1994 planning minutes
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula
and Turgeon; Council liaison Lewis and Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
December 7, 1993 meeting.
Motion passed 7/0.
1.
7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Aoolicant:
Location:
John Einhorn
5580 Howard's Point Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public
hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the Einhorn's request for a 3' variance to the 50' setback from
Howard's Point Road in connection with the location of a new home to be constructed
to replace the existing home at 5580 Howard's Point Road. The existing home is old
and grossly substandard with respect to setbacks in that it is located only 14.3' from
Island View Road and 22.6' from Howard's Point Road. In 1992, the Einhorns were
denied setback variances which would have allowed them to build 8' closer to
Howard's Point Road and 9.5' closer to Island View Road. The Einhorn's letter dated
December 1, 1993 explains justification of the variance to minimize damage to
existing trees on the site. A petition signed by area residents favoring the request
was also submitted. Nielsen described the location of the existing home and the
proposed location of the new home. The primary concern is preservation of two lines
of old large white pines on the site. Nielsen explained the location of the tree line
appears accurate on the survey, but a field-check of the site indicates the canopy of
the trees appears much larger than shown on the survey.
Several factors support granting the requested variance: 1) Moving the house 3' away
from the trees reduces the risk of damage to the trees. 2) At this location, the right-
1
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 2
of-way for Howard's Point Road is 66' wide, 16' wider than a local street is required
to be and 6' wider than MSA streets are required to be (Howard's Point Road is a
proposed MSA route.) The additional 3' of r.o.w. on each side of the street tends to
offset the 3' variance. 3. A number of homes on Howard's Point Road, particularly on
the west side north of the subject site are closer than 50' to the road, thus the 3'
variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. Construction of a new
home, (rather than adding to the existing home) drastically improves the conformity
of the property to zoning standards despite the 3' variance. 5. The proposed home is
not considered overly large; reducing the depth of the structure was considered,
however, it is only 24' deep.
Based on the factors described, Nielsen recommended the 3' variance be granted
subject to the following conditions: a. Snow fencing be erected as a construction
barrier prior to excavation for the new home. b. No additional structures or expansion
of the new home be allowed which will result in damage to the existing trees.
Mr. Einhorn explained that while the drawing shows the proposed location of the new
home to be 44' feet from Howard's Point Road reflecting a prior considered variance,
the actual location will be 47' from the Road. He requested clarification of the
average set-back relative to the proposed new home. Nielsen explained that his
review indicates that using an average set-back would not bring the new home closer
to the Road.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7: 15 p.m., there being no
comments from the public.
Turgeon requested clarification of the condition that no further expansion be allowed.
Nielsen explained the rationale for the variance is to save the trees therefore
expansion may be possible on the south or in the back, however none would be
allowed that would disturb the trees.
Pisula suggested a review of the City's variance criteria. Nielsen described the
statutes and City ordinances that set forth the criteria under which variances may be
granted and related the criteria to the request before the Commission.
Malam stated the proposal brings the property into conformance. Foust inquired how
the conditions are imposed on the property owner, particularly in the case of a new
owner. Nielsen explained the conditions imposed on the current construction are
protected through building permit administration and the most effective method of
future enforcement would be protective covenants recorded against the lot. Nielsen
described the MSA street designation in response to Foust's inquiry. Bean stated that
while a risk exists that a future owner may remove the trees, the current issue is to
make the property more consistent with the neighborhood and lot lines.
. Borkon favored the proposal and noted it will upgrade a substandard house and set
a positive precedence for other properties. Malam expressed some uneasiness with
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 3
.
prescribing what a property owner may not do with his trees. It was agreed that
ultimately the condition is unenforceable.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
request of Mr. and Mrs. John Einhorn for a 3' setback variance at 5580 Howard's
Point Road, subject to the conditions stipulated by the staff.
Motion passed 7/0.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its January 24 meeting.
2. 7: 15 PUBLIC HEARING - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/VARIANCE FOR TWO
DWELLINGS (TEMPORARIL VI ON A SINGLE-FAMIL V RESIDENTIAL LOT
Aoolicant:
Location:
Matt Donahue
5275 St. Albans Bay Road
Rosenberger announced the case and reviewed the procedures for a public hearing.
.
Nielsen reviewed the request of Matt Donahue to subdivide his property at 5275 St.
Albans Bay Road into 2 lots. The property is zoned R-1 A, single-family residential and
contains 6.24 acres. The southerly of the 2 lots, which will have the applicant's
existing home on it, will contain 3.53 acres and the vacant lot will contain 2.71 acres.
In addition, Mr. Donahue requests a variance to allow 2 dwellings on 1 lot on a
temporary basis. He proposes to locate a 30'x 70' prefab structure on the right hand
side of the vacant lot while building a new home on that lot. City ordinance
specifically provides that only 1 house may be located on a lot.
With respect to the subdivision, Nielsen stated the proposed lots exceed the 40,000
square foot minimum lot size required by the zoning ordinance and that although the
applicant indicates he does not intend dividing the property further, the site is
dividable into at least 4 lots. Nielsen explained the Exhibit prepared recommending lot
lines for the property that will allow future subdivision of the parcel without a lot
width variance. Nielsen recommended a restrictive covenant be recorded against the
property stating it will not be redivided in the future if the applicant chooses not to
straighten the lot lines.
.
With respect to the variance, Nielsen stated the request is unusual in that although
an older home has been allowed to remain on a site while a new home is built, there
has not been a case where a temporary dwelling has been moved to the site. The
applicant requests that he be allowed 1 year to build a new home. Six months has
been the time limit imposed for completion of a new house in past cases. Nielsen
stated that if the variance is approved, a stipulation be included that the temporary
dwelling be connected to the municipal sewer system. It is assumed the structure will
share a well with the existing home.
3
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 4
Based on the staff analysis, Nielsen recommended approval of the proposed
subdivision subject to: 1. Lot line between the 2 lots straightened as prescribed by
staff. 2. Applicant provide an up-to-date title opinion or title commitment prior to final
approval. 3. Required deeds for drainage and utility easements prepared. 4. Payment
of 1 park dedication fee and 1 sewer access charge for the newly created lot. 5.
Further subdivision of the parcel be done by formal platting. 6. Preparation of a
protective covenant to restrict further division of the property recorded with the lot
split if applicant insists property will not be resubdivided. 7. Completion within 30
days of items 1.-3. and 6. after which final Council review will be scheduled. 8.
Recording of division within 30 days following final approval.
If a variance is granted to allow temporary location of 2 dwellings on 1 lot, Nielsen
recommended it be contingent upon: a. Proposed structure comply with all pertinent
building code requirements. b. Structure moved by licensed house mover on a route
approved by the City Engineer at a time approved by the Police Department. c. Cost
estimate for removal of the structure from a licensed house mover be provided and
a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150% of the estimate be provided
to insure removal of the structure within a specified time. d. Variance must be used
within 1 year with City stipulation of length of time temporary structure can remain.
e. Temporary structure connected to sanitary sewer. f. Temporary structure located
within buildable lot area as specified under the R-1 A zoning district.
. Mr. Donahue explained the lot line follows the contour of topography of the parcel.
He explained that the temporary structure will not be moved to the lot until his
present home is sold; construction of the new home is expected to take at least 1
year; his present home will be sold with a covenant restricting further subdivision;
requested the lot lines remain as shown in his application; described the temporary
structure and its movement to the property and water and sewer hookups. Donahue
requested that rather than requiring a cash escrow to insure removal of the temporary
structure, the City tie its removal with the new home occupancy permit. He was
unclear as to when the one-year use of the variance requirement begins - 1 year from
date of sale of his present home or from date building permit issued.
.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m., there being no
comments from the public.
Nielsen explained the timing of the one-year variance noting the temporary structure
may remain for 6 months or for whatever time period the City may approve. Donahue
stated the cost to move the temporary structure from the lot is $3000-$5000. Malam
noted a letter of credit is acceptable to the City. Nielsen stated tying removal of the
temporary structure to issuance of the occupancy certificate for the new home is
acceptable and a letter of credit is acceptable to cover the overlap period.
Malam inquired whether the applicant intends to further subdivide his property.
Donahue explained the new home will be built in the middle of the lot precluding
further subdivision. Nielsen reiterated the rationale for straightening out the lot lines
4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 5
.
which would also simplify the legal description of the property. Donahue reiterated
that a covenant restricting subdivision will be recorded with the lot.
Bean inquired whether the fact that he is the applicant's adjoining property owner
constitutes a conflict of interest. Nielsen explained that according to the City
Attorney, a conflict does not exist if Commission members do not gain financially
from a transaction resulting from Commission action. (Bean will not gain financially
from this action therefore participated in discussion and vote of the application.)
It was clarified that the applicant must use the variance within one year of the date
of Council approval and agreed the temporary structure may be located on the
property for one year beyond that. Bean stated the neighborhood's primary concern
is the type and location of the temporary structure. Donahue stated it will be set on
footings located in the front 1/3 area of the lot according to required setbacks and will
aesthetically fit into the neighborhood.
.
Borkon inquired what procedures would be followed relative to the temporary home
if the applicant would be unable to build or complete a permanent home on the lot.
Nielsen stated the structure would be required to conform to current codes and while
the temporary structure will be in conformance, the foundation could be questionable.
Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed that if at the end of the year the
permanent home has not been built, the temporary home would become permanent
and must meet all current codes. It was noted that granting of the variance is based
on the short-term temporary nature of the circumstances and the acceptable type of
structure to be used as the applicant's home during the construction period.
Borkon indicated approval of the variance should be contingent upon straightening of
the lot lines as recommended by the staff, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant
intends to record subdivision restrictions with the property to be sold.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
request of Matt Donahue for a simple subdivision at 5275 St. Albans Bay Road,
subject to conditions 1. - 8. in Nielsen's January 3, 1994 memorandum.
Motion passed 7/0.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
request of Matt Donahue for a variance for two dwellings on one lot at 5275 St.
Albans Bay road, subject to condition 9.a. through f. in Nielsen's memorandum of
January 3, 1994, and the addition of condition 9.g.: If the new house is not
completed and occupancy certificate issued within the one year time period, the
temporary structure must be moved off or brought into conformance with City codes
for modular housing.
. Motion passed 7/0.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 6
. The Council will consider the recommendations at its January 24 meeting.
3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/LOT AREA VARIANCE
(Continued from December 7, 1993)
Applicant:
Location:
Gregory Erickson
5290 Howard's Point Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case, outlined the procedures for a public hearing,
noted the hearing is a continuance from December 7, 1993, briefly reviewed the
issues questioned at the December 7 hearing: the size of the parcel and whether
alterations to the property were made in accordance with regulations, and noted
receipt of correspondence from the DNR dated December 22, 1993 and from the City
Attorney dated December 27, 1993.
.
Nielsen reviewed Mr. Erickson's request to subdivide his property into two lots at
5290 Howard's Point Road and pointed out that a discrepancy exists between the
June 1990 survey and one dated November 1993. He indicated that as reported at
the previous meeting, the City Attorney's memorandum states a current survey from
a registered surveyor exists and the 929.4' ordinary high water mark and lot area of
80,536 square feet is attested to by the surveyor. Nielsen stated the difference in
size between the surveys appears to be attributed to the riprapping project. A letter
inquiring whether the project was completed in accordance with the permit was sent
to the Watershed District and a letter to the DNR inquired whether riprapping can
increase the area of a piece of property. A response from the DNR indicates
placement of riprapping should not increase lot size at least by much, and if backfill
was added a DNR permit would be required. The applicant stated fill was not added;
only boulders were placed with the original contour of the lakeshore.
