09-02-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
HUSKINS ()
HOLKER (December 811)
LONGO (October 271n)
MAGISTAD (September 22nd)
RUOFF (September 81n)
COUNCIL LIAISON MADDY (Jul -Dec)
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 19, 2025
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item that is not on
tonight's agenda but related to the governance of the City of Shorewood, to the
attention of the Planning Commission. In providing this limited public forum, the
City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. We encourage all speakers to
be courteous in their language and behavior, and to confine their remarks to
those facts that are relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Anyone
wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand and wait to be called
on. Please make your comments from the podium and identify yourself by your
first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments
to three minutes. No discussion or action will be taken by the Commission on this
matter. The Commission may request the issue be forwarded to the City Council
or to staff to prepare a report and place it on the next agenda.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) 5570/5580 Shorewood LN Rezoning, Variance & Minor Subdivision
Location: 5570/5580 Shorewood LN
Applicant: Shorewood Properties LLC
5. OTHER BUSINESS
6. REPORTS
A) Agenda Management Software Update
B) Council Meeting Report
C) Draft Next Meeting Agenda
7. ADJOURNMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2025
DRAFT MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Holker, Longo, Magistad, and Ruoff (arrived at 7:03
P.M.); Planning Director Griffiths; and City Planner Osowski
Absent: None
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Longo moved, Magistad seconded, approving the agenda for August 19, 2025, as
presented. Motion passed 4/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• June 3, 2025
Chair Huskins noted that he had passed along some minor edits to Planning Director Griffiths
before the meeting.
Holker moved, Longo seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
June 3, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
Commissioner Ruoff arrived at the meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Huskins explained that the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the
City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners
are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in
determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to
hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make
a non -binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only.
A. PUBLIC HEARING — CANNABIS CITY CODE AMENDMENTS
Planning Director Griffiths explained that this item was a housekeeping item to clean up the City's
regulations for cannabis. He gave some background regarding the State's legalization of
recreational cannabis sales, past discussions and actions the City has taken, additional legal
counsel related to the City's initial decision to delegate the registration authority to the County,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2025
Page 2 of 5
1 and Council direction for rescinding that and taking over the registration process themselves. He
2 highlighted the proposed amendments to the Cannabis City Code. He noted that, to date, the City
3 had not received any public comments on this proposed amendment.
4
5 Commissioner Holker asked whether taking back the administrative side of the registration
6 process would be onerous or costly to the City. She asked if they might be able to hire an outside
7 consultant service to handle these duties for the City. She asked if the City had spelled out, within
8 the parameters, the areas where this use would be allowed, so they do not get a lot of applications
9 for places where people would not be allowed to have this use.
10
11 Planning Director Griffiths stated that they do have the parameters clearly outlined for the allowed
12 locations and noted that they have already received quite a few calls from people inquiring about
13 opening this type of business in the City. He stated that he believed it was likely that Shorewood
14 would have one locate in the City and briefly described the locations where this would be allowed.
15 He stated that the expectation is that this process would be handled similarly to the City's liquor
16 licensing, and there would be heavy involvement of the SLMPD. He stated that because the City
17 would most likely only have one business, he did not think the burden of the registration process
18 was going to be a substantial burden for staff.
19
20 Commissioner Longo stated that he had asked Planning Director Griffiths if having an unmanned
21 kiosk would be possible, but he told him that it would not be legal at this point.
22
23 Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that having an unmanned kiosk would not currently be legal
24 in Minnesota.
25
26 Commissioner Magistad referenced the anticipated demand for applications and asked how the
27 City would deal with competing registrations.
28
29 Planning Director Griffiths explained that it would be done on a first -come, first -served basis, but
30 noted that he did not believe that there would be many applications submitted at the same time,
31 due to the number of available sites being relatively low.
32
33 Chair Hirner stated that once the City has approved the one location for this type of business, he
34 would suggest they get the word out on the website, so they do not get a lot of other applications
35 when the City is full. He referenced two paragraphs in the document and noted that he felt there
36 was an inconsistency with them related to Subd. 5, Suspension of Registration and item c., Length
37 of Suspension, and d., Reinstatement of Registration.
38
39 Planning Director Griffiths explained that this language had been taken directly from the State
40 Statute and gave a brief explanation of what these sections were saying and answered
41 Commission questions. He stated that the City's only role in this process was to certify zoning
42 compliance for the location because once the registration is issued, the State takes over
43 everything.
