2004 planning minutes
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, White and Woodruff; Council Liaison
Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon and Pisula
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· December 2, 2003
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the December 2, 2003, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended, on Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, change "a Phase II" to
"a Limited Phase'OC:J:", and on throughout the rest of the minutes change "Leash and Associates" to
Liesch and Associates." Motion passed 4/0/1, with Packard abstaining due to absence at that
meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M.PUBLIC HEARING -COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR R-C DISTRICT PERMITTED USES
AUblicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth
Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
Matters recommended for approval at this meeting would be placed on the January 26, Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration.
Director Nielsen eXplained that in November of 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed plans for the
expansion of the existing office building at 6140 Lake Linden Drive. Since that time, the applicant
withdrew his application in order to reapply with a different request, encompassing both parcels in a
commercial planned unit development (P.U.D.). He went on to note the site design changes from the
previous application, as well as the applicant's request for additional uses be allowed for the property,
such as tanning, exercise, banking, and eating, etc. The applicant also asked that some of the
requirements of the R-C (Residential-Commercial) zoning district be relaxed for this site. Specifically, he
would like the hours of operation expanded to 6:00 A.M., and he asked for additional signage than what is
allowed in the R-Cdistrict. Director Nielsen also explained the applicant had applied for a rezoning to a
commercial P.D.D., rather than a P.D.D. conditional use permit. The district approach, involving the
rezoning, would allow the zoning requirements, including uses, to be negotiated as part of a development
agreement. Should the application be considered under the C.D.P. approach, flexibility would be allowed
with respect to site design issues, but the uses would not change from the current district requirements.
In consideration of the issues and analysis for the case, Director Nielsen highlighted the changes from the
previous application, including changes to the location of the northerly building, driveway and parking lot
grades, redesign of stalls and parking lots, additional landscaping, drainage issues with the ponds on site,
and proposed fencing near the westerly pond area. Director Nielsen then went on to explain additional
parking spaces were still needed under the current application, design of the site had been improved with
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 6,2004
Page 2 of6
some changes needed to the parking lots and respective spaces. With regard to landscaping and buffering,
Director Nielsen note additional plantings and irrigation methods should be shown on a detailed
landscape plan. Building character was not considered an issue, but the height of the buildings needed
further redesign. He then reviewed the potential changes to the uses of the property as well as there
impacts to the traffic situation in the area, noting an increased use of the property was not recommended
at this time. With regard to the applicant's request for additional signage and hours of operation, Director
Nielsen recommended some flexibility in signage might be accommodated, however, the change in office
hours to 6:00 A.M. was not recommended. He also noted the applicant needed to provide stormwater
runoff calculations for the site that demonstrate the size of the proposed ponds were adequate. Overall,
Director Nielsen stated the applicant should reconsider modification of his plans and reapply under the
conditional use permit approach for a P.D.D. This method would provide the mechanics for shared
access and joint use parking, as well as flexibility of reduced parking lot setbacks within the site.
Dr. Kelly Bosworth, applicant, stated he had hired a consultant to try to resolve concerns raised by the
City Staff and neighbors at the last Public Hearing. He stated he was requesting some flexibility in uses
in return for the improvements to the site and corrections to the stormwater runoff. With regard to more
intensive uses, he noted, there were existing "heavy" uses, such as a bank, near this site prior to
submission of his current plans. He went on to explain his parking configuration and proposed parking
spaces, and stated he would be available for any further question the Commission may have had of him.
Karen Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, stated she was concerned for the hours of operation as current hours
existed with people making use of the property as early as 5:30 A.M., and she did not want to see these
hours begin earlier. She also expressed concern for additional traffic on Lake Linden Drive should the
proposed uses be allowed, and she did not view these uses as an improvement to the area.
Carl Bost, 6090 Lake Linden Drive, stated he agreed with the increased traffic concerns shared by Ms.
Boynton. Also he stated he was directly adjacent to the property and did not like the idea of a building
intruding on his property by being able to view his entire yard. He stated he could not understand how
the Commission could consider a rezoning as the current zoning stated this was a buffer zone, and he
believed it to be quite intrusive as planned. He stated the additional uses were not discussed in earlier
conversations with Dr. Bosworth. He requested the Commission avoid rezoning the property for these
reasons. Also, he stated he would like to see the landscaping be part of the first phase of any plans for the
property to help to buffer the property throughout the construction process.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne questioned the phasing of construction and landscaping of the proposed plans,
issues of noise and light, and how to proceed with the planning process given the avenue of two choices
for consideration.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she agreed with Director Nielsen's recommendations that the height of
the building be reduced, and the hours of operation and uses remain unchanged.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential options for consideration of the project as a P.D.D. rezoning
change or as a P.D.D. conditional use permit.
Mark Kaltsas, landscape planner for the applicant, explained the differences in the P.D.D. process and
implications to the project as a result of the rezoning approach and permit approach to the project. He
also noted the uniqueness of the site due to its location along Highway 7 and its surrounding retail
neighborhood. He noted the proposed plans had every intention of meeting the ordinance with regard to
building height, and landscaping of the property. He also stated the applicant wanted to utilize and
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 6, 2004
Page 3 of 6
.
enhance the existing buffering vegetation on the site. Signage on the building and lighting would be
respectful of the residents in the area and would not be reflective at the property lines.
Chair Bailey stated the uniqueness of the site seemed to be in question as part of this process. He also
stated he was concerned for remaining consistent in applications throughout the City, and that the P.D.D.
rezoning approach seemed similar to "spot zoning" that the City was trying to avoid.
After a brief discussion by Commissioners, Chair Bailey stated while the Commission had reached no
official decision as yet, it did seem the Commission was not opposed to the general notion of
development of the site, but the applicant should do so within the guidelines and restrictions of the R-C
district. In response to Dr. Bosworth's question, Chair Bailey suggested a discussion of ideas for the
project, without action being taken by the Commission, could be had at the next Planning Commission
Study Session meeting.
Chair Bailey questioned the applicant on the choice of process to be followed in this case. Dr. Bosworth
stated he would like to pursue this case through the P.D.D. conditional use permit process.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Modified Reqnest of a
Conditional Use Permit, and with Approval of a Concept Plan, subject to Staff Recommendations
for Dr. Kelly Bosworth, 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M.
.
2.
PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS - BARRINGTON P.U.D.
(continued from 2 December 2003 meetine:)
Applicant: Brian Harju, Capestone Builders
Location: 20755 and 20775 Manor Road
The Commission considered this item after Item 3 on this evening's Agenda.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:52 P.M., noting this was a continuation of a Public Hearing
held at the November 27,2003, Planning Commission Meeting.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants for the Barrington P.D.D. had submitted revised plans;
including development stage plans for the site. He noted a number of issues had been addressed since the
last meeting, including compliance with side yard setbacks, inclusion of three guest parking spaces at the
end of the cul-de-sac, compliance with the number of replacement trees designated in the City Code,
relocation of the entry monuments, and a suggested time frame for construction of the project. He also
explained the developer has provided details relative to the proposed retaining walls. The applicant had
chosen a modular block system instead of boulders. The blocks, while not as aesthetically pleasing as
boulders, were considered easier to engineer than boulders.
Per the Planning Commission's request, the applicant has provided cross-sections showing how the
retaining walls related to the site and to the proposed buildings. The drawings suggested the terraced area
between double retaining walls would be landscaped; yet nothing was shown in these areas on the tree
replacement exhibit.
.
The plan also showed slopes as steep as 2: 1 above some of the retammg walls. These were not
considered to be mow able slopes. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan suggested these areas
would have some sort of ground cover other than grass. Director Nielsen stated a final landscape plan
should provide details as to what would be used in that area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 6, 2004
Page 4 of 6
.
Finally, there was an issue of safety. While some of the areas above the retaining walls would not be
subject to pedestrian activity, the possibility of someone falling 10-14 feet was still a concern. It was
suggested fencing be placed above any wall taller than six feet in height. The type of fence selected
should blend into the site as much as possible (e.g. black, vinyl coated chain link) and as an alternative,
the applicant's landscape architect may propose some sort of landscape treatment, such as dense, low-
maintenance hedges to deter someone from getting to the top of the wall.
Director Nielsen stated the wetlands had been tested for contamination on the site, and a report would be
given later in the evening by the applicant's consultant.
Director Nielsen also noted Engineer Brown was quite concerned with the lowest floor elevations for the
project. He had specifically stated the lowest floor elevations should be at a minimum of 951.1 or above.
Plans submitted indicated the floor elevations proposed for Lots 1-4, and Lots 21 and 22 of Block 1
ranged between 945.0 and 951.0. This did not meet the City's policy on lowest floor elevations.
Engineer Brown noted these floor elevations were to be raised substantially to meet the City's
requirements. Engineer Brown had recommended approval of the development stage plans, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
The applicant shall continue to work with the City to resolve issues regarding the extension of
municipal water service to the subject site.
All retaining walls over 4.0 feet shall be designed and certified by a registered professional
engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate, as part of the final plan submittal, that the residential
units located adjacent to the retaining walls are adequately protected against runoff from the area
of the wall.
Grading plans shall denote the lowest allowable floor elevation on the grading, drainage, and
erosion control plans in accordance to the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
The bottom of the retaining wall adjacent to the proposed NURP pond adjacent to the Manor
Road shall be revised to a minimum of 1.0 feet above the 100-year HWL.
Plans and specifications shall be developed in accordance to the City of Shorewood's Standards
for Construction.
The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the
proposed Development prior to construction.
Director Nielsen, also recommended approval of the plans submitted, subject to inclusion of these
conditions in any resolution approving this stage of the P. U.D. process. He also noted the presence of the
applicants and Roger Anderson, the applicant's consultant for the project.
Mr. Anderson stated the applicant had worked hard to examine the issues of concern set forth by the
Commission in November of last year. He stated he would review and explain the outcome of these
concerns.
With regard to the well water sampling, the wells had been sampled since the last Public Hearing on this
matter, and he was happy to report there was alack of presence for over 70 different contaminants. He
stated this meant there were no deep groundwater issues for the site. He also explained there had been
four samples taken in the sediment of the wetland. He stated the samples did demonstrate diesel range
oils, aromatic hydrocarbons and the presence of heavier metal, such as lead. He noted the lead was found
in the sediment layer 0 to 10 inches below the soil surface. He stated the greatest concentration of these
contaminants was nearest to Highway 7, so it would be difficult to cure the highway's contribution to the
wetland contamination. He also stated the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District would also be reviewing these findings and would help to design a course of
clean-up and approval of the site.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING M.I TES
January 6,2004 r
Page 5 of6
.
With regard to the proximity of the buildings, a five-foot 'jog" in the building would enhance the
aesthetics of the project as well as meeting separation issues between retaining walls and spacing of units.
Regarding parking spaces, he noted there were actually 17 spaces planned rather than three as shown on
the plans submitted. Efforts were still being discussed regarding the extension of the watermain to the
site. With regard to the retaining walls, he explained there was a strategic system of support beneath the
modular block structure that included landscape fabric carefully knit together. He further stated the slope
and low maintenance groundcover would be utilized, and further consideration given to the kinds of fence
posts placed along the retaining wall to avoid damaging the landscape fabric. Mr. Anderson stated he did
not agree with Engineer Brown's concern regarding the proximity of the pond to the closest units and low
floor elevations. He stated a culvert was also planned between these units that would avert runoff to a
swale should the ponding efforts fail.
Seeing no other persons present wishing to address this issue, Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at
9:28 P.M.
Various Commissioners questioned the timing and remediation of the soil contamination and its impact to
the basement construction. Mr. Anderson, in response to these questions, explained remediation of the
soil would be based on the MPCA's directives; however, no remediation or construction could take place
until the soil was frost-free. He anticipated a two-month cleanup period would begin April 1 ofthis year.
.
Brian Harju, the applicant, stated he had been building on sites similar to this one for the past 20 years.
He noted Shorewood was notorious for having springs present on construction sites in unique locations,
and if built correctly wet basements were avoided. He stated he had not experienced any in the past due
to corrective efforts made on his company's behalf.
Chair Bailey noted, should this matter be recommended for approval, it would become part of the January
26, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Barrington P.U.D. Revised
Development Stage Plans, subject to Staff Recommendations for Brian Harju, Capestone Builders,
20755 and 20775 Manor Road. Motion passed 5/0.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant: D.R. Verdoorn (Rep. By Sharratt Design & Co.)
Location: 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road
.
Director Nielsen explained Darryl Verdoorn, represented by Mike Sharratt of Sharratt Design and
Company, owned the property at 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road, that was accessed by a private
roadway. He went on to explain the property at 28220 Woodside Road was considered a substandard lot
for the RIA zoning district guidelines. He stated the existing home on that lot did not conform to the
building setback for the lot. Since the family was considering making improvements to that property,
eleven feet had been added to the lot that would bring the lot to the 70% requirement for building
standards within the district. Director Nielsen noted this additional footage would not bring the square
footage to 40,000 but did make it technically buildable by meeting the 70% requirement. He also
explained the applicant was concerned for the proximity of the lots lines to the existing home on the
northerly lot, and also for decreased lakefront footage. Director Nielsen then reviewed a number of
options suggested to the applicant to avoid the odd configuration the conveyance would create.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 6, 2004
Page 6 of6
Chair Bailey stated if the City were to adopt an alternate proposal then the lot designs should be more in
keeping with the Zoning Code.
Mike Sharratt, 5590 Woodside Lane, and representing the Verdoorns, stated the owner was interested in
protecting his asset, and the 11 feet was the amount agreeable for conveyance regardless of options
presented by Staff. He stated formal plans had not yet been made to remodel or rebuild, however, the
intent of the planning was to treat the southerly house as a modest home, similar to a carriage house in
character and size.
A brief discussion ensued by the Commission regarding options shared by Director Nielsen with regard to
potential configurations for the lots and land to be conveyed.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Denial of the Request and Directing Staff to
Prepare Findings of Fact Denying the Request for a Minor Subdivision/Combination for D.R.
Verdoorn (Rep. By Sharratt Design & Co.), 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road. Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained the next Planning Commission Meeting would be a Study Session Format to
be held on January 20,2004. Commissioners were requested to bring items to be slated for development
of the 2004 Work Plan as part of the Agenda for that meeting.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
· SLUC
· Other
Commissioner Packard reported on the December 8, 2003, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in
the minutes of that meeting).
No other reports were given.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, White seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6,
2004, at 9:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Packard, White, and Woodruff; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon and Pisula; Council Liaison Turgeon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· January 6, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the January 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 5, Item 3, Paragraph 1, Sentence 5, change "footage did not make the
lot... variance" to "footage would not bring the square footage to 40,000 square feet, but did make it
technically buildable by meeting the 70% requirement." and on Page 6, Item 3, Paragraph 1,
change "Chair Bailey stated if ..." to "Chair Bailey stated if the City were to adopt an alternate
proposal than the lot designs should be more in keeping with the Zoning Code." Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM FOR 2004
The Commission agreed to discuss this item after Item 2.
Director Nielsen reviewed the proposed list of topics for discussion at Study Session meetings throughout
the Year 2004. In addition to studying each of the zoning districts (residential, COmn1ercial, and special
districts), he noted the Commission should consider studying issues related to historic preservation,
affordable housing, right-of-way regulations, zoning issues such as signage, and the annual variance
discussion. Other items to be added to the proposed list included examination of "cut through traffic
sites," tree ordinances, and required parking space issues associated with the R-C district provisions.
Upon review of the Year 2004 Planning Meeting calendar, the Commission agreed to meet March 9,
2004, and to move the meeting designated on the calendar for March 17 to the accurate date of March 16,
2004.
2. R-C (RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT STUDY
Director Nielsen explained that as part of the Work Plan for the year, the Commission would be reviewing
each of the different kinds of zoning districts to be certain each was up-to-date. Since there had been a
review of the R-C district introduced through consideration of the Bosworth case at the most recent
Planning Commission Meeting, Director Nielsen thought it prudent to begin review of the districts starting
with this one. Also, Dr. Bosworth was present this evening to provide input on the kinds of activities and
uses that could be found as part ofthe study ofthis district from an applicant's standpoint.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 20, 2004
Page 2 of 3
.
Director Nielsen went on to review current land uses allowed in the R-C district, noting this district was
intended to be a transitional zoning district between high intensity uses, such as general commercial or
highways, and lower intensity uses, most often single-family residential. He stated, due to the proximity to
the residential, the district was quite restrictive by design. Permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, and
conditional uses were all considered part of the R-C district. Conditional uses within the district included
conservatories, art or music studios, nurseries, and nurseries with garden supply centers, professional and
business offices, medical and dental offices, nursing homes, and planned unit developments regulated
through ordinance. Director Nielsen stated he thought day care facilities should also be included in the list
of permitted uses, and offered to have Staff research the issues associated with such a facility as it pertained
to the land uses issues associated with the zoning district. He next listed the six properties in Shorewood
currently zoned R-C.
Since Dr. Bosworth was in attendance this evening and had submitted a letter to the City requesting
consideration of additional proposed land uses within the R-C district, Chair Bailey requested he provide
a brief explanation for the request for additional land uses.
Dr. Kelly Bosworth, 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive, stated he requested additional consideration for
hours of operation, signage, and land uses associated with a day care, and professional Day Spa be
considered as part of the uses for the R-C as part of his request to rezone his site to a Planned Unit
Development (P.U.D.) with Conditional Uses permitted.
.
The Planning Commission agreed that a P.U.D. district approach could not be recommended based on the
current proposal. The Commission agreed with Director Nielsen that if the applicant modified the
application to a P.U.D. conditional use permit, concept stage approval could be recommended.
The Commission also agreed further study was needed of the R-C district to reconsider definition of terms
of retail character, additional uses such as a day care, and to investigate further the issues raised by Dr.
Bosworth's application including a "medi-spa" facility for use implications. The Commission also noted
support for a change in the district provisions was warranted to include hours of operation beginning at
7:00 A.M., conditional use of medical buildings for 24 hour emergency use; and illuminated signage with
a stipulation that the lighted signage would be shut off at 9:00 P.M., and conditions would also be placed
on the signage related to distance visibility from the residential neighborhoods nearby. Director Nielsen
noted these provisions would be handled through the ordinance amendment process for further
consideration.
3. NOMINATE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR FOR 2004
The Commission agreed to move this item to the February 3, 2004, Planning Commission meeting when
full Commission could be present.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
.
Director Nielsen stated there was a public hearing for a lot size variance for a minor subdivision, as well
as nomination of the Chair and Co-Chair for 2004, slated for the February 3,2004, Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 20, 2004
Page 3 of 3
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 12, 2004 Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report was given.
· Other
No other business was presented this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, White seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 20,
2004, at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey (arrived 7:08 P.M.); Commissioners Borkon, Conley, Gagne, Packard
(arrived at 7:58 P.M.) and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director
Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Pisula
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· January 20, 2004
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the January 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: James Marso
Location: 5495 Wedgewood Drive
Acting Chair Woodruff opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures to be utilized in a
Public Hearing.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting the applicant, Mr. James Marso, owned the
property at 5495 Wedgewood Drive. He proposed subdividing the property into two lots. The property
was zoned R-1 C, Single-Family Residential, and currently contained 31,844 square feet of area, including
a recently vacated right-of-way. Since the R-1C district required lots to be 20,000 square feet in area, Mr.
Marso was requesting a variance to the lot area requirement.
He went on to explain the lot was located where Wedgewood Drive bent to the east. The westerly two-
thirds of the lot was considered relatively level, with the easterly third dropping more steeply into a
natural drainageway that bordered the easterly side of the lot. The location of the trees were scattered on
the property with the heaviest vegetation along the southerly lot line. Director Nielsen reminded the
Commission the City recently vacated excess right-of-way that existed along the southerly boundary and
in the northeasterly comer of the site.
Chair Bailey arrived at 7:08 P.M.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the issues and analysis for this case. He explained that despite the
vacated right of way, the applicant's property was short of the area required for two lots by 8156 square
feet, necessitating variances of 3377 square feet for the westerly proposed lot and 4779 square feet for the
easterly lot. With regard to lot area, the applicant cited substandard lots in other parts of the community,
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2004
Page 2 of5
most of which examples were in different zoning districts. While one lot was less than 20,000 square feet
in the applicant's neighborhood, the lots along Wedgewood tended to be very similar in area to the
applicant's. The range of lot sizes shown surrounding the site was 18,513 square feet to 51,800 square
feet, with an average of 29,350 square feet. Thus, the lots proposed by the applicant would be out of
character with the area in which the property was located. With regard to lot frontage and configuration,
Director Nielsen explained the applicant's property had approximately 355 feet offrontage. He noted this
was not significantly more than a standard comer lot in the R-IC District would have at 300 feet in
frontage. He also noted the lot spacing in the area seemed appropriate currently. Director Nielsen noted
the applicant believed strongly that the excess frontage, lot area, and spacing of homes on Wedgewood
suggested the site be divided into two lots. This was not Director Nielsen's belief with regard to these
issues. Furthermore, Director Nielsen noted significant concerns for the drainage issues in the area of the
site. City maps had suggested the natural hillside was carved out to create a walkout basement for the
house on the site, which could have been affected by the natural drainage way in that area. Director
Nielsen stated he believed any issue of drainage could be corrected by grading the property. He also
noted the applicant's offer to replace the natural drainage way with a storm sewer pipe was contrary to
Shorewood's past policies that favored natural drainage over man-made. Detailed grading plans and
surface water runoff calculations would be necessary to determine if the drainage would be improved by a
pipe. For these reasons, Director Nielsen noted the arguments submitted in writing by the applicant failed
to demonstrate any hardship in the case existed.
James Marso, 5495 Wedgewood Drive, stated he believed a hardship did exist in this case, most notably
due to the drainage in the area. He stated he believed this drainage was created by the construction of
Fairway Drive, a street the City had built recently. He then reviewed the issues submitted in his letter to
Director Nielsen, showing a revision date of 1/6/04. He cited considerations for the variance should be
related to an increase in tax base for the City, issues related to lot size, frontage, efforts to mitigate the
existing drainage problems on Wedgewood Drive, and no adverse impact to the character of the
neighborhood.
Patricia Shoemaker, 5440 Teal Circle, stated her property was the adjacent property to the north with her
backyard facing the applicant's property. She was opposed to the proposed construction, as it would have
a negative impact on her view. Furthermore, she purchased the property ten years ago due to the spacing
between the homes and lot sizes in the area with the wooded character. She stated she was concerned for
the additional noise, traffic, and density another house would bring to the neighborhood, due to the fact
there were nine duplexes and one apartment building in the nearby vicinity currently.
Patricia Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, stated she had lived in the area 27 years, and she had never been
assessed to date. She also clarified the street Mr. Marso referred to was not Fairway Drive, but was
Harding Lane. She stated she believed the proposed construction would alter the character of the houses
in the neighborhood, as the styles proposed was not found in the neighborhood. Additionally, it seemed
as though the houses proposed would most likely be large and thus, located close to lot lines.
Terri Broussard, 5455 Teal Circle, stated she was opposed to the project due to drainage that would be
created with a second home on the site. She stated there was excess water currently in the area, and there
did not appear to be a need to increase the runoff or the traffic in the neighborhood.
Pam Evans, 5460 Wedgwood Drive, stated lots in the neighborhood currently experienced flooding in the
springtime. She stated she was opposed to the variance due to the additional drainage and subsequent
water problems that would inherently be part of a project such as the one proposed.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. Next, he reviewed
the criteria necessary for granting a variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2004
Page 3 of5
. Commissioner Gagne stated it would seem that to split the lot would make each lot smaller than those
currently existing in the neighborhood. Commissioner Woodruff agreed.
Commissioner Conley stated he was having difficulty understanding the hardship in this case. He
questioned Mr. Marso as to the positive implications with development of the property. Mr. Marso stated
the issues of drainage affecting his basement qualified as a hardship, as well as the quality of assessment
his property would receive in the future. Commissioner Conley explained the applicant's basement could
be elevated to ameliorate the drainage issues with the basement, and assessments would not change.
Commissioner Borkon stated, despite her usual stance on variance requests, she could not find any
substantiation for granting this variance. Chair Bailey agreed, noting he did not believe any of the
necessary criteria had been met in this case. He went on to explain others in the area had dealt with
drainage issues as well, and the house could be altered to avoid dealing with these issues in the future.
Reasonable use could be maintained; a previous owner had caused the problem with drainage related to
the walkout style home. He also noted the proposed plans for construction would not yield homes in the
style and character of the rest of the neighborhood, and it did not make sense to split the lot.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending the Request for Lot Size Variance for a Minor
Subdivision be denied, based on Staff Recommendations. Motion passed 5/0.
.
Mr. Marso stated he knew his chances for getting approval on the request was a long shot, however, he
requested any analysis be given to the applicant prior to this stage of the planning process. He also noted
it was imperative the Commission listen to applicants in entirety despite the time constraints noted as part
of the Agenda.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M.
2. FINDINGS OF FACT - MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant: D.R. Verdorn (Rep. By Sharratt Design & Co.)
Location: 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M.
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the case for the Commission noting the Planning Commission
discussed these issues at the January 6,2004 meeting, at which time Staff was directed to prepare findings
denying the application as presented. He went on to briefly review the history of the case noting Daryl
and Carol Verdorn, owned the property at 28210 Woodside Road. The Verdorns proposed splitting off
the southerly 11 feet of their lot and conveying it to their son, Jim, who owned the property immediately
south at 28220 Woodside Road. He went on to explain the northerly parcel contained 113,943 square feet
and was occupied by a single-family residence. The southerly parcel was substandard for the R-IA1S,
Single-family Residential/Shoreland zoning district, containing only 21,636 square feet, and was occupied
by a single-family residence. Access to both lots was gained by a private road that extended off of
Woodside Road.
.
