the previous item, but reiterated that this time it feels weaker than that one
44 because this is more about an L-shape that was created by a creek and explained that he was
45 not convinced that the creek had actually created the L-shape.
46
47 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that this is a property that in all ways supports two homes, not
48 withstanding the driveway and frontage issue.
49
50 Commissioner Gorham stated that it did not support it without the variance, so the City code did
51 not support two homes here.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 20 of 31
1 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that with the exception that there is a variance request for a reduction
2 in the frontage, he would say it supported two homes. He stated that Planning Director Darling
3 had also stated that it was not an absolute that the 120 feet was required and that every property
4 was deserving of access to a road through a driveway. He explained that he was not hung up on
5 the 120 feet but was more hung up on the geometry and attributes of the driveway being proposed
6 from a safety and neighbor standpoint. He stated that if this moves forward to the City Council,
7 he would like to add a condition regarding buffering with trees, especially along the south edge
8 and possible explore landscaping along the trail. He noted that he was inclined to vote in favor
9 of recommending approval of this request.
10
11 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, to recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision and
12 Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road. Motion failed 1-3
13 (Johnson, Holker, and Huskins opposed)
14
15 Johnson moved, Holker seconded, to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and
16 Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to the
17 conditions included in the staff report with a modification to change the wording of
18 ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation
19 plan’, and include an additional condition to endeavor in their plans to provide a safety
20 mechanism to protect walkers/bikers that on traversing the pathway.
21
22 Vice-Chair Huskins suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include language in the
23 conditions to have landscape buffering between the southerly portion of Parcel B and the
24 residents on Peach Circle and also some buffering between the trail and the driveway.
25
26 Johnson accepted the friendly amendment to include language in the conditions to have
27 landscape buffering between the southerly portion of Parcel B and the residents on Peach
28 Circle and also some buffering between the trail and the driveway, and also to amend the
29 original motion to include language that states that the applicant must try to preserve the
30 oak tree owned by the City.
31
32 Planning Director Darling suggested that the original motion be repealed and they start over in
33 order to make the motion and conditions more clear.
34
35 Johnson repealed the motion. Holker repealed the second.
36
37 Johnson moved, Holker seconded to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and
38 Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to
39 conditions included in the staff report, and make a revision from ‘consider modifying the
40 tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree preservation plan’ and try to preserve
41 the oak tree owned by the City.
42
43 Vice-Chair Huskins reiterated that he would like to make a friendly amendment.
44
45 Commissioner Johnsons asked if she needed to include the point in her motion that she would
46 like to put the vegetation above construction within the plat process.
47
48 Planning Director Darling stated that it would need to be included in the motion and explained that
49 they could just move the second bullet point under ‘prior to construction of any home’ to revise
50 the plans consistent with City code.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 21 of 31
1 Johnson amended her motion, Holker seconded the amended motion, to recommend
2 approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at
3 26275 Smithtown Road, subject to conditions included in the staff report, and make a
4 revision from ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree
5 preservation plan’; try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City; move the second bullet
6 point under ‘Prior to construction of any home’ of ‘Clear any vegetation that impedes trail
7 visibility at the driveway connection to Smithtown Road’ to be placed under the bullet point
8 under ‘Revise the plans consistent with City code’.
9
10 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he would also like to make a friendly amendment to the motion to
11 include landscaping plans need to be proposed to create a buffer on the southern boundary of
12 Parcel B in order to shield the site from neighboring properties as well as a landscaping plan that
13 includes some elements in order to provide some buffering from the eastern side of the driveway
14 easement between it and the trail.
15
16 Johnson accepted the friendly amendment, Holker seconded, to recommend approval of
17 the Minor Subdivision and Variance request by Tony and Amy Denman at 26275
18 Smithtown Road, subject to conditions included in the staff report, and make a revision
19 from ‘consider modifying the tree preservation plan’ to ‘attempt to revise the tree
20 preservation plan’; try to preserve the oak tree owned by the City; move the second bullet
21 point under ‘Prior to construction of any home’ of ‘Clear any vegetation that impedes trail
22 visibility at the driveway connection to Smithtown Road’ to be placed under the bullet point
23 under ‘Revise the plans consistent with City code’; and add a condition that landscaping
24 plans need to be proposed to create a buffer on the southern boundary of Parcel B in order
25 to shield the site from neighboring properties as well as a landscaping plan that includes
26 some elements in order to provide some buffering from the eastern side of the driveway
27 easement between it and the trail. Motion carried 3-1 (Gorham opposed)
28
29 Vice-Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened at 10:30 p.m.
30
31 5. OTHER BUSINESS –
32
33 A. Variance to Christmas Lake Structure Setback
34 Applicant: Jeffrey and Maggie Seybold
35 Location: 5840 Ridge Road
36
37 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request for a variance in order to allow for a
38 shed within the setback from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake. She
39 stated that the applicant’s narrative was attached to the staff report and explained that they
40 wanted to add lakefront storage for their personal items. She reviewed the criteria in the zoning
41 regulations that should be used for consideration of this variance request. She explained the
42 reasons that staff felt that the variance request failed to meet the variance criteria and was
43 recommending denial of the request. She noted that the City had not received any letters related
44 to this request.
45
46 Commissioner Johnson asked how the City handled and monitored the structures that were
47 already there prior to 1987.
48
49 Planning Director Darling explained that the City had specific non-conforming rules in place, but
50 the State also has rules pertaining to non-conforming structures. She stated that in the past, the
51 City was able to put sunset dates in, which meant the applicants had a certain number of years
52 in order to remove their structure, however the State no longer permits that. She stated that those
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 22 of 31
1 structures can continue in perpetuity, but they cannot be expanded. She noted that according to
2 the State, any person can demolish their non-conforming structure and rebuild it, but the
3 volume/footprint had to be the same. She explained that there are some requirements if those
4 structures are demolished by an Act of God, for example, a certain time period that people have
5 to replace them before their non-conforming status would disappear.