44
45 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. and noted that there was no one present
46 in the chambers, so he closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M.
47
48 Magistad moved, Ruoff seconded, recommending approval of the Cannabis City Code
49 Amendments, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
50
51 B. PUBLIC HEARING — GRADING AND STEEP SLOPES CITY CODE AMENDMENTS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2025
Page 3 of 5
2 Planning Director Griffiths explained that this was another housekeeping -type item for the
3 Commission to consider. He reminded the Commission that during the 2040 Comprehensive
4 Planning process, there was some discussion about the City's protections for grading and steep
5 slopes. He explained that the City Code just was not clear on when permits were required and
6 reviewed the proposed amendment to the current language to address that issue.
7
8 Commissioner Longo asked if there was a risk that by raising the limit, they would compromise
9 the way the water flows into neighboring areas.
10
11 Planning Director Griffiths explained that when there is a grading permit request, they are required
12 to submit drainage plans to the City, regardless of the size of the project. He noted that staff or
13 the area watershed districts were not concerned about increasing this threshold.
14
15 Chair Huskins asked if any current projects may be affected by this change.
16
17 Planning Director Griffiths stated that there were no current applications working through the
18 process or any pending development applications. He explained that the only thing the City was
19 regulating with this was the short period of time when the construction was happening, and once
20 the grading project had been completed, it was over and done. He stated that the purpose of this
21 permit would be to set up haul routes for construction and make sure the streets were being
22 cleaned.
23
24 Commissioner Magistad asked if any of the numeric limits in the City's proposed language were
25 different than the DNR language.
26
27 Planning Director Griffiths explained that the 100 versus 400 was not contemplated by the DNR,
28 but noted that the 10 or more cubic yards language within the amendment was from the DNR.
29
30 Commissioner Magistad asked how the City had arrived at these numbers.
31
32 Planning Director Griffiths stated that he assumed there were reasons when the ordinance was
33 originally adopted in the 1980s, but did not know what they would be. He noted that a number of
34 cities have the 400 number as their threshold.
35
36 Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M., there being no one present in the
37 chambers, and he closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
38
39 Holker moved, Magistad seconded, recommending approval of the Grading and Steep
40 Slopes City Code Amendments, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
41
42 C. PUBLIC HEARING — 2026 FEE SCHEDULE
43
44 Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City reviews and updates its fee schedule on an annual
45 basis and noted that the Planning Commission was responsible for reviewing the planning -related
46 chapters of the schedule. He noted that the public was welcome to submit comments to the
47 Council when this item is brought forward by them at the September 8, 2025, meeting, since no
48 one was present tonight. He explained that the new fees would go into effect on January 1, 2026,
49 and highlighted the proposed changes for the zoning and land use fees. He explained that on
50 staff's list for the first part of 2026 would be consideration of hiring a consultant to do a
51 development fee study for all of their fees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2025
Page 4 of 5
Commissioner Ruoff asked about the zoning verification letter fee and if the City had any
comparable information from other cities on what their fees were.
Planning Director Griffiths stated that he did not have those numbers with him at the meeting, but
explained that he used to work for Andover, and their fee is $1,000. He stated that the proposed
change from $50 to $250 was probably on the low end, but was moving the City in the right
direction.
Chair Hirner opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M., noted that there was no one present in the
chambers, and closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M.
Longo moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the 2026 Fee Schedule, as
presented. Motion passed 5/0.
5. OTHER BUSINESS —
A. Monthly Training Topic — Review July 28, 2025 City Council Land Use Planning
and Zoning Training
Planning Director Griffiths explained that on July 28, 2025, the City Council received Planning
and Zoning training from him and City Attorney Shepherd. He gave a brief presentation of the
training materials and reviewed: Municipal authority to plan; the role of the Planning Commission;
Zoning — implementing the Comprehensive Plan; Conditional and Interim Use Permits; Variances;
Time limits; and Public Hearings.
Commissioner Magistad asked if Planning Director Griffiths could forward the slide deck of his
presentation to the Commission.
Planning Director Griffiths stated that he would send the presentation to the Commission and
answered some follow-up questions for the Commission.
B. Upcoming City Council Liaisons
Planning Director Griffiths explained that he needed volunteers to fill the calendar for the rest of
2025.