The strip of land to be conveyed contained approximately 7004 square feet, which would bring the
southerly lot to 28,640 square feet. He noted it was the intent of the parties to bring the smaller lot up to
at least 70 percent of the R-IA1S lot area requirement that would make a lot buildable. The applicants
hoped to avoid having to obtain a variance in the event they would demolish the smaller house and
rebuild on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2004
Page 4 of 5
. Director Nielsen went on to explain that while it was understandable the property owners wished to
increase the size of the smaller lot to avoid future variances, gerrymandering of lot lines simply to achieve
area was not recommended. Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned gerrymandered lot
lines and "flag lots" as problems to avoid in the subdivision of lots. To approve a subdivision as
proposed by the applicant would run contrary to and defeat the policies adopted in the Comprehensive
Plan. Although the II-foot strip added a little width to the smaller lot, the easterly 390 feet of the strip
did nothing to increase the "buildability" of the lot.
Director Nielsen explained a different alternative existed that accomplished what the applicants were
seeking. To simply pivot the property line from the northeast comer of the smaller lot, making it more
perpendicular to the shoreline, resulted in better lot design. The owner of the larger parcel had expressed
an unwillingness to adjust the lot line in this fashion because it reduced the length of shoreline for the
larger lot. Director Nielsen also noted the two lots as presented in the alternative form would be among
the widest lots on the Shorewood portion of Smithtown Bay.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting the Findings of Fact Denying the Minor
Subdivision/Combination for D.R. Verdorn (Rep. By Sharratt Design & Co.), 28210 and 28220
Woodside Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M.
3. NOMINATE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR FOR 2004
.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Nominating Jeff Bailey as Chair and Jim Pisula as Co-Chair of
the Planning Commission for the Year 2004.
The Commission complimented Chair Bailey and Co-Chair Pisula on a job well done in these positions
for the past year.
Motion passed 6/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a Planned Unit Development request and a Study Session including discussion of
the Comprehensive Plan, Work Plan, R-C District Amendments, and Signage and Lighting were slated
for the February 17,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the January 26,2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
. Council Liaison Turgeon agreed to provide reports for the Commission and Council for the month of
February.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2004
Page 5 of 5
· SLUC
No report was given.
· Other
None.
7. ADJO~ENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 3,
2004, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, and Pisu1a; Council Liaison
Turgeon and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioners Conley and Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· February 3, 2004
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Approving the February 3, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1.
BOSWORTH P.U.D.(referred by City Council from 26 January 2004 meetine)
Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth
Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive
Chair Bailey explained this item had been referred back to the Planning Commission at the direction of
Council at the January 26, 2004, Regular City Council Meeting for further consideration and discussion.
He also noted the presence of Dr. Kelly Bosworth at this meeting.
Director Nielsen reviewed the purposes of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) from a zoning
perspective and noted it allowed the City to utilize a negotiating tool with developers to provide flexibility
to the developers and more localized control for the City. He noted the applicant's request met a number
of the purposes set forth by the P.U.D. guidelines, and shared the areas where the City would be gaining
additional control of the property. He also explained the applicant had proposed two additional uses not
found in the City's zoning code regarding the Residential-Commercial (R-C) district.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the fIrst use, daycare, seemed appropriate for the R-C district, and
stated the Planning Commission had noted its appropriateness in earlier Study Session discussions. The
second use of a "day spa" was a bit more remote in terms of defInition. He stated a defInition of "medical
spa" had been found and shared with the Commission, but noted certain elements of the defInition needed
clarifIcation from the applicant. Director Nielsen stated the defInition and traffic to be issues of potential
concern, but noted both could be dealt with effectively through a contract agreement with the applicant.
The Commission indicated consensus for a Planned Unit Development approach without the need for a
Conditional Use Permit as had been requested by the applicant previously, as the current proposed site
plans provided uses that would be appropriate to the R-C district. The Commission complimented Dr.
Bosworth on his revised site plans, noting many issues had been resolved since prior submissions.
In response to Chair Bailey's question, Dr. Bosworth stated he wanted to broaden the number of uses on
his property to enhance the marketability of the site in the future. He further noted the character, size, and
location of the building on the site would be proposed as a "medi-spa. Director Nielsen stated there were
other municipalities with zoning ordinances related to "day spas," and stated it was not uncommon to
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 17. 2004
Page 2 of3
have personal services, such as hair stylists, manicurists, and tanning, in higher intensity use districts. He
also stated language could be utilized to make the use compatible with the site specifIcations.
Discussion ensued by the Commission with regard to potential issues of concern. Various
Commissioners expressed concern for additional traffIc associated with the site with the proposed uses,
and also noted additional clarity needed to be provided regarding a defInition of "day spa."
Commissioner Gagne stated he believed traffIc had always been a concern in that area, and while the
potential existed for a reduction in traffIc due to the County Road 19 Intersection project, traffIc would
most likely continue to be a concern into the future due to the number of people in the entire area.
Dr. Bosworth stated his vision for the site included a medical and dental campus rather than a daycare
facility, but wanted to keep all options available in the event the property should ever need to be marketed
differently.
The Commission indicated consensus for Staff to prepare language defIning the term "day spa" and
suggesting criteria for incorporation of this term into a Planned Unit Development district.
STUDY SESSION
2. DISCUSS R-C DISTRICT AMENDMENTS
Director Nielsen shared information regarding daycare facilities for inclusion in the R-C district
guidelines. He noted most of the "use" issues were governed by State law. He stated he would report
back at the March 16, Planning Commission Meeting regarding information associated with traffIc
patterns and site parameters for daycare facilities.
3. SIGNS - LIGHTING
Director Nielsen stated he would report back at the March 16, Planning Commission Meeting with a draft
amendment to the R-C district including certain signage issues related to lighted signs and appropriate
size of signs for sites in the district.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there would be a Public Hearings related to amendments to Conditional Use
Permit for multiple signage, and a bluff setback variance, as well as more information on the Bosworth
P.U.D. slated for the March 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. This meeting would be
held at the SouthShore Senior Community Center beginning at 7:00 P.M.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Chair Bailey reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 9, 2004, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 17. 2004
Page 3 of3
· SLUC
Director Nielsen requested Commissioners interested in attending the February 25, 2004, Sensible Land
Use Coalition Meeting on "Congestion: A New Way of Life?" to be held at the DoubleTree Park Place in
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, notify him as soon as possible.
· Other
Commissioner Pisula reported he had regretfully had to resign his position as Planning Commissioner due
to a change of workplace. Chair Bailey stated the Commission would greatly miss his presence on the
Commission and thanked him for his time and talents shared.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Pisula seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 17,
2004, at 8:53 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
Respectfullv Submitted.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE SR./COMM. CENTER (ACTIVITY ROOM)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:20 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey Commissioners Borkon, Conley, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon,
and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gagne, Packard, and Pisula
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
February 17, 2004
Borkon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the February 17, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
MULTIPLE SIGNAGE
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Location: 23600 - 23800 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M., and reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing, noting items recommended for approval would appear on the March 22, 2004, Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for further discussion and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained representatives of the Shorewood Village Center had submitted an application
to revise the center's existing conditional use permit for multiple signage. He went on to explain
Shorewood's Zoning Code allowed each commercial property up to three signs - one freestanding and
two wall signs. Properties with multiple tenants, such as a shopping center, by conditional use permit,
could be allowed more signs based upon an overall sign plan approved by the City.
The City's regulations allowed the property owner latitude with respect to the design of the signage plan.
In the past, the center was quite restrictive, going so far as to specify lettering style and color. The new
plan provided for more flexibility in this regard. Tenants were allowed different lettering styles and a
broader choice of colors, and under the revised plan, logos were allowed for display as well. Director
Nielsen also stated the biggest change in the new plan was that signs would be allowed to be internally lit
with LED lighting.
Director Nielsen explained the City's primary concerns with respect to signage in this case were the size
number of signs. The revised plan spelled out how big and how many signs were allowed for each of two
types of tenants. "In-line" and "Interior Mall" tenants were allowed one sign each, to be located within
the signage band on the front of the building, not to exceed 20 square feet in area. Major tenants
occupying 5000 square feet or more of the center, were allowed additional signage. After clarification of
the applicant's determination of appropriate signage planned for each type of tenant, Director Nielsen
stated the total sign area for the major tenants remained of some concern. Although the total area of
signage was within 10 percent of the building silhouette area, 150 square feet was considered a great deal
of signage. This issue may be somewhat self-controlling as long as signage is limited to three in number
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 2 of7
.
and all signs are limited to the approved sign band on the building. Also of concern, Director Nielsen
explained, were two new tenants' requests to have the business name included with the previously
allowed "open/closed" signage. With regard to the plan submitted, Director Nielsen's recommendation
was that these signs be allowed, as long as it included only business identification and open/closed
information, and remained limited to three square feet in area.
Director Nielsen went on to explain this plan did not reference a freestanding sign that had been
addressed in the C.U.B. signage approval. He stated the two plans should be considered as one. One item
not addressed by either plan was temporary signage. Despite staff's advice to incorporate some sort of
message board into the freestanding sign, the developer chose not to do so. Consequently, the center
would be limited to two temporary signs per twelve-month period, for seven days at a time. Since the
City had no interest in being involved in competition for this signage, any requests for temporary signage
must come through the center in the future. He also recommended the sign criteria presented to tenants
should be amended to include a provision previously listed in the development agreement for the site that
provided the City with the authority to remove signs that had not been approved.
Seeing no one present wishing to speak before the Commission, Chair Bailey opened and closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M.
Various Commissioners clarified the size of signage to be displayed. Commissioner Conley stated the
change in lighting the signs by utilizing LED lighting was considered a conventional way to mark the
location of a store within the shopping center area, and would make that identification easily displayed.
.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of an Amendment to a Conditional
Use Permit for Multiple Signage, subject to Staff Recommendations, for Shorewood Village
Shopping Center, 23600 - 23800 Highway 7. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - BLUFF SETBACK VARIANCE AND MINOR
SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Thomas Thiss
Location: 6110 Ridge Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Thomas This proposed subdividing his property at 6110 Ridge Road into
two lots. Due to the topography on the eastern half of the lot, Mr. Thiss had also requested a variance to
the bluff setback requirement. Director Nielsen also explained the subject site was zoned R-1A/S, Single-
Family ResidentiallShoreland and contained 2.42 acres of land. It was occupied by a single-family
dwelling and a detached garage. The property was accessed by Ridge Road, a private street. The land
was situated between Christmas Lake and Silver Lake, and was relatively wooded and dropped rather
dramatically (>40 percent grade) toward Silver Lake.
.
The proposed lots would contain 45,239 square feet (west lot) and 60,145 square feet (east lot). The
applicant had provided hardcover calculations showing the lot with the house on it would have 21.7
percent impervious surface. The small garage on the west si,de of Ridge Road was nonconforming with
respect to side yard setback requirements.
Although both of the proposed lots met or exceeded the R-1A/S size requirements, the applicant was
asked to demonstrate the new lot would be buildable. Driveway grade and bluff impact were two issues
raised in the initial review of the proposed division. The applicant was directed to show a driveway
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 3 of 7
.
serving the new lot could meet a maximum eight percent grade. The proposed building pad shown on the
survey provides for a driveway that meets the City's requirements.
The slope of the land in the southwest corner of the new lot was more gradual than most of the lot. In
spite of that and despite taking advantage of the average setback provision allowing a reduced front yard
setback where adjoining structures were closer to the street, the proposed building pad encroached into
the 20-foot bluff impact zoned for Silver Lake. Director Nielsen further explained that even if the house
pad was reduced to comply with the bluff setback, the driveway would still need to encroach in order to
meet the maximum grade requirement.
With regard to variance criteria, the proposed division was not considered out of character with the other
properties on Ridge Road. The newly created lot would be one and one-half times as large as the R-IA
district required, and would be among the largest lots on the road. Also, the new lot was situated between
two similar lots, one somewhat more gradual, and the other considerably steeper. The applicant's
hardship was considered to be related to topographic constraints.
Director Nielsen stated if the variance was to be favorably considered, approval should not be granted
without the following conditions. First, a buildable area must be defined. The plan submitted by the
applicant proposed to average the building pad between the two adjoining structures. This would place a
small part of the building pad within the bluff impact zone. He recommended the building not extend
northerly beyond the line shown on exhibits submitted with the application as the bluff. This should be
incorporated into a deed restriction and recorded against the property.
.
Director Nielsen stated the proposed division would increase the nonconformity of the detached garage.
Thus, it was recommended this building either be moved into conformity with setbacks, or be removed
from the site.
In addition to the recommendation in the two preceding paragraphs, Director Nielsen also recommended
the following:
1. The survey should be revised to eliminate any portion of the building shown forward of the
average setback line. The survey should also locate the sewer line and easements along the north
side of the lot and extending across the east end of the property near the lake.
2. The applicant's surveyor must show ten-foot drainage and utility easements around each lot and
include legal descriptions for the easements
3. The survey should provide for a lO'x 20' pull out on Ridge Road. This must be constructed by 1
July of this year. A letter of credit or cash deposit should be required in order to guarantee
completion.
4. If the garage can not be moved or removed before the division was recorded, an estimate for its
relocation or removal must be submitted, from which a letter of credit or cash deposit should be
required in order to guarantee completion by 1 July of this year.
5.
Future construction on the new lot should be conditioned upon the grading of the lot and the
design of the foundation for the home being designed by a registered professional engineer. No
site alteration should be allowed to the east of the 150-foot setback for Silver Lake, and no
disturbed slope shall exceed 3: 1.
e
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 4 of7
.
6.
The applicant's attorney should prepare a deed restriction, suitable for recording, with the City as
a signatory, to be recorded with the resolution approving the division. The deed restriction
should put future property buyers on notice that the lot was restricted.
7. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division and variance, the applicant must pay park
dedication ($1500) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200) for the new lot.
8. The applicant should provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion on the property for
review by the City Attorney.
Director Nielsen noted the applicant was in attendance this evening.
Thomas Thiss, 6110 Ridge Road, thanked the Planning Commission for considering this issue this
evening. He stated. he thought the issues Director Nielsen raised, along with the resolutions for those
issues seemed fair and reasonable. Mr. Thiss went on to stated he had spoken with an architect who
believed there to be ample room for construction of a home on the newly created lots, and the building
pad would be the only sensible place to place a home on that site. Further, Mr. Thiss stated he thought it
important to preserve the ecological conditions, including the bluff, associated with each of the proposed
sites.
.
With regard to the garage, Mr. Thiss stated he thought it impractical to remove it from the site, as it had
been there for fifty years, was unobtrusive, and served as a place to park his car in the winter when he
could not access his house. He also stated to relocate the garage would be difficult as the garage was set
into the hillside up to the roofline. Also, two mature trees would suffer as a result of damage to their root
systems should the garage need to be removed or relocated. To relocate the garage to a conforming
location would include massive amounts of grading, and he stated it just did not seem practical to do so.
He also noted other houses closer to the road, and while he understood how the garage became a setback
issue in the eyes of the law, the most ecologically sound decision would be to allow the garage to remain
in its current location.
Al Austin, 6140 Ridge Road, questioned how the lake would be accessed from the properties in the
future.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M.
In response to Mr. Austin's and Commissioner Borkon's question regarding access to the lake, Director
Nielsen stated a walking easement could be placed on the property. Each lot would be allowed one dock
only to be used by the resident. He stated accessory buildings could not be constructed, however, an
easement could be granted to allow persons to walk and access the lake.
In response to Commissioner Borkon's question about the existing garage on the site, Director Nielsen
also explained the subdivision was increasing the nonconformity due to its proximity to the newly
proposed front yard area.
Commissioner Conley stated he had no problem with allowing partial encroachment into the 20 foot
buffer area for the driveway, as a twenty feet setback was needed from the bluff.
.
Chair Bailey questioned the number of houses on Ridge Road that were allowed to be built within the
bluff impact zone. Director Nielsen stated he was uncertain, however, be believed it to be a majority as
most of the houses being discussed were built prior to impact requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 50f7
.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has designated bluff
impact zones for the purposes of erosion control, and aesthetics, so that buildings would need to be built
at a distance from the edge of a bluff, and could not easily be viewed from below.
Chair Bailey stated it seemed clear the driveway would need to encroach into the bluff impact zone to
maintain appropriate grades, and the variance should be granted for the driveway as an inability to build a
driveway was clearly a hardship. However, he did not see a hardship with respect to the house as he
thought the house could be built within the buildable area of the lot. Commissioner Conley agreed,
noting a substantially sized house could be placed on the site without encroaching into the buffer area.
Commissioner Woodruff also agreed.
Borkon moved, Granting a Minor Subdivision with Bluff Setback, except for removal or relocation
of the nonconforming garage. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Setback and Bluff
Setback Variance, subject to the house being constructed within the buildable lot area and could
not be built within the twenty-foot bluff setback area, with the driveway built as proposed in the
application, and the sewer accessing the property from the northerly side of the lot.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she thought it imperative the garage be brought into conformity as
precedents had been set in the past for this very issue.
.
Commissioner Borkon stated she thought the garage served the purpose of hardship in the winter for the
applicant, and had been "grandfathered" in this case. She stated the garage was unobtrusive, attractive,
and enhanced the rustic setting of the lot with no impact to the new property.
Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - BOSWORTH P.U.D.- CONCEPT STAGE PLAN
Applicant: Kelly Bosworth
Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:42 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had discussed additional uses for the R-C Zoning District at
the February 17, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. Also at that meeting, the Commission directed
Staff to draft possible language that would set forth the conditions under which a day care center or day
spa could be located within a P.U.D. zoning district. Although somewhat premature for concept stage
approval, Staff had taken extra time to draft a P.U.D. agreement so the Commission could see how the
various elements of approval would ultimately be adopted.
.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the history of the case and the site plan associated with the current
request. He went on to explain one of the concerns with the land use aspect of Dr. Bosworth's request
was whether day care centers and day spas were in keeping with the types of uses intended for the R-C
zoning district. Based on trip generation information, true day spas compared favorably with medical and
dental offices. The draft agreement called for health and wellness facilities with cosmetology as
incidental services. The agreement attempted to preclude beauty shops, nail or tanning salons by limiting
the amount of area devoted these services.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 6 of7
.
Somewhat surprisingly, day care centers generated more trips than medical and dental offices. Director
Nielsen stated it was logical then to limit the size of day care centers in R-C types of property. The 4500
square feet maximum suggested in the agreement provided for a slightly smaller-than-average center that
would generate approximately the same traffic as 10,000 square feet of office space. He also noted
parking requirements for day care centers and day spas were different than those for offices. Also, day
care centers required short-term parking or drop-off areas exclusive of required parking.
The agreement specified that nurseries (normally allowed in the R-C district) were excluded. It also
provided that the future office building should be architecturally compatible, with regard to design and
materials, with the first building. He also noted Staff had sent a letter to the mailing list of property
owners advising them that the Bosworth hearing will be re-opened on Tuesday, 9 March 2004.
Director Nielsen also explained he had spoken with the applicant's consultant regarding these issues, and
the applicant offered greater setbacks than what the Code required. Director Nielsen stated one key
element of this request allowed for greater architectural control of the building design and character,
noting this element was something residents expressed interest in retaining from the original design.
Kelly Bosworth stated he thought the proposed recommendations were suitable, and he had worked with
Staff and the City's regulations to be able to leave open the potential areas that would attract others to the
new building.
.
Mark Kaltsas, Dr. Bosworth's consultant, landscape architect, and planner for the site, stated the
conditions outlined by Staff were workable.
Kevin Barnes, 6070 Lake Linden Drive, questioned the proposed height of the buildings on the site, as
well as the setback from the Bost house, and how visible the building would be to neighboring residents
in the area. Director Nielsen reviewed the history of the case and proposals in response to these
questions.
Chair Bailey noted the Commission had received two emails, one from the Bosts and another from Mr.
James McFarland regarding this case.
In response to Commissioner Conley's question, Director Nielsen reviewed the drainage flow patterns for
the future as associated with this case.
Chair Bailey close the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9: 17 P.M
Commissioner Borkon stated this case had progressed significantly from its original submission. She
stated she liked the specific ideas being discussed, as well as the proposed signage plans.
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Concept Stage Plans for the
Bosworth Planned Unit Development, subject to Staff Recommendations from Staff Memorandums
dated October 29, 2003, through January 5, 2004, specifically including issues of parking, buffers,
landscape, and building height requirements, for Kelly Bosworth, 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden
Drive. Motion passed 4/0.
.
4.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Martin Wellens, 4755 Lakeway Terrace, stated he was present this evening to clarify points discussed as
part of an editorial letter in the Lakeshore Weekly News from Commissioner Pisula. He submitted a
letter of response to the Commission as well as additional documentation supporting his positions in the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 2004
Page 7 of7
. response letter. He noted the statement he submitted was representative of his neighbor's support as well
as a personal response.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained Proposed Amendments to the R-C District, and Elements of Each Chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan were slated for the March 16, 2004, Planning Commission Study Session
Meeting Agenda.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Chair Bailey and Council Liaison Turgeon reported on the February 23, 2004, Regular City Council
Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
Director Nielsen noted the topic for the March 31, 2004, Sensible Land Use Coalition Meeting was Fiscal
Cramdown. This meeting was to be held at the DoubleTree Park Place hotel, in St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, from 11 :30 A.M. to 1 :30 P.M.
· Other
. No other reports were given this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Conley seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 9,
2004, at 9:42 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 16,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Packard, and Woodruff; and Planning Director
Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, and Pisula; Council Liaison Turgeon
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· March 9, 2004
This item was moved to the April 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
STUDY SESSION
1.
R-C DISTRICT AMENDMENT - DRAFT
Director Nielsen reviewed the draft language proposed for the R-C (Residential-Commercial) District
Amendment as requested by the Commission at the March 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting.
He reviewed the proposed changes from the existing ordinance, noting the inclusion of adult and child
daycare facilities within the R-C district. Included were issues pertaining to state guidelines for licensed
daycare facilities, and associated issues of off-street parking, adequate short-term parking, issues pertaining
to principal or accessory use definitions, and size of the facilities. Director Nielsen also offered draft
language for buffer fences or planting screens in this district, as well as a change to the hours of operation
within the district previously established as 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and now proposed as 7:00 A.M. to 9:00
P.M. Occasional emergency dental services outside of these normal business hours would now be allowed
as part of the draft language as well. Final proposed issues related to changes in signage, specifically
illuminated signs. llluminated signs would be allowed at least 200 feet from a residential district boundary,
and could be located nearer to that boundary with screening from the residential areas. In no case were
illuminated signs to be illuminated between the hours of9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
Director Nielsen noted a Public Hearing on this amendment was scheduled for the April 6, 2004, Planning
Commission Meeting.
After clarification by members of the Commission regarding the proposed draft language, suggested
changes were to include the additional wording of "opaque screening" to the proposed amendment issues of
illuminated signage, and Chair Bailey also requested calculations related to the number of children or adults
allowable in facilities constructed to be 4500 square fo'Ot in gross floor area.
Without objection from the Commission, Staff requested modification of the previously defined
informational signs for the R-C District to allow signs to be four square feet in area rather than the three
square foot signs as previously discussed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
March 16, 2004
Page 2 of2
2.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS
Director Nielsen reviewed the statistics related to the building trends, population, and land use issues as
part of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the land use map shared included a large number of wetlands
that made the map seem as though there was a great deal of land left for development within the City
when that was not the case. He stated this issue was being revisited to allow for future growth in planning
for the City, and at the request of the Metropolitan Council, as many of the two acre parcels remaining
could be available for development purposes within the next decade as the City continued to reach
saturation levels in its growth.
Director Nielsen noted newly updated copies of the Comprehensive Plan would be available to
Commissioners in the near future.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated three Public Hearings, including two setback variances, and an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for special events for the Excelsior Fire District, were slated for the April 6, 2004,
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. A request for a minor subdivision would also be considered as
part of that Agenda.
5.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
As there had not been a meeting of the City Council since the most recent Planning Commission Meeting,
there was nothing to report at this time.
· SLUC
No report was given as there had not been a meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition since the most
recent Planning Commission meeting.
· Other
No other business was presented this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 16,
2004, at 8:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey Commissioners Borkon (arrived 8:09 P.M.), Conley, Gagne, Packard, Pisu1a
and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· March 9, 2004
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the March 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 5, Item 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1, change "to maintain appropriate
grades. However," to "maintain appropriate grades and the variance should be granted for the
driveway as an inability to build a driveway was clearly a hardship. However, he did not see a
hardship with respect to the house as he thought the house..." Motion passed 4/0/2 (packard and
Gagne abstained).
· March 16, 2004
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the March 16, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
SPECIAL EVENTS - EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT
Applicant: Excelsior Fire District Relief Association
Location: 24100 Smithtown Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M, noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He also stated items recommended for approval to Council this evening would be placed on the April 12,
2004, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda.
Director Nielsen explained the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) requested an amendment to a Conditional
Use Permit for the property at 24100 Smithtown Road to hold an annual Firefighter's Dance at the West
Side Public Safety Facility on the 3rd Friday in July from 5:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. Representatives of the
EFD Relief Association had met with Staff to discuss issues of concern associated with this event. Many
of the issues of concern had been addressed in a letter to the City from the EFD Relief Association, dated
February 26, 2004. Issues covered included parking, security, noise, and alcohol.
EFD Deputy Chief Dana George and Firefighter Joe Lugwoski, addressed the Commission, explaining
plans to address issues of concerns in detail. With regard to the parking issues, Deputy Chief George
explained the EFD had been working with nearby churches and the local bus company to allow for shuttle
service to the dance site as part of a looped route with stops in Excelsior. He also explained reserve
officers of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would also be present to assist
people with controlled crossing of County Road 19. He noted, while contingencies may arise, he thought
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 2 of9
. it worth the effort to try to work with the shuttling system to avoid people parking on the site. With
regard to noise issues, he explained sound testing would be conducted prior to the night of the dance to try
to determine the noise impacts to the neighborhood and the buffering effects of the retaining wall and
p1antings on the site. He also noted the band had been contacted regarding the City's noise ordinance and
was amenable to working within the ordinance requirements. Deputy Chief George also stated should the
noise levels exceed the allowed threshold; the doors to the bay area of the station would be closed. He
went on to state, with regard to the 3.2 alcohol license requested for the dance; police officers would be
patrolling the dance as well as numerous firefighters. All parties involved in the serving of alcohol had
undergone alcohol awareness training annually and many officers and firefighters typically patrolled the
dance event each year.