6
7 Commissioner Holker asked if this was regulated by any entity such as the watershed district or
8 if this was just a City rule.
9
10 Planning Director Darling explained that this was a City rule within their Shoreland Regulations
11 based on a model ordinance by the DNR and gave examples of differences between the City’s
12 regulations and other cities.
13
14 Commissioner Johnson asked about the statement about a structure that had been demolished.
15
16 Planning Director Darling stated that the applicants had indicated that there was a prior structure,
17 but once a structure is voluntarily removed and not replaced within 1 year, the non-conforming
18 status was removed.
19
20 Commissioner Gorham asked what the harm would be and whether it was below the flood plain.
21
22 Planning Director Darling explained that Christmas Lake does not have a flood plain but it is
23 located on the property within 75 feet of the OHWL which is prohibited in the ordinance.
24
25 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that Planning Director Darling had stated that the City was trying to be
26 systematic about removing these structures.
27
28 Planning Director Darling confirmed that the goal of the ordinance was to, over time, decrease
29 the number of non-conforming structures that they have.
30
31 Vice-Chair Huskins asked how that will occur because if it was legally non-conforming, then the
32 City could not intervene.
33
34 Planning Director Darling clarified that the City cannot require the structure to be removed as long
35 as it is maintained and in good condition, but if it was removed by either an Act of God or
36 voluntarily removed, there was a certain time period where the legally non-conforming status
37 would expire.
38
39 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if his understanding was correct that in this situation there was no
40 permit issued by the City.
41
42 Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was accurate.
43
44 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if someone asked for a permit then they would have to conform with
45 the 75-foot setback requirement.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that they would have to comply with this plus the setback from
48 the bluff.
49
50 Commissioner Gorham stated that if they had asked for a permit in this situation, it would have
51 been denied.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 23 of 31
1 Planning Director Darling agreed that it would have been denied for this location.
2
3 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that the applicants could move this structure to a different location and
4 it would be allowed if it met the setbacks.
5
6 Planning Director Darling explained that it would need to be at least 75 feet from the OHWL and
7 20 feet from the top of the bluff.
8
9 Jeffrey Seybold, 5840 Ridge Road, stated that he wanted to draw the Commission’s attention to
10 what he felt were key factors in reviewing their request. He stated that staff appeared to be
11 concerned about the uniqueness of this variance request and most lakefront owners would like to
12 be able to enhance the lakefront and also make it more functional which may include an accessory
13 structure. He stated that if the fact that they are requesting a variance for a shed was not
14 considered a unique request and therefore invalid, then he would expect that nearly every
15 variance request could not be considered unique. He pointed out that Christmas Lake is a unique
16 place within the entire Metro area because it is essentially a terminal moraine with a substantial
17 ridge along the eastern border of the lake. He explained that the ridge created natural beauty as
18 well as a degree of privacy and noted that the ridge itself was unique because it also created a
19 significant bluff that complicates access to the lakefront for residents who live around the ridge.
20 He noted that even Hill Hiker, a local company that builds trams or funiculars across the world
21 have acknowledged that Ridge Road is one of the few areas within the State that they install and
22 service the trams/funiculars in order to bring residents down to their lakefronts. He stated that
23 the property along the ridge is unique with regard to the topography of the plots. He noted that
24 he felt that they could also argue that their lakefront is unique from every other lakefront along
25 Ridge Road because they are one of the only properties that does not already have a shed or
26 accessory structure along the lakefront. He explained that this had not always been the case
27 because the property previously had a shed that was directly on the lakeshore. He stated that he
28 would argue, and believes that his neighbors would agree, that the current shed was more
29 aesthetic and private than the old structure. He stated that he did not understand how their
30 request would not be considered ‘unique’ given the unusual topography of the lakefront and the
31 struggle it creates with safety and being able to securely and aesthetically storing and protecting
32 their water and lake related equipment. He noted that another key point he would like to address
33 is the overall principle of conforming to the City code and explained that based on the staff
34 comments, it appeared that the City was intent on bringing all shoreline structures into
35 compliance. He stated that given the current code, which limits any structures within a 75 foot
36 setback from the lakefront it essentially meant that the City was opposed to and would ideally
37 eliminate all structures that are currently along the lakefront. He stated that he felt that this was
38 impractical, impossible to enforce, but also demonstrated how out of touch the City was with
39 realistic and reasonable use of residential lakefront property. He explained that their shed was,
40 in no way, affecting the quality of life of their neighbors along the ridge or throughout Christmas
41 Lake. He stated that allowing this variance would allow their property to maintain conformity with
42 the other properties along Ridge Road that already have structures on the lakefront. He stressed
43 that the State DNR lakefront regulations acknowledged that all residents in the State should be
44 allowed to have a water accessory structure along the lakefront provided it met certain criteria
45 regarding size and resting more than a 10-foot setback from the OHWL and noted that their shed
46 met those criteria. He noted that the City of Chanhassen incorporated properties along the south
47 shores of Ridge and Christmas Lake and they acknowledge the DNR regulations and allows for
48 the building of water based accessory structures as they were proposing and are found along the
49 entire ridge. He stated that he found it difficult to believe that the City would disregard the DNR
50 regulations and noted that there was nothing in the City code that specifically addressed lakefront
51 accessory structures, but are just structures, in general. He explained that he has found it
52 frustrating to fight through this much regulation to build a reasonable structure that conforms with
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 24 of 31
1 the overwhelming majority of their neighbors when they would have no trouble building the exact
2 same shed, in the exact same location on the lakefront if their property were just a few houses
3 down in the City of Chanhassen. He stated that he felt that approving this variance request made
4 sense, allows for responsible use of the lakefront, does not interfere with the quality of life and
5 enjoyment of the lake by their neighbors, and helps the City follow regulations that are provided
6 by the DNR.