September 8, 2025 — Chair Huskins
September 22, 2025 — Commissioner Magistad
October 27, 2025 - Commissioner Longo
December 8, 2025 — Commissioner Holker
6. REPORTS
• Council Meeting Report
Planning Director Griffiths stated that there was not much to report on the planning side of things
because they had canceled the July Planning Commission meeting. He gave a brief overview of
agenda items expected to be on the September 8, 2025, City Council meeting.
• Draft Next Meeting Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2025
Page 5 of 5
1 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed the application that the City had received that would be on
2 the September 2, 2025, Planning Commission meeting agenda.
3
4 7. ADJOURNMENT
6 Magistad moved, Longo seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of
7 August 19, 2025, at 8:43 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
Cl
O Item
City of Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting Item 4A
:]
Title/Subject: 5570/5580 Shorewood LN Rezoning, Variance & Minor Subdivision
Meeting Date: September 2, 2025
Prepared by: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director
Attachments: Applicant's Narrative & Plans
Site Location Map
APPLICANT: Shorewood Properties, LLC
LOCATION: 5570/5580 Shorewood LN
REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2025
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low to Medium Density Residential (3-6 Units per Acre)
CURRENT ZONING: R-2A Single/Two-Family & Shoreland
PROPOSED ZONING: R-213 Single/Two-Family & Shoreland
REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a rezoning, subdivision variance,
and minor subdivision which, if approved, would allow the
subject property to be split into one additional lot. A duplex
or single-family home could be built on the newly created
property. The applicant's narrative and plans are attached
for reference.
Notice of the application was sent by postcard to all property
owners within 750 feet of the properties and a sign was also
placed in front of the property. Notice of the public meeting
was sent by US mail to all property owners within 750 feet of
the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting and
published in the City's official newspaper, on the City's
website and at City Hall. As of the publication of this report,
no public comments have been received regarding this request.
BACKGROUND
The 0.92-acre existing property was created by the Shorewood Terrace plat in 1967 and the existing
duplex was constructed in 1970. No portion of the property is within the floodplain and the national
wetland inventory does not indicate any wetlands on the site. The property is partially located within a
Shoreland Overlay District as the site is within 1,000 ft of Lake Minnetonka. The property is currently
utilized as a rental dwelling. The surrounding properties are all zoned R-2A and the majority of the
properties in the vicinity are developed with duplexes. The only exception is Excelsior Fire District Station
#1, which is located west of the site.
ANALYSIS OF REZONING
Page 2
The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from R-2A to R-213. The Comprehensive Plan
guides properties within either of these zoning districts to produce low to medium residential dwellings at
densities ranging between 3 to 6 units per acre. However, the minimum lot size established by the R-2A
zoning district of 20,000 sgft for a single-family and 30,000 sgft for a two-family dwelling makes it
impossible to produce developments at that density range. Because the minimum lot sizes established by
the R-2A zoning district are incapable of producing developments between 3-6 units per acre, the
property's current zoning designation of R-2A is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In contrast,
the R-213 zoning district would be more appropriate for the subject property since its minimum lot sizes
are capable of producing developments between 3 to 6 units per acre and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
City Code 1201.04, Subd. 2 provides review criteria for requests to amend a property's zoning designation
and states as follows:
Requests to amend the text or the district boundaries of this chapter shall be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and shall be found by the City Council to meet at least one of the following review
criteria:
(1) The zoning district boundary or designation was originally adopted in error or is no longer
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Times and conditions have changed since the text or district boundaries were adopted.
In the case of this request, the first review criteria above is true. The property's zoning designation is no
longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Minn. Stat. 473.858 requires that zoning
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the applicant's request to rezone the
property from R-2A to R-213 is appropriate.
It should be noted that City staff is aware of this discrepancy between the City Code and the
Comprehensive Plan and are currently in the process of working with a consultant to complete an audit of
the zoning code. It is City staff's intent to bring a code amendment forward in the near future to address
this discrepancy.
ANALYSIS OF SUBDIVISION VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting a subdivision variance to deviate from the 120 ft minimum lot depth
requirement of the R-213 zoning district. While a portion of the property has a lot depth of 140 ft, which
exceeds the 120 ft minimum lot depth, the City Code defines minimum lot depth as the shortest depth of
the property. Accordingly, the property's actual lot depth is technically 0 ft as it comes to a point on its
south end.