Deputy Chief George thanked the Commission for its time, noting the dance provided critical funding for
major equipment purchases that benefited all South Lake Minnetonka residents. He stated the EFD was
very willing to work with the neighborhood residents to alleviate any concerns remaining to avoid
negative impacts to the area.
Steve Priest, Shorewood Lane, stated he was concerned about the traffic and parking issues associated
with the dance event. While most of his concerns had been addressed on these issues, he was still
concerned for the additional traffic in the area. He stated he liked the EFD Dance each year, but was not
sure of the impacts to the neighborhood. He stated he viewed this event at this site as a dynamic event
that would be reviewed on a yearly basis for change if needed. He also stated he thought he could tolerate
the noise for a night and he appreciated his concerns being addressed prior to the event.
.
Eric Rousar, 5575 Shorewood Lane, stated he was quite concerned about the trash pickup in the area after
the event. He stated a great deal of construction debris remained in the area, specifically in the drainage
swa1e area to the nearby creek. He stated he was happy the facility was being utilized in this fashion, but
was concerned for frequent occurrences of this nature He stated he had an opportunity to visit the EFD as
part of an Open House for the neighbors, and he congratulated the EFD, City and SLMPD for a great
facility.
Dorothy Tisdale, 85 Brentwood, Tonka Bay, stated she was concerned for the amount of noise an event
like this would generate. She did not wish for any noise to be heard in the area, and suggested the dance
be held inside the building. She also stated concern for parking on nearby streets, and she did not believe
the shuttle service would mitigate all the parking issues and people walking to and from the dance from
other nearby residential areas.
Ron Rousar, 5585 Shorewood Lane, stated he had been highly critical of the decision to build the facility
on this site in the past, however, the people occupying the facility had chosen to be good neighbors. He
questioned the ongoing responsibility of trash cleanup in the area of the facility, as he believed the dance
event would exacerbate the current situation, which already required remedy. He went on to thank
Deputy Chief George and the EFD and SLMPD for being good neighbors, as the efforts of many had
produced good results for all.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:28 P.M., noting there were
two letters received providing feedback on this request. One of the letters was anonymous expressing
lack of support for the event, and the second letter was from the Dvorak's on Echo Road expressing
support for the request.
e Commissioner Gagne stated he thought this event to be one night a year, with annual renewal and review
through the CUP process. He stated he thought the construction debris and trash maintenance in the area
discussed should be made part of the conditional approval for this request. He also stated he thought the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 3 of9
.
event and parking issues should be distributed through fliers, and parking issues should be discussed with
the Tonka Village Shopping Center owner.
Commissioner Packard stated she was very concerned about the potential for people to be walking to the
dance along County Road 19 as it was anticipated to be under construction and somewhat hazardous as a
result. She questioned if other alternatives and sites had been considered. Deputy Chief George
explained other sites in Excelsior had been considered, but no longer posed viable options. He stated this
event was a community fundraiser and the Relief Association viewed it as an opportunity to give back to
the community. He noted while the cost of having SLMPD officers at all crossing would be prohibitive,
the Dance Committee had planned to have numerous volunteers of the EFD covering many potential
crossings in the area.
Chair Bailey stated he was concerned there had been no mention of this event at the time the Conditional
Use Permit for the Facility was requested. He stated he was concerned that the public be treated properly
in this case, and he believed it was clearly something that could have been anticipated prior to this
request. Also, he expressed concern for the noise impacts to the neighborhood. He stated he was
encouraged by the lack of negative response on this issue, but thought it would be prudent to wait a year
to see how normal operations impacted the neighborhood before adding additional events.
.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she was concerned for the noise impacts to the neighborhood as well, and
questioned whether the event could be held entirely indoors in the facility. Deputy Chief George stated
noise regulations were in place, and other large scale events were held in residential neighborhoods, such
as Neighborhood Watch events and Music in the Park series slated for the summer. Firefighter Lugoski
stated should noise complaints be received, the current system in place with the SLMPD providing
enforcement would take place in this event in the same manner as other events.
Commissioner Conley stated he agreed with Commissioner Gagne regarding the parking issues and
pedestrian access to the site. He stated it would be inevitable that people would be walking to the site
along County Road 19, and he wondered about the liability aspects related to this case. He stated, while
he respected the concerns heard related to noise, it would be nice to have the dance remain with the EFD.
He thought it seemed reasonable to try to answer as many concerns as possible in the planning of the
event, and judge manageability after the fact.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Directing Staff to Prepare a Draft Resolution Setting Forth the
Conditions for the Amendment including Annual application for the event, pedestrian crossing
guard at the Senior Center crossing, and monitoring of noise for the event. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING-SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Robert and Lindy Hensley
Location: 28110 Woodside Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M. and reviewed the criteria necessary for granting
vanances.
e
Director Nielsen explained the applicants' owned the property at 28110 Woodside Road and requested a
variance to build a 922 square foot room addition and patio on the rear of the existing home. He noted the
house was nonconforming with respect to the front yard setback requirement, and according to the
applicant, had been constructed up to the right-of-way of Woodside Road in 1910.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 4 of 9
. The property was zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contained 28,755 square feet
of area. The easterly 95 feet of the flag-shaped lot was approximately 203 feet wide with the westerly
313 feet extending to Lake Minnetonka being only 34 feet in width. The property was occupied by the
applicant's home and a detached garage.
The applicants proposed to build a 922 square-foot addition on the rear side of the house, and the
proposed addition would encroach into the required front yard setback by approximately 17 feet. The
proposed patio on the south side of the addition was approximately the same size as the addition.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the applicant's request letter submitted to the Commission had set
forth a very good case for a variance. Due to the home being entirely outside the buildable area of the lot,
there was simply no way to add on to the existing home without some sort of variance. He noted there
was an additional mitigating factor not mentioned in the applicant's letter. The right-of-way for
Woodside Road was 66 feet wide instead of the standard 50 feet required by City Code. This combined
with the traveled surface of the street being offset to the east, resulted in more apparent green space than
there would be if the road were centered in a narrower right-of-way. He also noted the City had granted
similar variances under similar conditions, and the request was considered to be consistent with the
criteria for granting variances. He recommended that, as part of any approval, the City should require the
applicant to prepare a landscape plan showing some evergreen trees between the northeast corner of the
addition and the northeast corner of the lot. At present, existing landscaping was somewhat sparse in this
area, and this action would help to diminish the appearance of the addition as viewed from the north.
.
Robert Hensley, 28110 Woodside Road, thanked the Commission for its time spent reviewing this case.
He stated he had tried very hard to put the best application forward. He noted the house was originally a
carriage house built in 1910, and great care had been taken to make the proposed plans for the addition
consistent with the existing structure and surrounding neighborhood. He stated he had worked the
neighbors and City Staff throughout this process and he thanked the neighbors that had expressed support
for the project through letters. He respectfully requested the Commission grant approval for his request.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the public Hearing at 8:03 P.M.
Chair Bailey stated this request was consistent with other requests in working to provide an addition
toward the buildable area of the lot. He also entered two letters of support, from the Robinsons and the
Leavenworth's, into record.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance, including Staff
recommendations, for Robert and Lindy Hensley, 28110 Woodside Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M.
3. DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS - BOSWORTH P.U.D.
Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth
Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive
Commissioner Borkon arrived at 8:09 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had submitted development stage plans for his project at 6120
and 6140 Lake Linden Drive. While the plan had undergone several revisions, the following included a
summary of how these plans conformed to the Concept Stage Plan and City Code.
1. The site plan was consistent with the approved concept plan. It should be noted that parking had
been proposed anticipating full use of the first building as office space, even though Dr. Bosworth
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 5of9
.
had expressed a desire to have indoor parking initially. The final building plans must detail this
parking area and demonstrate that no required parking will be lost in providing access to the
garage spaces. For example, if 3-4 designated spaces were necessary to get in and out of the
garage spaces, then the garage must accommodate at least 3-4 cars.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant objected to the parking recommendation for some of the day
spa activities as he believed that two spaces per station for hair and nails was excessive. Staff stood
by its original recommendation.
2. Site grading had been shown for both lots. A question remained as to how much of the northerly
lot would be graded as part of the first phase of the project. Director Nielsen explained it would
be wise to at least rough-grade the northerly lot now in order to minimize disruption of the first
site when the second site was developed, especially since there was only one driveway to both
sites. The grading plan should include grading limits, which should also be illustrated on a tree
preservation plan.
3.
The applicant had submitted drainage calculations that were being analyzed by the City Engineer.
As mentioned in the concept stage review, the majority of site drainage would be conducted to
two drainage ponds and ultimately directed south away from the surrounding residential
properties. One issue raised by the Council was how roof drainage from the northerly building
would be handled. The applicant should indicate how drainage from roof gutters on the north
side of the building would be brought to the south. The City Engineer should also comment on
how this drainage related to the site grading and retaining walls on the north side of the site. The
plans should also indicate how the westerly pond can be accessed for maintenance.
.
4. Although much of the vegetation was considered somewhat "scrubby", its removal was going to
be noticeable to adjoining residents. Landscaping and screening for the first building was quite
adequate, especially with the fence along the south and west edge of the proposed pond and also
the detached garage. The northerly building remained cause for concern. It was anticipated that
at least half of the existing vegetation in the 40-foot setback area would have to be removed for
site work and construction. No landscaping was shown for the areas to the west and north of the
future building. The north side posed a landscaping challenge, since the future building would
shade it. The applicant's landscape architect should provide more detail on how this area will be
treated. The landscape plans should also address irrigation. Additional detail should be provided
for the foundation planting on the first building.
5. The applicant's proposed signage was addressed. There was no indication, however, as to where
on the site plan the sign would be located. Ideally, this would be indicated on the landscape plan.
To clarify the applicant's inquiry regarding the amount of signage, the total allowable area for the
two sites was 72 square feet, forty of which can be used for one or two freestanding signs. It was
not recommended that more than two wall signs be placed on the each of the buildings. The
applicant should be aware that the "tooth" on the chimney on the south side of the building
counted as signage.
6. The applicant requested the limit on daycare space be increased to 5000 square feet instead of
4500. Again, in trying to equate this use with uses already allowed in the R-C district, staff stood
by its original recommendation.
.
7.
The applicant asked that park dedication and local sanitary sewer charges for the future building
be paid at the time the second building was constructed. This could be incorporated into the
development agreement.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 6of9
.
8.
The applicant proposed "shoebox" light fixtures which produced a downcast light. The final
plans for the P.D.D. should include a photometric plan demonstrating that lighting would not
exceed City standards. The plan should include provisions for timing the lights to go out after
9: 15 P.M. and not to come on until 7:00 A.M. The plans should also indicate what, if any
security lighting would be proposed.
9. The plans did not address trash receptacles or H.V.A.C. equipment. These items should be
included on the final plans.
Dr. Kelly Bosworth, applicant, stated he did not wish to see this item continued if possible, in effort to
allow construction to begin this year on the project. He stated he thought the additional parking
restriction was not needed in this case as the parking for employees would pose no problem. He stated
parking issues limited the potential size of office space allowable for lease and he wanted to retain
maximum space for leasing purposes. He requested the day care be allowed to remain at 5,000 square
feet as it would be difficult to lease out any difference in space for the building. He also stated the trash
receptacles would be enclosed in either a wooden or brick enclosure in the southwestern portion of the
parking lot.
.
Mark Kaltsas, consultant for the applicant, stated he believed many of the issues were close to resolution
through detail, and he noted the progress of the submitted plans had come a great distance since the
inception of the project. He noted the entire site would be rough graded, with grading limits and tree
preservation efforts demonstrated. He also noted a tree preservation plan would be submitted as part of
the final development stage plans. He also noted the northerly portion of the site would be difficult to
work with as extensive shading would take place due to the building. He also noted the proposed tree
plan showed trees exceeding the minimum standards for trees. Pond access would be kept available
through the landscaping efforts. Existing signage on the site would meet the minimum requirements of
current sign. Mr. Kaltsas stated the size of the building was limited by the parking stalls needed and was
set forth in the development agreement. He further stated a photometric plan had been submitted.
Discussion ensued regarding parking issues, signage, and landscaping efforts. Director Nielsen noted it
seemed as though the Commission was comfortable with Staff recommendations, however, he also
wanted to add the recommendations that the landscaping on the westerly side of the parking lot be
finished as part of the first phase of the project. Also, he recommended the tree preservation plan be
enacted through staking the corners of the building as well as the construction limits for the project.
Further discussion ensued regarding the use oflogos, such as a tooth, being displayed as signage.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Development Stage Plans, subject
to Staff Recommendations, including the addition of completion of the landscaping along the west
side of the parking lot, and the final plan be brought back to the Planning Commission prior to
being reviewed by Council. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9: 15 P.M., and reconvened the meeting by gavel at 9:24 P.M.
4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: James and Katherine Sedesky
Location: 21040 Ivy Lane
. Director Nielsen explained the applicants owned the property at 21040 Ivy Lane that was located in the
R-1D, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contained approximately 16,331 square feet of area.
The lot was technically a corner lot, having frontages on Ivy Lane and a fire lane originally platted as
Glen Grove Path. Mr. Sedesky had applied for a setback variance to build a deck on the rear side of his
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 7of9
. home. The proposed deck measured 12' x 20' and necessitated a 10-foot variance. The required setback
from the fire lane cut the property approximately in half.
Director Nielsen noted the City had granted similar variances for properties abutting fire lanes in the past.
He then reviewed other pertinent cases similar to this one, and suggested the Commission consider
handling these cases by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the future. He went on to state the fire lane
rendered the applicant's property virtually unbuildable. He noted that there was an existing line of
shrubbery located approximately on the boundary between the applicant's lot and the fire lane. It was
recommended this vegetation be maintained as a condition of this variance, and it was also recommended
that an existing utility shed located to the west of the fire lane be removed from the fire lane. If allowed a
10-foot setback from the fire lane, the applicant would have adequate room to relocate this shed onto his
property. He recommended approval of the application.
James and Katherine Sedesky, applicants, stated they believed the fire lane should be marked as a path to
the lake to allow residents to access the lake. While they had no problem with such a path being marked,
they respectfully requested it be kept separated from their property in some fashion.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:39 P.M.
Discussion ensued by the Commission regarding appropriate language to be utilized in a draft ordinance
amendment in this case.
.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance, subject to
Staff Recommendations.
The Commission directed Staff to refer the Sedesky's suggestion of a trail to the lake to the Park
Commission for further review and consideration.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 9:36 P.M.
5. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Daniel Heiland
Location: 21175 Minnetonka Boulevard
Director Nielsen explained that approximately three years ago, the City approved a minor subdivision
request for Dan Heiland at 21175 Minnetonka Boulevard. The most complicated thing about this
application at that time was a drainage issue. After several months, the owner and the City Engineer
agreed to a solution to the problem, which required the owner to construct an outflow pipe that would
provide positive drainage for a low area on the property. Mr. Heiland never recorded the division and the
approval had since expired, thus, necessitating the request before the Commission this evening.
Mr. Heiland's new application contained no request for a wetland setback variance, since, under
Watershed District rules, it could be filled in due to its size. City staff's recommendations as set forth in
the previous staff reports still stand, with the only change being that the local sanitary sewer access charge
has been increased to $1200. '
. Dan Heiland, 21175 Minnetonka Boulevard, stated he wished this matter to be recorded, and thanked the
Commission for its attention to this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 8 of9
. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision, subject to
Staff Recommendations, and Conditions Set Forth in a Staff Memorandum, dated December 3,
1999, regarding the same case. Motion passed 7/0.
6. REVIEW SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION
Applicant: D.R. Verdoorn (Rep. by Sharratt Design & Co.)
Location: 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 28210 and 28220 Woodside Road. He
noted the applicants proposed splitting off the southerly 11 feet of their lot and conveying it to their son,
who owned the property immediately south at 28220 Woodside Road. Director Nielsen then summarized
the history of the case, as detailed in the Regular City Council Meeting minutes of March 22, 2004. He
noted the presence of a letter from the applicant's attorney dated March 19,2004, from Bruce Malkerson
ofMalkerson, Gilliland, and Martin, LLP, stipulating the desire of the applicant regarding this case.
Lissa Tenuda of Sharratt Design & Co., was present and noted the intent of the applicant to tear down the
old house on the southerly lot.
Borkon moved, Recommending Approval of the Minor Subdivision/Combination for D.R.
Verdoorn, subject to Staff Recommendations. Borkon withdrew her motion.
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, Recommending Approval of the Minor Subdivision/Combination
for D.R. Verdoorn, subject to Staff Recommendations. Motion passed 7/0.
.
7.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a review of the Excelsior Fire District Conditional Use Permit and R-C District
Amendments were slated for the April 20, 2004, Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Agenda.
9. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Conley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 22, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
None.
· Other
.
Council Liaison Turgeon presented a plaque of appreciation, on behalf of the City, to Commissioner
Pisula for his time, talents and efforts on the Planning Commission, and wished him well in future
endeavors.
Commissioner Pisula thanked the City for the plaque and noted a number of bequests for the Commission
in his absence. He stated he enjoyed working with all parties present. Chair Bailey stated he had enjoyed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 6, 2004
Page 9 of9
. working with Commissioner Pisula tremendously, would miss his wisdom, and wished him the best of
luck in the future.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 6,
2004, at 10:06 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Acting Chair Woodruff; Commissioners Borkon, Conley, Gagne, Packard, and White;
Council Liaison Turgeon and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Chair Bailey
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
April 6, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the April 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with White abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
STUDY SESSION
1.
AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS-
EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT RELIEF ASSOCIATION - REVIEW DRAFT
RESOLUTION
Director Nielsen reviewed the history of this request, noting a letter had been received from Michael
McGlennen, property owner on Shorewood Lane, in opposition to the request. Director Nielsen also
noted the presence of Deputy Fire Chief Dana George, Tom Fuxa, and Joe Lugowski of the EFD Relief
Association Dance Committee at tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Gagne questioned whether the Committee had contacted the Tonka Village Shopping
Center regarding parking for the event. Firefighter Fuxa stated an area would be fenced off to prevent
access from the Shopping Center to the site, and further efforts would be made to work the shopping
center.
Commissioner Packard stated she remained concerned about issues pertaining to controlled access, noise
level, and drop-off areas designated or on-site parking to allow for elderly or handicapped attendance at
the dance, and the location of designated no parking areas on nearby streets.
Director Nielsen explained a drop-off location for elderly and handicapped persons would be provided as
well as on-site parking spots. No parking signs were to be designated for Shorewood Lane, Echo Road,
Country Club Road, and Minnetonka Drive as well as along County Road 19. Noise levels were to be
kept to residential noise levels and would be monitored throughout the evening.
Borkon moved, Gagne seconded, Recommended Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Special
Events, subject to Staff Recommendations, for the Excelsior Fire Relief Association at the West
Side Public Safety Facility. Motion passed 6/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
April 20, 2004
Page 2 of 2
.
2. DISCUSS AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FOR THE R-C DISTRICT CONDITIONAL
USES
Director Nielsen explained the Commission had seen most of the proposed reVlSlOns at previous
meetings, and amendments proposed were the same as those found in the Bosworth Planned Unit
Development. One item not previously discussed was the number and area of signs allowed in the R-C
District. The proposed change specified that each site was allowed two signs, including one freestanding
sign, with total signage for each site not to exceed 36 square feet. He also stated a Public Hearing had
been scheduled as part of the May 4, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated four Public Hearings on a Preliminary Plat Review, a Conditional Use Permit for
Telecommunications Facility, a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet and
Zoning Text Ordinance Amendment to the R-C District Conditional Uses, as well as consideration of a
Setback Variance and Variance to Increase Non-Conformity of an Existing Garage and a Sketch Review
for a Proposed Plat were slated for the May 4, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. He also
noted Selection of a Vice-Chair would be part of that agenda as well.
. He also noted a discussion of setbacks near fire lanes would be part of an upcoming Commission meeting
agenda.
5. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Acting Chair Woodruffreported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 12, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report was given.
· Other
No other business was presented this evening.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 2004,
at 8:00 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
~
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 4 MAY 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley (arrived 7:03 P.M.), Gagne, Gniftke, Packard, and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner White
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· April 20, 2004
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Approving the April 20, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - LINDEN IDLLS 2ND ADDN
Applicant: Water Street Homes, LLC
Location: 5940/5950/5960 Lake Linden Court
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing, and noted recommendations from this evening's Agenda would be placed on the May 24,2004,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration and discussion.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant, representatives of Water Street Homes, LLC, proposed
combining three lots in the Linden Hills subdivision, and then splitting the resulting parcel into two
building site. He also noted the property was zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential and contained
approximately 61,371 square feet of area.
Director Nielsen then explained that although the existing lots were recently platted and conformed to the
minimum requirements of the R-IC district, the newly proposed lots were better suited to the size of
homes being built in the Linden Hills subdivision. The new lots would be 30,992 and 30,379 square feet
in area, respectively. Also, since the original Linden Hills plat was so new, the proposed
combination/division of the subject lots had been processed as a formal plat. This eliminated the need for
a public hearing to vacate the drainage and utility easements created with the original plat. It also avoided
unnecessarily long metes and bounds legal descriptions for lots that had already been platted.
He went on to state approval was recommended, subject to the applicant providing an up-to-date (within
30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney, and the final plat being recorded within 30 days of
the Council's approval of the request. Since the request was so simple, it was further recommended that
the applicant be allowed to submit the final plat at the same time the Council considered the preliminary
plat.
Commissioner Conley arrived at 7:03 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 2 of7
. Rick Carlson, owner of Water Street Homes, LLC, stated his company was trying to improve the lots,
topography, and save trees in effort to build a better neighborhood.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M.
In response to Chair Bailey's question, Director Nielsen stated that by increasing the lot size in this case,
houses built on the lots would be more to scale with regard to lot size.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Linden
Hills 2nd Addition, for Water Street Homes, LLC., 5940/5950/5960 Lake Linden Court.
Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion amended the motion to
include Staff Recommendations as well.
Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY
Applicant: T -Mobile USA, Inc.
Location: 5500 Old Market Road (Southeast Water Tower)
This item was reviewed after Item 7, with the remainder of the Agenda for the evening following in
sequential order as presented.
.
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the City Council had authorized T -Mobile to make an application for a
conditional use permit to locate telecommunications facilities at 5500 Old Market Road on Shorewood's
Southeast Area Water Tower. T-Mobile proposed erecting telecommunications antennae around the stem
of the water tower at the level the now bankrupt Metricom had its equipment. They also proposed to use
the fenced in area currently occupied by Metricom's equipment to place their equipment cabinets at the
base of the tower. The proposed antennae would be located around the stem of the water tower
approximately 76 feet high, and the equipment platform would be a little larger than what was currently
on the site, measuring approximately 11' x 20'. Director Nielsen also noted the City's
telecommunications consultant, Owl Engineering, had conducted an intermodulation study, noting the
frequencies complied with EMF standards.
Director Nielsen went on to review the land use and code requirement issues related to the request. He
stated approval of the conditional use permit should be subject to the following:
1. The recommendation of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues.
2. The applicant must enter into the City's lease agreement including provisions for annual
monitoring.
3. Since the applicant was responsible for the removal of the Metricom equipment, Staff was
recommending the current lease rate of $1500 per month, not be increased at this time. There
were provisions for the standard lease agreement for annual rate escalation, based on the CPI or
four percent, whichever was greater.
.
Jess Louk, representing T -Mobile, stated he believed this request would allow both parties to benefit and
T -Mobile had aggressively pursued co-location opportunities through City ordinance for location within
the community. He also explained, in response to Commissioner Gagne's question, that T-Mobile would
incur the cost of removal of the equipment as part of the cost of construction. He also noted the City
would receive the old equipment from the tower.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 3 of7
. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, subject
to Staff recommendations, for a Telecommunications Facility for T -Mobile, USA, Inc., 5500 Old
Market Road (Southeast Water Tower). Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
3.
7:30 P.M. SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE
NONCONFORMITY OF EXISTING GARAGE
Applicant: Thomas Thiss
Location: 6110 Ridge Road
TO INCREASE
Director Nielsen explained the history of this case, noting that in April the City had approved a minor
subdivision of the property at 6110 Ridge Road for the applicant. The original subdivision application
included a variance to the bluff setback requirements for the new lot. A condition of that approval was
that a nonconforming garage on the property would be moved or removed from the property. The
applicant had indicated he would apply for a variance to keep the garage and had now done so.
.
Director Nielsen went on to explain that as noted in his March 5, 2004, Staff report, the garage was
already nonconforming with respect to side yard setbacks. Instead of the required lO-foot side yard
minimum, the garage was only 1.2 feet from the northerly lot line. In addition the nonconformity would
be increased by the subdivision in that it would not comply with the new front yard setback requirement
that would result from the proposed subdivision. Once the new lot line was recorded, the front yard
setback for both lots would become 65 feet measured from the traveled surface of the road (15' + 50' for
private roads). The garage, according to the applicant was 27 feet from the road.
With regard to analysis and recommendation for the case, Director Nielsen stated while the building was
"grandfathered in" with respect to nonconforming side yard requirement, a change, such as the proposed
subdivision, provided the City with the opportunity to correct the nonconformity. Of equal importance
was that the division would not create or increase existing nonconformities. He then cited the City's
zoning code with regard to bringing nonconforming structures into conformity. He also noted the
applicant could demolish the garage from within the structure , and the applicant could also provide a
parking space along Ridge Road as required in other locations in that area. Director Nielsen stated,
removal of the subject garage would ensure that it not be used to allow future structures on the two
adjoining lots to be closer to the road than the desired/required building setbacks would allow.