7
8 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be any possibility that the shed could be moved back
9 to the 75-foot setback.
10
11 Mr. Seybold stated that they cannot because of the bluff regulations and noted that the shed
12 would essentially have to be located where their house was located.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham stated that Mr. Seybold had said something about his home being unique,
15 even within the Ridge Road area and asked for more background information.
16
17 Mr. Seybold stated that they are one of two homes along the ridge that doesn’t already have a
18 structure along the lakefront. He stated that in that regard they would be unique because they
19 would not have a shed and everybody else does.
20
21 Commissioner Gorham noted that may be a stretch.
22
23 Mr. Seybold noted that he was not sure if all the homes on Ridge Road were located on a bluff,
24 but knows that many of them are.
25
26 Commissioner Johnson asked if the shed was permanently affixed to the land.
27
28 Mr. Seybold stated that it was not permanently affixed to the land.
29
30 Commissioner Johnson noted that could be considered more of a fixture than a structure and
31 explained that she was just trying to see if it fit into the structure category.
32
33 Planning Director Darling assured the Commission that the shed fit into the category of a structure.
34
35 Mr. Seybold noted that the shed did not have a foundation.
36
37 Vice-Chair Huskins asked for a reminder about the permitting.
38
39 Mr. Seybold explained that the understanding between himself and the shed manufacturer was
40 that it would not require a building permit for putting up the shed, which was technically correct,
41 but they did not realize that in the City of Shorewood, this would require a zoning permit.
42
43 Commissioner Gorham asked if this became an issue when he came to the City to get the zoning
44 permit.
45
46 Mr. Seybold stated that the City of Shorewood has a complaint-based process so it had become
47 an issue when someone reported the shed. He noted that he would like to draw attention to the
48 fact that the City had received no e-mails, nor was anyone present at the meeting that was willing
49 to stand behind the complaint or explain how they felt it would negatively affect their quality of life
50 or negatively affect their property on the lake. He explained that was how they had realized the
51 error related to the zoning permit issue and have been working with Planning Director Darling to
52 gather the appropriate paperwork in order to apply for the variance.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 25 of 31
1
2 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he was sure that Mr. Seybold could understand the bind that the
3 City was in by having code and the argument made within the staff report that this would
4 essentially change the code if they granted this request to anyone who lived on the lake.
5
6 Mr. Seybold stated that he did understand that which was why they were submitting this for the
7 variance with respect to acknowledging the uniqueness of the property. He noted that they felt
8 this was a different request than somebody that had different topography on their property.
9
10 Commissioner Johnson asked how many homes on Christmas Lake were abutting that ridge and
11 asked if that would make this group of homes unique.
12
13 Planning Director Darling stated that she had not counted them separately, but every home along
14 Ridge Road had bluff issues.
15
16 Commissioner Johnson stated that not every home on Christmas Lake abutted the ridge.
17
18 Planning Director Darling confirmed that not all properties on Christmas Lake have bluffs.
19
20 Commissioner Johnson stated that to that extent the argument could be made that it was unique
21 if they had bluff property.
22
23 Planning Director Darling explained that when she did her review, she would say, but for the
24 existence of the bluff, could they have a shed in the position that they located it and the answer
25 was ‘no’.
26
27 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if that meant that the bluff was not relevant.
28
29 Planning Director Darling stated that the bluff was not relevant except it does push the setback
30 further away from the shoreline.
31
32 Commissioner Holker asked if this was a public hearing.
33
34 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that this was not a public hearing.
35
36 Planning Director Darling explained that even though it was not a public hearing, it was a public
37 meeting, so the Commission could open this item up for public comment.
38
39 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone present who wanted to address the Commission
40 and opened the meeting for public testimony at 10:58 p.m.
41
42 Carl Zinn, 5820 Ridge Road, stated that he was here to confirm that he cannot even see the shed
43 from his home or his shoreline but noted that he could see it for about 20 seconds when he rides
44 down his lift. He explained that it did not affect him as a neighbor from his use or enjoyment of
45 the property at all. He stated that he just cannot understand why Shorewood would not change
46 the Code because it does not make any sense because Minnesota is all about lakeshore which
47 is something that the DNR acknowledges. He stated that he just had a transaction in Deephaven
48 that has the same law and they granted a variance because the DNR says that you can have a
49 water related accessory structure within the setback area. He stated that he did think that
50 Shorewood should increase the restrictiveness of that water related structure. He noted that the
51 Commission served an important purpose because they provide the City Council with the
52 information that they need to make these kinds of decisions and encouraged the Commission to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 26 of 31
1 take this a step further beyond the variance. He explained that he felt a variance was the way to
2 handle this situation, but also felt that they should encourage the City Council to take a look at
3 what the DNR says and how other cities treat water related accessory structures and fix this
4 because he did not feel it made sense.
5
6 Brian Carpenter, 5875 Ridge Road, stated that the Seybolds are a new young family in the
7 neighborhood and what they have placed on their property was not unreasonable or anything that
8 caused concern. He asked the Commission to think about the stuff that they need to store in the
9 shed so they do not have to haul it all up and down the hill which would be unreasonable with or
10 without a tram. He stated that there are already a lot of structures already and he also questioned
11 how the City would be able to get rid of all of them. He noted that he felt that what they have has
12 the primary function of safety and practicality. He asked the Commission to give some grace and
13 understanding when they are evaluating this situation.