It should be noted that the minimum lot depth requirement of the R-213 zoning district is also inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan as it is incapable of producing a development of between 3 to 6 units per
acre, that also meets the minimum lot size and lot width requirements for the district. For example, lot
width times lot depth should equal minimum lot size. However, in the case of the R-213 district, the
minimum lot width of 90 ft times the minimum lot depth of 120 ft equals 10,800 sgft. Far short of the
Page 3
15,000sgft or 20,000 sgft minimum lot size required by the City Code. Due to this inconsistency and
relation to the subdivision variance review criteria below, the subdivision variance request is appropriate.
City Code 1202.37, Subd. 4. provides review criteria for subdivision variances and states as follows:
The City Council may grant a variance from strict compliance with the subdivision regulations
contained in this chapter when it finds that all the following exist:
(1) That the requested subdivision variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all other
applicable city plans.
The requested subdivision variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all
other applicable city plans. In fact, the requested subdivision variance would be more consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan than the minimum lot depth established by the City Code.
(2) That the requested variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter.
The requested subdivision variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
City's subdivision ordinance.
(3) There are special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting the property Subject
Property that are not common to other properties in the city and that the strict application of the
provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable and minimum use of its
land.
In this case, strict application of the provisions of the City Code would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable and minimum use of its land as the City Code requirements make it impossible to
achieve a development meeting the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the subject
property has an odd shape which creates a situation where even though the majority of the
property would meet the minimum lot depth requirement, its coming to a point at the south end
of the site creates a technical 0 ft minimum lot depth.
(4) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or
injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the Subject Property is situated.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to
the other property in the vicinity in which the Subject Property is situated.
(5) That the applicant has established that there are special circumstances or highly unique
conditions affecting the Subject Property not resulting from the actions of the applicant, such as
exceptional topographic or water conditions or inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems, such that an unusual hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of these
regulations was to be carried out.
The inconsistency between the City Code and Comprehensive Plan is unique in the context of this
application to the R-2 zoning districts and does not result from the actions of the applicant.
Page 4
It should be noted that City staff is aware of this discrepancy between the City Code and the
Comprehensive Plan and are currently in the process of working with a consultant to complete an audit of
the zoning code. It is City staff's intent to bring a code amendment forward in the near future to address
this discrepancy.
ANALYSIS OF MINOR SUBDIVISION
The Minor Subdivision request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and complies with
all City Code requirements except for those identified earlier in this memorandum. It should be noted that
the minor subdivision request was submitted prior to the City's ordinance requiring connection to the
municipal water system went into effect. Therefore, the City cannot require the applicant to connect to
the municipal water system, and the proposed lot would be served by private well.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While the City Code regulating the R-2 zoning districts is largely inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan, the applicant's requests are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the inconsistencies
between the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code, the City has little discretion when reviewing the
applicant's requests. For these reasons, City staff recommend approval of the rezoning, subdivision
variance and minor subdivision requests subject to the following conditions:
Prior to recording, the applicant shall complete the following:
• Revise the plans consistent with City Code, City staff's memos, and the comments of any other
organization having jurisdiction in the site.
• Execute drainage and utility easement documents and exhibits.
• Pay required park dedication fees for the newly created parcel as if it were constructed with a
duplex. Said park dedication fees shall not be refunded if a single-family dwelling is constructed on
the property.
• Pay required utility connection fees for the newly created parcel as if it were constructed with a
duplex. Said utility connection fees shall not be refunded if a single-family dwelling is constructed
on the property.
Prior to construction of any home, provide the following:
• Acquire all permits from the City of Shorewood and any other jurisdiction having an interest in the
site.
• Provide proof of recording of the City Council resolution, easements, and any other documents
identified by the City of Shorewood as needing to be recorded.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to City
Council.
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
5353 GAMBLE DRIVE, SUITE 225
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416
TELEPHONE 612-344-1111
FACSIMILE 612-344-1414
Patrick B. Steinhoff Direct: 612.455.6601
Attorney at Law pbs@mgmllp.com
July 21, 2025
VIA COURIER & EMAIL:
kriffiths(i�shorewoodmn.,aov
Jake Griffiths
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: City of Shorewood Subdivision Application
Property Address: 5580 Shorewood Lane
Our File No. 3963.001
Dear Mr. Griffiths:
I submit this letter in support of the application to rezone the above -referenced property
("Property") submitted simultaneously herewith. By this application, the applicant, Sharratt
Design & Company, LLC ("Applicant"), on behalf of owner, Matt Tierney, amends its application
to rezone the subject property ("Property") from R-2A to R2B (as opposed to R3B stated in the
Applicant's initial application).' The Applicant also amends its application to request a variance
from the City's minimum lot depth requirement stated in Section 1201.15, subd. 5(c).