Thomas Thiss, applicant, stated he was quite concerned that his variance request in the past month had
increased the nonconformity of his garage. He stated he had lived in this location for the past 36 years,
and had been aware of two legal descriptions on this property. He thought language played a key role in
the necessity of the variance since the physical lots had not changed in 56 years; only the legality of
creating two lots had created an ironic situation for him in this case. He went on to state there were only
four houses on his portion of the roadway with daily traffic past his garage. He then submitted a petition
from three of the four families on that stretch of roadway in support of his request.
.
Mr. Thiss also stated it did not make sense to him that he should have to tear down a perfectly good
garage to provide a seeded area, and then pave another 10' x 20' space as a pullout. He stated the only
reason that would remain would be the average setback issue raised by Director Nielsen, and he thought it
very unlikely anyone living on the adjoining properties would want to build around his lots. He further
stated he thought the literal interpretation of the law required flexibility in this case.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 4 of7
. He then requested the Commission consider continuing this request so that he could request legal opinion
in this matter.
Chair Bailey explained the process that would be required should the applicant request a continuation,
noting this action would need to allow for a waiver from Mr. Thiss for the "sixty day rule." Mr. Thiss
responded he would be amenable to waiving the 60 day period in which action needed to be taken on this
matter.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M.
Woodruff moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Continuing this matter to the May 18, 2004,
Planning Commission Agenda at the request of the applicant. Motion passed 6/0.
4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO. FT.
Applicant: O. Dale Larson (Rep. by Sharratt Design & Co.)
Location: 27980 Smithtown Road
.
Director Nielsen explained Sharratt Design, representing the applicant, was in the process of constructing
a new home on the property located at 27980 Smithtown Road. The new house was designed with a
storage area adjoining the garage that technically counted as part of the dwelling. The owner had decided
to make this space part of the garage, and since the area of the space added to the garage would exceed
1200 square feet, the change necessitated a request for Conditional Use Permit. He went on to state the
property was zoned R-IA/S, Single Family ResidentiallShoreland, and contained approximately 44,170
square feet in area. The garage currently contained 1200 square feet in area and would be 1310 square
feet with the proposed change. The proposed home contained 12,700 square feet on three levels.
Director Nielsen stated this request complied with all criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit in this
case.
Mike Sharratt, representing the applicant, stated the exterior size of the garage would not be changed at
all, and the request seemed reasonable in this case.
Seeing no present wishing to speak on this matter, Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for O. Dale Larsen, 27980 Smithtown Road. Motion
passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 7:50 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:00 P.M.
5. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO
R-C DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USES
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
e
Director Nielsen presented the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for the Residential-
Commercial District Conditional Uses, noting changes to the ordinance included in the amendment
pertained to inclusion of daycare facilities, changes in the hours of operation, occasional emergency
dental service, and changes in signage. Two signs per property would now be allowed and illuminated
signs were acceptable in this district with observance of certain conditions as noted in the amendment.
Seeing no one wishing t<? speak on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 5 of7
.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment to the R-C District Conditional Uses. Motion passed 6/0.
6. SKETCH REVIEW - PROPOSED PLAT-SLEEPY HOLLOW WOODS
Applicant: Tradewinds Concept, Inc.
Location: 5610 Grant Lorenz Road
Director Nielsen stated this item did not require any action from the Commission this evening, as all
information necessary for completion of a preliminary plat had not yet been submitted. He stated he
brought this case for review because many comments had been received from the neighbors regarding
drainage issues form the site, and other environmental concerns.
Dewey Carter and Ward Krueger, applicants, reviewed the history of the property, and noted final items
were being prepared for submittal at this time.
7. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Thomas Kelsey
Location: 5705 Smithtown Way
This item was reviewed after Item 1 on the Agenda for the evening.
.
Director Nielsen stated the owner of the property located at 5705 Smithtown Way proposed to subdivide
the lot into two building sites. The property was zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential, was occupied
by the applicant's home and a detached garage, and contained 61,755 square feet in area. The proposed
lots were estimated to be 41,755 square feet and 20,000 square feet in area.
Both of the proposed lots complied with the requirements of the R-IC zoning district, and the building
pads also complied with setback requirements. Director Nielsen also noted that despite the westerly lot
being half the size of the easterly lot, the westerly lot was still considered to be buildable.
Sanitary sewer was available to the new lot, although a new service might have to be constructed upon
application for a building permit. Director Nielsen recommended that the minor division be approved,
subject to the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
6.
The applicants must provide legal descriptions for the proposed lots.
The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet on each side of each lot line.
The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
Items 1-3 must be submitted prior to the request being scheduled for City Council review, but no
later than 30 days.
Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($1500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit had been
given for the lot with the existing house on it.
Since the division itself did not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation could be addressed upon application of building permits
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 6 of7
7. The applicant would likely want to record the subdivision before the existing detached garage
could be removed. If that was to be the case, an estimate of the cost of demolition must be
submitted, from which a letter of credit would be required to guarantee removal within 90 days.
Ingrid Schaff, representing Thomas Kelsey, stated she would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission had of her. She also stated she hoped the Commission would grant this request, and she also
requested both names be added to the resolution for this matter.
In response to Commissioner Gagne's questions, Director Nielsen stated two ofthe five one hundred year
old trees would need to be removed as part of the project.
Ms. Schaff explained the history of the property in response to Commissioner Gagne's question regarding
past ownership of the property.
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision, subject to
Staff Recommendations, for Thomas Kelsey, 5705 Smithtown Way. Motion passed 6/0.
8. NOMINATE CO-CHAIR FOR 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Nominating Donna Woodruff as Co-Chair of the Planning
Commission for 2004.
Commissioner Woodruff graciously accepted the nomination from the Commission for this position.
Motion passed 6/0.
9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained a review of the C-l Zoning District, as well as a Planned Unit Development
and Continuation of the Thiss case heard this evening, were slated for the May 18, Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda.
11. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the April 26, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
No other reports were given at this time.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Page 7 of7
12. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the May 4, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting at
8:40 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Packard, and White; Council Liaison
Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Gniffke and Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
May 4, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the May 4, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO INCREASE
NONCONFORMITY OF EXISTING GARAGE
Applicant: Thomas Thiss
Location: 6110 Ridge Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommending Continuing this matter to the June 1, 2004,
Planning Commission Agenda. Motion passed 5/0.
2. FINAL STAGE PLANS - BOSWORTH P.U.D.
Applicant: Dr. Kelly Bosworth
Location: 6120 and 6140 Lake Linden Drive
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the history of the case, noting the applicant had submitted final plans
for his office site P.U.D. Based on the plans submitted to date, a revised development agreement was
shared for Commission review. Director Nielsen then reviewed the following items with regard to
completion of requested information for the project.
1. A final tabulation of impervious surface to lot area ratio needed to be submitted verifying
that the project would not exceed 66 percent hardcover. Director Nielsen noted these
calculations had recently been submitted for impervious surface, and the calculations
submitted for the north lot, including garage, was 56.84%, and the southerly lot, also
including garage, was calculated at 60.13%, both well within the hardcover maximums
allowed within this zoning district.
2. The landscape plans must be signed by a registered landscape architect. This item was
determined to be an oversight by the landscape architect and would be submitted
promptly.
3. The developer must submit a construction schedule (i.e. site work, buildings, parking lot,
landscaping, etc). While the schedule submitted was a bit abbreviated, Director Nielsen
explained the schedule indicated construction would begin in June of this year, with
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 18, 2004
Page 2 of 4
.
approximately 95% of the project completion being demonstrated sometime in December
of this year. Landscaping plans would then carry into the following spring due to
necessity of the seasons for final completion of the project.
4. The developer must submit bids, or estimates prepared by his engineer and landscape
architect for the costs of the required improvements (e.g. landscaping, paving and
striping).
5. The landscape plan should indicate how the northerly lot will be restored after rough
grading. The northerly lot would be "rough graded" as part of initial construction and
Director Nielsen had requested information demonstrating how that grading would fit into
the presumed construction schedule for the project.
6. Several issues regarding protective covenants remained to be drafted by the applicant's
attorney. These issues included:
. -joint use and maintenance of the common driveway and any shared parking
· -architectural standards for the second building
. -name of the attorney preparing the document
. -include City of Shorewood as a signatory
e
Director Nielsen noted a rough draft of covenants had been received with several items of concern for the
City that remained to be remedied. Director Nielsen then noted changes to the development agreement
document. One remaining issue was the parking requirement for day spas, and a revision had been made
to include net area rather than gross floor area. Signage issues had also been clarified and illuminated
signage provisions restricted hours of illumination to terminate between 9:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. He
also noted the applicant requested park dedication and sewer access charges charged upon construction of
the north lot. However, one unit's fees on initial lot were due at the time of initial construction.
Dr. Kelly Bosworth noted the protective covenants had been submitted with concerns from his attorney
regarding City indemnification issues and "open ended" expenses related to reimbursement of costs.
Further dialogue would be needed to remedy these issues. He also noted his landscape architect, Mark
Kaltsas, was present this evening to discuss issues related to signage.
Mark Kaltsas requested clarification regarding illuminated signage. He stated it was the understanding of
the applicant that illuminated signage would be allowed 24 hours a day. He also noted the applicant's
desire to have signage advertising his business after business hours, as the signage would be located
directly across the street from the nearby commercial area that allowed illuminated signage 24 hours a
day currently. Mr. Kaltsas also stated restrictions to the way the signage could be illuminated would be
welcomed, but the hours of illumination were more critical to the applicant. He also requested the
Commission consider flexibility in additional signage to allow one per tenant or principal use, noting the
total signage would not exceed the total signage provisions found in the ordinance. Since there were three
entrances to the lower level of the building proposed, it was considered critical to have tenants for each
entrance identified on a sign near each of those entrances.
Discussion ensued regarding how additional signage might be provided within the current ordinance
restrictions.
.
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed how indemnification and cost reimbursement issues were handled by
the City in past cases, and noted an estimate could be provided to the applicant for associated costs for the
project.
With regard to the signage issues, and in response to the Commission's question, Dr. Bosworth requested
the Commission consider allowing the signage for the subject property to be illuminated twenty four
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 18, 2004
Page 3 of 4
. hours for advertising purposes, much the same way CUB Foods signage was displayed. Further
discussion and implications related to the exact location of the proposed signage were discussed.
Commissioner Gagne stated, as long as the illumination could be heavily limited from residential view, he
did not see a problem with the request.
Commissioner Packard stated illuminated signage on Lake Linden Drive, despite being across from Cub
Foods, .could still be intrusive to drivers as they approached the more residential areas of Lake Linden.
Mr. Kaltsas explained any signage provided would be small, tactful, and well screened from residential
properties. He requested consideration be given to allowing illuminated signage to remain lit until 12:00
A.M., and would be residential in character.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the history of the development of the R-C District requirements and
purposes of identification versus advertising needs.
Commissioner Conley stated he was concerned about the number of signs potentially being proposed for
both buildings within a zoning district that was designed to be a transitional area, and noted impacts to the
residential area with illuminated signage that he did not consider necessary to the operation of the
business.
.
Commissioner White stated she was in agreement with the need to identify the front building at all times,
and noted the impacts to the residential area would be minimal since the signage would be well screened
from view and would face CUB Foods commercial area.
Chair Bailey stated there were clear hours of operation set forth in the ordinance that designated when
signage could be easily viewed, and it seemed appropriate in this transitional district that the signage
would be shut off once the business operation was concluded for the day.
Gagne moved, White seconded, Recommended Allowing Signage for the property to be illuminated
until 12:00 A.M. daily, with restrictions placed on foot-candle power to be determined by Staff.
Motion failed 2/3, with Bailey, Conley, and Packard dissenting.
Mr. Kaltsas reiterated the applicant's concessions to the City with regard to architectural character, and
reminded the Commission of the difference between an R-C district and a Planned Unit Development and
associated restrictions and opportunities for flexibility found in each planning area.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential for extension of the hours of illumination, and identification of
business tenants for each individual entrance to the buildings. Further discussion ensued regarding
potential hours of building lighting.
Chair Bailey noted concessions had been made by the City with regard to extended hours of operation for
this project and he thought it important that the lighting for the building remained consistent with the
ordinance regarding lighting. Additional discussion ensued regarding allowing additional signage for
each individual entrance to the building.
.
White moved, Gagne seconded, Recommended Allowing One Non-illuminated Three Square Foot
sign on the building for each individual business entrance in addition to the 35 square foot non-
illuminated sign allowed for the property. Motion passed 5/0.
Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Amending the Development Agreement with
respect to illuminated signs being illuminated only during the hours of business stated as 7:00 A.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 18, 2004
Page 4 of 4
. to 9:00 P.M., excluding security lights, and to coincide with parking lot lights being turned offfrom
9:30 P.M. to 6:30 A.M. Motion passed 5/0.
Discussion ensued regarding clarification to the development agreement stipulations.
STUDY SESSION
3. REVIEW C-l. NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE and C-2. AUTO-ORIENTED
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
This item was moved to the June 15,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained a review of the C-l and C-2 Zoning Districts and Auto-Oriented Commercial
Zoning Districts, a discussion on Historic Preservation, as well as Continuation of the Thiss case heard
this evening, were slated for the June 1, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
6. REPORTS
.
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 10, 2004, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
Commissioner Gagne requested updates on fencing and landscaping plans for the County Road 19
project, the car sales lot on Smithtown Road, sound testing of the Public Safety Facility, and the annual
license for the Shorewood Yacht Club.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the May 18, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting at
9:10 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne, Gniftke, Packard, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Turgeon, and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· May 18, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the May 18, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended on Page 3, Item 2, Second Motion, change "signs" to "sign". Motion passed
4/0/2, with Gniffke and Woodruff abstaining, due to absence at that meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SLEEPY HOLLOW WOODS
Applicant: Tradewinds Concepts, Inc.
Location: 5610 and 5650 Grant Lorenz Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in the Public Hearing
process. He also stated items recommended for approval would be placed on the June 14,2004, Regular
City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had submitted plans for the development of 7.05 acres of land
located on the west side of Grant Lorenz Road, approximately 200 feet south of Noble Road. The
applicant proposed subdividing the property into six lots, one of which had an existing home on it.
The property was zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and was characterized by a hill in the northwest
quadrant of the site that dropped off gradually to the west and south and somewhat more steeply to the
north and east. A significant drainage way occupied the east side of the site, running parallel with Grant
Lorenz Road. The site was densely wooded with deciduous trees, especially on the easterly third of the
property.
Director Nielsen went on to explain an existing home occupied the southeasterly portion of the property
with the driveway to that home situated approximately center of the site on Grant Lorenz Road. The
property was bordered on the north and south by single-family residential development, Minnewashta
Elementary School property to the west of the site, and Grant Lorenz Road formed the easterly boundary
of the site.
Director Nielsen then explained the applicant had submitted a preliminary plat for the property with
several items requiring resolution. He further explained how the proposed development complied with
City Code requirements according to issues with the City Zoning Code, the City Subdivision Code, and
Tree Preservation and Reforestation.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1,2004
Page 2 of8
With regard to the Zoning Code, Director Nielsen stated all six lots met the minimum width requirements,
however, Lots 3 and 4 remained half a foot short of the minimum depth requirement. This was
considered minor, and could be corrected in the final plat. Also, he noted, while the City typically did not
advocate all houses be lined up at the minimum front building line, three of the building pads appeared to
be back further on the lots than necessary. The building pads for Lots 5 and 6 were shown 85::!: feet from
the street, and the pad for Lot 2 extended into the required rear yard setback. These pads should be pulled
toward the street to reduce tree loss at the back of the lots and to minimize drainage onto adjoining
properties.
With regard to the Subdivision Code, Director Nielsen went on to explain issues for resolution remained
regarding the proposed street, the grading drainage and erosion control plan, and utilities. The proposed
street width was shown in the plans as being 32 feet in width. Since Shorewood's requirement for street
width was 24 feet in width, a reduction was necessary. Also, while the street was located approximately
10 feet north ofthe driveway for the existing home, it was expected that the existing home would be
accessed from the new street. This driveway should be shown on the grading plan for the project, and a
name for the street should be designated on the preliminary plat.
Several issues of concern remained with regard to the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control plan
submitted by the developer. Specifically, runoff calculations for the site were needed, and a detailed
grading plan showing existing and proposed site contours, low floor elevation, garage floor elevation and
driveway grades should be required. This would help to address drainage concerns and better determine
trees to be lost in the development process. It was further recommended the developer consult with a
builder to make sure that the lots were graded to accommodate the size and style of homes that would
occupy the lots. The developer was also reminded driveway grades should not exceed eight percent.
Further, the developer should have a wetland delineation prepared, identifying any wetlands that may be
subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. Also, while the preliminary plat included drainage and utility
easements around each lot, the plat was not consistent with the grading plan, which also provided
easements for the drainage way and ponding area on the east side of the site.
Director Nielsen recommended the developer's engineers work with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District regarding potential concerns of the District related to the proposed project.
With regard to utilities for the project, sanitary sewer was considered adequate to serve the site. Upon
approval of a final plat, the developer would be required to pay local sanitary sewer access charges
(LSSAC) in the amount of$6000. Credit was given for the lot with the existing home on it. Since city
water was not within reach of the property, the lots would be served by individual wells.
While the City's park plan did not identify a need for additional park land in the vicinity of the plat, the
City might consider requiring a short trail connection between the cul-de-sac and the school property.
This item should be referred to the Park Commission for its review and comment. Park dedication fees
for the project would amount to $7500, with credit being given for the lot with the existing house on it.
Director Nielsen recommended the developer submit a revised tree preservation and reforestation plan,
including tree replacement, prepared by a registered landscape architect or certified forester, along with
the revised, detailed grading plan.
In light of the issues raised herein, preliminary plat approval was not recommended at this time. Because
the issues of wetland/ponding might have some effect on the design of the plat, it was recommended that
a new grading, drainage and erosion control plan, along with a wetland delineation and revised tree
preservation/reforestation plan be submitted by the developer.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1,2004
Page 3 of 8
Charles Melcher, representing the developer, explained he was quite concerned about the time given to
reply to the City's requirements for resolution of outstanding issues. He went on to state there were
several areas within the recommendations stated by the City's consultants, WSB & Associates that made
it difficult to submit a revised grading plan this evening. Specifically, he noted it was physically possible
to achieve the "freeboard" being requested. He further stated there was not a wetland on the site, and all
lots were designated full basement walkouts on the plans previously submitted plans. He requested the
City's Engineer and consulting engineers, review his submitted grading plan within three days and return
it to him for further consideration and additional work prior to Council review at the next Regular City
Council meeting.
Chris Kallstrom, 26335 Noble Road, concerned about the drainageway area and its close proximity to his
basement. He noted the area was quite close to his home in any weather, and especially in wet weather
similar to that of the past month.
William Ruoff, 26365 Noble Road, stated he and his wife had an interest in working with the City and
school district and previous property owner to designate this site as conservation open space, however, it
had recently been sold prior to fruition of that plan. He noted the steep topography sloped toward his
property. He shared photos demonstrating water flow damage in that area, and noted severe water
problems in his home with his sump pump continually running to eliminate and reconstruction of walls on
his property to redirect that water flow from the current property. He also explained Noble Road
currently overflowed the drainage ditch referred to in the applicant's plans. He was concerned for how
the proposed pond would address this issue, and impact surrounding homes in the area.
Mr. Ruoff stated noise pollution and construction inconveniences were quite prevalent with the
developer's most recent construction project in that same area, and he, and other area residents, did not
wish to see the same thing happen in this case. He was also concerned about a breakdown in
communication between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the City regarding
renotification of residents with that most recent construction project, and stated the neighboring residents
wished for closer scrutiny and adherence to the process being utilized for construction in this project. He
noted drainage problems with the Country Club Meadows project, and questioned how those drainage
ponds were working. He also stated he was very concerned about, not only the current water issues for
his house and property, but was also quite concerned about how the new project would impact those
existing issues.
Mary Kelly, 5710 Grant Lorenz Road, stated she did not want a trail near her lot as there was
inappropriate activity on the playground. Also, she noted there was no traffic control or police presence
on Grant Lorenz to assist in speeding issues, and she was concerned for the increase in traffic and speed
on Grant Lorenz should the project move forward. She also questioned how wetlands were determined
on individual properties.
John Hanson, 26435 Noble Road, stated he was also quite concerned about drainage issues in the area,
and he encouraged the City to move slowly to work through this issue that would impact many in the
future. He also stated he thought it important to try to preserve as many trees as possible and maximize
the existing wildlife habitat. He also requested adherence to construction hours and encouraged
timeliness in the project. With regard to the trail, he would appreciate the implementation of a trail to the
school, but did not want the trail to further invite inappropriate activity in the area.
Dewey Carter, 26330 Noble Road, stated he was not the developer for the property on which he resides.
He also explained the MCWD's role in his previous construction activity in the area and noted with the
proposed development, he preferred to maintain a buffer on the north side of the project to help with
privacy issues and any potential drainage concerns that could be mitigated. He expressed his desire to
work with City Staff in a timely manner on this project. He further stated three of the five houses would
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1,2004
Page 4 of8
. be built sooner rather than later. While he could empathize with the residents' concerns, he stated he had
done all that he could to work with the systems set forth for previous construction projects. He further
encouraged area residents to speak with him about the current project and he would do his best to resolve
issues of concern as much as possible. He further stated he would continue to work with City Staff so
that information could be shared clearly and concisely with those that had remaining questions. He stated
he appreciated the time the Planning Commission spent reviewing this project.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne questioned how big the drainage pipes were under Noble Road, and noted concern
for increasing drainage in the area. Regarding the trail to the school, he recommended the trail be paved
and signed with development. He recommended the neighbors call the Chief of the South Lake
Minnetonka Police Department regarding speeding issues.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she was concerned about pond sizing and continued maintenance issues
in the future.
Commissioner White questioned whether the MCWD could specifically delineate the areas about the
wetland. Director Nielsen stated the MCWD needed to send a wetland delineator to the site to
specifically make that determination. Mr. Melcher explained the MCWD's perspective as it related to the
site, stating he believed the drainage would be improved as part of this project.
Commissioner Packard stated she wanted more engineering information about the project.
. Commissioner Gniftke stated he wished to see more communication between the MCWD and the City
and residents. He stated the information presented at the last minute seemed to deserve more scrutiny to
make sure all information presented was correct for all parties involved.
Chair Bailey questioned the timeliness of the consultant's reports. Director Nielsen explained the City's
expectations for reporting and how it related to the preliminary plat review process. He also went on to
explain the technical aspects of the consultant's report related to "freeboard" and drainage issues in the
proposed plans.
In response to Commissioner Packard's question, Director Nielsen explained rate control issues related to
pond sizing, and how these issues impacted the Country Club Meadows project.
In response to the Commission's questions, Director Nielsen reviewed the noise and construction hours
for all parties present.
Commissioner White stated she would recommend as many trees as possible be kept adjacent to the
school for the benefit of the new homeowners. She noted the school fencing needed repair, and she also
stated she preferred any potential trail to the school be placed between lots 2 and 3.
Mr. Melcher briefly explained where trees would be saved on the project specifically related to the swale
area.
.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing on this case to the July 6, 2004,
Planning Commission Meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8: lOP .M. and reconvened at 8: 15 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2004
Page 5 of8
.
2.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR TELECOM FACILITY EOIDPMENT
Applicant: Verizon Wireless, LLC.
Location: 24283 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:16 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained Buell Consulting, Inc., on behalf ofVerizon Wireless, had submitted plans to
add a backup generator to their telecommunications facility, located at 24283 Smithtown Road. In
addition to a cellular tower and telecommunications building on the rear of the property, a used car lot
occupied the front half of the site. Both uses were subject to conditional use permits.
He went on to explain the property was zoned C-3, General Commercial and contained approximately
19,254 square feet of area. Director Nielsen explained the land uses and zoning surrounding the site
included County Road 19 and commercial sites in Tonka Bay to the north; and auto repair shop, zoned C-
3 to the east; Badger Field, zoned RI-C, Single Family Residential to the south; and a convenience store
with gas station, zoned C-3 to the west.
He also noted the proposed generator would occupy a space measuring approximately 3' x 12' and was
situated in a soundproof enclosure and surrounded by a six-foot high, board on board fence.
.
Director Nielsen further explained there were three issues of concern with the request. First, a number of
nonconformities existed with the site and were mostly associated with the car lot. Cars displayed for sale
were parked with no observance of setbacks. He explained it appeared these cars were parked right up to
the front and side lot lines. The parking lot was not curbed, making it difficult to control where display
cars were parked. The repair shop in the middle of the site was a pole barn, which was not allowed under
the current Code.
Noise was the second issue of concern and was considered easier to address. The applicant was required
to do whatever was necessary to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control standards. Director Nielsen
stated it should be noted the site was subject to two different thresholds, one for residential to the south
and a less stringent standard for the adjoining commercial properties. At the residential side of the site,
noise levels could not exceed 65 dba during the day and 55 dba at night. The threshold for the
commercial sides of the site was 70 dba both day and night.
The third issue of concern was screening, and it too, was considered relatively easy to resolve. The site
was already quite well screened from the park side of the site, at least during the "leaf-on" season. The
applicant proposed to add eight arborvitaes along the rear side of the site to enhance screening in winter.
Director Nielsen explained approval of this request should attempt to improve the conformity of the
subject property. He noted while it was impractical to require the existing pole barn to be removed, it
would be a great improvement to have the applicant install perimeter curbing for the parking lot. This
would resolve the setback issue for the display vehicles. The applicant should also be required to submit
a plan, consistent with the County Road 19 intersection plans and consistent with the landscaping
recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study. Since that project would not be completed until
2005, it was recommended the City obtain from the applicant a cash escrow or letter of credit for one and
one-half times the estimated cost of the approved work.