Nielsen stated the applicant's request for subdivision is simple when using the current
survey showing 80,536 square feet of area and more complex if the parcel contains
less than 80,000 square feet. The DNR's response does not clarify the amount of
land that could result from the protection procedure but further investigation will be
conducted. A response from the Watershed District has not yet been received as to
whether the work was done in accordance with the permit.
Nielsen stated that since the December 7 meeting, a review of lot sizes in a
neighborhood area of the subject location indicates a number of lots are less than
40,000 square feet ranging in size from 15,000 square feet and more. Without the
subject property, the average size is 45,690 square feet. The question before the
Commission is whether the applicant can make reasonable use of his property.
.
Rosenberger inquired whether the applicant wishes to wait until a determination of the
lot size is made before action is taken on his request. Mr. Erickson stated the current
survey shows the property contains more than 80,000 square feet.
6
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 7
Nielsen stated a recommendation is before the Commission based on a certified
current survey. If it is determined there is less than 80,000 square feet or if the
procedure by which the lot size was increased is in question, the Commission must
nevertheless determine whether a variance for the subdivision is appropriate. Nielsen
reiterated that based on a review of other lot sizes in the area, a subdivision of the
subject parcel resulting in buildable lots less than 40,000 square feet is reasonable.
Bean inquired on what basis the variance is justified. Nielsen reiterated the applicant
is unable to make reasonable use of the property as the one lot is nearly double the
size of the average lots in the area and further that a number of surrounding lots are
substantially less than 40,000 square feet. Bean suggested the ordinance should
include further definition of qualifying criteria.
Mr. Erickson stated the Hennepin County Tax Assessor shows the parcel to be
79,71 5 square feet, which is 1000 square feet more than the first survey. He stated
the lot line is dynamic, subject to ice pushing against it, so it becomes a moving line.
However, the current survey creates a line that does not change in accordance with
the watershed district and the rules and regulations of the DNR. He pointed out the
City Attorney recommends honoring the current survey. Mr. Jeff Carroll, Attorney,
pointed out: 1) a current certified survey dated August 1993 showing 80,536 square
feet exists; 2) the City Attorney's review of the matter confirms the definition of the
lot area; 3) staff report supports justification of the variance. Carroll noted the issue
is before the Commission only because the City requests straightening of the lot lines
as part of the subdivision which requires a variance; therefore the subdivision and
variance should be granted.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 8:34 p.m., there being no
comments from the public.
Turgeon favored postponing action until complete information is available involving
questions about the square footage and the status of the riprapping procedure. Pisula
indicated that if the survey is correct and the DNR states the protective procedure
was completed within permit rules, no problem exists; however, he acknowledged
that such information is not available at this time. Nielsen suggested the Commission
may wish to approve the application subject to receipt of affirmative information on
the questions. The Commissioners generally did not favor that approach.
Malam stated the issue before the Commission remains whether a variance is justified
notwithstanding the fact that the subdivision creates a lot that may have less than
40,000 square feet. He supported granting the variance based on the owner's need
to make reasonable use of his property and taking into consideration comparable lot
sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. Turgeon, Borkon and Bean questioned what
square footage under 40,000 square feet of area should be allowed. Nielsen stated
that in terms of how the property is divided, the resulting parcels are buildable, a
current certified survey exists showing 80,000 square feet, and that perhaps the issue
is the DNR's responsibility.
7
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 8
Borkon reiterated that complete information for decision-making is not available at this
time and favored postponing action until responses are received from the affected
parties. Foust inquired whether multiple surveys have been required before. Bean
explained the issue of two surveys and the discrepancy between them arose during
the Commission's December 7 consideration of the application. The City Attorney's
position is that the current survey be honored with the provision that it assumes the
fill/riprapping was done in accordance with the permit, yet that evidence is not yet
available nor is any information available from the watershed district. Bean stated the
City's liability is unknown if a variance is granted where no authority to do so may
exist; therefore the Commission has an obligation to review all the information before
a decision is made on the variance.
Borkon moved, Bean seconded to continue for 2 weeks to January 18, 1994
consideration of the request of Gregory Erickson for a simple subdivision/lot area
variance at 5290 Howard's Point Road.
Motion passed 5/2. Rosenberger and Malam voted nay.
The meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
4. SITE PLAN REVIEW - WATERFORD 6TH ADDITION (Commercial P.U.DJ
Aoolicant:
Location:
JMS Equities, Inc.
Outlot C, Waterford 4th Addition
Nielsen stated that in 1984 the City worked with developers (Trivesco) to develop an
area west of Vine Hill Road, south of Highway 7 and east of Covington Road. He
reviewed the development to date which includes single family homes and twinhomes.
At this point, the first stage of the commercial development is being proposed as a
planned unit development along the front tier of property along Highway 7 by Jeffrey
Schoenwetter representing JMS Equities, Inc., who purchased the property from
Trivesco. Nielsen briefly described the other future commercial plans.
Nielsen stated the applicant's plans have been reviewed based on the original
Waterford Design Framework Manual approved in 1984, the Development Stage Plan
and Preliminary Plat approved in 1990, and the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
executed in 1991.
Nielsen stated the proposed uses (tenants for the strip center) are consistent with
previously approved plans; the building floor plan has been slightly modified for the
better; the facade has been improved; and the roofline of the building has also been
re-designed to a full hip roof. He reviewed the revisions recommended to the
applicant's proposed site plan (Nielsen's memorandum dated December 29, 1993) and
explained how the developer subsequently revised the plans to comply with the staff
recommendations. Nielsen reviewed the restrictions imposed on the various uses and
noted these will be included in the restrictive covenants. Niel~en described the
8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 9
.
landscaping proposed for the site which has been substantially improved from earlier
plans and provides for adequate site distances. He suggested adding additional
landscaping to soften the front of the storefronts. Revised parking plans now exceed
the required number of parking spots.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan and made recommendations regarding
placement of fire hydrants and no parking-fire lane signs. The City Engineer's report
covering the preliminary site and utility plan for the project suggests shifting the
center driveway to the site to meet sight distance criteria.
Nielsen stated the final plat will be prepared for this site only and the remainder of the
property designated as an outlot. He described the provisions of the development
agreement, use and maintenance agreement, and protective covenants to be filed with
the final plat. Nielsen recommended approval of the site plan subject to the staff
recommendations.
.
Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter, President of JMS Equities, Inc., stated work on this project
has continued for several months and it is anticipated it will be fully leased. He
agreed with recommendations outlined by Nielsen including a change in the curb cut
to move a driveway and the addition of landscaping for store front areas. He
described the lighting for the site: 5 towers in the parking lots and wall-packs installed
in the rear of the building for security purposes. The restrictions including hours of
operations are acceptable to the current prospective tenants. It was noted that any
alterations to the restrictions require a public hearing. Schoenwetter requested
approval of the revised site plan.
The Commissioners discussed the proposed site plan including: hours of operation of
the proposed re-Iocated liquor store, status of the frontage road (Brom's Boulevard),
location of air conditioning units, lighting, parking and traffic movement on the site,
process for allowing on-site liquor sales, signage including window signs, trash
receptacles, building and roof design and colors, and landscaping. Qualifications of
the developer, architect and management-leasing agent were outlined. Concern was
expressed regarding overall maintenance of the strip mall in the future and it was
suggested that staff development of a commercial maintenance regulation for
Shorewood.
Following its review and discussion, the Commissioners accepted the site plan
proposed by JMS Equities, Inc. with the revisions recommended and integrated into
the final plan.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
site plans for the first phase of the Waterford Commercial Development subject to the
recommendations of the staff.
. Motion passed 7/0.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 4, 1994 - PAGE 10
. The Council will consider the recommendation at its January 24 meeting.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6. REPORTS
Lewis provided an update on the City's proceedings against the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission. Nielsen noted the Council referred consideration of the
Horse/Stable Ordinances to the Planning Commission. Borkon suggested the staff
review placing temporary structure criteria under provisions of the conditional use
permit regulations and study development of a commercial maintenance code. Nielsen
reviewed and explained the City's zoning tools.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
10
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula,
and Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis and Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's January
4, 1994 meeting.
Motion passed 7/0.
1.
PUBLIC HEARING - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION/LOT AREA VARIANCE (Continued
from January 4, 1994)
Apolicant:
Location:
Greg Erickson
5920 Howard's Point Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and noted the hearing is a continuance from
January 4, 1994.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request to subdivide the 2-acre property (containing
80,536 square feet of area) into two single family lots. Initially, the division showed
a lot line that jogged toward Howard's Point Road to create two lots, each with
approximately 40,000 square feet of area. Staff, however, suggested the applicant
straighten out the lot line to make it more perpendicular with Howard's Point Road
and consistent with existing policy. This recommendation requires a lot area variance
because one of the resulting lots would contain less than the required area under the
R-1 A zoning district.
During the public hearing it was pointed out that a previous survey showed the
property contained less area than shown on the current survey. Nielsen pointed out
that it was questioned whether the riprapping done on the property last summer
increased the size of the lot. Pending responses from the DNR and the Minnehaha
Watershed District regarding the riprapping project, the application has been continued
for several weeks. Nielsen noted both the DNR and the Watershed District state (in
responses dated January 14, 1994) that their respective investigations conclude that
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 2
. the riprap work was done in compliance with a valid Watershed District permit and
that the work was done consistent with the criteria for projects not requiring a DNR
permit. The DNR further states that the change in area may be partly due to the
riprap project and some change in the calculated area would be within the acceptable
standards of accuracy for a survey of that type. Nielsen brought the Commissions's
attention to the City Engineer's January 31, 1994 letter which explains the survey
methodology used for acreage computations and describes how variances result
through interpretations of descriptions and measurement techniques.
Nielsen stated the staff's recommendation remains that of granting the applicant's
subdivision request with a lot area variance for the northerly lot due to straightening
of the lot line.
Mr. Jeff Carroll, Attorney representing Mr. Erickson, pointed out a current certified
survey exists; the affected agencies verified the riprap work is within the scope of the
permit; and the City Engineer's opinion states the survey is within acceptable
standards. Therefore, Carroll stated it has been established that the property contains
the required area for subdivision, the applicant is willing to straighten the lot line for
the convenience of the City, and requested the Commission to accept the staff's
recommendation.
.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7: 1 0 p.m.
Mr. David McCuskey, 5250 Howard's Point Road, distributed a copy of his letter
dated February 1, 1994, which states that the responses from the Watershed District
and the DNR have been misinterpreted by the City staff. He believes the agencies
concluded the rip rap work did not account for the area increase shown in the current
survey.
Mr. Carroll responded that Mr. McCuskey misinterprets the agencies' responses and
reiterated that a certified current survey verifies the property contains more than
80,000 square feet in area.
Mr. Tom Wartman stated fill was not added during the rip rap project on the property,
that 3-4' boulders were used and that the work was performed under the direction of
a qualified contractor.
Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
.
Turgeon, Pisula, and Foust accepted the conclusions received from the DNR and the
Watershed District regarding the riprapping project and expressed concurrence with
the staff's recommendation for approval of the request with a lot width variance.