I. REZONING APPLICATION.
The purpose of this rezoning application is to bring the zoning of the Property into conformance
with the City's Comprehensive Plan designation for the Property. The current zoning of the
Property does not allow development of the Property at the density required by the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning requested by the applicant will correct this.
' The applicant's original application requested a rezoning to R3B, a zoning district which the applicant selected
following my consultation with you. By letter dated July 2, 2025, you informed that applicant that the City Council
recently amended the City's zoning ordinance to add text stating that the purpose of the R3B zoning district is to
"produce developments between 6-8 dwellings per acre" (Ord. 616, 1201.17, Subd. 1., adopted February 24, 2025).
i note that the codified version of the City zoning ordinance available on the City website does not yet include this
text.
Jake Griffiths
July 21, 2025
Page 12
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the Property is Low to Medium Density Residential. (See
Comp. Plan, at 117). The Comprehensive Plan states that the targeted density for this designation
is 3-6 units per acre. (See Comp. Plan, at 118). The Property has an area of .92 acres and is
currently improved with a single two-family structure. The requested rezoning to R-3A will allow
the Property to be subdivided to create a second lot for a second two-family structure, as shown in
the application for minor subdivision submitted simultaneously herewith. The requested rezoning
and subdivision of the Property into two lots will bring the density of the Property to slightly above
4 units/acre and will therefore bring the Property into conformance with its Comprehensive Plan
designation.
Minnesota's planning statute for the seven -county Metro area provides that an amendment to a
municipal zoning ordinance must be consistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan. See
Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2024); see also Mendota Golf, LLP. v. City of Mendota Heights,
708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2004); and State by Smart Growth Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis,
954 N.W.2d 584, 596 (Minn. 2024) ("Although [a comprehensive plan] is a planning document
for the City that can be amended, it will, under the current state of the law, control the City's land
use because any zoning ordinances in conflict with the Plan will have to be brought into
compliance with it."). Relevant here, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a city's refusal
to re -zone a property to be consistent with that city's comprehensive plan would be "evidence that
the city is acting in an arbitrary manner." Amcon Corporation v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66,
75 (Minn. 1984). Accordingly, a city's refusal to rezone a property to bring that property into
conformance with the governing comprehensive plan presumptively lacks a rational basis.
IL VARIANCE APPLICATION.
The City's zoning ordinance contains a minimum lot depth requirement of 120 feet for lots located
in R2B zoning districts. City Code, § 1201.15, subd. 5(c). The definition of "lot depth" in the
City's zoning ordinance reads in relevant part as follows:
LOT DEPTH. The shortest horizontal distance between the front lot line and the
rear lot line measured from a 90-degree angle from the street right-of-way (or
tangentially on a curved street or cul de sac) within the lot boundaries.
City Code, § 1201.02. This definition requires "lot depth" to be measured from the most narrow
point of a lot without making any allowance for lots with irregular shapes. The most southern part
of the subject property here has a pointed end and is roughly shaped like a triangle. However,
applying the City's definition of "lot depth" requires one to measure lot depth at the tip of the
triangle, yielding a 0' lot depth measurement.2 Strict application of the City's ordinance therefore
z The City presumably copied or borrowed this definition from another source, as it seems to assume that all lots are
of a rectangular shape or are located on a cul-de-sac. Tt is highly unlikely that a City like Shorewood with an irregular
street grid would intentionally adopt a definition of "lot depth' that does not account for irregularly lot shapes.
4918-9161-2247. v. 1
Jake Griffiths
July 21, 2025
Page 13
makes the subject lot (or any other lot with a similarly irregular shape) unbuildable. I note that the
irregular shape of the lot is a consequence of the curvature of the abutting public road. It is not a
consequence of any action or inaction of the applicant.
The subject property satisfied all other dimensional requirements (e.g., lot area, lot width, etc.) for
lots in R213 zoning districts. It satisfies the minimum lot depth requirement at its widest point. It
is only non -conforming as to lot width because it has a triangular shape. As noted above, if one
strictly applied the definition of "lot depth" in the City zoning ordinance, all triangular -shaped lots
(and many other lots with irregular shapes) are unbuildable.