14
15 Red Smith, 5860 Ridge Road, stated that they have a cabin structure down at the lake that they
16 built in 1965 and from there they can see the Seybold’s little structure. He explained that they felt
17 it was very tastefully done and was an improvement over what they had looked at before. He
18 noted that when they ride along the shoreline it was hidden by the trees so it really cannot be
19 seen.
20
21 Maureen Yutz, 5890 Ridge Road, stated that she and her husband have lived here since 1993.
22 She explained that they had a structure that was pre-existing down below and do have a funicular
23 that had to be replaced by the lift company referred to earlier in the meeting. She stated that most
24 people on their section of the ridge, which is the highest spot in Carver County, and its height
25 means that the required setback was impossible for structure placement. She stated that when
26 they are down at the lake it is fabulous because they get away from the busy-ness of the house.
27 She stated that having a place to store their things will remove the clutter and agreed with the
28 statement made that the structure put up by the Seybolds was tasteful and explained that she
29 was in favor of granting the variance. She stated that there are other places on Christmas Lake
30 where they can be further back and noted that all of Christmas Lake has made an effort to have
31 trees in front and attempt to keep the homes hidden. She asked about the regulation about the
32 water level and if it was 12 feet instead of 10 feet and if the ridge was not there how far back it
33 would need to be.
34
35 Planning Director Darling clarified that the distance would still be 75 feet from the OHWL.
36
37 Ms. Yutz stated that she was talking to Mr. Zinn earlier and believes that there are 30-40 homes
38 along the ridge and only 2 without structures and felt that was something to think about with
39 relation to uniqueness because she felt the ridge was a pretty unique geological feature. She
40 reiterated that she and her husband were in favor of granting this variance.
41
42 Bob Wallace, 5610 Covington Road, stated that Mr. Seybold told him that they would be building
43 a shed to keep all their toys in, but he had driven by 4-5 times and had never seen the shed
44 because it was situated behind the trees. He stated that it did not bother him at all and even the
45 color blends in and wasn’t obnoxious. He stated that the area is just like it has been described
46 because there is the bluff, a tiny flat space, and then it goes down to the lake. He noted that the
47 only way that it could be moved back 75 feet is to cut into the bluff which they cannot do. He
48 stated that he was also here to agree with the statements that have already been made and
49 supported this variance request. He stated that he did not envy the Commissions position but felt
50 that they had to make decisions based on the individual situation and encouraged them to vote
51 to approve this request.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 27 of 31
1 Vice-Chair Huskins closed the public testimony at 11:09 p.m.
2
3 Commissioner Johnson asked if it would be possible to table this item until they had a chance to
4 look into how many people had similar geography in the whole City, not just on Christmas Lake.
5 She stated that it seemed to her that this situation was somewhat unique if the bluff is really how
6 it has been described.
7
8 Planning Director Darling stated that if the Commission continues this item, it will leave the Council
9 with an inadequate amount of time to review the application.
10
11 Commissioner Gorham asked if this was something on the list for consideration by the new
12 planning consultant that would be working on the code.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that it was not on a list and noted that when the shoreland
15 regulations were adopted, Shorewood chose to be more restrictive than other communities. She
16 noted that she has spoken with the DNR because they had a few questions about the application
17 but they chose not to comment. She stated that, as she told the applicant, their claims that
18 everybody else gets one or has more storage so they should be able to have a shed, seemed to
19 be more along the lines of a zoning ordinance amendment and not a variance.
20
21 Commissioner Johnson stated that one of the speakers had mentioned Deephaven who had been
22 given a variance and asked if they had the same requirements for a variance as Shorewood.
23
24 Planning Director Darling stated that she did not know.
25
26 Commissioner Holker asked if the City had granted any variances this type of thing recently.
27
28 Planning Director Darling stated that a few years ago there was a deck that was put in without
29 permits that had been destroyed by a landslide. She noted that in that instance, the City had
30 granted a variance to rebuild the deck closer to the shore, which was also on Ridge Road.
31
32 Commissioner Holker explained that her challenge was consistency and what concerns her is
33 that this was well done because it was subtle and behind the trees and if the City grants this
34 variance, then others may come in with the same request for something similar but may not be
35 as well done. She stated that the City did not have any regulations on what may be acceptable,
36 so she was not sure she was comfortable agreeing with this request because others may come
37 and had concerns about what should be done moving forward.
38
39 Commissioner Gorham stated that he agreed that this seemed totally reasonable but feels like he
40 would be a massive hypocrite if he said that the variance language did not apply. He stated that
41 the language isn’t really about the variance and was really about the DNR and Chanhassen
42 language and the agreeable-ness of it all. He explained that he would love to find something in
43 here that resonated with him from a variance standpoint, but it doesn’t. He asked if it may be
44 worth looking at the language again and questioned whether they were being too severe and
45 asked when the Planning Commission had reviewed this language.
46
47 Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission had considered the shoreland regulations
48 before her time with the City.
49
50 Commissioner Gorham suggested that may be something that want to undertake.
51
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 28 of 31
1 Commissioner Johnson stated that if the funicular company is telling people that they are so high
2 that they do not want to even build on the land and people believe themselves to be in the top
3 altitude level that would make a geological difference. She noted that she felt that topographically
4 an argument could be made that this is unusual in the State and also in the City but they do not
5 have time to investigate it.
6
7 Commissioner Gorham brought up Birch Bluff or Lake William and noted that those areas were
8 also very steep.
9
10 Vice-Chair Huskins explained that his concern with the application began with not having a permit
11 to do the work. He noted that there have been recent examples where people have done work
12 and have ended up being asked to undo the work and shared some examples.
13
14 Commissioner Gorham stated that he was not convinced that when someone complained about
15 the shed that it wasn’t about not getting the right permit and more that they knew it was not allowed
16 and would never be able to get a permit.