.
John Rowe, of Buell Consulting, Inc., representing Verizon Wireless, LLC, explained there were working
with 21 sites in the metropolitan area. This generator request was in response to various power outages
throughout the country. He presented history of the site with respect to this request, noting this site was
one of the first in the metro. area. The proposed generator would operate one hour per week when there
was no emergency use needed and could be designated for any time that was convenient. The proposed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2004
Page 6 of 8
. enclosure would serve as a sound muffler, and the proposed wooden fence would provide further sound
reduction. Sound testing data submitted by the applicant noted sound levels of 70 dba would occur 11
feet from the generator when running. Mr. Rowe also explained the owner of the site had agreed to
provide new poles, a new building front and a new sign for the property. He noted it was somewhat
difficult to proceed with the requests of City Staff as they related to the onset of construction for County
Road 19.
Seeing no present wishing to speak on this issue, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the
Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M.
Discussion ensued regarding clarification of fencing specifications, curbing requests, and obligations of
the site owner for this request.
White moved, Gagne seconded, Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Telecommunications
Facility Equipment, subject to Staff recommendations, for Verizon Wireless, LLC., 24283
Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19). Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 8:44 P.M.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO INCREASE
NONCONFORMITY OF EXISTING GARAGE
Applicant: Thomas Thiss
Location: 6110 Ridge Road
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the history of this request, noting this item had been continued from the May
18, 2004, Planning Commission at the request of the applicant.
Thomas Thiss, applicant, explained he had consulted with his attorney on this matter. His attorney had
stated it would be difficult to comply with the Code due to the steep topography and narrowness to the
roadway. He noted these issues presented uniqueness and hardship for the request. He shared photos of
the site, noting the garage was built into the hill, thus, making relocation inappropriate. He further
explained a petition had been signed by the neighbors and adjacent propertyowners affirming his request.
Mr. Thiss thanked the Commission for its thoughtful consideration of his accessory structure.
Seeing no one present wishing to address the Commission regarding this case, Chair Bailey closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:52 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he thought Ridge Road presented a unique area in the City with regard to its
topography, narrow roadways and unique lot lines. While he understood the City had rules for certain
purposes, he had difficulty understanding what could be gained by the removal of this garage, and he had
no problem with the structure remaining there.
Commissioner Packard stated she was concerned for setting a precedent in this case. She also noted she
did not consider the garage to be an eyesore, and this case posed a tough situation.
.
Commissioner Gniffke stated he lived in the area, and noted the garage did not bother anyone in the
neighborhood, and he did not have a problem with it remaining there.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she was also concerned for the precedent being set in this case, and based
on previous recommendations related to similar cases, the garage should be removed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2004
Page 7of8
Chair Bailey stated he understood the owner's desire to keep the garage, however, he noted the owner
already had a garage. He stated the laws were clear on issues such as this, and the criteria for variance
was not met in this case. He also noted nearby owners had overcome steep driveways through a variety of
means, such as heating coils in the driveway for wintertime use. He further stated he was concerned
about the lack of side yard setback in this case, as well as setting a new precedent. He stated he thought
the City should be correcting as many nonconforming structures as possible, when opportunity presented
itself.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Denying a Setback Variance and a Variance to Increase the
Nonconformity of Existing Garage for Thomas Thiss, 6110 Ridge Road. Motion passed 4/2, with
Gagne and Gniffke dissenting.
4. MINOR SUBDIVISION / COMBINATION
Applicant: Bill Zucco
Location: 4485 Enchanted Point
Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 4485 Enchanted Point. The City owned a
portion of the property of this site, and Mr. Zucco had requested the City vacate that area of the property.
The City Council granted that request approximately one year ago in exchange for additional right of way
since Enchanted Point was considered such a narrow roadway. The simple subdivision and combination
was not approved at that time, and thus, had necessitated this request. Should the property ever become
developed further, this action would help to bring the property into conformity.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Approving a Minor Subdivision and Combination for Bill
Zucco, 4485 Enchanted Point. Motion passed 6/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
No matters from the floor were
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained issues related to historic preservation, C-l,Neighborhood Convenience and C-
2 Auto-Oriented Commercial Zoning Districts, as well as an Ordinance Amendment for Average
Setbacks were also slated for the June 15, Planning Commission Agenda.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the May 24, 2004, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
There were no other reports given.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 1, 2004
Page 8 of8
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the June 1, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard, White (arrived at 7:07
P.M.) and Woodruff; Council Liaison Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· June 1, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the June 1, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
1.
DISCUSS mSTORIC PRESERVATION
Director Nielsen explained he had the good fortune to locate a map and descriptive list of historic sites in
Shorewood from the 1970's designating various locations within the City considered historic in
significance at that time. He stated this map provided an initial discussion point for the Commission on
the issue of historic preservation, however, it was important to note that many of these sites were no
longer present, and some were inaccurate according to the information specified on the map and
associated descriptive list.
He then reviewed the list and map for the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the best way to
approach this topic as it related to zoning and variance issues. After much discussion, the Commission
agreed to request Staff to contact the Excelsior Historical Society for further information on the area's
relevant sites, and continue to develop an inventory of current sites, considered "historic", within the City
of Shorewood. Director Nielsen also stated he would contact a number of local historians in the City,
arrange for a tour of prospective historic sites, and speak with other staff in cities regarding determining
criteria for historic significance, as well as a process to evaluate how ordinances impact the preservation
of actual historic sites.
2. REVIEW C-l. NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE and C-2. AUTO-ORIENTED
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Director Nielsen explained he was quite concerned about the regulations associated with the C-2, Auto-
Oriented Commercial Zoning District as the need for this sort of district no longer existed within the City
and the regulations were outdated. He shared two potential options for dealing with the zoning
regulations if incorporated into other existing zoning districts. Director Nielsen also noted a mini-storage
facility would be suitable within a different zoning district as a conditional use.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 15,2004
Page 2 of3
. After a brief discussion, the Commission indicated consensus for eliminating the C-2, Auto-Oriented
Commercial Zoning District, and moving the use associated with mini-storage facilities to a R-C,
Residential-Commercial district, with specific restrictions to the particular site located within the City.
Director Nielsen stated the other Commercial Zoning Districts would be reviewed on a different meeting
of the Planning Commission. The Commission also agreed with Director Nielsen that the Commercial
Zoning Districts map required updating to be accurate in depicting the current Commercial zoning sites
within the City.
3. REVIEW AVERAGE SETBACK REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen explained the definition for the zoning term "average setback" and its associated
regulations. He also reviewed a proposed zoning code text amendment related to adjacent residential
structures, and how the average setback would be determined for these structures. He stated the proposed
draft would read as follows, with the proposed change in italics:
.
1201.03, subd.3.d., 4.c. d. Where adjacent residential structures within the same block
have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback
shall be the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback
of the adjacent structure. This provision shall apply to like structures. For example, a
principal structure (i.e., house) or lesser structure (i.e., deck or garage) may be located
at the average setback line of the two adjacent principle structures. Garages may extend
to the average front setback line when garages or principal structures on the two
adjacent lots are closer to the front property line than setbacks will allow. In no case
shall the required front yard setback exceed that required minimum established within the
districts of this Ordinance.
After review of the definition and associated discussion, the Commission expressed concern for a
tendency in building construction to have structures of maximum mass and scale on a lot, or located
within a residential neighborhood, that did not necessarily support such a large structure. Director
Nielsen stated he believed the proposed draft change and associated regulation would help to guarantee
minimum setbacks, preserve open space, and preserve uniformity in distance along the street side of lots
and he would return with additional language related to the issues of scale for further consideration of this
issue by the Commission.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained a continuation of the Sleepy Hollow preliminary plat; a Conditional Use
Permit request, and a Simple Subdivision were slated for the July 6, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda.
6. REPORTS
.
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 14, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
June 15, 2004
Page 3 of3
· SLUC
No report was given.
· Other
Council Liaison Turgeon stated she was quite proud to have worked with all parties present and .thanked
the Commission for her time spent in working with the Commission in recent months. She complimented
the Commission on its members' conscientiousness, dedication, and thoughtfulness given to each
applicant and issue brought before the Commission.
Chair Bailey, on behalf of the Commission, thanked Council Liaison Turgeon for her efforts and
continued support of the Commission.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 15,
2004, at 8:34 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard, and White; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Woodruff and Council Liaison Garfunkel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· June 15, 2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Approving the June 15, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SLEEPY HOLLOW WOODS
Applicant: Tradewinds Concepts, Inc.
Location: 5610 and 5650 Grant Lorenz Road
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He also explained any items recommended for approval this evening would be placed on the July 26,
2004, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration and discussion.
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the history in this case, noting this Public Hearing was a continuation
from the June 1, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. He also stated he had tried to contact
Minnewashta Elementary School regarding potential trail access to school grounds, but had not heard
word from school officials on the matter. He went on to explain how new information had been
submitted to address prior issues of concern. Specifically he explained the depths for Lots 3 and 4 had
been increased to 150 feet. The proposed building pads had been placed to maximize tree preservation.
Since the pad on Lot 5 was back further than setbacks required, Director Nielsen stated, particular
attention should be paid to the three trees being preserved in the front of that lot. The pad for Lot 2 had
been moved to comply with the rear yard setback requirement. In addition, the proposed street had been
reduced in width to 24 feet, consistent with City standards, and the street had yet to be named. He
reminded the developer to choose a name that was not too close to any existing street within the Excelsior
Fire District.
.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the City's engineering consultant, WSB, had addressed the revised
grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. He stated it was worth noting that the drainage swales
proposed on the north and south sides of the site would alleviate surface water runoff to adjoining
properties. To the extent that drainage problems on properties to the north were a result of subsurface
drainage (e.g. perched water table), the plat would have no impact, positive or negative. Furthermore, the
developer had submitted a report from Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, stating that there
were no jurisdictional wetlands on the site.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the final plat for this project should include drainage and utility
easements at minimum 10 feet along each side of each lot line. In addition, easements should be provided
over the proposed drainage swales and ponding area. He noted the developer had included a bituminous
trail between Lots 2 and 3 in the project. The width of the trail should be reduced from eight feet to six
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 2 of7
. feet. Since the trail bent around a stand of trees to be preserved, additional trail easement would then be
necessary on Lot 3.
.
.
The tree preservation/reforestation plan still needed work. While the plan appeared to locate and illustrate
significant trees on the site, many of them were not identified by size and specie. Proposed reforestation
included a series of boulevard trees, located in the public right-of-way. These should be moved onto the
individual lots. Also, the plan introduced a number of Black Hills Spruce, ten of which were located on
the north side of the site. Director Nielsen stated, while he was aware a certified forester had been
involved with the plans, the plans did not include a signature. A final plan should be signed by a forester
or registered landscape architect. The plan should also specify tree sizes, including deciduous trees a
minimum of three-inch caliper, and evergreen trees at least six feet high.
Director Nielsen also stated a letter had been received from Skjervold Law Office regarding opposition to
unrestricted trail access to the Minnewashta School property.
Director Nielsen stated, subject to the suggestions discussed, and those of WSB, approval of the
preliminary plat was recommended. He noted, should this matter be recommended for approval, the
developer must submit a complete final plat, including construction plans and specifications, and
estimates for all site improvements, including reforestation, within six months of the Council's approval
of the preliminary plat.
Charles Melcher, of Quality Site Design representing the applicant, stated a registered forester had been
involved in the plans, and his signature would be added to the plans, as well as a list of trees and sizes had
been supplied. He stated he had conducted a site visit with regard to site drainage and its impact to homes
in the surrounding area. He noted the culvert on the west side of Noble Road seemed to be approximately
half full of dirt, and he believed with that dirt removed, the drainage would respond appropriately in that
area. With regard to the drainage impacts to the houses on the south side of Noble Road, he believed
there had been some retaining wall failure potentially due to improper installation of the wall itself. He
detailed the appropriate process to be utilized in construction of a retaining wall. He stated, in this case,
he believed the drainage to be site specific and if the City would work with the homeowners having
difficulty with drainage, he thought the issues could be resolved. The issues of concern that WSB and
Associates had raised with grading, he believed to be valid and the site plan demonstrated grading plans
in response. He stated overflow plans were in place currently as part of the project, and the path to the
Elementary School had been requested.
John Hanson, 26435 Noble Road, stated he was concerned for the drainage in the area of the project as he
lived on the south side of Noble Road, and he cautioned the developer to have the rate of flow no higher
than current standards as he believed it imperative the drainage from the site flowed appropriately. He
then shared photos of drainage in the area, noting that the site and surrounding area had flooded twice in
the past three years.
Chris Kahlstrom, 26335 Noble Road, stated he believed the City was quite aware of the residents'
concerns about drainage in that area, and stated he had taken video footage of the area and sent it to the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for remedy. In response to his question regarding the responsibility
of the drainage in the area, Director Nielsen stated it was the City's responsibility to clear and maintain
the culvert.
William Ruoff, 36265 Noble Road, stated the culvert in the project area frequently overflowed in the
spring thaw. With regard to the drainage and the retaining wall, he believed there was an underground
spring behind the wall that was potentially responsible for contributing to the failure of the wall structure.
He questioned where the first houses to be constructed were to be located on the plans. He also expressed
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 3 of7
. concern for having the trees cut to the property line, noting it would helpful to have some sort of buffer
remaining between the new project and surrounding homes.
Dewey Carter, applicant, 26330 Noble Road, presented a letter to the Commission detailing the drainage
in that area from his property in order to provide perspective to the drainage issues for the project. He
stated because Lot 6 would include the house with a retaining wall, construction would take place on that
lot first in order to give that area the appropriate care in construction since the area was considered the
more delicate area in the project. He stated he would take care of the swale issues on Lot 5 for the
resident to the north. He stated he was adamant about maintaining the trees throughout the lots, and
wanted to maintain a buffer of approximately 20 to 25 feet from the property lines. He stated he
appreciated all the time and efforts Staff and the Commission had given to this project.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
Commissioner Packard questioned the negative reactions to a trail to the Elementary School being part of
the project. Commissioner White explained some residents were concerned for inappropriate activities
taking place on the trail or playground area of the school grounds. She went on to question whether the
trail could be moved to a different, perhaps safer, entrance to the school grounds, so that access to the
playground area would be clear to people on the playground. She also requested an entrance, either gated
or walkthrough be part of the plans for the trail access to the school grounds.
.
Chair Bailey questioned whether Director Nielsen could discuss these issues with the school officials and
let the school decide on the exact placement of the trail within the plans. Mr. Melcher stated that would
not pose a problem to the proposed plans, however, he would like to see the issue addressed prior to the
final plat being approved.
With regard to the walkout style house being proposed on Lot 5, Chair Bailey questioned who would be
responsible for swale maintenance and related easements for the drainage swale and ponding for the
development. He also questioned what repercussions would be had should the perched water table be
disrupted in construction of this project. Director Nielsen explained al homes being constructed should
certainly be built with drain tile. He did not believe the construction should disrupt the perched water
table in this case, as the rate of drainage would not be allowed to increase, only the volume of water
leaving the site.
Gagne moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of the Preliminary Plat, subject to Staff
Recommendations, as well as obtaining direction for placement of the trail to Minnewashta School in
writing, for Sleepy Hollow Woods for Tradewinds Concepts, Inc., 5610 and 5650 Grant Lorenz Road.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M., and recessed the meeting at 7:46 P.M. He
reconvened the meeting at 7 :48 P.M.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SMITH MANOR PARK
Applicant: Smith Partners, Inc.
Location: 5125 Suburban Drive
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the request, stating that Smith Partners, Inc. had arranged to
purchase the lot at 5125 Suburban Drive and proposed to subdivide it into two lots. The property was
zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 40,840 square feet of area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 4 of7
. A single-family home, a detached garage and a barn currently occupied the site. A looped driveway
provided access to the site from Suburban Drive. The existing home was situated at the high point of the
site, and the property dropped off to a low spot to the north. A small area on the southerly side of the site
dropped off to a pond located in Manor Park to the south of the subject property. The property was fairly
open, with the exception of a stand of poplar and elm trees along the westerly boundary of the property.
Further, he explained the developer proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and build two
new single-family homes on the lots.
Director Nielsen went on to explain this property was previously divided, at which time the owner sold
approximately one-half acre of land to the City to be combined with Manor Park. Since the Shorewood
Subdivision Code allowed only one minor subdivision per property, this division was being processed
through a formal platting process.
Lot 1 would have 20,091 square feet of area and Lot 2 would have 20,750 square feet, both meeting the
minimum area requirement for the R-1C zoning district. The lots also complied with minimum width and
depth requirements.
Existing trees on the lot were not affected by the subdivision itself. Therefore tree preservation and
reforestation could be addressed at the time someone applied for a building permit.
It was recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following:
.
1.
The final plat must include the description "Block 1".
2. Drainage and utility easements must be provided, 10 feet on each side of the newly created lot
line. In addition, the applicant had been advised to provide a conservation easement for the
portion of the pond buffer area that extended onto the subject property.
3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for the property.
4. It was not required that the existing house be removed. However, the barn on the Lot 1 must be
removed, and the northerly driveway loop must be eliminated. If the applicant proposed to record
the final plat before these items could be completed, he should provide cost estimates for the
demolition, from which a letter of credit for one and a half times the estimate must be provided.
5. Prior to release of a final plat for the subdivision, the applicant must pay $1500 in park dedication
fees and $1200 in local sanitary sewer charges. Credit had been allowed for the lot with the
existing home on it.
6. The applicant had requested the preliminary plat and final plat be processed together. This was
acceptable, provided all of the final plat submission requirements (including Mylar drawings)
were met by the time the application went to the City Council. In any event, the applicant must
submit the final plat within six months of the Council's approval of the preliminary plat. Once a
final plat had been approved, the applicant must record it within 30 days of Council approval.
.
Philip Smith, 26000 West Lafayette Road, Orono, and representing Smith Partners Incorporated, stated
the items Director Nielsen had discussed were accurate and Smith Partners Incorporated would be taking
action as directed on these items.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 5 of7
. The Commission requested clarification on a number of items discussed by Director Nielsen. Mr. Smith
stated his plans were to demolish the existing structure as directed and start construction in late August
with the second lot to the north lagging behind the construction on the southerly lot.
Packard moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat, subject to Staff
recommendations, for Smith Manor Park for Smith Partners, Incorporated, 5125 Suburban Drive.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M.
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CU.P. FOR PROPANE GAS DISPENSER
Applicant: John Townsend
Location: 5680 County Road 19 (Tonka Bayt)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant and operator of Tonka Bayt at 5680 County Road 19 had applied
for a conditional use permit for a propane refill station on the north side of the property. His request was
explained in his letter, dated 1 June 2004, submitted to the Planning Department. His letter included a
photo of a standard propane refilling station and information that demonstrated how the tank would be
situated on the site.
.
He went on to explain the subject property was zoned C-3, General Commercial and contained
approximately 15,000 square feet of area. Land use and zoning surrounding the property area included a
retail carpet store, zoned C-3 to the north; County Road 19, then Tonka Village Shopping Center in
Tonka Bay; zoned commercial to the east; Smithtown Road, then Minnetonka Country Club; zoned R-IA
to the south; and the American Legion; zoned C-3 to the west.
Director Nielsen explained the current use of the property was a gas station/convenience store. A one-
story building was located on the west side of the site, with gas pumps on the County Road 19 side. At
present the site was nonconforming, in that the circulation and parking areas were not curbed and striped.
Ingress and egress from the site was currently wide open on both the Smithtown Road and County Road
19 sides of the property. He also explained gas stations were allowed by conditional use permit in the C-3
zoning district.
Director Nielsen then reviewed Section 1201.21 SubdA.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code, with regard to
the conditions of the Code. He stated the request complied with these conditions and approval was
recommended, subject to the following:
1. The applicant must provide estimates or bids for the landscaping and curbing improvements.
From these estimates, a letter of credit for one and one-half times the amount of the bids must be
provided. The letter of credit must extend to the end of 2005 or until the improvements have
been completed, whichever occurred first.
2. The applicant must address signage. If new signs were proposed relative to the new propane
service, they must be included in the overall sign plan for the site. Sign permits would be subject
to Council review and approval.
. 3. Plans for the propane tank refill area must be approved by the Fire Marshal.
4. The resolution approving the conditional use permit should specify that all landscaped areas
would be continually maintained (e.g. irrigation and replacement of dead plants).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 6 of7
.
He also explained the applicant's request was viewed as an opportunity to improve some of the zoning
deficiencies currently present on the site and enhance the visual appearance of the comer. Some of the
site improvements associated with the request, he went on to explain, must be delayed pending
construction of the County Road 19 intersection. He recommended the maj ority of the landscaping, with
the possible exception of the southwest comer of the property, should be completed sooner rather than
later with regard to the project. Also, a letter of credit should be required to guarantee completion.
John Townsend, 4235 Circle Road, Bloomington, Minnesota, stated he had no problem with providing
landscaping to the site, but he believed the fence would be problematic as it would collect trash. He also
thought the fencing placed in the front of the tank would create issues when refueling the tank and would
be subject to breakage.
Discussion ensued regarding the necessity of fencing and landscaping of the propane tank proposed for
the site.
Commissioner Conley stated two issues seemed to require consideration in this case, specifically the
realities of refilling the tank should a fence be placed around all sides of the tank, and also how the site
would look and function the remainder of the time on site. He thanked Director Nielsen and Staff for
sensitivity to the site planning and aesthetics in this case. He also stated he thought the tank was
industrial looking and would contradict the landscaping of the project and the intersection project overall.
He further stated he would be in support of screening of the tank and the use of fencing around the tank as
well.
. Discussion ensued regarding possibilities of placement related to the gas station structure and the need for
marketing of the propane on site. In response to Commissioner Conley's question regarding access to the
tank, Mr. Townsend explained persons wishing to access the tank for propane use would be required to
access the tank through a control box that could potentially be placed at the end of the tank rather than
along the side. Mr. Townsend stated he would need to check the regulations for placement in relation to
the building. He also stated he would be willing to cut the size of the tank in half (from 1000 gallons to
500 gallons).
Commissioner Gniffke stated he would like to see the tank moved closer to the building in parallel
position to the north side of the building, and include landscaping around the tank perimeter.
Mr. Townsend stated he thought the marketing aspect of the tank could be handled and he was receptive
to the idea of moving the tank in a parallel fashion to the building with the control box being located at
the end facing the street. He stated he would check with the Fire Marshal regarding this potential
placement. He stated he would prefer more landscaping rather than the inclusion of fencing in the
conditions for approval.
Director Nielsen suggested this case be placed on the July 20, 2004, Study Session Agenda for the
Planning Commission to allow for these issues to be resolved.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Continuing this case to the July 20, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda. Motion passed 6/0.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 6, 2004
Page 70f7
4.
SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER ENTRANCE
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Location: 23600 Highway 7
Director Nielsen explained this item has been postponed to a meeting in August at the request of the
applicant.
Commissioner Gagne requested an update on the trail section missing from the Lake Linden Trail.
Director Nielsen explained that trail section would be installed in the near future.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated a discussion on average lake shore setback regulations and a continuation of the
Public Hearing on the request for Conditional Use Permit for a Propane Gas Dispenser was slated for the
July 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 28, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner Liaison to Council were suggested as followed for the remainder of the year.
. July
. August
. September
. October
. November
. December
Commissioner Gagne
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner Gniffke
Commissioner White
To be announced
To be announced
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
No other reports were given.
8. ADJOURNMENT
White moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the July 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting at
8:34 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley (arrived 7:08 P.M.), Gagne, Gniffke, White and
Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Garfunkel
Absent:
Commissioner Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· July 6, 2004
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the July 6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 3/0/2, with Woodruff and Bailey abstaining due to absence at
that meeting.
.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR PROPANE GAS DISPENSER
Applicant: John Townsend
Location: 5680 County Road 19 (Tonka Bayt)
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting this item had been continued from the July
6, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. He briefly reviewed the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing,
and also noted this item, if recommended for approval, would be placed on the July 26, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting Agenda for further consideration and discussion.
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the history of the case, and shared photos of sites around the
metropolitan area that included a propane tank surrounded by screening and landscaping similar in
composition to the recommendation made in this case at the last Planning Commission meeting. He
summarized information from the Fire Marshal that stated the proposed propane tank must be situated 10
feet from the building or property line for a 500 gallon propane tank, and must be situated 25 feet from
the building or property line for a 1,000 gallon propane tank. Director Nielsen explained the Fire Marshal
also stated the proposed tank could be buried underground with the control box above ground. He further
explained the applicant had indicated a willingness to bury the tank, thus, making the screening and
fencing issues around the tank a mute issue.
In response to questions from the various Commissioners, Director Nielsen explained the tank, if buried,
would need to comply with the Fire Marshal regulations stated previously with regard to location and
size. The tank also would not pose any issues with the water table in that area, and landscaping, in
keeping with the County Road 19 Intersection project, would still remain as part of the plan for that
proj ect.
. Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of the Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a Propane Gas Dispenser, subject to a 1000 gallon tank being buried, and landscaped
according to Staff recommendations, and the control panel landscaped as well, for John Townsend,
5680 County Road 19 (Tonka Bayt).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 20, 2004
Page 2 of3
. Commissioner Gagne stated he had requested the 1000 gallon tank for the site to alleviate additional truck
traffic to the site to refill the propane tank.
Commissioner Conley arrived at 7:08 P.M.
Motion passed 6/0.
STUDY SESSION
2. DISCUSS mSTORIC PRESERVATION
Director Nielsen explained he had spoken with a person at the Minnesota Historical Society that agreed to
speak to the Commission regarding historic preservation issues related to the Shorewood area. This
person was quite knowledgeable about the area and local ordinances. Director Nielsen stated he would
attempt to arrange for this speaker to attend the August 3,2004, Planning Commission Meeting to speak
on the topic of historic preservation.