Malam stated the lot area has no significance to the applicant's request and concurred
approval.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 3
. Bean explained his concern regarding the precedent set and what it means in terms
of the City's exposure to liability. Nielsen reiterated that the staff looked to the DNR
and the watershed district to determine whether anything was done outside of the
permit. The agencies appear satisfied with what has occurred on the property and do
not appear to be concerned with further testing or requiring additional permit(s).
Nielsen pointed out that if in fact fill was added to the location it would be a violation
of DNR regulations and the agency would have to pursue it. Bean stated that based
on the expert opinion rendered by the agencies, he concurred with the
recommendation.
Borkon agreed with Bean's concern regarding setting a precedent in this approval, but
acknowledged that sufficient clarification has been provided. She inquired whether
the City Attorney may have misinterpreted the Commission's concerns. Nielsen
stated he has discussed the matter with the Attorney and is assured the Attorney
thoroughly understands the issue.
.
Rosenberger inquired whether the variance request meets the criteria for granting
approval. Nielsen stated the over-riding factor is the public interest in that creating
two oddly sized lots would exacerbate the situation and by granting a variance
allowing the line lot to be straightened is of public value. Bean noted that a key point
is the applicant did not request the variance; it is for the City's convenience. Malam
pointed out the Commission has previously allowed subdivisions such as this where
the lot size will be consistent with those in the neighborhood. Bean noted, however,
that in those situations, the issue was not contested, therefore the Commission has
been obligated to thoroughly investigate this matter.
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
simple subdivision request of Mr. Gregory Erickson, with a lot area variance, at 5290
Howard's Point Road.
Motion passed 7/0.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its February 14 meeting.
2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Location:
Jack Duda
20845 Idlewild Path
.
Rosenberger announced the case. Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request to
subdivide property located at 20845 Idlewild Path into two lots both of which meet
or exceed the requirements of the R-1 D zoning district. The northerly lot on which Mr.
Duda's house is located will contain 17,435 square feet of area and the southerly
vacant lot will contain 12,473 square feet. Nielsen recommended approval of the
proposed subdivision subject to the following: 1) Tin shed located on Parcel A must
be removed or moved into compliance with R-1 D setback requirements prior to release
3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 4
.
of the Council's approval resolution, 2) Applicant must provide drainage and utility
easements as prescribed (a title opinion will reveal if these easements already exist),
3) Applicant must provide an up-to-date title opinion or commitment by February 14,
4) Applicant must pay one park dedication fee and one local sanitary sewer access
charge for the new lot prior to release of the Council's approval resolution, and 5)
Applicant must record the resolution with Hennepin County within 30 days of Council
approval.
Mr. Duda was not present at the meeting. Bean inquired whether the applicant has
any objection to moving the tin shed. Nielsen stated the matter has been discussed
with Mr. Duda and he has agreed to move the shed.
Bean moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
request of Jack Duda for a simple subdivision at 20845 Idlewild Path, subject to the
staff recommendations.
Motion passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its February 28 meeting.
3. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
.
Aoolicant:
Location:
Warren McCurdy
5360 Vine Hill Road
Rosenberger announced the case. Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request to
subdivide property at 5360 Vine Hill Road into two lots which meet or exceed the
minimum size requirements for the R-1 C zoning district; one lot with an existing house
will contain 20,001 square feet of area and the lot with the wetland on it will contain
approximately 39,584 square feet excluding the wetland. The applicant proposes that
the two lots will share the existing driveway. Nielsen pointed out that the existing
house is located only 46 feet from the rear lot line, leaving little room for any addition
such as a deck or porch. Staff recommends the applicant consider moving the
property line to increase the depth of Parcel A by at least 10 feet. Further, Nielsen
suggested if the applicant does not wish to move that line, some documentation
advising of the proximity of the house to the rear lot line be attached to the property
for the benefit of a future property owner. Nielsen indicated the City Attorney will be
consulted regarding feasibility of such an instrument and approval of the subdivision
should be subject to the Attorney's review. With respect to the driveway, Nielsen
stated the shared driveway should be encouraged to limit direct access points on Vine
Hill and recommended the driveway be widened from 12 to 16 feet for the portion
which will be shared and that as a condition of approval, the applicant should record
a joint use and maintenance agreement.
. Nielsen recommended approval of the applicant's request subject to conditions 1.
through 11. detailed in his memorandum dated January 27, 1994, and subject to the
4
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 5
City Attorney's review of the matter regarding the proximity of the rear lot line to the
existing house.
Mr. McCurdy explained that he preferred not to adjust the lot line as recommended
because of the location of a drainage ditch on Parcel B, the lot line shown in his
application allows a better building site on that parcel. He stated that water and
sewer access are stubbed in on the property.
Bean inquired about the available building area given the location of the utility
easement. Nielsen stated proposals have been reviewed and from the standpoint of
buildable area, the parcel is ample. He also stated that a second driveway would be
acceptable; however testing of the soil to determine its condition would probably be
necessary given the wetlands on the property.
The driveway, site lines and traffic levels relative to Vine Hill Road were discussed.
Nielsen noted that further development on Vine Hill Road is limited and explained the
City's authority to place reasonable restrictions on subdivisions.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
simple subdivision request of Warren McCurdy at 5360 Vine Hill Road, subject to the
staff recommendations outlined in Nielsen's memorandum dated January 27, 1994,
and the City Attorney's review of the possibility of recording an instrument relative
to the proximity of the rear lot line to the existing house on the property.
Motion passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its February 28 meeting.
The meeting recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.
4. STUDY SESSION
Review Horse and Pony Code - Chapter 702
Rosenberger announced that although the Commission's review of Chapter 702 of the
City Code at this meeting does not include a publiC hearing, comments will be heard
from the public. He outlined the procedures for a public hearing. A formal hearing will
likely be conducted by the City Council.
Nielsen stated the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review Chapter
702, Horses and Ponies, with a view to correction of a discrepancy in this ordinance
and the zoning ordinance relating to use of fencing and other issues. Residents
affected by the Horse and Pony ordinance have been advised of the study and their
comments solicited. In addition, those residents have been notified of violations
pending issuance of their permits/licenses. Nielsen reviewed and made
recommendations regarding the problem areas in the ordinance from the staff's
5
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 6
perspective including setback requirements, use of barb and electric fences, and
grandfathering rules.
Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 8: 1 0 p.m.
Pam Whelan, 5910 Cathcart Drive, a 27-year horse owner and former horse inspector,
strongly recommended and requested that electric fencing be allowed for containment
of horses and explained that such fencing is the only means to successfully confine
horses. She stated that complaints have not been raised regarding horses in the City,
that the number owners has dwindled from about 50 to 6 over the years, and that
electric fencing does not create a safety problem for humans. Ms. Whelan
commented on the non-regulated use of invisible fences for dogs.
Clare Browning, 6040 Christmas Lake Road, described the use of electric and wood
fences on her property and supported the continued use of electric fencing since in
her experience it contains horses and has not created any safety problems.
DeWayne Laurila, 5595 Eureka Road, stated that horse owners have resided in the
City in the same locations for many years and expressed concern they will be
penalized and discriminated against by rules and regulations that impinge on long-time
lifestyles of horse owners. He questioned whether the use of electric fencing has
presented any safety problems in the past.
Renee Foster, owner of the property at 5595 Eureka Road, expressed concern that
strict adherence to the setback requirements under the ordinance will effectively
reducethe horse owners' available property to properly maintain horses and eventually
unfairly force horses and their owners out of the City.
Carol Westby, 27020 West 62nd Street, a horse owner for 17 years, expressed
concern that the City has previously issued permits with knowledge of the nature of
horses and supported use of electric fencing particularly if the City is concerned about
the safety of current and future residents.
Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
The Commissioners reviewed and discussed each Section and Subdivision of Chapter
702. Nielsen and the horse owners in attendance responded to questions posed by
the Commissioners.
Following discussion, the Commission agreed by consensus to recommend to the
Council that Chapter 702, Horses and Ponies, of the City Code, be amended as
follows under Section 702.3, Inspection of Premises, Required Standards:
- Fencing (Subd. 2): Exclude use of barb wire; allow electric fence by reference to the
applicable Zoning Code to be amended to exempt horse containment by electric fence
from the current prohibition.
6
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 1, 1994 - PAGE 7
- Setbacks for a shelter facility (Subd. 3): Change the property line reference from
100' to 50' from any property line of the applicant; reference the Zoning Code to be
amended to exempt current horse owners based on circumstances existing prior to
enactment of the amended zoning ordinance.
- Deletion of Subd. 5 - issue regulated by zoning code.
The meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
Discuss Elderly Housing Site Analysis
Nielsen presented and reviewed a Senior Housing Site Analysis (Preliminary Draft
dated February 1, 1994) prepared by the staff, which described 34 possible sites for
senior housing in Shorewood. He stated a statement on senior housing will be
included in the land use section of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The Commissioners discussed the information provided and issues related to senior
housing for Shorewood. Following discussion, it was agreed that the staff will delete
the reference to Scores and Rank and update the analysis for the Commission's
further discussion during consideration of the land use section of the Comprehensive
Plan.
It was agreed the Commission's meeting scheduled for Tuesday. February 15, will
begin at 6:30 p.m. Nielsen announced the March 1 meeting is rescheduled to
Tuesday. March 8. 1994.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6. REPORTS
Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its January 24 meeting and answered
questions from the Commissioners.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
7
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
6:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula,
and Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis and Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
February 1, 1994 meeting.
Motion passed 7/0.
1. HORSE AND PONY CODE - Proposed Amendment
Nielsen reviewed the draft amendments to City Code Chapters 702, Horses and Ponies,
and 1201, Zoning, previously discussed by the Commission at its February 1 meeting.
The amendment to Chapter 702 provides for the use of electric fences only in
conjunction with the issuance of a horse permit and the amendment to Chapter 1201 will
make the ordinance consistent with Chapter 702 by excluding electric fences from the
prohibition of such fences when used in conjunction with issuance of a horse permit.
During review of the proposed amendments, the Commissioners considered the
grandfather aspects of the ordinances and marking of wire/electric fences for safety
purposes. The Commissioners agreed the drafts as presented are consistent with
recommendations made at the Commission's February 1 meeting. The zoning ordinance
amendment requires a public hearing by the Planning Commission which is scheduled
for March 8. The City Council will conduct the hearing on the horse ordinance on March
28.
2. SENIOR HOUSING SITE ANALYSIS - None.
3. COMP PLAN
- Land Use and Natural Resources - Issues and Policies
1
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 15, 1994 - PAGE 2
Nielsen introduced the review of the Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted that issues related to land use are currently less
controversial due to established development patterns. Nielsen pointed out that a
number of issues related to natural resources/environment such as wetlands, ground
water protection, water conservation, etc. require careful examination and resolution to
comply with recent legislation.
The Commissioners considered and discussed each of the natural resources issues
identified: soils, slopes, diseased trees, wetlands, surface water quality, and air and noise
pollution.
The meeting recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
The Commissioners discussed various land use policies relative to future development
of available parcels in Shorewood and suggested land use issues for possible inclusion
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Issues, objectives and policies of the Land Use and Natural Resources sections of the
Comprehensive Plan will be further discussed at the Commission's next meeting.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
5.
REPORTS
Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its February 14 meeting and answered
questions from the Commissioners.