17
18 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt what brought the complaint forward was irrelevant.
19
20 Commissioner Gorham explained that Vice-Chair Huskins was making it about the permit
21 application.
22
23 Vice-Chair Huskins noted that he believed that he would make the same point about any request
24 for a variance after the fact because if people do not get permits to do things then it is a free-for-
25 all situation. He stated that he did not want to reward people for not having a permit, because he
26 felt that was a recipe for danger in the City. He noted that if he sets that aside, he likes what
27 Commissioner Gorham had stated earlier and explained that he also felt it was a very reasonable
28 request, on a personal level, and felt that it made a lot of sense for the code to be revisited in
29 order to understand why the City’s code was more stringent than the DNR. He stated that the
30 difficulty is that they are being asked to make an exception for the Seybolds in advance of being
31 able to change the code which is why he was having difficulty supporting this request. He
32 explained that, on an emotional level, he was with the residents and their reasoning, but the
33 Commission has to look at the code and try to protect all of Shorewood on the basis of what they
34 have, even if it is a crummy code that needs to be changed. He stated that his sense was to vote
35 to recommend denial of the application but make a strong recommendation to the Council that
36 they task the Commission with revisiting this code and look to possibly rewrite it.
37
38 Commissioner Johnson read aloud some of the criteria to be considered for a variance.
39
40 Gorham moved, Holker seconded, to recommend denial of the Variance to Christmas Lake
41 Structure Setback for Jeffrey and Maggi Seybold at 5840 Ridge Road. Motion carried 3-1
42 (Johnson opposed)
43
44 Vice-Chair Huskins reiterated that he would like to communicate to the Council that he strongly
45 recommended that the Commission be given the task of revisiting this code. He stated that if they
46 could do that in time, it may be possible that the code can be changed which would completely
47 change this situation.
48
49 Mr. Seybold noted that they would be out of the country on October 15, 2024 because it was right
50 before MEA weekend and would like to be able to be present when the City Council considers
51 this item.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 29 of 31
1 Planning Director Darling stated that she will attempt to get this slated for the next City Council
2 meeting on September 23, 2024, so Mr. Seybold could be in attendance.
3
4 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if there was any way to permit the applicant the right to maintain or
5 keep the shed in its current location for a period of time until the City has a change to review the
6 code.
7
8 Planning Director Darling stated that could not be done without a variance.
9
10 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if they were basically saying that the applicant had to move the shed
11 immediately.
12
13 Planning Director Darling explained that they would have to remove it and if they wanted to put it
14 in a conforming location, they would need a permit.
15
16 Commissioner Johnson noted that the Council may decide that they want to approve the variance.
17
18 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he agreed because the Commission was just making a
19 recommendation.
20
21 A woman from the audience asked if they could move the Council consideration to November.
22
23 Planning Director Darling stated that they could, if the applicants granted the City additional time
24 and explained that it would need to be submitted in writing.
25
26 Commissioner Johnson asked what the Commission was trying to accomplish with the possible
27 delay in Council action.
28
29 Vice-Chair Huskins stated that he felt that they were trying to look into the possibility of changing
30 the code language.
31
32 B. Discussion on the R-3B Zoning District Amendments and Related Code
33 Changes to Implement the Comprehensive Plan
34
35 Vice-Chair Huskins asked if this could be postponed until the next meeting due to the late hour.
36
37 Planning Director Darling explained that they were committed to hold the public hearing at the
38 next Commission meeting. She noted that they did not have a formal presentation on this item
39 for tonight’s meeting because at the last meeting the draft ordinance had inadvertently been left
40 out of the packet. She noted that there had not been many changes other than a change to
41 impervious surface regulations.
42
43 Vice-Chair Huskins referenced a paragraph on page 2 of the staff report that he did not
44 understand the meaning and read aloud a portion of the paragraph that stated, ‘adequately apply
45 to the area being’.
46
47 Planning Director Darling clarified that should be the R-3B zoning district and noted that she must
48 have amended that sentence a few times. She explained that she was trying to say that there
49 was some language in their impervious surface section that was very outdated, so as long as they
50 were looking at changing that section of code, she wanted to update this to at least reference the
51 current standards rather than the NURP standards which were common in the 1990s and 2000s.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 30 of 31
1 Vice-Chair Huskins referenced the first page of the draft ordinance, under 1201.118 and explained
2 that he was confused by the edit that stated ‘at a density ranging over eight dwelling units per
3 acre’ and asked if there was a maximum number.
4
5 Planning Director Darling stated that there was a maximum number and noted that it was
6 determined by the Comprehensive Plan as thirty units. She noted that this could be changed to
7 ‘a density between eight and thirty dwelling units per acre’.
8
9 Vice-Chair Huskins pointed out a small typographical error below that section. He referenced
10 Subd. 7 where it states ‘Not less than 1,800 square feet’ and asked if it was speaking to something
11 other than the entirety including affordable dwellings. He noted that he thought he had seen
12 something elsewhere about affordable dwellings that were 1,400 to 1,800 square feet.
13
14 Planning Director Darling stated that she will look at this in the morning when she can more easily
15 do the math.
16
17 Vice-Chair Huskins asked about language used under Residential Planned Unit Development, 2
18 where it says ‘no more than 16 persons’ and where it had come from.
19
20 Planning Director Darling stated that was State statute language that would refer to something
21 like a group home.
22
23 Vice-Chair Huskins asked that a clean copy of the draft document be prepared and used for the
24 public hearing.
25
26 Planning Director Darling stated that she would plan to incorporate the changes that had been
27 discussed.
28
29 6. REPORTS
30
31 • Council Meeting Report
32
33 Council Liaison Zerby noted that he had nothing to report because he was unable to attend the
34 most recent City Council meeting.