3. DISCUSS AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK REGULATIONS
.
Director Nielsen presented a potential list of items for inclusion in regulations related to average
lake shore setback issues. These items included a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approach where a
Public Hearing would be held, with additional Planning Commission Review, and City Council approval
as part of the CUP process. He also explained these potential regulations would be limited to principal
dwellings or decks. There would be a size relationship detailed to include height and area restrictions.
Additional conditions included additional landscaping, architectural compatibility, and character of the
neighborhood. He noted the proposed regulation items would only apply from the encroachment line
forward for properties having lakeshore.
With regard to the rationale or impetus for these regulations, Director Nielsen stated it was important to
preserve views of the lake from an aesthetic standpoint, as well as preserving appropriate setbacks.
Discussion ensued regarding many possibilities about how to simplify the regulation issues including
limiting the setback to a "flat" 50 feet without exception, as well as setting potential default setback
regulations.
Commissioner Conley suggested revlSlng the proposed list of setback regulation items to allow
encroachment no greater than the smaller of two flanking properties.. He also stated architectural
compatibility would be part of any house plans proposed by virtue of its purpose and would not need to
be a specific separate part of the regulations.
The Commission agreed with the changes suggested by Commissioner Conley.
Director Nielsen stated he would incorporate the suggestions into more definitive language for a proposed
draft of both average lake shore and front yard setback regulations that would be presented to the
Commission in an upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
e
There were no matters
the floor
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
July 20, 2004
Page 3 of 3
5.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained there was a Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Two
Dwellings on One Lot Temporarily, and a Site Plan Review, as well as a discussion on Historic
Preservation slated for the August 3,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 12,2004, Regular City
Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
Director Nielsen explained the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUe) was holding a Summer Riverfront
Soiree on July 28,2004 with an Informal Presentation from 4:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. and a Reception from
4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. about exciting new riverfront development in Minneapolis. This event was being
held at the Nicollet Island Pavilion in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
· Other
No other reports were presented.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
White moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the July 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting at
8:20 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. in the absence of Chair Bailey.
Present:
Acting Chair Woodruff; Commissioners Conley, Gniffke, and Packard; Council Liaison
Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Gagne and White
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· July 20, 2004
Conley moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the July 20, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended, on Page 2, Item 3, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1, change "to include the average
footprint areas of the two adjacent structures, rather than the average area of two adjacent
structures" to "to allow encroachment no greater than the smaller of the two flanking properties."
Motion passed 3/0/1, with Packard abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1.
7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. TO ALLOW TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT
TEMPORARILY
Applicant:
Location:
Chris and Gretchen Sebald
20625 Garden Road
Acting Chair Woodruff opened the Public Hearing at 7 :09 P.M. She reviewed the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing noting the Planning Commission was a recommending body for the City Council in
planning issues.
Director Nielsen explained in February of 2000, Chris and Gretchen Sebald, 20265 Garden Road, were
granted a conditional use permit allowing them to leave their existing home in place while they
constructed a new home on the property. The Sebald's did not use the C.U.P. within one year and it had
since expired. They had now decided to go forward with the project and had requested that the C.U.P. be
approved once again.
He went on to explain the history of the case and noted the issues associated with this request remained
the same as in the original report. Director Nielsen stated the subject property was zoned R-1A, Single-
family Residential and contained 44,885 square feet of area. The property was currently occupied by the
Sebald's existing house and two detached garages. They intended to live in the existing house while a new
home was being built. Once the new house was completed, the old one would then be demolished. The
two garages located on the east side of the lot were both nonconforming. The southerly garage extended
over the east property line, and based upon the proposed site plan, the northerly one would be removed.
There was some indication from the plan, however, that the southerly of the two garages may remain.
Director Nielsen also explained that the applicant's were informed that the garage either needed to be
removed or brought into conformity with the current Zoning Code. He went on to explain that in 2000, as
part of the original request, the Zoning Code was amended and the Sebald's application was the first to be
processed under the amended Code. (A copy of City Council Resolution No. 00-019 is attached for
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 3, 2004
Page 2 of6
additional review.) Director Nielsen concluded by stating approval was recommended subject to the
conditions previously imposed in the original request for c.u.P. Those conditions were stated as
followed:
a. The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house.
b. Prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy, the applicants must provide the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house would be
removed and the site restored.
c. The existing house and outbuildings must be removed within six months of the applicant
receiving a building permit for the new house. If the northerly garage was to be kept it must be
moved to the west to comply with the lO-foot side yard setback for the R-lA zoning district.
Gretchen Sebald, applicant, stated she agreed with the presentation of the case by Director Nielsen,
however, her only concern was that her builders had indicated construction would take approximately 6
months time. This schedule could potentially cause problems due to weight restrictions being imposed on
local roadways in the spring when construction was to be completed, and demolition would occur. She
also stated the house had been moved further back into the site to allow construction to occur without
impact to trees and existing vegetation.
Acting Chair Woodruff closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
In response to a question from the Commission, Ms. Sebald stated the southerly garage was something
she and her husband had considered keeping on the site, perhaps moving it behind the evergreens in the
current vicinity of the garage. She stated they understood the garage would need to be moved to a
location that would allow it to be in conformity or the garage would need to be removed.
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Request for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow Two Buildings on One Lot Temporarily, subject to the demolition and removal of
the current house before May 31, 2005, and the Southerly Accessory Building be moved into
Conformance or Removed from the site, and all conditions of the previous application being met.
Motion passed 4/0.
2. SITE PLAN REVIEW - SHOREWOOD VILLAGE CENTER ENTRANCE
Applicant: Shorewood Village Shopping Center
Location: 23600 Highway 7
Director Nielsen explained this item had been continued from the July 20, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting. He explained representatives of the Shorewood Village Shopping Center had requested site
plan approval to reconfigure the Center's southeast entrance near the intersection of State Highways 7 and
41. At present, this entrance was intended to be a right-in only, with the main entry/exit to the site west of
the intersection, directly in front of the CUB Foods store. He noted the southeast entrance had confused
motorists and posed safety problems when traffic attempted to exit the site from that location. Signage
had proven relatively ineffective in preventing people from exiting there. In addition to improving the
safety ofthe site, the Center had hoped to provide a more convenient entry and exit for the east side of the
Center, particularly since there was intention to locate a drug store on the property in that area in the near
future. He then reviewed the Center's proposal, noting the existing right-in would remain where it was
currently locate, but would appear to be slightly narrower, with a new curb cut, thereby allowing cars to
enter and exit directly north of the 7 and 41 intersection. Director Nielsen stated this configuration was
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 3, 2004
Page 3 of 6
favored by the City Engineering Staff at the time the CUB Foods store development was being proposed,
however, MNDOT did not. He then stated this proposal had been referred to WSB, the City's
Engineering Consultants for preliminary review. WSB had suggested a "t" style entrance design, with
signage noting a right turn only onto Highway 7 as well as signage alerting motorists that vehicles
entering the site would not need to stop.
Commissioner Packard expressed concern for the two end parking stalls on the southerly side of the
proposed entrance. She stated should cars be parking in those stalls, particularly with any increase in
traffic to a new drug store, it seemed to create a safety hazard as cars would potentially be backing up
with traffic entering the site through the proposed entrance without needing to stop.
Commissioner Conley suggested flattening the "hooked" area on the northerly side of the entrance as well
to allow for smoother ingress and egress maneuvering. He noted this would most likely remove the
current three parking spots designated in that area. Director Nielsen explained the number of parking
spots was not as critical since a reduction in Center size planned for the near future would likely allow for
a lesser number of stalls on the site as per City ordinance.
Gniffke moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Approval of the Site Plan, subject to resolution
of the safety concerns stated with the northerly and southerly sides of the proposed entrance for
Shorewood Village Shopping Center, 23600 Highway 7. Motion passed 4/0.
3. mSTORIC PRESERVATION DISCUSSION
Director Nielsen presented a map and list of 83 historic properties found with the City still in existence
since 1900. He stated the choice for establishing a historic point of 1900 was arbitrary in this issue. He
stated he had little luck in dealing with the Historical Society to have a speaker present this evening for
the Commission.
Discussion ensued regarding the process to be utilized in reviewing historic properties within the City.
The Commission indicated consensus for touring the City to view some of these historic properties in
effort to begin development of criteria for historic preservation purposes in the near future.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no Inatters
the floor
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained a tour of historic properties within the City was slated for the August 17,
2004, Planning Commission Meeting. This meeting would involve a bus tour for the Commissioners and
Staff beginning at 6:00 P.M. at City Hall. Food would be provided on the bus.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gagne was not present this evening to provide the report on the most recent City Council
meeting.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 3, 2004
Page 4 of 6
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
No other reports were given.
7. ADJO~ENT
Packard moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the August 3, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
at 7:53 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 3, 2004
Page 5 of 6
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 00-019
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT
FOR CHRIS AND GRETCHEN SEBALD
WHEREAS, Chris and Gretchen Sebald (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at
20625 Garden Roads in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A (the
Property), attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to live in the existing house on the property while a new
house is being constructed on the same lot; and
WHEREAS, Shorewood's Zoning Code limits the number of homes on a single-family lot to
one, except by conditional use permit, and whereas the Applicants have requested such a conditional use
permit; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations
were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 31 December 1999, which
memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by
the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 4 January 2000, the minutes of which meeting are on
. file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on
24 January 2000, at which time the Planner's memorandum, and the minutes of the Planning Commission
were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Property is located in an R -1 A, Single-family Residential zoning district and
contains approximately 44,885 square feet of area.
2.
3.
district.
That the property is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling and two outbuildings.
That the new home will comply with all setback requirements of the R -1 A zoning
CONCLUSION
A. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Conditional Use Permit under
Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) and Section 1201.04 ofthe Shorewood City Code.
B. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants' request for a
Conditional Use Permit to keep the existing dwelling on the property, while a new home is being built,
subject to the following conditions:
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 3, 2004
Page 6 of 6
1.
The Applicants must provide an estimate from a licensed contractor of the cost to remove the
existing dwelling. Prom this estimate the City will require a cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 150% of the estimate to insure that the structure will be removed within a specified
time.
2. The Applicants shall provide the cash escrow or letter of credit referenced in 1. above to the City
at the time a building permit is issued for the new dwelling.
3. The Applicants must use the Conditional Use Permit by 24 January 2001. The existing dwelling
on the property shall be removed from the property within six months of the time that a building
permit is issued for the new dwelling.
4. The Applicants must remove the nonconforming accessory buildings currently located on the
property prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling. The southerly
accessory building may be moved on the property in compliance with R -1 A setback
requirements.
D. That the City Clerk furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording
purposes.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day ofPebruary
2000.
WOODY LOVE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRADLEY J. NIELSEN, ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 17,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 6:08 P.M.
Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard, and Woodruff; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Also present: City Staff member Julie Moore
Absent: Commissioner White and Council Liaison Garfunkel
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
August 3, 2004
This item was moved to the September 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
1. TOUR SITES OF mSTORIC INTEREST
Director Nielsen explained the Commission would be touring some of the 83 historic sites within the City
dating from 1900 for study of historic preservation issues slated as part of the Commission' s Work
Program for 2004. He presented a map to the Commission noting the sites to be visited this evening. He
went on to explain the historic dates related to these sites had been researched from County Assessor's
records, as well as several other historical books on the area. The Commission then toured various
historic properties within the City. A list of properties and notes related to those properties has been
attached for historicity purposes.
Highlights of discussion related to the tour included consideration of a plaque for the Old Eureka Store
area to potentially be placed near the LRT trail, and how best to provide incentives for people wishing to
preserve the historical value of their property. The Commission thanked Commissioner Gagne for his
fine driving skills and City Staff for their thorough planning for the tour.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained two public hearings related to request for Variance to Setback and Expansion
of a Non-Conforming Structure and a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square
Feet, as well as two requests for minor subdivisions were slated for the September 7, 2004, Planning
Commission Meeting Agenda. Commissioner Packard stated she would not be able to be present at that
meeting.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 17, 2004
Page 2 of 4
4.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Conley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 9, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting Agenda (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition would be on August 25,
2004, at the DoubleTree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M.
The topic was slated to be "Goodbye Urban Reserve."
· Other
No other reports were given.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the August 17, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting at 8:10 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 17, 2004
Page 3 of 4
.
NOTES FROM HISTORIC SITES TOUR OF AUGUST 17,2004
WITIDN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD
From Shorewood City Hall, the tour bus, driven by Commissioner Gagne began moving south on Country
Club Road, turning west on Yellowstone Trail.
The first property (#52) was on Yellowstone Trail and was the site of the Old Yellowstone Trail Tavern in
l865. The second property (#50) visited was said to be the oldest property in Shorewood, dating to 1854.
Yellowstone Trail was the main roadway at that time, and it was rumored that settlers could be seen
traversing the Trail to escape the Sioux Uprising of 1862 that existed as far north as Chaska.
Moving along Yellowstone to the west, there were three lots dating to 1900. #45 on the map included an
original stone wall, #48 on the map dated to 1900 but had been redone, and #47 was to have been a
residence owned by the Kelly family and dated back to the 1900. Director Nielsen indicated the lots were
quite deep in this area and backed to the Minnetonka Country Club.
Moving northward along Seaman's Drive, the tour arrived at the Picca residence (#42 on the map).
Director Nielsen noted Dorothy Peterson stated the house had belonged to farmhands in the area that
worked at Boulder Bridge Farms. He also noted this property would most likely at one time been part of
the Minnetonka Country Club.
.
Moving first west on Mann Lane, and then south along Eureka Road, the tour passed the Reutiman
residence, and entered Freeman Park. Director Nielsen explained the Eddy Farm and other associated
houses were originally near the south end of the Park, and Eddy Station was originally a railway stop in
the area. He stated portions of the original Eddy Station had been moved to the Minnewashta Church and
were in use at one time as part of the Church property; however it lacked ADA access and had been
removed from the Church property also. In response to a question, Director Nielsen explained the
railroad line ran in the area of Eureka Road and Smithtown Road.
Moving north along Eureka Road, and turning west on Smithtown Road, the tour stopped at what used to
be a small community, similar to the Navarre area of Orono, called Eureka. Director Nielsen explained
approximately 120 families lived in that community and (#39) was the site of the old Eureka Store and
was a railway stop as well. Historical information researched indicated some of the outbuildings might
have operated as an eatery in 1905, where a menu noted one could have salmon salad for 30 cents.
Continuing westward along Smithtown Road, the tour passed the previous Lizee residence (#29) dating to
1881. Councilmember Lizee had explained to Director Nielsen that the house was originally owned by
the farrier for Boulder Bridge Farm, and Percheron workhorses for the Farm were raised on the site. He
stated the house had been built in two pieces and the original floors were wood from the area.????
The tour then stopped at Woodside Cemetery. This cemetery was still a "working" cemetery and was
now owned by an unknown Trust. A gravestone designated a death of a woman in 1865 buried there. A
gravestone noting the name Eddy was also found there.
.
Next the tour backtracked eastward on Smithtown Road to Strawberry Lane and headed south. Director
Nielsen noted the Hudlow house(#34), which was the original site of Minnewashta Crossings. This house
was also believed to be part of the Townson Club in 1890, and was cared for by the Lake Minnewashta
Improvement Society. Director Nielsen also stated this site was noted in a book as being part of the
Townsend Plan?, but he was uncertain what that plan referred to. He also stated this site was rumored to
have been a speakeasy or Dance Club in the 1920's.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
August 17, 2004
Page 4 of 4
. Next the tour headed west on 62nd Street West, to the site of the Minnewashta Church, where a portion of
the Eddy farmstead had been moved, and the steeple was original to the beginning of the Church.
Heading northward on Cathcart Drive, Director Nielsen explained #30 was the site of the Meldahl's site
dating to 1900. Also, #32 on the map was the site of another individual believed to have worked on the
Boulder Bridge Farm.
The tour then headed west on Smithtown Road until it reached the site of the current Boulder Bridge
Farm development. Director Nielsen explained this farm was originally owned by the Dayton family and
included the Dayton mansion, now owned by Tom Wartman. The original barn can still be seen in the
Boulder Bridge development and it dated to 1904. The barn was currently owned by the BBHO
Association, and sat on a trail for the development. As a part of the development, a trail was constructed
around and through the development to allow homeowners to own and ride horses around the trail. There
also existed a commons area with playground equipment. The silo located near the current well house,
owned by the City, was also part of the original farm property.
The tour then headed west to Boulder Circle, and the tour exited the bus to view the multiple dock
facility, housing approximately 40 boats belonging to the owners of the 44 home sites. The Commission
observed the old boathouse and stone bridge on the site, noting the timeless beauty of each structure.
Also, a commons area, and small beach were also observed.
.
The tour then departed east on Smithtown Road and headed north on Howard's Point Road, and the
Commission asked Director Nielsen to research the potential historicity of the property at 5685 Howard's
Point Road. Moving along Edgewood Drive and then Birch Bluff Road, Director Nielsen noted the
original site of the Edgewood Hotel (#7) and a few remaining cabins dating from the early 1900's. Next
the tour passed the Svithsoid House.
The tour then moved eastward along Pleasant Avenue to County Road 19, then traversed County Road 19
until turning east on Highway 7 to Radisson Road.
Heading south and then immediately east on Radisson Road, the tour moved to the site (#83) of the
Radisson Inn. Director Nielsen explained the current house sat on the site of the Radisson Boathouse
which was converted to a house and then torn down for the current construction. Moving eastward along
Radisson Road, Director Nielsen noted many little cottages in the area (#80). He referred to this site as
Lot 11, and it was comprised of 26 lots platted having lake access through Lot 11 and Shore Road.
Moving eastward along Brom's Boulevard, the tour passed the Old Wayside Rest area. Commissioner
Gniftke stated this rest area was a popular picnic destination spot in the 1950's. The Commission praised
the City for retaining the open space on the south side of the road across from the wayside rest area.
The tour bus, driven by Commissioner Gagne, headed east on Highway 7 to Vine Hill Road, north to
Excelsior Boulevard, and west on Excelsior Boulevard, and turning north on St. Alban's Bay Road to
Manor Park. Director Nielsen explained Manor Park was the site of the original Shorewood City Hall,
and the Grathwol Farm and Wood End Farms were also in the area. He also noted Excelsior Boulevard
ran parallel to Highway 7 and at one time Smithtown Road on the west end of town acted as the current
Highway 7. The Commission noted there were many historic places in the City as well as current historic
homes.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne (arrived 7:17 P.M.), Gniftke, White and
Woodruff; Council Liaison Garfunkel; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Packard
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
.
August 3, 2004
Woodruff moved, Conley seconded, approving the August 3, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 3/0/2, with Bailey and White abstaining due to absence at
that meeting.
.
August 17, 2004
Woodruff moved, Conley seconded, Approving the August 17,2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1, with White abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -VARIANCES TO SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Applicant: Todd Meixner
Location: 25625 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. He then explained the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing, noting cases heard this evening would be placed on the September 27,2004 Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for further discussion and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case noting the applicant was in the process of renovating
the home at 25625 Birch Bluff Road. Plans included converting a very small, attached garage to living
space and building a new garage on the north side of the house.
Director Nielsen explained the house was entirely outside of the buildable area of the lot. Although the
garage itself complied with setbacks, a 12-foot wide portion of the addition that connected the garage to
the house necessitated a variance of 5.5 feet. An eight-foot deck/entry connecting the house and garage
also required a variance.
With only 13,271 square feet of area, the property, the property was considered substandard for the R-1C
zoning district in which it was located. The proposed garage and the living area above it measured 22' x
30' and contained 660 square feet on each level. If approved, the remodeling plan would result in the
house having a total of 2980 square feet.
Upon analysis of the case, Director Nielsen explained Shorewood's Zoning Code allowed the expansion
of nonconforming single-family homes, provided the addition itself complied with zoning requirements.
In this case, he explained, the garage addition complied with the setback requirements for the R-lC/S
district, but the connection to the house (66 square feet) and approximately three-fourths of the deck (90
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 2 of9
square feet) were outside the buildable area of the lot. Director Nielsen also stated it was worth noting
that the configuration of the lot and the resulting limited buildable area were the result of past roadway
encroachments from both Eureka Road and Birch Bluff Road. Based upon Staff research, the house
actually existed before the right-of-way for Eureka was platted. The r.o.w. was platted through the house
and then subsequently a portion of the r.o.w. was vacated back to the property. On the north side of the
lot, public usage of Birch Bluff Road cut off the northeast comer of the lot, until several years ago, the
owner of the property granted the City an easement for the encroachment.
As planned, impervious surfaces on the site would amount to 24.8 percent of the lot area, which was
considered to be consistent with R-1C/S requirements. Director Nielsen also stated the ratio of the floor
area of all structures on this lot would be approximately 27 percent, well within the Zoning Code
maximum of 30 percent for substandard properties.
Director Nielsen recommended approval with two stipulations. The renovation and conversion of the
existing garage must be done so as not exceed 50 percent of its value. That is, the frame portion of the
garage must be able to simply be repaired and not reconstructed. The City's Building Official advised
that the foundation under the garage must be replaced. Secondly, the floor plan for the proposed garage
must include a direct connection between the house and the living area above the garage. Without such a
connection, the garage would exceed the 1200 square feet allowable floor area for accessory space.
Todd Meixner, applicant, stated the survey of the property showed the deck as being proposed when in
actuality it was already constructed. He stated it was a matter of keeping the deck at this point rather than
constructing as the current deck shown on the survey despite the fact that it was poorly built. He also
explained that the entry addition would not be able to be seen from the public vantage point. The
variance requested included an addition of 5.5 feet on the westerly side of the house, and 2.6 feet on the
easterly side of the house. He stated this was important because the space between the old and new
structures, should the addition not be approved, would not receive any sunlight, and he was concerned for
developing a damp area that would be difficult to keep dry. He also noted without approval of the
addition, his family would be forced to enter and exit through two sets of doors not more than a few feet
apart.
Seeing no one present wishing to address the Commission on this case, Chair Bailey closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M.
Commissioner White stated this house was a difficult house to work with given its long history, and she
appreciated the efforts toward refurbishment. She also stated she was concerned for the applicant's
efforts toward rebuilding the garage and still remaining within the fifty percent demolition standards for
replacement.
Commissioner Gagne arrived at 7: 17 P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff questioned if the same standards of replacement versus rebuilding would be
applied to the existing deck as well. Director Nielsen responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Conley stated he thought the proposed plans for refurbishment were great and he liked the
investment in the house being made. Commissioner Gagne agreed.
Chair Bailey stated he supported the variance in this case as it made progress with the site toward
construction within the buildable areas of the lot. Commissioner Gagne agreed.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 3 of 9
Woodruff moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of the Variances to Setback and
Expansion of a Non-Conforming Structure, subject to Staff Recommendations for Todd Meixner,
25625 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -VARIANCES TO SETBACK AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Applicants: R.J. and Melanie Rogney
Location: 5950 Grant Street
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants proposed adding a second story over the rear half of the home at
5950 Grant Street. The addition would be built over a single-story portion of the home for which a
variance was granted in 1983. The property in question was zoned R-1D, Single-family Residential and
contained 10,560 square feet of area. Besides the home, the lot was occupied by a detached garage and an
above-ground swimming pool, neither of which complied with R-1D setback requirements. The garage
appeared to have pre-dated current zoning requirements, while there was no record of a permit having
been issued for the swimming pool, making it an unlawful nonconformity. In addition to nonconforming
setbacks, existing hardcover on the lot was at 52 percent, where 33 percent was the maximum allowed.
The existing home contained approximately 1425 square feet of floor area on two levels, not including the
basement. As shown in the attached exhibits, the existing home had a living room, dining room, kitchen,
bedroom and bathroom on the main level. There were two additional bedrooms on the existing second
level. The proposed addition would add 464 square feet for a total of 1889 square feet for two additional
bedrooms. Since the home was only 11.8 feet from the rear lot line, the applicants' plans necessitated a
setback variance of 23.2 feet.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the history of the previous variance, noting the 1983 variance was granted
under slightly different conditions than the current request. At that time, before the current ordinance and
zoning map were adopted, the subject property was inappropriately zoned in what was now the R-1C
zoning district. This area in question was later changed to the current R-1D district, which resulted in the
subject lot conforming to width and area standards and imposed smaller setback requirements than the R-
1 C district. Also, the ordinance at that time did not provide for the expansion of nonconforming
structures at all. This was subsequently changed to allow for expansion of nonconforming single-family
homes, provided the addition complied with current setback requirements. It should also be noted the
City imposed a condition on the variance approval that made up for the discrepancy on the rear by
imposing additional front yard setback. Under the R-1D zoning regulations, this would result in a 53-foot
front yard setback.
With regard to the analysis of the criteria for a variance, Director Nielsen also explained it was
questionable how the application complied with the criteria. Specifically, there was nothing unique about
the lot. The rezoning back in 1986 resulted in it conforming to current zoning requirements. There was
ample room on the lot to construct a home and garage. The variance in 1983 was granted to allow
reasonable use of the property. The addition at that time provided for reasonable use of the property by
allowing for a bedroom, bathroom and dining room to be located on the main level of the home.
The applicant stated that extending the building outward into the buildable area of the lot would increase
the already nonconforming impervious surface to lot area ratio. In this regard it should be noted that there
was a considerable amount of impervious surface to be eliminated on the site, not the least of which was
the swimming pool and patio built without a permit, and within the required setback. Elimination of
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 4 of9
those areas and conversion of the landscape areas from plastic to landscape fabric would bring the
property very close to compliance with hardcover requirements. He also stated, whether or not the
variance was granted, the pool and patio were in violation of City Code requirements and should be
eliminated. Director Nielsen noted Ronald and Melanie Rogney, applicants, were present this evening
and wished to address the Commission.