Nielsen informed the Commission of a March 17 Open House presentation by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation on the current alternative proposed for the
Christmas Lake/Highway 7 reconstruction project. He described the proposal. Nielsen
referred to a Planning Seminar and Malam and Borkon volunteered to attend.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
2
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon;
Planning Director Nielsen. Administrator Hurm and Park Commission Chair
McCarty attended as indicated.
Absent:
Commissioner Borkon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's February 15,
1994 meeting.
Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT
Applicant:
Location:
Bob Pierce (representing Brad Brunner)
25380 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case. Nielsen stated the applicant proposes to divide the
property into three lots ranging in size from 20,000 to 23,000 sq.ft. in area. The property,
zoned R-IC, is currently occupied by a single-family home and a detached garage. Nielsen
reviewed elements not included on the survey: existing structures; 15' road easement on the east
side; drainage and utility easements; name of the plat and appropriate labeling. He noted the
easements were recorded as part of a previous division of the property. Based on these
concerns, Nielsen recommended that the applicant re-plat the property consistent with the Code.
He indicated re-platting will likely result in a 2-lot subdivision rather than 3 lots in order to
comply with minimum size requirements under the Code.
Mr. Bob Pierce described the location of the patio not shown on the survey and explained that
it was under snow at the time of the survey. He indicated the patio and the deck can be
removed so as not to encroach upon the set-back requirements. Regarding the 15' road
easement, Pierce stated he viewed the square footage of such easements as a part of the lot's
/
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 1994 - PAGE 2
total area. He stated Lot 1 contains ample room for a home and described an example of
placement of a home and garage on that lot.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7: 10 p.m.
Mr. Joe Laska, 5630 Wedgewood Drive, expressed concern regarding theW 35' setback based
on a 50' r.o. w. He stated all the homes on Wedgewood have a 50' setback and sight-lines on
the roadway will be hampered by a home built closer to the road. In addition, he stated the
existing homes in the area are on larger lots and expressed preference for a 2-lot subdivision in
view of the effect smaller homes may have on the existing homes in the area.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7: 13 p.m.
Turgeon requested clarification of the location of existing homes relative to the 15' right-of-way.
Nielsen explained that most of the homes south of the railway right-of-way are built at a 35'
setback based on a 50' right-of-way and pointed out that easements are designed to allow for 50'
road widths. Pisula inquired about the adequacy of the size of building pads when the lot sizes
are adjusted for the appropriate set-backs. Nielsen stated that while a home could be built, it
would not be comparable to others in the zoning district. Malam and Bean stated the application
. for subdivision does not comply with the Ordinance.
Nielsen stated the applicant may wish to present the application to the Council as is, but
recommended the plat be re-drawn to conform with the Code. In response to Pierce's inquiry,
Nielsen explained the City's Code reduces the total area by the square footage of required
easements. The Commission encouraged the applicant to re-consider the application in light of
the issues raised by the staff and the Commissioners.
Bean moved, Pisula seconded to continue to Tuesday, March 22, 1994, consideration,
including a public hearing, of Bob Pierce's preliminary plat application, 25380 Smithtown
Road.
Motion passed 6/0.
The Commissioners agreed to schedule an additional meeting of the Commission at 7:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, March 22, 1994.
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING-ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-ELECTRIC
FENCES
.
Chair Rosenberger announced the case. Nielsen stated the proposed amendment is based on the
Commission's previous recommendations. Nielsen explained the permitted use of barb wire.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 1994 - PAGE 3
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. there being no comments
from the public.
Foust moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it adopt an ordinance
amending Chapter 1201 of the Shorewood City Code relating to zoning regulations - electric
fences.
Motion passed 6/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its March 28, 1994 meeting.
3. STUDY SESSION
- Consider Zoning Amendment - Parking Lot Requirements for City Parks
Administrator Hurm and Park Chair McCarty participated in this segment of the meeting.
Nielsen reviewed the Administrator's request that the Commission review the zoning regulations
regarding parking lot standards for City parks. From a cost/benefit perspective, three provisions
should be reviewed: paving; curbing; and striping. While these provisions are extremely
important for other types of nonresidential development, they add enormous public cost to park
development where the use of the parking lot may be relatively limited. For example, the
estimated cost of parking lot improvements for Freeman Park exceeds $200,000. Nielsen
suggested that language be included in the Code to provide greater flexibility in City Parks by
taking into consideration such issues as traffic, dust control, parking demand, vehicular control,
and proximity to residential development.
McCarty stated it is fiscally responsible to not spend funds for curbs and gutters in parks. Hurm
explained there may be selected areas where these are required, however, flexibility within the
code would provide discretion for such installations.
The Commissioners discussed a proposed amendment to the ordinance that would allow for
waiver or delay of paving, curbing and striping in parking lots in City parks. It was agreed that
while the City is expected to adhere to ordinances, adequate justification exists to reduce the
parking lot standards for City parks based on excessive expense and limited daily and seasonal
use. It was suggested that drainage issues be added to the criteria taken into consideration for
paving, curbing and striping of City parks.
Malam moved, Bean seconded to recommend that an amendment to the City's zoning
regulations as they relate to parking lot standards for City parks be prepared and that a
public hearing be set to consider such an amendment.
Motion passed 6/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 1994 - PAGE 4
Nielsen pointed out that the sewer code requires all City buildings be connected to City sewer.
He suggested that the Commission may wish to recommend to the Council that Satellite facilities
be installed in parks rather than strictly enforcing the sewer code. He explained that in many
instances, bathroom facilities in park shelter buildings are being closed because of vandalism,
expense, practicality, and operating problems.
The Commissioners discussed the issue and agreed that placement of screened Satellites would
be prudent and would provide adequate bathroom facilities in City parks in lieu of facilities
connected to the City sewer system.
Bean moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that the Sewer Code not be
strictly enforced relative to installation of bathroom facilities in City parks and
recommended the use of Satellites rather than sewer connected bathrooms.
Motion passed 6/0.
- Comp Plan - Land Use and Natural Resources
Nielsen distributed documents dated 3/94 entitled: Comp Plan - Senior Housing Text Outline;
City Participation in Senior Housing; and Definition of Affordable Senior Housing.
The Commissioners discussed the issues, goal and objectives of Senior Housing and made minor
modifications to the objectives. The Commissioners generally accepted the senior housing text
outline for the Comp Plan as presented. The Commissioners discussed and made suggestions
as to the extent to which the City may wish to participate in provision of senior housing. After
considering the definition of affordable senior housing, the Commissioners generally agreed it
should be tied to some index and requested that additional information be obtained to assist in
identifying an appropriate index.
The meeting recessed at 9: 15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
The Commissioners resumed its discussion from its February 15 meeting relative to the Land
Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Each of the Land Use Objectives and Policies were
read and considered. Modifications and deletions resulted during discussion for inclusion in a
revision of this Chapter.
Text for this section of the Comp Plan will be written to incorporate the Commissioners'
recommendations for consideration at a future meeting. Nielsen noted that a joint meeting with
the Council will likely be scheduled in April.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 8, 1994 - PAGE 5
5. REPORTS
NOTE - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994. The
Chair regretted Council Liaison Lewis' absence from this meeting. Malam distributed a
summary of the Planning Seminar he attended recently.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 a.m., Wednesday, March
9, 1994.
Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE:
Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequent meeting appear as
StrikeoHts (deletions) and italics (additions).
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Borkon, Commissioners Bean, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon;
Planning Director Nielsen. Chair Rosenberger entered the meeting at 8:10
p.m.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust.
Nielsen distributed and briefly reviewed the City Attorney's October 28, 1993 memorandum
regarding the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bean moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's March 8, 1994
meeting with corrections on page 2, second full paragraph-Mr. Joe Laska; fourth full
paragraph, sentence 4- Nielsen stated; and on page 3, fourth paragraph-at its March 28,
1994 meetin2. (corrections underscored)
Motion passed 6/0.
1. STUDY SESSION
- Comp Plan - Land Use and Natural Resources
Nielsen directed the Commissioners' attention to existing and proposed land use maps. He
described the location and size of undeveloped or under-developed parcels. He indicated
that appropriate development of certain parcels including 12 parcels where zoning
discrepancies exist must be addressed. The Commissioners considered and made
recommendations for the use and zoning of each parcel.
The meeting recessed at 8:28 and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
.
Nielsen described official mapping and the use of the technique as it relates to senior
housing.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 15, 1994 . PAGE 2
The Commissioners considered and made modifications and deletions to the texts of the
Concept Plan and Land Use Plan to be included in the Land Use section of the
Comprehensive Plan. Following discussion, the Commissioners accepted the general
direction of the revisions outlined by Nielsen.
The environmental objectives and policies of the Land Use section of the Comp Plan will
be considered at a future meeting.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
3. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its March 14 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions. Malam commented briefly on the Planning Seminar
he attended recently. Turgeon briefly commented on matters before the Park Commission.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger, Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and
Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT (continued from March 8,1994)
Applicant:
Location:
Bob Pierce (representing Brad Brunner)
25380 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and noted that the public hearing is a continuation
from the March 8, 1994 meeting.
Nielsen stated Mr. Pierce submitted a revised preliminary plat application to divide the
property into two lots. The revised plat also addresses the issues and concerns expressed
by the staff and Commission at the March 8 meeting. He noted the final plat must show
drainage and utility easements. Nielsen stated the application is consistent with
requirements and recommended its approval.
Mr. Pierce had no further comments.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. there being no
comments from the public.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
preliminary plat application of Bob Pierce (representing Brad Brunner), 25380 Smithtown
Road.
Motion passed 7/0.
. The Council will consider the recommendation at its April 11, 1994 meeting.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 22, 1994 - PAGE 2
2. STUDY SESSION
- Comp Plan - Land Use and Natural Resources
Nielsen directed the Commissioners' attention to the draft Land Use Chapter dated March
1994 which has been prepared based on the Commission's previous discussions. The
Commissioners considered each of the Land Use Goals and agreed to make some
modifications to the draft copy. The Commissioners accepted the Land Use Objectives as
drafted and agreed to submit any modifications to Nielsen by Thursday, March 31, 1994.
Nielsen distributed Administrator Hurm's memorandum: "Chronology of the City's
Consideration of a Municipal Water System 1991," dated March 16, 1994, and suggested that
the Commissioners review the document prior to the next meeting.
Nielsen directed the Commissioners' attention to the current Comp Plans' Environmental
Objectives and Policies and noted this Chapter will be re-titled "Natural Resources" in the
updated Plan. Each Objective and Policy was read and considered. Modifications, deletions
and additions resulted during discussion for inclusion in the revision of this Chapter.
Nielsen noted that staff continues to update the Concept Plan Section.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
The next meeting/study session of the Commission will be on April 5, 1994. The date of the
April Joint Meeting with the City Council has not yet been determined.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Bean moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Borkon, Commissioners Bean, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison
Lewis and Planning Director Nielsen. Chair Rosenberger entered the meeting at
7: 10 p.m.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Malam.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Bean moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's March 15, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 4/0.
Turgeon moved, Bean seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's March 22,
1994 meeting. Motion passed 4/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS
Applicant:
Location:
Worth Construction
6100 Cathcart Drive
Vice Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedures for a Public Hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the Mr. Worth's application for a conditional use permit to place
approximately 300 cubic yards of fill on his property at 6100 Cathcart Drive in conjunction with
construction of a new house. The property contains approximately 89,811 square feet of area.