35
36 Planning Director Darling stated that she was also not in attendance at the last City Council
37 meeting.
38
39 Council Liaison Zerby noted that the minutes of the meeting were available on the City’s website.
40 He explained that apparently there was a large amount of residents at the Council Work Session
41 meeting related to the City’s budget, so the Council had made the decision to hold an Open House
42 meeting in order to get more input from the residents.
43
44 Planning Director Darling stated that the open house would be held on September 23, 2024 at
45 5:30 p.m.
46
47 Vice-Chair Huskins noted that there was a question received off-line about what the Council had
48 decided to do with the boat dealer/marine store.
49
50 Council Liaison Zerby stated that the Council had approved it,but had asked them to remove the
51 proposed display area on the front lawn area.
52
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
Page 31 of 31
1 Planning Director Darling explained that the applicant had not yet come forward with building
2 permit applications or met with staff, but did think that they had closed on the property.
3
4 • Draft Next Meeting Agenda
5
6 Planning Director Darling stated that they will hold the public hearing on the R-3B zoning district
7 amendments and related code changes to implement the Comprehensive Plan for the high
8 density land uses and will also review the 2025 ten year CIP.
9
10 Commissioner Gorham stated that he was slated to present at the upcoming Council meeting and
11 asked what was on the agenda.
12
13 Planning Director Darling stated that he would just be discussing what was discussed at tonight’s
14 meeting and noted that those items would come to the Council on October 15, 2024. She noted
15 that she could arrange for their presentation to be on October 15, 2024 rather than at the next
16 meeting.
17
18 Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be a quorum for the next meeting because she would
19 be gone.
20
21 Planning Director Darling noted that Commissioner Johnson was the only person who has
22 informed her that they would not be in attendance.
23
24 7. ADJOURNMENT
25
26 Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
27 September 17, 2024, at 11:45 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
28
To: Shorewood Mayor and City Council
From: Shorewood Planning Commission
Date: October 1, 2024
Subject: 2025-2034 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
________________________________________________________________
At the October 1, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2025-
2036 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 462.356
Subd. 2 and City Code § 201.07 Subd. 10.
Findings and Conclusions:
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 462.356 subd. 2 and City Code §
201.07 Subd. 10, the Planning Commission finds that the capital projects within the CIP
are generally consistent with, generally implement, and/or are generally contemplated
by the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Todd Eggenberger, Chair
ATTEST:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
City of Shorewood | 5755 Country Club Road | Shorewood, MN 55331
952.960.7900 | www.ci.shorewood.mn.us
7-111
Upubm
26-11136-11121-11131-11146-11129-11133-61133-611
243-611 354-611354-611 461-111261-111311-111261-111361-111
6-111
3145
26-61131-611 31-611
3144
26-11126-111 26-111
261-111
3143
25-61126-1113:-611 3:-611
361-111
6-111
3142
25-1112:-111 2:-111
3141
24-61136-11149-611 49-611 29-111
261-111
313:
24-11124-111 24-111
6-111
3139
23-61128-611 28-611
!3145
7-111
3138
23-11121-11139-111 39-111
461-111
uispvhi
3137
Tipsfxppe-!No
22-61141-11152-611 52-611 33-61133-611
3136
Dbqjubm!Jnqspwfnfou!Qmbo
6-1116-111
3136
22-11132-111 32-111
311-111
$
Q1221Q1311Q1312Q1313Q1412Q1514Q1515Q1516
Qspkfdu
TDFD.2:.12TDFD.32.12TDFD.33.15TDFD.34.15TDFD.36.12TDFD.37.12TDFD.37.13
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
Efqbsunfou 312!.!Dpnnvojuz!'!Fwfou!Dfoufs
312!.!Dpnnvojuz!'!Fwfou!Dfoufs TDFD!.!Nfdibojdbm!TztufntTDFD!.!Fyufsjps!EppstTDFD!.!Bdujwjuz!Sn!Dpvoufst0Tjolt0Mjhiujoh0GmppsTDFD!.!Cborvfu!Dibjst!.!311TDFD.QbjoujohTDFD!.!Cborvfu!ubcmft!'!sfdubohmf!