According to the City's subdivision ordinance, a variance shall only be recommended when
"undue hardship may result from strict compliance." City Code, § 1202.09, subd. 9. The ordinance
further states that a variance may only be recommended if the Planning Commission makes certain
findings. Id. I list each of these findings below, together with a statement (in italicized text)
concerning why the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the variance requested
by Applicant here:
a. There are special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting the
property that are not common to other properties in the city and that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable and minimum use of its land.
Applicant Statement: The subject property has a triangular shape atone end. Most
the lots in the City are rectangular. The City Code is written in a way that makes
irregularly shaped lots like the subject property unbuildable. The irregular shape
of the subject property is a highly unique circumstance that is not common to other
properties in the City. Strict application of the City's zoning ordinance makes
irregularly -shaped lots unbuildable, which deprives the owners of such lots of the
reasonable and minimum use of their land.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or
welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated.
Applicant Statement: Granting the requested variance will have no adverse impact
on the public health or welfare. Granting the requested variance will not be
injurious to other property in the vicinity of the subject property. As noted above,
the subject property satisfied all other dimensional requirements (e.g., lot area, lot
width, etc.) for lots in R2B zoning districts. It satisfies the minimum lot depth
requirement at its widest point. It is only non -conforming as to the City's minimum
lot width requirement because it has a triangular shape due to the curvature of the
abutting public road.
4918-9161-2247. v. 1
Jake Griffiths
July 21, 2025
Page 14
c. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme hardship limited
to topography, soils or other physical factors of the land.
Applicant Statement: Granting the requested variance is necessary to address an
extreme hardship, described above, caused by the physical shape of the subject lot
(which itself is the consequence of the curvature of the abutting public road).
City Code, § 12002.09, subd. 1. Here, there is no rational basis for the City to strictly apply a
poorly -drafted definition of "lot depth" in its zoning code and to deem a lot unbuildable simply
because of the shape of the lot. This is especially true where, as here, the irregular shape is a
consequence of the curvature of the abutting public road and not a consequence of any action or
inaction by the lot owner or the Applicant.
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully asks that the City approve its applications for
rezoning and for a variance. With this letter, I am enclosing a $400.00 check for the additional
variance application fee. Please call me at 612.455.6601 if the City requires additional information
or if you would otherwise like to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
MALKERSON GUNN MARTIN LLP
/s/Patrick B. Steinhoff
Patrick B. Steinhoff
PBS/ksk
c: Clients
4918-9161-2247. v. 1
!` y
X. nr2,�
| z \ \ /It
{ ; -
/]
Noi±gnd±gNcg 40g10N-x:
y
\
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
MATT TIERNEY
OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHOREWOOD TERRACE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
S 89°51' 11" E 140.00
�.E 0`i o
/% i m
P�tOPOSSD 40/
�j
u 1
a -
'$ art% T�/ �� / •ses. . o
o i
PROPOSGGGGED
���
� �
DIV
LINE ING�
i
t
f
l �t �. SC ALAEE .N FEET
Alj
,�!?• t O
it
W f
PROPOSED'1
SOLTFS PARCEL � �� £ �"' �~• ((
PROPO .- PAICD EXISTING H R OOt.ER C:> C—ATIoNS
r`!
L.t S. f`-
Et, 32 f
W t 2
it
p,,t ._
'm /
__
_ Tn FT L n. R;?C9'v t,CvLATIOIS -
tkdk,� _
0.
1�-sf
sss
.°'
x
h� �O ? y 0 R LE'AL RI -I
NiR h F _ t h W C:. RSA e:lv
C
0
,
Fs 1,_e..va 9 a
E 9 e e.. re c a e, �� _e
S�I FARCE=__ .. t _ 1 &cck t t4"C_- TE k - the'+.'y
f6ll - bed F
c,93.04
tF-,Ialc.y
IC ;he _ --iC
---------------
,., r e
_ c3 e=_ ._ se..o._s ._ t. a -y Iro of _o". 1, n,. scio
L DES- -ON P; E
1,
Lc , 51cck HC _J^_ TERRhCE
• . c_nc _o.- -.arker
d® _t,, level d—,
G --es _ _e_
TF t - cb2+ a -
16t 0 mv�aa 11 -
n t p o 1_ e e. v n e�
-.,_ ._me.,
PRO EC?
GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CIV[L ENGINEERS, LAND SL134EYOR5, LAND PLANTERS
.. NDR .. a4 ,,. 5 t_ _CI YSE, Itl 5s7_
24010 -:
i
24050. �
j�-�►-• •2397,0
ii
t
0 100Feet a-B
& MENK
U Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 10/21/2024 8:39 AM
Real People. Real Solutions.
00
02
Legend
Water Meter
w Water Well
• Water Pump
Water Curbstop
Tonka Bay Tower
O Water Tower/Storage
Storm Control Structure
Control Structure
Control Structure - Sump
Storm Control Structure - Pri\,
Storm Cleanout
Storm Ditch
Sanitary Lift Station
Sanitary Lift Station - MCES
Sanitary Manhole - MCES
M Sanitary Meter - MCES
_. Sanitary Cleanout
�- Sanitary Pipe - MCES
Sanitary Forcemain
Sanitary Forcemain - MCES
Parcels 06/18/2024
1 City Limits
Storm Culvert
Inlet
Outlet
Outfall
Unknown
Map Name
e
Disclaimer:
This d,—n, is norther a Icgaliy rcanrdcd rnep nor a
survey and rs notintended to be used as one. This
drawing is a cun,prlat—, of records, infurn,at1—, and date
located ,n vanuus city, county, and state ufhces, and other
sowces affecting the area shown, and , to be used fui
reference purposes only. The City of Shorewood is nut
rrwnnuhle fin a- marnua"e, herein rnnrained
PROPOSE SUBDIVISION LINE
421. '
i
20.0'I0 SO/ KT. TOTAL
AREATO REMAIN
Tree Inventory performed by: — - _"- B IL
h ill
��
TreeBiz LLC - _
Stephen Nicholson CF
M N-4305A
Site Plan Drawing Updated 6/19/2025 By: o \ 1\"� _� _� PADo 9E 9 E \
Davey Resource Group Inc.
PROPOSE
Jack Spadafore PR o 4 UNIT A PATII
M N-4765AM SORrEGR s mow
----� HEORET
ICAL
'OPT,DUPLEXES
ES
Tree If Species DBH Condition Stems Height Significant Fate Notes \ '`
I Arborvitae 36.0 Good 1 25 Yes Save
2 Elm, American 8.0 Good 1 Yes Save \ - P \ q \ ` \ ~� 468S R LEVEL
3 Spruce,white 10.0 Good 1 40 Yes Save R < 978: UPP 21
4 Maple, silver 46.0 Good 1 Yes Save \ N111.
1 . I
y
5 Spruce,white 9.0 Fair 1 40 Yes Save 4
6 Maple, silver 44.5 Good 1 Yes Save p'§ 4 RFC T
7 Spruce,white 7.0 Fair 1 30 Yes Save
8 Maple, silver 62.5 Good 1 Yes Save s -
9 Ash, green 10.5 Fair 1 Yes Save 1
10 Spruce,white 10.0 Fair 1 40 Yes Save
11 Spruce, white 15.5 Good 1 45 Yes Save v
12 Spruce, white 7.5 Fair 1 35 Yes Save `\ P\ti /
13
Maple, Norway
19.5 Good
1
Yes
Save
14
Spruce,whne
13.0 Fair
1
40
Yes
Save
15
Spruce,white
9.0 Poor
1
20
No
Save missing top
16
Spruce, white
11.0 Fair
1
40
Yes
Save
17
Spruce,white
11.0 Fair
1
40
Yes
Save
Tree Replacement Schedule
Tree#
Species
DBH
Height
Re�Rept'.,,,met.t20
Spruce, white
16,5
40
N
22Ironwood
21.0
3trees
18
Maple, Norway
26.5 Good
1
Yes
Save
19
Maple, Norway
13.5 Good
1
Yes
Save
20
Spruce, white
16.5Poor
1
40 No
Remove diseased
Replacement Trees:,
21
Ironwood
15.5 Good
1
Yes
Save
22
Ironwood
21.0 Good
I
Yes
Remove
3 - Spruce trees, white or black hills
23
Pine, white
14.0 Good
1
40 Yes
Save
O City of
M Shorewood
LOCATION MAP
N rj
—y c o°
o
w
gr
m
SmitlhWW R'd
Badger Park
t. 952-960-7900 ►z cityhall@shorewoodmn.gov 95755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 RshorewoodMN.gov