Nielsen noted the conditional use process for fill permits is intended to inform area residents of
what is proposed and triggers an engineering review of the grading plan. The City Engineer has
reviewed the request and provided recommendations regarding the grading plan: 1. the culvert
under Cathcart must not be obstructed; 2. an 18" culvert should be placed under the proposed
driveway to allow ditch flow along Cathcart Drive; 3. the driveway should be constructed at
right angles to Cathcart Drive for 20'; and 4. precautions should be taken during construction
to prevent a wet basement since the ground water is quite high in the area.
Nielsen recommended approval of the C.U.P., subject to the Engineer's recommendations.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 5, 1994 - PAGE 2
The applicant, Mr. Bill Worth, was not present.
Vice Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Mr. Jeff Wingfield, 26975 Beverly Drive, inquired about the amount of fIll to be placed. He
expressed concern regarding the water problem experienced by everyone in the neighborhood
and inquired whether the issue of how the drainage will work with respect to the existing homes
on Beverly Drive has been addressed.
Nielsen indicated that part of the Engineer's review included the drainage aspect. Nielsen stated
there is no holding pond on the property and that generally the water flows across a comer of
the site and runs through a culvert under Cathcart Drive. In addition, there is a shallow ditch
system along Cathcart Drive. The Engineer has stated that those features cannot be blocked in
any fashion. Nielsen stated that with a lot of this size, there is adequate area to distribute 300
yards of fill, therefore, it is anticipated that the addition of fill will not adversely affect drainage
to the homes on the north or the east of the property.
Mr. George Gleason, 6130 Cathcart Drive, stated his residence is directly south of the
applicant's location. He inquired whether more water will be directed to his property.
Nielsen stated the fill will be placed in the center of the lot and reiterated that the Engineer has
recommended installation of an 18" diameter culvert to maintain the flow of water so it does not
back up on surrounding property. Nielsen explained that the home will be constructed at the
existing grade and the fill will be primarily used to slope that area. He illustrated where the
driveway and recommended culvert will be located.
Vice Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7: 13 p.m.
Bean inquired whether the applicant has reviewed and accepted the City Engineer's
recommendations. Nielsen indicated that Mr. Worth has seen the recommendations and has
interposed no objections.
Rosenberger moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
conditional use permit application of Worth Construction for f"In in excess of 100 cubic
yards at 6100 Cathcart Drive, subject to the City Engineer's recommendations outlined in
his letter dated March 29, 1994.
Motion passed 5/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its April 25, 1994 meeting.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AprilS, 1994 - PAGE 3
2. 7:10 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING
PARKING REOUlREMENTS FOR CITY PARKS
Chair Rosenberger announced the case, outlined the procedures for a public hearing, and noted
that the Commission has previously discussed this recommendation.
Nielsen reviewed the purpose of the Zoning Code amendment to provide for flexibility to waive
or delay installation of curbs, gutters, striping and drainage in City parks, provided that certain
criteria are taken into consideration. Nielsen stated the high public cost of such installations
precludes the City from completing such refinements in the parks and pointed out the cost is not
currently justified based on the limited, short-term, seasonal use of the majority of the parks.
As an example, he cited the $200,000 estimated cost of parking lot improvements for Freeman
Park. Nielsen noted, however, that based on high usage it is appropriate that the Badger Park
parking area which is adjacent to City Hall be paved and curbed.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7: 18 p.m. there being no comments
from the public.
Rosenberger declared that notwithstanding the fact that he believes the City should be held to
the same standards as residents, he supports approval of this amendment.
Borkon moved, Bean seconded to recommend to the Council that it amend the Zoning Code
to provide flexibility to waive or delay installation of curbs, gutters, striping and drainage
in City parks. Motion passed 5/0.
Nielsen pointed out that current Code requires all City buildings to be used for human occupancy
be connected to the City sanitary sewer system and recommended that flexibility be provided in
the Code to exempt City parks from that standard. Currently all parks except the Badger
warming house are served with Satellites. Nielsen explained that even on a long-term basis, it
is questionable whether it is cost-effective to install such systems given the seasonal-short term
usage of parks and survey results that indicate high levels of vandalism particularly in
un monitored and secluded parks.
Bean agreed with the recommendation and suggested that appropriate screening such as concrete
walls of the Satellite area be required for aesthetic reasons. During discussion, it was
acknowledged that Satellites may also be vulnerable to vandalism, however, the repair costs are
minimal compared to the cost of sewer-related repairs.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend that the staff develop language to amend the
appropriate ordinances and City Code to allow for exceptions to the municipal sewer
hookup for park sanitary facilities with the provision that screening of such facilities be
. evaluated and implemented where feasible. Motion passed 5/0.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 5, 1994 - PAGE 4
3. PREAPPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Inc.
26620/26750/27000 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case. He explained there will be no public hearing nor any
decision made on this application at this time, but that the Commissioners will gather
information, raise issues, questions and concerns, and express general opinions regarding the
proposed Lundgren Bros. development and related land use amendment to the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
.
Nielsen referred to his memorandum dated March 29, 1994 which outlines the background to
the applicant's request and describes the process required to amend the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The applicant's proposed development on approximately 73.5 acres of land located on the
north side of Smithtown Road just west of the Minnewashta Elementary School, would require
a zoning reclassification from semirural residential (density 0-1 unit per acre) to low density
residential (1-2 units per acre)- i.e. from approximately 30 lots to approximately 36 lots.
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Guidelines, the developer has submitted
information for the Preapplication Stage review of the process. The request and background
information are detailed in a document dated March 1, 1994: "Proposed Land Use Guide Plan
Amendment for Ledin/Wartman/Minnewashta School Property of Shorewood, Minnesota."
Nielsen reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He identified several issues
which need to be addressed as part of the request. He pointed out that this request is timely in
that the City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and recommended that both the
existing and updated goals and policies be considered in the review of the Lundgren Bros.
proposal.
.
Mr. Terry Forbord, vice president, Lundgren Bros., Wayzata, introduced the members of the
development team and marketing representatives in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Forbord
described the general statement of development intent and outlined the developer's responses to
the issues identified by the staff. Mr. John Uban, planning consultant, Dahlgren, Shardlowand
Uban, Inc., Minneapolis, described the existing guide plan and land use and presented
generalized concept and detailed calculations using plans submitted with the narrative. He
related the developer's plans to the zoning amendment request and provided justification for the
requested density increase. Mr. Mark Anderson, marketing representative, showed slides of the
property and adjacent areas. The developer's general concept plan would create a residential
cluster community of about 36 diverse lots, averaging 34,000 square feet in area, with
considerable open space, with homes constructed to meet market demand designed to enhance
the neighborhood and complement the character of Shorewood. Mr. Forbord described the
composition of the property which involves a combination of three parcels and outlined the
benefits to the City that would result from the proposed development. (The presentation
narratives and plans comprise the March 1, 1994 Lundgren document prepared and submitted
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 5, 1994 - PAGE 5
to the City as required under the preapplication stage of the Comp Plan procedure for
amendments. )
The Commissioners evaluated the preapplication and the development team responded to
questions and comments.
Turgeon inquired about historical and archeological aspects of the property. Forbord stated the
Institute of Minnesota Archeology has been retained to review the property and the Historical
Society automatically performs field reviews of wetland permits. Turgeon inquired about the
discrepancy between the City's and developer's wetland acreage. Nielsen stated that the City's
ordinance provides that wetland and public right of way is subtracted from the total area to
determine the net developable area. Forbord stated that under the rules of the Wetland
Conservation Act, more wetland area was discovered and delineated than that shown on the
City's maps. Turgeon inquired what benefit, other than economic, the increased density would
contribute. Forbord explained that if development is desired, to make it work requires
assembling the three pieces of property together to create a community development rather than
individual development of the parcels.
Rosenberger requested clarification of how more density would impact the wetlands less.
Forbord explained that houses do not pollute, but are considered impervious surface and increase
run-off. He stated that agricultural use of the properties creates greater problems with storm
water management and that urban conditions provide for control. Rosenberger remained
skeptical about the impact on the wetlands and pointed out that the type of community planned
would include well-maintained lawns. Forbord replied that the measurable impact on an
ecosystem over a period of time may not be identifiable or calculated. Uban explained that over
a mile of conservation easement will be controllable through covenants and that an ordinance
can control the use of herbicides in a community.
Turgeon agreed that rezoning should be to a planned unit development district, yet remained
uncertain about the advantages of increased density. Forbord stated the market indicates that
various needs and desires of homeowners exist and the proposal would provide for diversity in
lot and home sizes. Turgeon expressed concern regarding increased traffic and inquired about
the improvement schedule of Smithtown Road and Cathcart Drive. Nielsen indicated the impact
of increased traffic would be minimal and commented on the road improvement schedule.
Borkon generally accepted the proposal to combine the parcels to provide consistency and the
need for increased density for cost effectiveness. In response to her question regarding the
adequacy of site distances for ingress and egress, Nielsen stated both were acceptable.
Forbord responded to the Commissioners' inquiry about the feasibility of the project based on
the existing zoning that would allow 30 lots. He explained that because of the high cost of land
and the improvements required to develop the property, 36 lots are necessary. Forbord indicated
the cost of a home constructed on the least desirable lot is estimated to begin at $250,000. The
cost of a home would increase based on the value and size of the lot.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 5, 1994 - PAGE 6
Bean stated he was skeptical about the need for increased density to make the development
economically feasible since based on developments currently in progress, the demand and
availability appears to be unlimited for upper-end homes in Shorewood. He advised the
developer to consider the profile of existing residents as well as that of potential
purchasers/residents. Bean explained that while a density increase from 1 unit to 1.2 units per
lot may not be discernible, the general attitude of residents is to reject density increases as
evidenced by reactions from the public to other proposals heard by the Commission. Bean
stressed the need to clearly demonstrate justification to exceed the existing zoning. He pointed
out that a diversity of affordable ($125,000) housing is considered to be of value to Shorewood
and inquired how the developer could support that goal. Forbord stated that given the current
cost of land, it would be impossible to provide such housing in Shorewood unless it would be
subsidized. He indicated the Metropolitan Council determines land cost based on provision of
sewer services.
.
Bean inquired whether the developer's long-range plans include acquisition of the other
properties adjacent to the three subject parcels as it might affect planning the infrastructure
improvements. Forbord stated that while inquiries have been made a conclusion has not been
reached and their participation under the current proposal would be elective. Mr. Ken Adolf,
civil engineer and surveyor, Schoell and Madson, Minnetonka, indicated acquisition of those
properties and City participation in improvement costs would be beneficial. He noted that
preliminary plans provide for sufficient water and sewer service. Nielsen indicated that the
storm management system will need comprehensive review.
Bean inquired whether the adequacy of the school system has been addressed. The Minnetonka
School District has indicated there would be no adverse effect based on its projections. Bean
stated that he was not necessarily opposed to eclectic developments and generally accepted the
unique nature of the proposed development.
Pisula inquired whether completion of an environmental assessment worksheet is required.
Nielsen indicated it would not be required, however it would be appropriate for review. Pisula
inquired about the level of City control relative to dedication vs. easements. Nielsen explained
that dedication of the wetlands as a separate outlot provides preferred regulation. Forbord
indicated the developer would cooperate with the City in that regard. Pisula commented on
potential increased traffic in the surrounding area. He indicated general acceptance of the
proposed development of the three parcels as a unified planned unit development, suggested
there may be potential opportunity for adjustment to the proposal to provide diversity in the
range of housing, questioned the economic rationale for increased density and stated support for
providing diversity of housing in Shorewood.