ubcmftQsfq!Ljudifo 513!.!Qbsl!Dbqjubm!Jnqspwfnfou Gsffnbo!Qbsl!Opsui!QmbzhspvoeDbuidbsu!Qbsl!Sftvsgbdf!Ufoojt!DpvsuDbuidbsu!Qbsl!Ipdlfz!CpbsetDbuidbsu!Qbsl!Qmbzhspvoe!FrvjqnfouCbehfs!Qbsl!Ufoojt!Dpvs
utNbops!Qbsl!Pvuepps!Bnqjuifbusf!'!QfsjnfufsUsbjmNbops!Qbsl!TvsgbdfNbops!Ufoojt!Dpvsu!Tusjqjoh0Sfubjojoh!Xbmm0Ofut Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf
Upubm
51-111:1-31167-11159-61175-81175-81167-71186-5115:-31175-511::-51176-711:1-611
551-111371-111381-311313-611454-511277-911346-111215-111671-711
2-754-1112-754-111
1
3145
454-511277-911
3144
75-81175-81166-511
261-111 261-111
3143
67-71175-511:1-611
361-111 361-111 415-711
1
3142
:1-31186-5115:-31176-711
3141
279-111 279-111 381-311
313:
59-611
461-111461-111 461-111 371-111
3139
:1-111:1-111:1-111 67-111
313-611
3138
461-111 461-111
3137
56-111 56-111 55-111
346-111
3136
51-111
351-111 351-111 215-111367-111
$
11511611711811:1211221251331351361671861951:11:21:31:71:8
1:2c
Q1811Q1812
Qspkfdu
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
Efqbsunfou 513!.!Qbsl!Jnqspwfnfout
Tpvui!Tipsf!Qbsl!Nbtufs!QmboTpvui!Tipsf!Qbsl!Sfdpotusvdujpo!Qspkfdu 514!.!Frvjqnfou!Sfqmbdfnfou Evnq!Usvdl!.!GsfjhiumjofsEvnq!Usvdl!.!GsfjhiumjofsNvmujPof!Bsujdvmbufe!UsbdupsUsvdl!.!Gpse!661!x0dsbof-
!Vujmjuz!Usvdl!61&Gsfjhiumjofs!Evnq!UsvdlQjdlvq!.!5!y!5!Gpse!G361!)MGT*Qjdlvq!.!5!y!5!Gpse!G261!)EQX*Usvdl!.!Gpse!G661!Pof!Upo!Qbudi!UsvdlQjdlvq!.!5y5!Gpse!G261!)Tu/!Jotqfdu*Qjdlvq!.!5y5!Gpse!G361Qjd
lvq!.!5y5!Gpse!G261!)Cmeh!Pgg!xifo!bssjwf*Mpbefs!.!Dbu!:41INpxfs!.!Upsp!\[!831:9!Xjoh!Npxfs!:7Npxfs!.!Upsp!Hspvoetnbtufs!8321Qjdlvq!.!5!y!5!Gpse!G461!)Po!Mpbo!Cmeh!Pgg*Usvdl!.!Gpse!661!Pof!Upo!Evnq!U
svdlNpxfs!.!Upsp!Hspvoetnbtufs!8321Evnq!Usvdl!.!GsfjhiumjofsSpmmfs!.!Dbu!DC25YXTlje!Tuffs!.!Dbtf!TW296 Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf
6-6115-7119-711
Upubm
36-81121-41125-91159-11147-111
371-111462-311232-111233-611 212-361212-361 863-567426-111728-947
4-884-5114-:86-:11 4-436-1115-942-8623-883-2132-:81-3253-991-266
3145
24-711
232-111755-911 755-911 466-111
6-6115-711
3144
28-11124-411
462-311687-511 687-511 461-111
2-274-5:7
3143
24-111
63:-211 63:-211 456-111
3142
25-91121-41125-91123-811
444-111 444-111 451-111
2-166-4363-883-213
9-711
3141
27-11123-511
418-311 418-311 446-111
313:
23-211
431-711 431-711 441-111:68-322
2-:81-325
3139
22-91178-911
212-361212-361 381-411 436-111728-947
3-991-266
3138
26-11147-11122-611
371-111433-611 433-611 431-111979-32:863-567
3137
21-:1122-311
412-211 412-211 426-111
3136
21-:11
481-:11 481-:11 421-111898-611426-111
$
1:91::213
B14B16B17B19B1:B22
U.24.14U.2:.12U.::.::
TU.32.12TU.34.13TU.34.16TU.34.17TU.35.12TU.35.13
MS.::.1::MS.::.211
Qspkfdu
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
Efqbsunfou 514!.!Frvjqnfou!Sfqmbdfnfou!Gvoe712!.!Xbufs!Gvoe722!.!Tbojubsz!Tfxfs!Gvoe
Evnq!Usvdl!.!GsfjhiumjofsQfmjdbo!Tusffu!TxffqfsDjuz!Ibmm!Cvjmejoh!HfofsbupsBuubdi!Tlje!Tuffs!.!CmpxfsBuubdi!Tlje!Tuffs!.!qmpx!cmbefBuubdi!tlje!tuffs!.!hsbqqmfBuubdi!Tlje!Tuffs!.!topx!cvdlfuBuubdi!Nvm
ujPof!.!cmpxfsBuubdi!NvmujPof!.!topx!csppnDpmps!Dpqjfs!Sfqmbdfnfou911!Ni{!Sbejp!SfqmbdfnfouDpnqvufs!Vqhsbeft 515!.!Tusffu!Sfdpotusvdujpo Qbwfnfou!NbjoufobodfNjmm!'!Pwfsmbz!boe!TusjqjohFehfxppe!Se!sfd
mbjnHsbou!Mpsfo{!Se!sfdmbjnWjof!Sjehf!Spbe!XbufsnbjoTipsfxppe!Mo!SbwjofOpcmf!Se!sfdpoOpcmf!Se!Sfdmbjn Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf
Upubm
45-31181-311
377-3653:4-656 6:9-263 741-111921-449268-611 647-787 486-111
3-478-56:4-939-956 4-699-7344-128-276 4-374-5114-722-:67 2-73:-1384-992-::23-536-6119-584-2:5
28-127-78835-331-728
1
3145
466-111 466-111
1
3144
88-67781-311
2-546-:41 2-624-5:7
1
3143
456-111 456-111
3142
:32-762357-354329-212392-531
3-892-543 5-278-538 2-553-3892-271-969 2-553-389
1
3141
446-111 446-111
313:
3:4-656812-:6625:-436366-367
4-939-9566-553-52:2-197-227 8-48:-926 3-27:-7892-:25-533 3-27:-789
1
3139
377-365586-895313-695:81-1:1
3-551-898 5-19:-356
3138
538-969921-449516-27:516-27:921-449
3-478-56:3-632-21:2-46:-278 5-419-245
3137
426-111 426-111 948-:11
4-374-5113-536-611 4-374-511
3136
63-61174-11145-311
426-111741-111268-611835-611 898-611 486-111
2-156-111 2-523-611
$
149188
U128
35.119
TU.35.14TU.38.13TU.3:.12TU.3:.14TU.34.14TU.38.12TU.38.14TU.3:.13
Qspkfdu
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!UpubmTpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
Efqbsunfou 515!.!Tusffu!Sfdpotusvdujpo!Gvoe712!.!Xbufs!Gvoe722!.!Tbojubsz!Tfxfs!Gvoe742!.!Tupsnxbufs!Nbobhfnfou!Gvoe515!.!Tusffu!Sfdpotusvdujpo!Gvoe516!.!NTB!Spbe!Sfdpotusvdujpo!Gvoe712!.!Xbufs!Gvoe7
42!.!Tupsnxbufs!Nbobhfnfou!Gvoe
Hbmqjo!Mblf!Se0UsbjmOpcmf!Spbe!Diboofm!XjefojohHsbou!Mpsfo{!DiboofmMpdbm!Tibsf!UI8!Jnqspwfnfout 516!.!NTB!Dpotusvdujpo Fvsflb!Se!O!SfdmbjnDibtlb!Spbe!UsbjmNjmm!Tusffu!Usbjm!Dpotusvdujpo!.!Mfe!cz!Iqo!