Mrs. Rogney stated the house on this site had been in her husband's family since the house was built in
1907. She noted the garage had been added to the site by a previous owner in 1967, an addition added in
1983, and present ownership was assumed in 1992. With the need to lift the house and replace the
foundation, she and her husband had decided this would be an optimal time to move ahead with
expanding the house as requested. With regard to the pool issue, she explained a salesman had promoted
the pool and stated the contractor installing the pool would handle the permits for the project. She stated
she and her husband were victims of the contractor's inaction and she pleaded sincere ignorance with
regard to the pool. She further explained the pool had been on site for seven years and was the family's
primary recreation in the summer.
Mr. Rogney submitted pictures of the property and pool to the Commission for review. Director Nielsen
noted a letter in support of the project had been received from Jim and Katie Nelson, 5960 Grant Street.
.
Mrs. Rogney further stated she had met with Director Nielsen several times beginning in January of this
year in attempt to bring resolution to these issues. She also stated the survey submitted was insufficient
since it did not accurately portray the hardcover on the site. She explained every place noted "rock on
plastic" within the survey should correctly be shown as rock over landscape fabric, thus reducing the
impervious surface on the site to 42%, rather than the 52% incorrectly identified. She stated she and her
husband simply wanted to add a second story to the current structure as there was only a single bathroom
upstairs.
Mr. Rogney explained the proposed addition to the property would not change the footprint of the
structure, nor would it increase the hardcover on the site. To expand the addition of the house into the
buildable area would require removing the garage and driveway. He stated they wanted to preserve the
character of the house, and were trying to make it work for all parties involved. He stated he did not think
it made sense to add onto the house in any other way other than what was proposed, and with the addition
as proposed, the house would make a nicer addition to the neighborhood. He stated they respectfully
would want to work with the City to retain the pool if at all possible.
Seeing no one present wishing to address this issue further, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M.
Commissioner Gagne stated he thought the house was a nice older house and it would look nice with the
addition on it. He stated he thought the issue of the pool and patio was secondary and different from the
variance issue itself. He stated he was uncertain on how best to proceed, as he hated to have the
applicants remove the pool. He stated he would be in favor of the variance as requested.
.
Commissioner Conley questioned whether any precedents for the pool and patio issue existed within City
history. Director Nielsen explained he had never seen a variance requested for a pool, as it was almost
impossible to demonstrate a hardship for a pool. Commissioner Conley stated he was finding it difficult
to find a reason to deny the variance since the footprint and hardcover were the same despite the addition.
However, he was also confused because he was not certain of the existing hardship for the case. He
stated the remainder of the site posed problems due to inefficient utilization of space on the lot.
Commissioner Woodruff stated she thought it important to follow the rules set forth by ordinance in this
case as she was concerned for setting a precedent. She thought it important to hold firm lines with regard
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 5 of9
to the regulations applying to this matter. She stated she would logically love to see the addition to the
house, but she thought it needed to be placed in the buildable area of the lot.
Chair Bailey stated he thought this variance was quite difficult since logically it seemed as though the
applicant should be allowed to build upward. He also noted it was quite difficult to find a hardship in the
case to allow the variance to move forward, however in this situation he could be convinced to vote in
favor of the variance.
In response to Chair Bailey's question regarding how other cities dealt with the issue of expanding a non-
conformity upward while remaining in the footprint, Director Nielsen stated there were other cities that
did allow for upward expansion on a non-conforming structure. The City of Shorewood, however, held
the position that enlarging the structure upward was the same as increasing the non-conformity in any
way, since the bulk of the building was greater than before. He stated it was the choice of the applicant to
increase or decrease the proposed plans in order to meet the ordinance. He also noted the property had
already been granted one variance in 1986 under relaxed conditions. Director Nielsen also stated any
time a variance would be granted the City has the right and should impose suitable restrictions. He also
stated the case should not be processed without removal of the pool as it was an illegal structure.
Chair Bailey stated he did not see the issues as separate and he would not support a variance without
removal of the pool.
.
Commissioner Gniffke stated he would object to the variance increasing the hardcover on the site, as he
was quite concerned for an increase in hardcover on the site.
Conley moved, Gagne moved, Recommending Approval of a Variance to Construct a Second Story
Addition, subject to the compliance with hardcover requirements and meeting the Setback
Requirements as Approved in the 1983 Variance adjusted for current Zoning of the Property for
R.J. and Melanie Rogney, 5950 Grant Street. Motion passed 5/1, with Woodruff dissenting.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M.
.1
3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT.
Applicants: Tom Kelsey and Ingrid Schaff
Location: 5705 Smithtown Way
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 5705 Smithtown Way. Ms. Schaff
proposed building a new detached garage to the north and east of the house. Since the area of the new
garage, combined with an existing small tuck-under garage, exceeded 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. was
required. Director Nielsen went on to explain the property was zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential
and contained 41.755 square feet in area. The new garage contained 1024 square feet. This accessory
structure, combined with the existing garage, totaled 1539 square feet. As demonstrated on the plans, the
proposed garage would be 50 feet from the front lot line and approximately 28 feet from the westerly side
lot line. He also noted the existing home contained 2295 square feet of floor area in one and one half
stories.
.
Director Nielsen also explained the request met all necessary criteria for granting a Conditional Use
Permit, and it was worth noting the garage was tucked into a side slope off the existing driveway. Also,
considering the landscaping that exists on the property, no additional landscaping need be required. He
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 6 of9
also stated the architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house, with the
siding and roofing will match the house.
Based upon the preceding analysis, Director Nielsen recommended the request for a conditional use
permit be granted, subject only to the standard warning that such structures were for residential use only,
and any type of home occupation conducted within an accessory building must obtain a separate permit.
The applicant was not present this evening.
Hearing no one present wishing to address the Commission on this case, Chair Bailey closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M.
The Commission had no issues with the request.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet, subject to Staff Recommendations, for Tom Kelsey and
Ingrid Schaff, 5705 Smithtown Way. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M.
.
4. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant: David Blume
Location: 5240 / 5250 Vine Hill Road
Director Nielsen explained the applicants, David Blume and Kelly Dixon, owned the properties at 5240
and 5250 Vine Hill Road, respectively. Due to historic landscaping patterns, they had requested a lot line
rearrangement (minor subdivision and combination) to coincide with how they had used their properties.
They proposed shifting the common lot line between their properties by four feet.
Director Nielsen went on to explain this request was quite simple. Both lots would still comply with the
requirements of the R-1C zoning district, and building setbacks would also still conform to zoning
requirements. As such, approval of the division and combination was recommended. The applicants
should record the conveyance within 30 days of their receipt of the resolution approving the request.
Director Nielsen stated it was pleasant to see neighbors amicably working out issues such as those
presented in this case.
Commissioner Gagne questioned why the lot line proposed was kinked at one end. Since the applicants
were not present this evening, Director Nielsen stated he was uncertain.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision/Combination
(Lot Line Rearrangement), subject to the condition of extending the new lot line straight back to
the rear property line.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the possible motivations had for the lack of straightness associated
with the lot line.
. Commissioner Gagne called the question.
Motion passed 6/0
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 7of9
5. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicants: Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl
Location: 6180 Cathcart Drive
Director Nielsen stated in 1991 the applicants split their property at 6180 Cathcart Drive into three lots.
They subsequently sold the westerly lot and had since recombined the easterly two lots. They now
wished to redivide the lots exactly as they were in 1991. He went on to state, with one exception, there
are no issues to speak of relative to this request. The one item for consideration was the issue of park
dedication fees that were required when new lots were created. Although these charges were paid in
1991, the rates were less ($750) than they were at this point in time($1500). Consequently, Staff
recommended the difference be made up at this time. Subject to the applicant paying $750, and recording
the division within 30 days of receipt of the Council Resolution approving the division, approval of the
minor division was recommended. Director Nielsen noted the absence of the applicant this evening.
Commissioner Gagne stated he had no issues with the request, however, he thought the current park
dedication fee should be in full, since the applicants chose to split their lots and this action was being
repeated. Thus, he believed a second fee was in order.
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision, subject to
payment of current park dedication fees in full for Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart
Drive.
Commissioner White stated she did not think it necessary to charge the applicant this fee in full since the
request merely repeated a previous action.
Commissioner Gagne stated he viewed the request as a whole new action.
Commissioner Conley questioned whether park dedication fees were a "standard transactional" type of
fee or a "fair share" type of fee. Director Nielsen explained park dedication fees were premised on the
rationale that a new lot created an increased demand for park space. That same statute allowed cities to
take a portion of land for park usage. Since there was not a house on the site, he believed no increased
demand had taken place.
Chair Bailey likened this fee to sanitary sewer access charge where no additional monies were collected
simply because the house had been sold.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated he would not support the idea of paying the fee in full for this request
since there had been no additional homes or people residing on the lot since the last request.
Motion failed 1/5, with Gagne dissenting.
Conley moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision, subject to Staff
Recommendations, for Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl, 6180 Cathcart Drive. Motion passed 6/0.
6. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT
Applicant: Otting House Movers
Location: 20585 Minnetonka Boulevard
Director Nielsen explained the history of the request, noting the applicant owned the house at 20585
Minnetonka Boulevard. This house was to be removed as part of the Aldenwood development approved
earlier this year. Mr. Miller proposed having the house moved outside the City of Shorewood.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 8 of9
Director Nielsen went on to explain that Chapter 1003 regulated the moving of buildings within the city
limits. He further explained there were two significant issues for consideration and these were as
followed: 1) Code compliance for structures being located within the city; and 2) suitability of the route
over which the building will be moved. In this case, since the building was not being relocated in
Shorewood, Code compliance was not an issue. With respect to the route, the house would be moved via
Minnetonka Boulevard, east to Vine Hill Road and out to State Highway 7. The City Engineer had
approved the portion of the route within Shorewood (all 400 feet of it).
Thus, it was recommended that the moving permit be approved, subject to the Police Department
determining the best time for the move. Also, the moving contractor must provide a copy of its State
license and bond.
Director Nielsen noted the presence of Bill Otting, applicant, who stated he would be happy to answer
any questions the Commission may have had of him. The Commission had none.
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Building Moving Permit for
Otting House Movers, 20585 Minnetonka Boulevard. Motion passed 6/0.
7. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 1101 OF THE CITY CODE-
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8: 18 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the City had been directed to update its Flood Plain Management Regulations
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) so that residents could remain eligible for flood
insurance. He stated the attached model ordinance was intended to replace Chapter 1101 of the current
City Code. He also noted it would be advantageous to adopt this model as most other cities were also
adopting the regulations, thereby allowing for consistency with builders and developers.
Director Nielsen then briefly reviewed the draft revisions, noting the definitions of a floodplain,
floodway, and flood fringe.
Hearing no one present wishing to comment on this matter, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony
portion of the Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M.
8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Planning Commission was slated for September 21,
2004 and would include a Work Session regarding Historic Preservation issues begun last month.
10. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Conley reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 23,2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
September 7, 2004
Page 9 of9
· SLUC
No report given.
· Other
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 7,
2004, at 9:02 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard, White, and Woodruff; Council
Liaison Garfunkel and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Commissioner Conley
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· September 7, 2004
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the September 7, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. DISCUSS mSTORIC PRESERVATION
. Tad Shaw - Excelsior Historical Society
. Director Nielsen introduced Tad Shaw of the Excelsior Historical Society to the Commission.
Mr. Shaw thanked the Commission for inviting him to speak to the Commission this evening on the
subject of historical preservation issues. He noted he worked with the Excelsior Historical Society for
quite some time. He then reviewed the process Excelsior utilized in defining how sites and buildings
were considered historic. He stated while the Historical Society began its efforts to define historic sites
and buildings primarily by age, it was important to remember that just because some site or building was
old, did not necessarily mean it would be historic. He also cautioned the Commission against restricting
too many changes to the historic structures as had been done in the City of Excelsior. He also stated he
would recommend the use of incentives for homeowners with regard to historic preservation of sites and
structures.
After a brief discussion by the Commission, the Commission indicated consensus for avoiding
restrictions, and also to pursue incentives for homeowners for preservation issues. The Commission also
indicated consensus for identification of sites through a database would be good initial steps to take in
defining this issue.
Chair Bailey suggested classifying or prioritizing properties as well. Director Nielsen stated he would
consult Staff member Julie Moore for additional information on the historic preservation topic.
2. DISCUSS EXPANSION OF NONCONFORNUNG RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES
.
Director Nielsen explained this discussion was part of an earlier discussion on expanding nonconforming
residential structures upward without adding on to a footprint of a structure. At that time, the
Commission had indicated favor toward granting the variance, and asked that additional discussion be had
on the topic. To that end, Director Nielsen had prepared a number of slides demonstrating the current
ordinance and how such upward expansion would impact that ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES\
September 21, 2004
Page 2 of2
. The Commission indicated consensus for leaving the Code as currently stated with regard to
nonconforming residential structures. Chair Bailey stated it would be prudent for the Commission to
remember this discussion and implications when considering "reasonable use" of each variance.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters
the
this
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained three items related to requests for Variance to Hardcover and a second
variance request for Setback issues as well as a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200
Square Feet were slated for the October 5,2004, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
5. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 13, 2004,
Regular City Council Meeting Agenda (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
.
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition would be on September
29,2004, at the DoubleTree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, from 11 :30 A.M. to 1 :30 P.M.
The topic was slated to be "Water, Water, Everywhere... but where can I build my house. "
· Other
No other reports were given.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Adjourning the September 21, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETNG
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard, White,
Woodruff; and Planning Director Nielsen
Council Liaison Garfunkel
Absent:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
. September 21, 2004
Gagne moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the September 21, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as presented. Motion passed 7/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Carl and Ali Zinn
5820 Ridge Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 P.M. He summarized the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing, noting requests heard this evening will be placed on the October 25, 2004 Regular City Council
Meeting Agenda for further discussion and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the property owners would like to convert an existing attached garage into
living space and construct a new attached garage in the front of the house. Two private roadways serve
the property. The eastern boundary is Ridge Road, which is the primary access to all the homes between
Christmas Lake and Silver Lake. There is a secondary road over the Zinn property that becomes a private
drive just past the Zinn property. The applicant proposes to locate the garage in the flat area at the front
of the property. Due to the location of the second private road the proposed garage requires a setback
variance of 25 feet.
The zoning ordinance provides procedures and criteria for granting variances and the staff reports outlines
those criteria. The circumstances must be unique to the property. In this case the topography satisfies
that part of the criteria. Also the small amount of available land in which to build on is subject to the
private road setback.
Upon analysis of the case, Director Nielsen explained that the area of the proposed garage is within size
limitations and smaller than the adjacent garages. The applicant's plight is not of their own doing they
did not create the topographic conditions and the private road setback is a new requirement to code as of
1991. Also the proposed garage size is in keeping with the character of the area.
Director Nielsen noted that this case is consistent with the provisions for granting a variance and based on
the property conditions staff recommends approval of the setback variance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 5, 2004
Page 2 of 5
.
Carl Zinn, applicant, stated that the adjacent home to the north was not subject to the private road setback.
Director Nielsen corrected Mr. Zinn noting that the adjacent property is subject to the private road
setback.
There being no one present wishing to address the commission regarding this case, Chair Bailey closed
the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09P.M.
Gagne moved, Gniftke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Setback Variance to allow
construction of an attached garage subject to staff recommendations, for Carl Zinn, 5820 Ridge
Road. Motion passed 7/0.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE OF THE HARDCOVER REGULATIONS
Applicant:
Location:
Dick and Kelly Cassidy
26140 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:15P.M.
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicants have a purchase agreement for the property located at 26140
Birch Bluff Road and propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home which
would necessitate a variance of the 25 percent hardcover restriction. The property is located in the R-
1 CIS zone and subject to shoreland regulations. The lot is nonconforming with regard to area, however is
deemed buildable under city code because it meets 70 percent of the required minimums for that zone.
The topography rises approximately ten feet to the existing home and then drops off somewhat abruptly to
Lake Minnetonka to the north. A loop driveway serves the existing home. The applicant also proposes to
remove an existing shed down by the lake.
The proposed home eliminates the loop driveway by creating a side loading approach on the higher part
of the lot. The proposed home would contain 8257 square feet of floor area divided between three levels.
The new three-car garage would have 887 square feet of floor area. At present, the impervious surface on
the site amounts to 33.7 percent. The maximum for the shoreland district is 25 percent. The proposed
plan reduces the impervious cover to 29.67 percent. The applicants propose to mitigate the variance by
using a permeable brick paving system.
The lot is deemed buildable by zoning standards. The proposed house complies with the zoning setbacks
but the hardcover is over by 4.67 percent. The other criteria for building on a substandard lot deals with
floor area ratio. The ordinance denotes the floor area of all structures on the property cannot exceed 30
percent to the lot area. Director Nielsen stated based on the amount of floor area proposed the calculation
comes out to 55 percent. He also stated that the applicant's letter does not demonstrate hardship.
Director Nielsen noted that there is a lot of discussion about the use of permeable pavers and the
information is impressive, however, it is too early to tell how the product will weather. The watershed
district is interested in these products. The DNR is more skeptical about the use of the product. The
DNR encourages the use of these types of systems but does not recognize it as a means for achieving the
25 percent impervious cover.
.
Director Nielsen stated that the DNR points out that the hardcover requirement, in addition to the primary
purpose to handle drainage on properties, also has an aesthetic element which is to allow a certain amount
of green space on every lot and they do not feel these systems are a replacement for vegetation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 5, 2004
Page 3 of 5
.
He went on to explain that this matter belongs in a conversation regarding a zoning text amendment rather
than a variance. There is not clear hardship in this case. The lot is buildable and a smaller structure
rearranged differently could meet the hardcover restriction.
Director Nielsen recommended denial of the variance in this case. He also stated any future discussion
regarding zoning text amendments would involve a fair amount of study of permeable pavers and the City
should consider working with the City of Excelsior on this issue.
Dick Cassidy, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that his family has been researching a
place to live on the lake and are interested in living in Shorewood. Mr. Cassidy distributed a packet to the
Commission addressing the current situation and the hardship as they saw it. Mr. Cassidy noted that they
would like to make the property wheel chair accessible. The current home was built in 1900 and the
materials used then do not make the home efficient in comparison with today's standards. They feel the
hardship is that the existing home does not meet today's standards and the opportunity to improve upon
that is in reconstruction, which would also improve the overall situation for the lot.
Mr. Cassidy noted that they could remodel the home in three separate phases, however there would still
be the same amount of hardcover and the shed would still exist in the lake setback, not to mention three
years of construction traffic. Mr. Cassidy stated they felt the logical option would be to accept the
variance, which is an overall improvement by eliminating the shed and hardcover in the lake setback area.
Also improving the function, efficiency and safety of the home, including improving the property value
for the City and neighborhood.
.
Mr. Cassidy stated that livable space in the home would be 5400 square feet. There would be three
bedrooms above the ground. There would be space under the garage for storage and recreation. If the
City allowed permeable pavers as an alternative to hardcover, it would keep the property at 20.7 percent.
However, if normal paving is installed it brings the total up to 29 percent. The proposal is still a
significant reduction from what exists today.
Mr. Cassidy noted that the permeable pavers are a unique concept and have the same standards as a
normal concrete driveway, but they allow water, air and roots to flow and can absorb 2.5 inches of rain
water every hour, which is better than grass, if done properly. Mr. Cassidy noted that there are several
communities that are allowing the use of pavers as an alternative.
Mr. Mike Sharratt, architect, addressed the Commission regarding several graphics that were distributed.
Mr. Sharratt questioned the ordinance with regard to allowable floor area noting their calculations are at
33.6 percent floor area ratio. Mr. Sharratt wanted to confirm that floor area ratio is not part of this
discussion and will meet the floor area ratio when submitting a plan for a permit. Mr. Sharratt addressed
the issue of the driveway noting the hardship of the grade in order to make the house handicap accessible
because the grade would be about six feet below the first floor entrance. To put the house to reasonable
use the driveway would need to load to the side. Director Nielsen noted that he stands corrected on the
floor area calculation and explained that the floor area does exclude basement area.
.
Cal Nelson, 26190 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he supports the plan and feels the home would be an
improvement to the property. Mr. Nelson stated the pavers work well and feel they are a good option.
Mr. Nelson stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the neighborhood and if the
neighborhood feels the proposal is a good thing then it should be allowed.
Mr. Cassidy, applicant, noted that he also included letters in the packet from neighbors in support of the
proposal.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 5, 2004
Page 4 of 5
Mike Clausen, 26165 Birch Bluff Road, stated that he lives across the street and supports the plan noting
that it actually appears to be a smaller house from the road and supports the smaller driveway plan. He
felt it increased the value of the neighborhood and is an obvious improvement from the existing.
Mark Gruss, present owner, stated that the property is in ill repair and cannot be fixed. The time has
come for the home to be replaced.
Mike Kozel, 26170 Birch Bluff, stated that he supports the pavers and noted the research he has read
indicates they are permeable and they look better than the existing blacktop driveway.
There being no further public comment, Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public
Hearing at 7:45P.M.
Commissioner Woodruff agreed hardship is a difficult hurdle and the lot is not huge but believes it is
buildable at 25 percent, stating there are optional designs that could meet the 25 percent cover.
Commissioner Conley asked Director Nielsen if he was aware if the surrounding communities, noted in
the information distributed by the applicant, had accepted the pavers as permeable structures. Director
Nielsen replied that he was not aware of the acceptance of pavers by the communities noted.
Commissioner White stated that she is familiar with an area covered with pavers with a small slope and
noted that the pavers do work, however the land had never been compacted or built on.
Commissioner Gagne stated that he is not comfortable with the additional hard surface. He agreed the
permeable pavers are an interesting concept, but agrees with staff analysis noting that there is not enough
information to grant the requested variance using this material, unless there is further study and it can be
adopted as ordinance to use in an orderly way. He also noted it is a shoreline property and a sensitive
area for water runoff in general and he is not comfortable granting variances using this technology as a
test case in this area. Commissioner Gagne stated that this idea might have merit at some point in the
future.
Commissioner Gniffke agreed with the other commission members concerns and noted that it is not a
replacement for vegetation.
Commissioner Packard stated that they have put great effort into the plan and the additional green space
would be great. She can also understand the need to tear the house down. She stated that she agrees with
the other Commission Member's comments and feels there is a way to reduce the hardcover.
Commissioner White asked what would replace the walkway to the lake. Mr. Cassidy responded stating
they would replace the walkway with grass or mulch.
Mr. Sharratt, architect, reiterated that the steep slope of the front yard requires the driveway to be longer
than it otherwise would have to be if grades were not as they presently are.
Chair Bailey stated that he feels the building is too large for the property. He stated that it is important
that the commission apply the standards of the ordinance regarding the 25 percent hardcover limitation.
Commissioner Gagne agreed that the house is too big for the lot and would need to be revised to fit.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 5, 2004
Page 5 of5
Mr. Cassidy asked if the Commission suggests they eliminate a bedroom or kitchen to reduce the
structure.
Chair Bailey noted that the Commission cannot design the house for the applicants, but are limited to the
City code of 25 percent hardcover, which is the issue, and this property is not unique in that regard.
Woodruff moved, Packard seconded, Recommending Denial of the Variance for Hardcover for
26140 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed.7/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Planning Commission set for October 17, will be a
study session that includes a number of housekeeping zoning ordinance amendments. State law requires
certain zoning code be brought up to the state standards. Also the Commission will be reviewing the
Special zoning districts.
5. REPORTS
. Liaison to Council
Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 27, 2004
Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council had discussion
regarding the Excelsior library and passed a resolution to study the matter further.
. SLUC
No report given.
. Other
No other reports were given.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the October 5, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
at 8:04 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Shelley Souers,
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Packard (arrived 7:09 P.M.), and
White, Council Liaison Garfunkel (arrived 7:03 P.M.) and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
Director Nielsen noted Commissioner Woodruff had resigned her position on the Planning Commission
as she had increased her volunteer duties with other organizations and was no longer able to be present on
meeting nights. He noted she would be greatly missed and her past efforts appreciated.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· October 5, 2004
Gagne moved, White seconded, Approving the October 5, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as amended, on Page 2, Item 2, Paragraph 4, Sentence 6, change "the applicant's letter
stated" to "He also stated the applicant's letter stated," and on Page 3, Same item, Paragraph 2,
Sentence 2, change "Any discussion regarding....with the City of Excelsior." to "He also stated any
future discussions regarding zoning text amendments would involve a fair amount of study of
permeable pavers and the City should consider working with the City of Excelsior on researching
this issue." Motion passed 5/0.
Commissioner Packard arrived at 7:09 P.M.
STUDY SESSION
1. REVIEW ZONING CHANGES - CODIFICATION
Director Nielsen explained that for some time, the City had been working on a recodification process of
the City ordinances, whereby all revised municipal ordinances would be adopted into the City Code in its
appropriate format. He stated the last time such a process had been undertaken was in 1987, and thus, a
review and compilation of revised ordinances was in order.
He then explained the City had been working with a consultant on the recodification process with a
number of changes to the Code. Director Nielsen then reviewed the proposed changes related to an
updated definition of the term "family", as well as time limits related to nonconforming structures and
campaign signs, and procedures for Conditional Use Permits and Planned Unit Development. He also
noted a public hearing would be held on November 16, 2004, for formal consideration of these proposed
changes.
In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen explained once the codified version of the
City Code book was completed, it would be available as part of the City's website.
Chair Bailey thanked Director Nielsen for his efforts in this matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 19,2004
Page 2 of 3
.
2.
REVIEW ZONING DISTRICTS - SPECIAL DISTRICTS
Director Nielsen distributed a zoning map depicting all the districts within the City. He complimented
Assistant Planner Helgesen for her fine work in providing the new map as well as incorporating updated
ordinances within the map where appropriate. He also noted the City was planning to install a
computerized information kiosk in the entryway of City Hall for residential aid in property management
issues, and he believed residents would find the new map especially helpful.