.
Borkon asked the developer to describe the improved environmental aspects to be incorporated
into the development. Forbord explained that experience gained from previous developments
places greater attention to such things as preserving natural views, sensitivity to existing habitat,
grading, entrances, etc. Borkon requested information on the acceptability of the proposed
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AprilS, 1994 - PAGE 7
entrance to the development. Nielsen explained that the 50' strip was provided for construction
of a road to the back lots and some setback variances may be required. He indicated tha,t from
a planning standpoint, the looped road system as proposed would be recommended. In response
to Borkon' s request, Nielsen identified the proposed location of the water tower. Borkon
reiterated the concerns of the other Commissioners and supported their views except that she was
not necessarily opposed to increasing the density to provide for an additional 6 lots.
Rosenberger inquired whether the developer has contacted the neighborhood residents. Forbord
indicated that neighborhood meetings are routinely held prior to a public hearing. Rosenberger
requested additional information regarding development of the "peninsula" on the property.
Forbord stated that detailed plans have not yet been developed since the project is currently in
the concept stage. Rosenberger inquired about the impact of construction traffic and about the
upgrade schedule for Smithtown Road. Nielsen indicated that Smithtown is not in the 5-year
plan, Cathcart is higher on the list for reconstruction, but new development construction traffic
may be a general concern. Forbord indicated that if approved, work on the development would
begin during the 1995 construction season.
Rosenberger commented on water issues facing the City and the water tower proposed in the
area. The Commissioners agreed to discuss the subject separately at its next study session.
In general the Commissioners accepted the concept plan as proposed as a planned unit
development, expressed reservations regarding increased density on the property, stated concerns
related to traffic and the impact of the high cost of land on the City's ability to provide
affordable housing, and acknowledged the City water issue. Notwithstanding those concerns,
the Commission indicated it was willing to further consider the proposal, and encouraged the
developer to refine the proposal taking into consideration comments made by the Commissioners.
Rosenberger stated lie 'llouId ';ote to deny apprO'lal of the prq>osed developmeat primarily
Oee8:l:lS6 higher deasity 'lias flOt aeeepted for a SCflior hOtlsiHg project, thercf-ofe grantiHg a higher
deasity for this project for oooflomie feasibility is Hot j1:lstified he understood an increase in
density may be needed to make the project economically feasible. However, given the City did
not provide relieffor density for affordable senior housing, he would not support raising density
to provide building homes of the proposed value.
Nielsen stated the developer will appear before the City Council at its April 25 meeting, and a
public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment before the Planning Commission
will then be scheduled.
The Chair recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:38 p.m.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AprilS, 1994 - PAGE 8
CITY WATER SYSTEM
Nielsen directed the Commissioners' attention to the City Engineer's letter dated March 31, 1994
regarding Boulder Bridge water system alternatives.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it implement Alternate
1 outlined in Mr. Dresel's letter: Construct a 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank as
identified in the comprehensive water plan. Following discussion, on a vote of 5/0, the
Commission agreed to table its recommendation for continued consideration and discussion
at its April 19 meeting when the Engineer will be in attendance.
The Commissioners requested that funding concept alternatives for a City water system be
developed for consideration at the next meeting.
4. STUDY SESSION - Comp PlanlLand Use & Natural Resources - NONE.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FWOR - NONE.
6. REPORTS
In the absence of Council member Lewis who left the meeting at 9:30 p.m., Commissioner Pisula
reported on the City Attorney's March 25 update on the City's litigation against the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission. Pisula noted he is unable to attend the April 11 Council meeting
and requested that another Commissioner attend to make the Planning Commission report.
7. ADJOURNMENT
TUrgeon moved, Bean seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
NOTE:
Planning Commission corrections to minutes at the subsequent meeting appear as
strikeouts (deletions) and italics (additions).
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Malam, Foust, and Pisula; Council Liaison
Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Bean, Borkon and Turgeon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Rosenberger seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's April 5,
1994 meeting with a correction on page 7, fourth full paragraph to read: Rosenberger stated
he understood an increase in density may be needed to make the Droiect economically
feasible. However. e:iven the City did not Drovide relief for density for affordable senior
housine:. he would not sUDDort relaxine: density to Drovide buildine: homes of the DroDosed
value. (corrections underscored)
Motion passed 2/0. Foust and Malam abstained.
1. STUDY SESSION
- Comp Plan - Land Use Chapter
Nielsen directed the Commissioners' attention to the 4/94 Chapter Outline and updated text
of the Land Use Chapter and distributed the Senior Housing text. A Summary of the Land
Use Chapter, for discussion at the April 25 joint meeting with the Council, will be sent to
each Commissioner prior to that meeting.
Nielsen described the location and size of three properties where zoning and land use
discrepancies exist not previously addressed by the Commission. The Commissioners
considered and made recommendations for the use and zoning of each parcel. The
Commissioners agreed that the L- R zoning district conditions need to be reevaluated.
Nielsen pointed out it is recommended that the City prepare a separate housing plan to
address issues related to Housing Variety/Mfordability.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 19, 1994 - PAGE 2
Nielsen reviewed the text prepared for the Senior Housing section of the Plan. The
Commissioners discussed various aspects of senior housing including acceptable sites
currently available in Shorewood, decisions to be made, and actions to be taken by the City
with respect to the prospects for senior housing in Shorewood. It was agreed that these
issues will be discussed with the Council at the April 25 joint meeting.
PARK COMMISSION CLARIFICATION
Nielsen directed the Commission's attention to Commissioner Turgeon's April 13
memorandum "Report on Park Commission Meeting-April 12, 1994. The Park Commission
requests clarification regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations for screening
of Satellites. Following discussion, it was agreed that the relevant Ordinance should contain
specific language describing the standards for fencing and shrubs/trees designed to provide
adequate screening of Satellite facilities in the City's parks. The Commissioners
acknowledged the list of homeowners associations distributed at the meeting.
Commissioner Malam volunteered to attend the Park Commission's April 26 meeting in lieu
of Turgeon who is unable to attend.
2.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
3.
REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its April 11 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Foust moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 3,1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Borkon, Malam, and Turgeon; Planning
Director Nielsen. Commissioner Bean entered the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Pisula.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's April 19,
. 1994 meeting. Motion passed 3/1. Turgeon abstained.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING- C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200
SO.FT.
Applicant:
Location:
Greg Karas
5600 Star Lane
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a Public Hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to construct a detached
garage which will put the total amount of accessory space on his property over 1200 square feet
in area. The property is zoned R-IC and contains approximately 35,795 square feet in area.
The applicant's house contains 2401 square feet of floor area above grade with an existing 484
square foot attached garage. Mr. Karas proposes to add a 29'x30' detached garage, north and
west of the existing house, well within the setback area, which will bring the total accessory
space area on the site to 1354 square feet.
.
Nielsen described how the applicant's request complies with the Code which sets forth 4 criteria
for allowing accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet: 1) total area of accessory space
(1354) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (2402); 2) total
area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot size in the R-IC zoning district
(20,OOOx.l0=2000 sq.ft.); 3) proposed structure complies with all setbacks of the zoning
district; and 4) design and materials of the proposed garage are consistent with the architecture
of the existing home. Based on analysis which indicates the request complies with the criteria,
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 3, 1994 - PAGE 3
Karma Fields, 5675 Star Circle, reiterated that the neighbors are wondering what is going on
and that the applicant, who has lived in the area for about 6-9 months, has not provided a
straight answer to the neighbors' questions.
Ken Fields, 5675 Star Circle, stated there is already one construction company behind his
residence which may have been grandfathered into the area and agreed that the neighborhood
does not want more traffic.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Borkon requested clarification of boat storage regulations. Nielsen stated a boat owner may
store his boat on his property and explained that any accessory use must be clearly incidental
to the owner's main use of the property. Nielsen explained the two types of home occupations,
limited and special, that are allowed under a separate ordinance. Under the procedures, a
number of aspects relative to the occupation are reviewed. Borkon inquired whether the
applicant had indicated the structure would be used for commercial purposes. Nielsen responded
that during his meeting with the applicant no reference to commercial use was made. Nielsen
stated the commercial business referred to by a resident is allowed under a grandfather clause
attached to the property.
Malam requested clarification of the applicant's vehicles. Residents stated these include a
commercial truck, an Explorer, a Suburban and a station wagon, and reiterated that additional
commercial-type vehicles would be unacceptable to them. Malam indicated that while the
applicant's lifestyle may appear reclusive, the Commission cannot require that he contact the
neighbors regarding his intentions. Malam noted that the plat has not been recorded. Nielsen
stated the plat is recorded, but that the building permit may have been submitted prior to its
recording.
Turgeon inquired whether the structure will create any adverse drainage problems. Nielsen
stated the drainage has been reviewed and no problems are anticipated and the structure is well
within the buildable area of the lot.
Rosenberger observed that it is unfortunate the applicant is not present since it seems unfair to
ask the residents to return to another meeting. He commented that staff relies on residents'
assistance in monitoring zoning regulations.
A resident noted that the applicant's wife owns the home and inquired whether the fact that he
does not own the home has any relevance to the request. While the Commissioners concluded
ownership was not an issue, Nielsen indicated the question will be referred to the City Attorney
for clarification.
Malam moved, Turgeon seconded to table consideration of the request of Greg Karas for
a C.U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for 2 weeks to May 17,1994 and
strongly urged the applicant to attend that meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 3, 1994 - PAGE 2
Nielsen recommended approval of the C.D.P. Nielsen noted, however, that neighboring
residents are concerned with the proposed use of the building and that it may be used for
something other than the applicant's incidental use of the property. A special permit process is
required if the use is for home occupation. If the applicant was in attendance, Nielsen indicated
he could simply be asked what his intended use is of the building. He noted that stipulations
may be added to the conditional use stating it may not be used for a home occupation or that a
special permit must be acquired to use it in that fashion. Whether that would be allowed would
be considered during the permit process. Because it is important that this issue be addressed,
Nielsen suggested the request be tabled until the applicant is in attendance.
The applicant, Mr. Greg Karas, was not present.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7: 14 p.m.
Rosenberger accepted and read a letter received from six residents unable to attend the hearing:
"We the undersigned residents of the Star Circle and Star Lane homes would oppose the building
of a structure 'greater than 1200' , to store boats, essentially increasing traffic in a small
residential area. We would also strongly oppose the structure if it was for a commercial purpose
in a residential zone." (The letter with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
residents is a part of the records.)
Mary Pierson, 5660 Star Lane, expressed concern that the structure will be used for home
occupation or for commercial storage of materials and that bringing boats or equipment there
will increase traffic. She stated the applicant drives a commercial truck and additional large
equipment and vehicles will further damage the street which is already in disrepair. Pierson
stated the additional traffic is a safety concern for the children in the area, including a special
needs child, who sometimes play in the cul-de-sac area. She moved to the location to assure a
safe residential area.