DpvouzWjofijmm!Spbe!Jnqspw!)qbsuofs!xjui!Njoofupolb*Njmm!Tusffu!Usbjm!SPX!.!Dpvouz!Mfe 712!.!Xbufs Bjs!Dpnqsfttps!.!Johfstbmm!Sboe!296Epehf!Hsboe!Dbsbwbo!)Qppm*!.!XbufsTF!Bsfb!Xfmm!Gjmufs-!Dimpsjobuj
po-!Dpouspmt Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf
Upubm
86-11136-11146-11146-11147-11123-11185-811
416-111 342-199 6:8-611411-111426-111:73-6116:8-61153:-911761-111
2-436-111 3-1:7-4233-438-5113-286-1113-286-111
1
3145
77-61141-11147-11177-61157-511
266-111266-111 266-111 218-611351-111 351-111
3144
46-11176-11141-11146-11176-11156-911
261-111366-311 366-311 216-111346-111 346-111 261-111
1
3143
46-11174-61141-11145-11174-61156-111
256-111291-111 291-111 213-611341-111 341-111
3142
46-11173-11141-11144-11173-11155-311
251-111286-111 286-111 211-111336-111 336-111 251-111
1
3141
46-11171-61141-11143-111:8-61171-61154-511
246-111281-111 281-111 331-111 331-111
313:
47-11146-1116:-11141-11142-111:6-1116:-11153-711
241-111312-111 312-111 326-111 326-111 241-111
1
3139
46-11146-11168-61141-11141-111:3-61168-61152-911
236-1112:6-111 2:6-111 321-111 321-111
3138
46-11146-11167-11141-1113:-111:1-11185-81167-11152-111
231-1112:1-111 2:1-111 316-111 316-111 231-111
1
3137
36-11141-11123-11165-61141-11139-11198-61165-61151-311
226-111293-111 293-111 311-111 311-111
3136
86-11141-11164-11141-11138-11196-11164-1114:-511
221-111342-1994:4-223 735-311 2:6-111 2:6-111 221-111
$
161
X.2:.16X.31.16X.32.13X.33.13X.34.12X.34.15X.37.12X.::.12
TT.::.12TT.::.13TT.::.15TT.::.16
TUN.::.12TUN.::.13TUN.::.14
Qspkfdu
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!UpubmTpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
(!Ejtdibshf!Usbjmfs!Nue
Efqbsunfou 322!.!Bnfsjdbo!Sftdvf!Qmbo!Bdu712!.!Xbufs!Gvoe722!.!Tbojubsz!Tfxfs!Gvoe
Sfcvjme!Xfmm!Qvnq!'!Bee!WGE!TF!Xfmm!XfmmSfcvjme!Xfmm!Qvnq!Bnftcvsz!WU!XfmmSfcvjme!Xfmm!Qvnq!Cbehfs!WU!XfmmSfcvjme!Xfmm!Qvnq!Cpvmefs!Csjehf!WU!XfmmSfcvjme!Xfmm!Qvnq!Bnftcvsz!Tvcnfstjcmf!XfmmXbufs!Nfuf
s!Sfqmbdfnfou!QspkfduSfqmbdf!WGE!Cbehfs!XfmmXbufsnbjo!Sfdpotusvdujpo!Bdujwjuz 722!.!Tfxfs DJQ!Tfxfs!Sfqbjst!Bttpd!xjui!SpbexbzSfdpotusUfmfwjtjoh!'!DmfbojohTfxfs!BeejujpobmJogjmusbujpo!boe!Jogmpx!Sfev
dujpo 742!.!Tupsnxbufs!Nbobhfnfou Qvnq!.!5Dbudi!Cbtjo!SfdpotusvdujpoEjtqptbm!pg!Tusffu!TxffqjohtTupsn!Xbufs!Beejujpobm Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf
Upubm
2-436-111 4-188-1114-188-111
57-246-722
3145
266-111378-:11 378-:11
2-794-311
3144
261-111521-911 521-911
4-266-9:7
3143
256-111364-611 364-611
2-928-211
3142
251-111497-311 497-311
7-858-:16
3141
246-111349-:11 349-:11
2-588-711
313:
241-111472-711 472-711
22-121-7:4
3139
236-111335-411 335-411
6-1:7-456
3138
231-111522-811 522-811
7-736-783
3137
226-11131:-811 31:-811
5-668-811
3136
221-111423-511 423-511
4-:74-611
$
TUN.::.15
Qspkfdu
HSBOE!UPUBM
Tpvsdf!Hsboe!Upubm
Efqbsunfou 742!.!Tupsnxbufs!Nbobhfnfou!Gvoe
Tupsn!Qpoe!Tfejnfou!Dmfbojoh!'!Ejtqptbm Qspevdfe!Vtjoh!Qmbo.Ju!DJQ!Tpguxbsf