With regard to the Special Districts found within the City, Director Nielsen explained the history of the
Lakeshore-Recreational districts, Planned Unit Development districts, Shoreland districts, and fire lanes.
With specific regard to fire lanes, he explained there were currently ten fire lanes within the City. He
stated these fire lanes were considered "paper streets" since they were depicted on City maps, but were
not utilized in the typical fashion that a street would be used. Currently, these fire lanes were utilized by
area neighborhoods for lake access for non-motorized boats, such as canoes and sailboats. He went on to
explain the City had conducted a study of these fire lanes, with a final recommendation not to vacate the
properties to adjoining residential sites as the fire lanes provided the only public lake access owned by the
City. Also, the City did not want to increase the use of the fire lanes, and classified each according to one
of three historic uses.
.
Commissioner White questioned whether any Shorewood resident would be allowed to request a permit
for a dock attached to a fire lane. Director Nielsen explained any Shorewood residents living within that
specific neighborhood could request a dock permit, with the understanding that boats were not to be kept
there overnight. The intention for the dock would be for swimming or temporary boat docking, such as
pickup or drop off of boat passengers.
The Commission did not suggest any changes for this district.
Director Nielsen then explained the concept of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) district to the
Commission noting it could be obtained through a Conditional Use Permit or through development of a
zoning district. He also reminded the Commission a P.U.D was connected to the land and would remain
in perpetuity, despite any transfers in ownership of the properties.
The Commission agreed to add a discussion of a twenty-acre minimum provision as part of the definition
of a Planned Unit Development to the 2005 Work Program for the Planning Commission. The
Commission also agreed proposed language could be reviewed at the next Planning Commission meeting
regarding this issue for inclusion in the City Code, with the understanding that further discussion was
warranted for 2005.
Director Nielsen then shared information from the Department of Natural Resources web site relating to
buying and managing properties within the Shore land zoning district. He stated the single most important
issue for potential homeowners was to be certain the anticipated use of the property was allowable within
the Shore land district prior to purchasing a home in that district.
The Commission did not suggest any changes for this district.
3. DISCUSS PRIVATE ROADS
.
Director Nielsen explained the history of private roads and their uses within the City, specifically
regarding setback issues. He noted the current ordinance regulations regarding private roads were
consistent with the State Fire Code on private roadways.
The Commission had no questions regarding this issue.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
October 19, 2004
Page 3 of3
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained there were two public hearings regarding a minor subdivision and lot size
variance, as well as consideration of the zoning ordinance text amendments and re-codification of these
ordinances slated for the November 16, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. He reminded the
Commission that due to the election date, there would be a single meeting of the Planning Commission in
the month of November.
6. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 11, 2004, Regular
City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
Commissioner White stated she would be the Planning Commission Liaison to the Council for the month
of November. Commissioner Gagne offered to be the Liaison for the month of December.
· SLUC
The next meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition was scheduled for October 27, 2004, from 11:30
A.M. to 1:30 P.M. at the DoubleTree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. The topic for that
meeting was "NIMBY STUDY," A Critical Look Back at Very Controversial Development Projects."
Any Commissioners wishing to attend that meeting were urged to contact Director Nielsen as soon as
possible.
· Other
There were no other reports presented.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 19,
2004, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Chair Bailey; Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Packard and White; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
Council Liaison Garfunke1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· October 19,2004
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, approving the October 19, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1, with Meyer abstaining due to absence at that meeting.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR SUBDIVISIONS AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES
Auulicant: Matthew Phillippi
Location: 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard and 4900 Ferncroft Drive
. Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M. He then explained the procedures utilized in a
Public Hearing, noting cases heard this evening would be placed on the November 22, 2004 Regular City
Council Meeting Agenda for further discussion and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case noting the applicant had acquired three parcels of
property, located at 4880 and 4890 Femcroft Drive and 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard. The applicant
proposed resubdividing the three parcels into five lots. The applicant's proposal involved two minor
subdivisions with lot area variances on three of the lots. Additionally, the applicant requested that five
feet of the right-of-way for Femcroft Drive be vacated.
The subject properties were zoned R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shore land. Parcell consisted of
two previously platted lots and one-half of a vacated right-of-way. This parcel contained 19,251 square
feet of area and was occupied by a single-family dwelling and a detached garage. Parcel 2 contained
9874 square feet and was vacant, except for the garage of the property to the south that encroached onto
the parcel by approximately 17 feet. Parcel 3 contained 18,138 square feet and was occupied by a
nonconforming two-family dwelling and a detached garage located within setback areas to Femcroft
Drive.
Director Nielsen went on to explain the zoning and land use surrounding the properties in question was
primarily R-1D/S, developed as single-family residential. The exception to this pattern was the old
Kuemp1e Chime Clock property, lying west of Parcel 3. This property was zoned R-C, Residential
Commercial, and the building was occupied by a woodworking shop and offices.
.
As proposed, Parcel A would have 80 feet of width but would require an area variance of approximately
367 square feet. If the five feet of Femcroft Drive was vacated, Parcel B would then have 10,018 square
feet and 80 feet of width. Lot C would be 80 feet wide and would contain 10,274 square feet of area. The
applicant proposed removing the nonconforming two-family dwelling and garage on Parcel 3 and
dividing it into two single-family residentia11ots, both 70 feet wide. Lot D would have 9366 square feet,
while Lot E would then have 9572 square feet of area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 2 of7
.
With regard to analysis of the case, Director Nielsen explained this area, originally platted as Minnetonka
Manor, was characterized by small lots, many of which were only 50 feet in width and as small as 7000
square feet in area. Over the years, many of the lots had been combined and reconfigured. Nevertheless,
50-foot wide lots, smaller than 10,000 square feet remained scattered throughout "the Manor". From this
perspective, the proposed lots were not considered to be out of character with the area.
Director Nielsen stated the applicant's proposal was based more on a "trade-off' than hardship, thereby
eliminating several nonconformities in exchange for variances on three lots. The proposed improvements
included the removal of a nonconforming use - the two-family dwelling, removal of a garage that did not
comply with setbacks, and correction of the garage encroachment from the neighboring lot. Also, if the
variances were to be favorably considered, the garage on Lot A, should be required to be moved into
conformity with rear yard setback requirements or removed.
He also stated it might be worth noting that, if the applicant's proposal were to be viewed as a small
redevelopment project, the average lot area for the five lots would be 9773 square feet, where 10,000
square feet was required. Similarly, the average lot width would be 76 feet, where 75 feet was required.
Director Nielsen also noted that any approval should include the following conditions:
1. The garage on Lot A must be brought into conformity with R-ID setback requirements. A letter
of credit or cash escrow sufficient to guarantee compliance should be required prior to release of the
resolution approving the division.
. 2. Assuming it will take some time to remove the existing two-family dwelling and garage, a letter
of credit or cash escrow sufficient to guarantee the removal within six months should be required.
The applicant should provide bids for this work so that the escrow can be determined.
3. The encroaching garage must be removed within six months. Again, an escrow must be
provided.
4. The applicant must provide a copy of the driveway easement across Lot C, suitable for recording.
5. The applicant must provide deeds for the drainage and utility easements on each of the new lots.
6. The applicant must provide title opinions or title commitments for all of the subject properties for
review by the City Attorney.
7. The deeds, title opinions and bids referenced in 1-5 above must be submitted within 30 days of
the Council's approval of the request. The escrows for 1.5 times the amount of the bids must be
submitted within 60 days, at which time the resolutions and deeds must be recorded with
Hennepin County.
8. Prior to release of the Council resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay park
dedication fees ($1500 per lot) and local sanitary sewer charges ($1200 per lot) for the two newly
created lots. Credit is allowed for the three existing parcels.
.
Matthew Phillippi, 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard and 4900 Ferncroft Drive, stated he agreed with the
analysis of the case as presented by Director Nielsen with one exception. He stated Lot C had been sold
with a twenty foot easement recorded with Hennepin County. He also stated there was a mortgage on the
property and the mortgage company would not allow the garage to be removed. He went on to explain
he had contacted the Excelsior Fire District regarding controlled bums on two of the properties. He stated
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 3 of7
. he thought the variance would benefit the neighborhood in allowing him to get rid of the nonconforming
duplex currently in existence. He stated he thought this request a good opportunity with a small variance
that would benefit many in the neighborhood.
Ted Hanna, 4920 Ferncroft Lane, stated he thought the request for variance would allow good actions to
take place in that area. In addition, he stated he wanted to tear down the structures on his property to the
south in a similar manner in the future. He stated he was in support of this project.
Arvid Dahlman, 4815 Ferncroft Lane, stated he use to live at 4830 Ferncroft Lane, and at one time had
requested the City allow him to partake in a similar action on that property. The City had denied the
request, and thus, he had moved. He stated he did not understand why if a person had this many lots, he
would be allowed to further subdivide them for any purpose.
Chet Blakowiak, 4860 Femcroft Lane, stated he was concerned for the drainage in that area, and
questioned whether this proposal would affect that drainage negatively. Director Nielsen stated any
drainage issues remaining on the lots would be corrected as part of any construction that might take place.
Mr. Blakowiak stated when the lots were regraded for any construction, he would remain skeptical that
the water would be restricted.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
.
Commissioner White questioned the ownership of the middle lot between proposed Lots C and D. Mr.
Phillippi stated he was the present owner, however, there was a sale pending on that lot to include the
house and the garage. Mr. Phillippi also explained he had granted a twenty foot easement on Lot C for
the encroaching garage, as well as an additional three feet beyond it in order to allow people to handle
maintenance issues with the garage as needed.
In response to Commissioner Packard's question, Director Nielsen stated the any proposed house would
be approximately five feet away from the garage. He also explained that technically an easement would
not decrease the buildable restrictions associated with these lots.
Commissioner Conley stated he thought the garage issue seemed contrary to the intent of City regulations
for cases such as this one. He went on to explain that the end result of the subdivisions would result in
smaller lot sizes with approximately 10-12 feet between structures should the lots try to be equalized due
to the garage on Lot C. He stated this entire idea seemed to be contrary to the ordinance governing the
zoning district for these sites.
Commissioner Packard stated she was seeing the trade off concept without any hardship in this case. She
also stated she did not see any improvement for the case with the Lot C and garage issue.
Commissioner White stated she thought as long as the lots were being split it was important to bring them
all into compliance and she did not see this being accomplished. Mr. Phillippi stated he was willing to
have the lot width proposed at 70 feet, however, Director Nielsen has suggested that not be the case.
.
In response to Commissioner Conley's question, Director Nielsen stated it appeared that with the
exception of refinancing the mortgage, the mortgage company would simply not allow the garage to be
moved or tom down.
Chair Bailey allowed additional testimony from Mr. Hanna, who stated he thought to remove the garage
and add an additional driveway would create additional hardcover in the area, not less as was desired by
the City.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 4 of7
Commissioner Gniffke stated, initially he thought the request would clean up many non-conformities in
that area, however, the lack of ability for garage removal posed a problem. He stated he also was aware of
the tradeoff in this case without understanding the hardship. Further, he thought there would be
additional complications with attempting to reduce the lot sizes and moving the garage on Lot C.
Chair Bailey stated he believed this request did not meet the variance criteria of hardship, as the request
issues seemed primarily economic in nature. He stated the removal of the garage was tied to economic
conditions, and he thought Lot D and E could be one lot, not two.
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Denial of Minor Subdivisions and Lot Size
Variances for Matthew Phillippi, 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard and 4900 Ferncroft Drive. Motion
passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENTS AND
RE-CODIFICATION
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Director Nielsen explained these amendments
presented this evening were part of the City's recodification process and would effectively update all
ordinances and changes to the municipal code. He noted most of the proposed changes were considered
"housekeeping" type changes in nature. He then briefly reviewed the propose changes, noting a change in
the definition of "family" in Section 1201.02 of the Municipal Zoning Code. Next, he reviewed the other
changes proposed for this section, noting most of changes related to making policy and practice consistent
regarding the "60 day rule" in the planning process.
Director Nielsen also noted there was one proposed amendment for Section 1201.25, Subd. 2 regarding
minimum lot areas for a Planned Unit Development that should not be included in any motion
recommending approval as it needed to be considered separately as it required further review.
Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of the Zoning Code Amendments as
part of the Recodification process, with the exception of the proposed amendment for Section
1201.25, Subd. 2.
Commissioner Conley questioned the grammatical use of placement of commas in proposed amendment
Section 1201.03, Subd. 1.h. He stated he believed the second comma following the words "Zoning
Administrator" should be removed for clarity.
Without objection from the seconder of the motion, the maker of the motion amended the motion to
include removal of the comma following the words "Zoning Administrator" in Section 1201.03,
Subd. I.h. of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. Motion passed 7/0.
Gagne moved, Packard seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing on Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment Section 1201.25, Subd. 2 to the December 7, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Bailey closed this portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 5 of7
3.
BillLDING MOVING PERMIT - 5830 MINNETONKA DRIVE
A>>>>licants: Phobe Harrington
Location: 23870 Elder Turn
Director Nielsen explained the applicant owned the property at 23870 Elder Turn. She had arranged to
purchase an existing garage presently located on the property at 5380 Minnetonka Drive and move it to
her property along Minnetonka Drive. Shorewood's Municipal Code required such moves to be reviewed
by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. He also noted the applicant proposed
relocating the garage from its present location to the east side of her property located at the comer of
Minnetonka Drive and Elder Turn. She also planned to convert the existing garage on her property to
living space.
Director Nielsen also explained Shorewood's Code set forth a procedure for moving of buildings within
the city. The building must be inspected for compliance with current building codes, the City Engineer
must approve the route, and the police department must approve the route and the time of the move.
Given the recent construction of the building in question, its relative small size, and the short distance
over which it was proposed to be moved, none of these factors should preclude the move. He noted the
police typically specify that the structure be moved outside of rush hour traffic or at night. He went on to
explain the Building Official and City Engineer had both indicated approval of the request.
It is recommended that the move be approved, subject to the following:
1.
2.
The City Engineer must approve the route.
The applicant must provide proof that the proposed location of the garage would comply with
zoning requirements.
The applicant must convert the existing garage on her property to living space. Assuming
that this will not happen prior to the proposed move, a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee that the work would be completed within 90 days must be provided.
A State licensed building mover would be responsible for the move of the garage.
3.
4.
Director Nielsen also stated the site plan proposed conformed to City ordinances in this case, and the
conversion of garage space to living space, as well as the move of the garage remained a question of
appropriate timing of all issues.
White moved, Conley seconded, Recommending Approval of a Building Moving Permit, subject to
Staff Recommendations, for Phobe Harrington, 23870 Elder Turn. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MINOR SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
A>>>>licant: Mark Finch
Location: 20250 Excelsior Boulevard and Easterly Adjacent Parcel
Director Nielsen stated the applicants, Mark Finch and Tim Klouda, owned the properties at 20090 and
20250 Excelsior Boulevard, respectively. They proposed rearranging the common lot line between their
properties to simplify a gerrymandered lot line. The subject properties were located in the R-1A, Single-
Family Residential zoning district. He went on to explain part of the Klouda property included Tract D,
RLS 1083. Mr. Klouda proposed conveying the easterly 100 feet of Tract D to Mr. Finch, who would
then combine it with his property to the east. The amount of land to be conveyed was approximately
2150 square feet. He also noted Mr. Finch's property was actually two parcels. As part of this
application, Mr. Finch would legally combine his lots with the small triangle now owned by Mr. Klouda.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 60f7
. With regard to analysis of the case, Director Nielsen noted its simplicity since the proposed lot line
rearrangement would effectively remove a gerrymandered lot line between the two properties. He also
noted, per staffs recommendation, the applicants had agreed to provide the City with a drainage and
utility easement, 10 feet wide on each side of the new lot line. The applicants should also provide a deed
for this easement, to be included as an attachment to the resolution approving the division/combination.
He went on to explain Mr. Finch had requested the resolution not have to be recorded until such time as
the Klouda property (currently for sale) was sold. As long as the applicants provide an up-to-date title
opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney prior to the sale, it was recommended that
the City allow as much as six months for the transaction to be recorded.
Mark Finch, 20250 Excelsior Boulevard, stated he thought this request to be a simple transaction that
would rationalize an action that should have been done long ago.
The Commission had no questions on this case.
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision and
Combination, subject to Staff Recommendations, for Mark Finch, 20250 Excelsior Boulevard and
Easterly Adjacent Parcel. Motion passed 7/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
.
6.
DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained the next meeting of the Planning Commission was slated for December 7,
2004, and would include three Public Hearings regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Fill Over 100
Cubic Yards, a Zoning Text Amendment to Increase Allowable Signage in the C-l District, and a
Continuation of the Public Hearing held this evening regarding the Zoning Text Amendments and
Recodification. He also noted a request for Minor Subdivision would be part of that Agenda as well.
The Commission requested a brief discussion on variance criteria amendments be initiated that evening as
part of that Agenda.
7. REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Due to the absence this evening of Council Liaison Garfunkel and absence of Commissioners and
Director Nielsen at the most recent Council meeting, Recording Secretary Keefe provided a report on the
Regular City Council meeting of November 8, 2004(as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report given. Director Nielsen noted there would be a meeting of the Sensible Land Use Coalition on
December 1, 2004, at the DoubleTree Park Place Hotel in St. Louis Park, Minnesota from 11:30 A.M. to
1:30 P.M. The topic for that meeting was a presentation by Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat
titled, "Hennepin-the New Urban County. "
.
· Other - None.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 16, 2004
Page 7 of7
8. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 16,
2004, at 8:22 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,2004
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Chair Bailey (arrived 7:17 P.M.); Commissioners, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, Packard, and
White; Council Liaison Garfunkel and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
· November 16,2004
Packard moved, Conley seconded, Approving the November 16, 2004, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 3, Item 1, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1, change "enhance" to
"affect."
Commissioner Gniffke requested a schedule of Planning Commission Liaison to Council be added to the
Agenda for this meeting under Item 8. Acting Chair Gagne agreed.
Motion passed 5/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING- C.U.P. FOR FILL OVER 100 CUBIC YARDS
Applicant: Martin Davis
Location: 26310 Birch Bluff Road
Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public
Hearing.
Director Nielsen briefly reviewed the history of this case for the Commission and audience members
wishing to comment on the case, noting the applicant had requested this item be continued for sixty days
as he had planned a meeting with Staff to resolve outstanding issues related to the request.
Director Nielsen then briefly summarized the history of the project related to the fill on site, as well as the
tree preservation and reforestation plans for the project. He went on to explain Staff was concerned with
the drainage for the site and its impacts to the surrounding area, specifically related to an existing culvert
on the property as well as a culvert on the northerly side of the property. He stated Staff also remained
concerned for appropriate tree preservation and reforestation measures on site. In addition, the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) had expressed concern for this property and was also
anxious to bring resolution to the drainage impacts for the area. As a result, the MCWD had required a
16.5 foot buffer be placed around each of the three wetlands on the property with special seeding as a
requirement. Director Nielsen stated he believed all remaining issues of concern would be able to be
resolved and the applicant had indicated a willingness to work with City Staff to bring resolution to these
Issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2004
Page 2 of 5
.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant and his consultant for the project were not present this evening
due to the request for continuance.
Seeing no one present wishing to address the Commission on this issue, Acting Chair Gagne closed the
Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 14 P.M.
Gniffke moved, Meyer seconded, to Continue a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Fill over
100 Cubic Yards to the First Planning Commission Meeting in February, 2005, for Martin Davis,
26310 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Bailey arrived at 7: 17 P.M., and assumed the duties of the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.
2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE IN THE C-l DISTRICT
Applicant: Shurgard Self Storage (Mike Justak)
Location: 19545 Highway 7
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 18 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had purchased the two Minnesota Mini-Storage properties
located near Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road. Upon making application to change the signage to reflect
the new ownership, it was discovered the existing signage on the westerly site at 19545 State Highway 7
did not comply with the current C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning of the site.
.
Director Nielsen then went on to explain the applicants had applied for an amendment to the C-l Zoning
District requirements that would allow them to keep the same amount of signage as currently existed. He
then explained the history of the site, noting the original Minnesota Mini-Storage was constructed in
1983. In 1985, the City Zoning Code was recodified including an ordinance that reduced the amount of
signage allowed in the C-l District. Signs in existence on the site were allowed to remain non-compliant
due to the history of the site. He also stated the proposed freestanding sign for the westerly site would
contain 56.4 square feet of area.
When evaluating a request to change the Zoning Code, Director Nielsen stated it was important to
consider the effect the amendment would have on adjoining properties, not only for the subject site, but
for all similarly zoned properties. In this case, the subject site was the only property zoned C-l, and very
likely to be the only one so zoned. He also stated the property was sandwiched between C-3, General
Commercial property to the east and the Waterford P.U.D. district to the west. Both of these districts
allowed more signage than what was currently allowed in the C-1 District. He noted it seemed reasonable
that this site should be subject to the same requirements as the two adjoining districts.
Instead of being limited to 36 square feet, the property would be allowed signage equal to 10 percent of
the area of the building silhouette, as viewed from the street. Since this property was a corner lot, and in
order to prevent an extraordinarily large sign, he stated, the amendment could specifY that only one side
of the site could be used for calculating sign area.
.
Mike Justak, District Manager for Shurgard Self Storage, stated this application had been made in effort
to increase the signage and reduce difficulty in finding the site, especially for west bound traffic on
Highway 7.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2004
Page 3 of 5
. Director Nielsen, in response to Commissioner Packard's question, stated the proposed signage would
remain internally lit.
Commissioner Conley questioned whether there would be merit in considering an ordinance amendment
in the future addressing the maximum amount of square footage allowed in signage in the C-1 District.
Director Nielsen responded affirmatively, noting it would be helpful to hold a discussion on converting
the C-1 Zoning District to C- 3 Zoning District standards as part of the Commission's Work Program for
2005.
White moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for the C-1
District to allow signage equal to ten percent of the area of the building silhouette as viewed from
the street and to allow only one side of the site to be utilized for calculating sign area. Motion
passed 7/0.
Director Nielsen stated this item would be placed on the December 13, 2004, Regular City Council
Meeting Agenda.
Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Lecy Bros. Homes
Location: 5830 Minnetonka Drive
e
Director Nielsen explained Lecy Bros. Construction had purchased the property located at 5830
Minnetonka Drive. The applicant proposed removing the existing house on the property and subdividing
the lot into two building sites. He went on to explain the property was zoned R-1C, Single-Family
Residential and contained 42,409 square feet in area. The proposed lots would be 22,249 square feet and
20,160 square feet in area.
Director Nielsen noted both of the proposed lots complied with the requirements of the R-IC zoning
district. The building pads also complied with setback requirements. According to the applicants'
survey, one sanitary sewer service was available to the existing lot, and this service would be extended
via an easement to the northerly of the two lots, with new service being installed into an existing manhole
in front of the property.
He recommended that the minor subdivision be approved subject to the following:
1. The applicants must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10
feet around each lot.
2. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park
dedication fee ($1500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200).
.
4. Since the division itself did not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation could be addressed at the time building permits were applied for in
the planning process.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2004
Page 4 of 5
Director Nielsen also stated the applicant was not present this evening.
The Commission had no questions on this case.
Packard moved, White seconded, Recommending Approval of a Minor Subdivision, subject to Staff
Recommendations for Lecy Brothers Homes, 5830 Minnetonka Drive. Motion passed 7/0.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - P.U.D. DISTRICT
REQUIREMENTS
Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
Director Nielsen explained this matter had been continued from the November 16, 2004, Planning
Commission meeting. He went on to explain the City's recodification process was complete and the new
Code books were available for all Commissioners.
Next, Director Nielsen reviewed the history and existing language with regard to Section 1201.25, Subd.
2 (Planned Unit Development). He also stated the proposed draft language reflected the intent of the
Zoning Code, however, the proposed wording provided clarity. The proposed language for this Section
was stated as followed:
Subd.2 Permitted uses: The development agreement for any proposed P.U.D.
shall set forth the uses permitted within the proposed P.U.D. All permitted, accessory, or
conditional uses allowed in this chapter may be considered for a P.U.D. However, any
proposed P.U.D. that includes a mixture of residential and nonresidential uses shall be
limited to property containing no less than four acres of gross land area.
The Commission had no questions on this matter.
Conley moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Zoning Text Amendment for
Planned Unit Development District Requirements. Motion passed 7/0.
5. DISCUSS CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
Chair Bailey presented an annual update of a historical profile of variance requests held in the most recent
year. He stated this document was shared with the Commission as a way of providing consistency
throughout decisions made by the Commission and was meant to be a reference document only.
The Commission thanked Chair Bailey for his efforts in providing this historical compilation and noted its
usefulness in the upcoming year.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen explained there would be a request for Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure
over 1200 square feet, and a discussion of the Commission's Work Program for 2005 slated for the
January 4, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
December 7, 2004
Page 5 of5
8.
REPORTS
· Liaison to Council
Commissioner White reported on matters considered and actions taken at the Regular City Council
Meeting of November 22,2004 (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
· SLUC
No report was given.
· Other
2005 Planning Commission Liaisons to the City Council were selected as followed:
January
February
March
April
May
Commissioner Meyer
Commissioner Gagne
Commissioner Gniftke
Commissioner Conley
Commissioner White
On behalf of the entire Planning Commission, Chair Bailey thanked Council Liaison Garfunkel for his
service and dedication to the City and Commission in recent years. He stated he greatly appreciated the
efforts put forth by Councilmember Garfunkel in his years of service and he would be missed by all due
to the change in ward elections.
Council Liaison Garfunkel stated he also appreciated the work of the Planning Commission. He stated he
had enjoyed his time spent in working with the Commission, and wished all parties present the best of
luck in the future.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Packard moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 7,
2004, at 8:06 P.M. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Sally Keefe
Recording Secretary