Greg Suddendorf, 5695 Star Lane, stated the applicant's absence from the meeting is a major
concern, the residents of the area have been unable to get an explanation of usage of the
building, and hearsay is that the building will be used for boat storage which is clearly
commercial and illegal and would be totally objectionable to the neighborhood. Suddendorf
stated the neighborhood does not want additional traffic because of safety concerns for the 18
children in the area. While the applicant may have met the requirements, Suddendorf objected
to the C.D.P. because the intent is unknown.
Kathy Suddendorf, 5695 Star Lane, a resident of Shorewood for nearly 20 years, stated the small
area has 15 homes and indicated the applicant should have contacted the neighborhood to inform
them of his intentions. She favored tabling the request until the applicant is present or contacts
the neighbors.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 3, 1994 - PAGE 4
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
Applicant: Andrew Schmidt - Video Update
Location: 19465 State Highway 7
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to display a temporary portable sign for
a longer period of time than currently allowed by the Zoning Code. Mr. Schmidt feels his
business is suffering due to the proposed reconstruction of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7
intersection. MNDot proposes to begin construction on June 1 with completion expected by
September 1. The vacated Burger King and the liquor store buildings are scheduled for
demolition soon. The Code allows permits for temporary signage twice in any 12-month period
for seven days at a time. Mr. Schmidt requests a variance to display a temporary sign between
now and completion of the intersection. MNDot's policy provides for directional signage only.
Nielsen stated the request is considered reasonable because reconstruction of the intersection
creates a temporary hardship for businesses which is not brought on by their actions. Therefore,
Nielsen recommended that the variance be granted with a condition that the message on the sign
be limited to "Frontage Road Businesses Remain Open During Construction." The sign should
be removed when the intersection is completed.
Mr. Andrew Schmidt, the applicant, stated the Burger King closing caused considerable public
confusion regarding the status of his business. He reviewed his efforts to inform the public with
materials in his store and explained his intention is to use the sign to inform the public that his
business will remain open during the construction period. The sign will not be used for
advertising purposes.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. there being no comments
from the public.
Turgeon requested clarification of signs provided by MNDot. Nielsen stated the agency posts
directional and temporary signs regarding the streets during construction. Malam inquired about
the location of Mr. Schmidt's sign. Schmidt stated it will be placed at the northeast corner of
the building. Borkon and Bean interposed no objections to approval of the informational sign
requested by the applicant. Rosenberger suggested that information about the status of the
intersection and the businesses be included in the City's n~wsletter.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the request
of Andrew Schmidt, Video Update, 19465 State Highway 7, for a sign variance to display
a temporary sign with limited wording during the period June I-September 1, 1994.
Motion passed 5/0.
.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 23, 1994 meeting.
.
.
.
PLANNING COl\fMISSION MINUTES
May 3, 1994 - PAGE 5
3. HOUSE MOVING PERMIT (TENT A TIVE) Applicant: Janet Parenteau.
Location: 5210 Howard's Point Road. REMOVED FROM AGENDA.
Nielsen explained that this item was removed because the application was incomplete.
4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING PARKING
REOUlREMENTS FOR CITY PARKS
Nielsen explained that during the Council's review of the proposed amendment, it was suggested
that specific language be included to provide that the surfacing, curbing and striping for parking
lots in City parks be incorporated into the capital improvements program to assure timely
completion of the improvements. The ordinance still allows flexibility to waive or delay the
improvements, however, the Council will review the plans annually. Therefore, the ordinance
was referred back to the Planning Commission. Nielsen read the revisions made to the
ordinance and recommended that it be approved for the Council's reconsideration.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve an
ordinance amending Chapter 1201 of the Shorewood City Code relating to zoning
regulations. Motion passed 5/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 9, 1994 meeting.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE.
6. REPORTS
Malam reported on the discussions of the Park Commission at its recent meeting. The Chair
regretted the absence of Council Liaison Lewis.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
~':3-9f/
.e +!.e u,()~..es/~AJeo ~s;o/~ d'% ..57/Y"e c/;ic.Le
:7 ,-,
,1'/f/P ~,.e;(/f';;Ue -1o~s hood #O~ /k P?//~~
8;:' /? .s;7:;??o~?V,ee "'f/&"'Rk~ #A'..v / ,;?CJc/ 1/ I", g'/.M?e .6<P#~.J
esse,.olA'7 /;u~e/,;/~? h///c /'..0 /1 5&-4.,. :4- .Res-ot~, '
&48/1. ~ tWoo@ /1/.5<? Skd~ ~6J.5C' ~e' sk*~e .
//:' /r wAl.> ~,e cZ- t?:O$4"c:>/e/~ /d~?'..s:c?-#-J ~ Rs4~
So"ve"
~" (;~4-/
4(J~ 0065 ..57;pA'? ct/A'?de
~ c) (\ 56~~_~2>~ -f~
J'/~-? a~1 C;hS:5 J1-vuCuulo
. ~uSi1?~ ~"jJ " '" "'
'/ IU'" /11/;11 l/Y.o i) /h j) /~ 5~11l (j )1-(\../1 LV\-
fA't" Ii, V' (/1..- ~/, '" ,I V-\.
~:l"V' V 'ii
duq-~
~~
~t~
tYlall2.q~
5b7S s~X-
567:? ~~Ys.
slO1~~',~ ~
<5'~? 00 .5TA/c:.- rLit/L-G
.
j/7{/-//}?c,
4-,74 ~ y'f.5
414 -s-o 01
--t
.<.{10 - Co ((05'
f7t(-t,')S3
L;'7o - (J Y3->
~lO. t)~2>3
~70 .- ,;;)/ IlJ
IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
ITEM
q
(!j rei ~
II
II
.
.
.
....
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Malam, Pisula, and
Turgeon, Commissioner Foust entered the meeting at 7:22 p.m.; Council
Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen. Administrator Hurm participated
in portions of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's May 3, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 5/1. Pisula abstained.
1. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P FOR ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200
SO.FT. (continued from May 3, 1994)
Applicant:
Location:
Greg Karas
5600 Star Lane
Chair Rosenberger announced continuation of the case from the May 3, 1994 meeting.
Nielsen briefly reviewed the applicant's request for a C.U.P. for accessory space in excess
of 1200 square feet. While the request is routine, Nielsen indicated that a number of
neighbors raised questions at the May 3 meeting about the intended use of the garage.
Because the applicant was not at that meeting, additional information was required. Nielsen
stated the request meets the requirements for a C.U.P., reported that the City Attorney
advises that Minnesota is a community property state thus Mr. Karas can make application
for the C.U.P. even though his spouse is listed as the property owner, and the applicant
states the proposed garage is for his personal residential use. Nielsen reviewed the
conditions to be attached to the resolution approving the C.U.P. and recommended approval
of the application.
Mr. Greg Karas, the applicant, stated the new 3-car garage will have an 8' door to
accommodate his personal vehicles including a work-related truck and Suburban, which he
is unable to park in his garage because it has a 7' door.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 17, 1994 - PAGE 2
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. there being no
comments from the public.
Pisula inquired whether the applicant operates a business out of his home. Mr. Karas
replied that he does not operate a business out of his home, but wishes to be able to park
his vehicles and boat in a garage. Bean inquired whether the applicant had any comments
relative to the neighbors' concern that boats would be stored in the garage. Mr. and Mrs.
Karas replied that the source of the rumor is unknown and they do not yet know their
immediate neighbors having moved to the home in early winter 1993. Borkon commented
that at the May 3 public hearing, the neighbors acknowledged that they did not know the
applicant. Rosenberger noted the concerned neighbors did not reappear at this continuation
of the hearing and consideration of the application.
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the request
of Greg Karas, 5600 Star Lane, for a Conditional Use Permit for accessory space in excess
of 1200 square feet, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the proposed garage will
be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature; and 2) That the Applicant is advised
that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future
use of the garage for other than permitted residential purposes would have to comply with
such regulations. Motion passed 6/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 23, 1994 meeting.
2. STUDY SESSION - Comp Plan - Natural Resources RESCHEDULED
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its May 9 Council and May
11 Board of Review meetings and answered Commissioners' questions. Turgeon stated the
Park Commission is considering a revision of the Cathcart Park master plan, specifically the
portion in Chanhassen. Nielsen informed the Commissioners that the Joint Study Session
with the Council has been rescheduled to June 13, 1994.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and
Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's May 17, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 6/1. Foust abstained.
1.
7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT STAGE PLAN - HERITAGE P.U.D.
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corporation
South of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's
Point Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the plan submitted by Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon
Development Corporation, for development of 32.65 acres of property located south of
Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road. The developer proposes
to assemble 5 parcels, including 2 which have existing homes on them, for resubdivision into
21 single-family residential lots. The site, zoned R-IA, is also subject to requirements of the
S, Shoreland District. Approximately 11-1/3 acres of the property exists as designated wetland
leaving about 20 acres of buildable area, excluding proposed road right-of-way. Land use and
zoning surrounding the site include: north and east: R-IA/S; south and west: R-IA. The
property slopes from the northeast to the southwest with an island of dry ground rising out of
the wetland in the southwest corner of the site. Rather than develop this island, the developer
proposes to preserve it as common open space and use the buildable area to plat lots somewhat
smaller than 40,000 square feet on the upland portion of the site. To accomplish this, the
developer requests a conditional use permit for a planned unit development.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 2
Nielsen reviewed the Zoning Code's requirements, standards and procedures for planned unit
development and noted that use of a P.U.D. for development of the subject property is
considered appropriate. Nielsen reviewed the application's compliance with the relevant
provisions of the ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan (outlined on page 2, A. 1. through 6.
of his June 1 memorandum) including: clustering the units on the upland portion preserves and
protects the wetland island for common open space; assembling the parcels for orderly
development allows completion of Noble Road and eliminates a substandard cul-de-sac;
maintaining setbacks and lot sizes of the R-IA district at the periphery of the project; preserving
the island and wetland and the density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of land area is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives.
.
Nielsen reviewed and commented on significant elements under the Concept Stage and made
recommendations detailed on pages 2, 3 and 4 of his memorandum: B. Concept Stage PUl:pose.
1-5; C. Utilities and D. Park Dedication. Recommendations include: placement of deed
restrictions on Lots 1 and 13 to prevent further subdivision; strict maintenance of the 1/40,000
density along with R-IA setbacks; development of a pedestrian access to the island as part of
required site improvements; and dedicated easement of the designated wetland area on Outlot
B as well as Outlot A. In addition, Nielsen reviewed concerns related to the lakeshore parcel
(proposed island common space area) which exists as a nonconforming use. Because the legal
status of the property is in question, the City attorney recommends that a title opinion be
required to sort out this issue. Furthermore, the potential adverse impact of increased use of
this parcel on nearby residential property because of its size and location is a significant concern.
Based upon the staff analysis, Nielsen stated the proposed P.U.D. is generally consistent with
Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and the stated purpose of the P. U.D. provisions of the Zoning
Code and recommended that the Concept Plan be approved subject to Conditions a. through m.
as outlined on pages 4 and 5 in his June I memorandum.
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud, representing the Abingdon Development Corporation (the developer)
and Tony Eiden Company (the builder), referred to the proposed Heritage planned unit
development concept plan detailed in his letter dated May 2, 1994 and described by Mr. Nielsen.
Dillerud described a mailing made to the surrounding residents to apprise them of the proposed
development, to provide information for the public hearing and to encourage residents to contact
him regarding any concerns they may have. He stated the concept design addresses protected
wetlands and the land configuration which has odd property lines and limits development under
the City's ordinances. Discussions have been conducted with the staff regarding the wetlands,
the island, connection of Noble Road, grading, ground cover and trees.
.
Dillerud responded to each of the staff recommendations (a. through m. outlined in Nielsen's
June 1 memorandum) and generally accepted the recommendations for incorporation into the
development stage plans. With respect to the recommendation to eliminate the 50' lakeshore
parcel from the P.U.D., (recommendation e.), Mr. Dillerud explained that the common area
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 3
is designed and included in the proposed plans for the enjoyment of many persons. He reviewed
historical aspects of the parcel including previous ownership, results of litigation, and agency
regulations (such as the Minnetonka Watershed District) that apply to its use and indicated that
this issue will continue to be explored. In addition, Dillerud reviewed the status of the
Corporation's efforts to obtain a title to this parcel and the possible swap of land with the owner
of land adjoining the panhandle of Lot 18 (referred to in recommendation h.). With respect to
recommendation j. regarding the provision of future City water extension to the site, Mr.
Dillerud agreed to participate in exploring that possibility, but explained that it would be unfair
for the Corporation to address both installation of dry pipe and drilling of wells on the
development, but that easements for water extensions will be granted.
Chair Rosenberger opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. and restated the procedures.
Mr. Howard Kushmar, 26720 Edgewood Road, spoke in opposition to the project and delineated
the following concerns: additional street traffic and congestion on Edgewood Road; an extension
of Noble Road makes no sense; increased cost of maintaining Edgewood Road; tremendous
increase of pollutants into Lake Minnetonka from runoff from the homes to be built; pollution
of the wetlands; decrease and disturbance of the wetlands and habitat for animals; increased air
pollution in the immediate area; deterioration of the roads by heavy equipment during the
construction period which should be covered by a $500 assessment for truck usage of the roads;
the semi-residential zoning will be overlayed by P.U.D. densities; increased pollution of the
water table; deterioration of the drinking water quality; common area at the lake makes no
sense, it cannot and will not be policed; building on the isiand will fill in the wetland which has
already been deteriorated by the Brentridge project. In summary, he reiterated opposition to the
project emphasizing that if any development is allowed in the area, it should be limited to 7-8
homes on the north side of the road and the remainder of the property be protected as wetland,
Noble Road should not be extended, and the island not be designated a common-use area.
Kushmar observed that over the past few years, Shorewood has experienced a dramatic increase
in housing stock unfavorably affecting its semi-rural character.
Mr. Jeff (and Nancy) Stebbins, 26980 Edgewood Road, expressed opposition to the development
especially the use of the lake outlot. Stebbins stated that when they purchased their property,
which is adjacent to the outlot, the limited private use of the outlot supported their purchasing
decision. With P.U.D. density, Stebbins stated usage of the lot could exceed 100 persons which
he termed ridiculous and pointed out that the lot has been deemed unbuildable, thus no other
structures such as bathroom, changing room, cooking facilities would be allowed, parking in the
area is not available, and egress is not shown on the plat. Stebbins stated that no financial
hardship should result to the developer if the outlot is not used. Stebbins noted the LMCD
regulations regarding boats. Using his experience as a developer, Stebbins questioned the
buildable area and the lot sizes of the development, stated that a P.U.D. is not appropriate for
the area, characterized a P.U.D; as a method of spot zoning, and generally opposed the
development which would financially benefit a non-local developer and change the lifestyles of
the area residents.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 4
Ms. Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, stated opposition to the entire proposed concept
plan. Her concerns include the density and methodology used to violate the intent of zoning
restrictions and the proposed use of the lakeshore parcel for common use. Ms. Scheurer
expressed concern that the plans will decrease property value of existing homes which were
purchased with the assurance the area would remain single family residential as zoned. She
stated the zoning requirements should continue to be enforced and the expansion of up to 22
families does not make sense. Common use of the lakeshore parcel is unreasonable. Scheurer
pointed out that various types of watercraft such as jet skis are not regulated and their use
creates a nuisance that decreases the quality of family life and property value.
Mr. Tim Olson, 27260 Edgewood Road, (Gabbert property), stated opposition to the
development for the reasons presented by previous speakers. He inquired how this development
compares with the Pemtom development on Howards Point Road with respect to lot sizes. He
expressed concern regarding the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel and noted that
it would affect residents in the surrounding area and further pollute the Lake.
.
Ms. Pat Huber, 5315 Howard's Point Road, stated although she does not live within 500 feet
of the development, she is totally against the proposal for the same reasons outlined by previous
speakers. In addition, Ms. Huber expressed concern that the entire concept of the area will be
changed negatively. She stated that overbuilding in marshland areas erodes the natural cleansing
characteristics of the marsh through unacceptable runoff of fertilizer, etc. The beauty of the area
and wildlife will be lost, the marsh becomes a smelly swamp, and home values decrease.
Mr. Dana Marcelius, 27015 Edgewood Road, supported the concerns expressed by previous
speakers. He inquired about the proposed extension of Noble Road as it may affect his property,
inquired about the impact of drilling of 22 additional wells on existing wells and the water
supply, and expressed concern about the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel.
Mr. Tom Wartman, representing Ed Wartman of 26985 Edgewood Road, reiterated concern
regarding the proposed common use of the lakeshore parcel from 3 families up to 21 additional
families and the proposed increased density of the development. He noted that the beneficial
land swap recommended in Nielsen's report is being considered by the Wartman family.
Mr. Bill Bruggeman (1), representing the future owner at 26710 Edgewood Road, inquired why
the common area near the lakeis proposed.
The following residents concurred with the concerns stated by others:
Bev and Norm Dann, 5285 Howard's Point Road
Mr. Richard Gay, 5695 Howard's Point Road
Patti and Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road
Mr. Tom Skramstad, 28020 Woodside Road
.
Chair Rosenberger closed the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 5
During discussion, the Commissioners addressed questions and concerns raised by the residents
during the public hearing. With respect to increased traffic and damage to Edgewood Road,
Nielsen stated that under provisions of a P.U.D., additional information may be requested
including a traffic study which could be requested to be completed by the developer or the staff
could be directed to conduct. Nielsen explained that while the City requires a developer to
repair any road damage, it may occur later and responsibility may be difficult to prove. The
development agreement includes provisions to cover damage to public roads and utilities. The
letter of credit assures that funds exist and stays in effect for one year after acceptance of the
improvements and it is possible to further extend the time period. Repairs may also be assessed
to the developer if the letter of credit and bond funds fall short.
With respect to concerns regarding pollution, water table, etc., Mr. Dillerud acknowledged that
completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) relative to the development
would be prudent. He noted that regulations of the Watershed District will also be adhered to
with respect to issues including storm water runoff. It was noted that use of fertilizer is an issue
to be addressed by the City.
With respect to the lake front common use, Nielsen explained the provisions of the Shoreland
ordinance and reviewed the relevant court litigation and the resulting current use of the parcel.
The current ordinance requires that where a dock exists a house must also exist, however,
allowing a dock without a house on this parcel was grandfathered in as nonconforming. The
ordinance is not specific with respect to passive use of the parcel. Nielsen acknowledged that
common use of the parcel would be difficult to control, create potential problems, and is a
difficult element of the proposal. Bean inquired whether the subdivision could terminate the
validity of the grandfathering. Nielsen replied that is a legal issue and the grandfather rights
could be subject to change. Nielsen described a precedent set at Gideon Cove that allowed two
existing docks to remain assigned to two lots and allowed common use of a peninsula. Nielsen
noted the City adopts by reference provisions of the LMCD Code and Dillerud stated those
regulations will be complied with.
Nielsen compared this application with the pre-application review of the Lundgren Brothers'
project. The Heritage proposal accepts the 1/40000 zoning density whereas the Lundgren
proposal requests a zoning change to a higher density. Otherwise, the applications are similar.
Nielsen stated that a detailed lot size analysis of the Heritage proposal has not yet been
completed and will be addressed in the development stage plan. It appears the smallest lot may
be 22,000 square feet. Bean estimated that lot sizes would range from 25-30,000 sq.ft., 30-
35,000 sq.ft., and 75,000 sq.ft. and more. Malam stated it is important to apply the same
consistent criteria to this development as to those considered heretofore.
Nielsen described the proposed extension of Noble Road and the points of egress and ingress for
the development. He stated the City has required the developer to be responsible for
construction of streets associated with a development including extension of streets.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 6
Nielsen stated there is no evidence that any development in the City adversely affects the wells
surrounding them including some of the deep wells drilled and developments with numerous
wells. He pointed out that whether the drilling of an additional 20 wells for this development
is a good idea hinges on the City's deCision regarding the extension of City water. The City
Engineer will provide further information on this issue.
Dillerud stated the Corporation will address the issue of pedestrian traffic to the outlot and
provide information in the development stage plans. It was noted that the recommended land
swap is a matter between the developer and the land owner involved.
.
Rosenberger described the purpose of the EA W. Turgeon requested clarification of the wetland
areas. Nielsen described the wetlands under the City ordinance and the Wetland Conservation
District. Rosenberger inquired whether access to the island can be limited. Nielsen replied that
limited alteration for access is allowed. Turgeon expressed concern regarding the use of the
outlots and maintenance of the parcels and requested input from the DNR, LMCD and
Watershed District. The developer will also be expected to respond to those concerns. Pisula
expressed concern regarding the amount of runoff from the development. Nielsen responded
that control of the runoff and short-term and permanent erosion will be addressed by the
developer. Malam requested the developer's response to recommendation k. regarding the
reforestation program. Dillerud described the Corporation's standard procedures relative to trees
and indicated the City's ordinances will be complied with and detailed in the development stage
plans. The Commissioners agreed that acceptable replacement trees must be a minimum of 3"
in diameter on this project.
Borkon requested clarification of the concept plan issues to be considered by the Commission.
Nielsen enumerated the issues and indicated that consideration of the concept plan is intended
to give the developer direction for preparation of the development stage with respect to specific
issues including a density range, streets and utilities, public and common open space and staging
and timing of development. Borkon stated her concerns include whether use of the lakeshore
parcel as a common area is viable, impact of additional wells on the water supply and how it
may impact the City's plans to provide water, density and the method used to determine the
number of residences, and the impact on the wetlands. Borkon recommended a lower density
than that proposed and requested that a EA W be completed and input from the appropriate
agencies.
Based on personal experience, Foust expressed concern regarding the proposed common area,
control of its use and the impact on adjacent property owners. He also expressed concern
regarding the proposed density of the development since it appears to be out of character with
the neighborhood which has larger sized lots.
.
Bean requested a legal opinion with respect to the grand fathered use of the lakeshore common
space and stated concept stage approval should be qualified as to how it gets used. He inquired
what the general construction traffic pattern would be and suggested that such traffic be
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 7
restricted from Edgewood Road to the extent possible. Dillerud indicated a logical route may
be 19 to Grant Lorenz to Noble, but acknowledged that as a P.U.D. restrictions can be placed
by the City. Bean inquired whether any of the 4 properties on Edgewood which are not part
of the development could possibly be subdivided and whether there would be any impact on this
development from any subdivision(s). Nielsen stated that if the developer is not successful in
the land swap, it is conceivable that the panhandle could be used to serve two additional lots
with a cul-de-sac. Nielsen indicated that two of the parcels could be subdivided. While the City
cannot legally require the recommended land swap, it is strongly suggested that this be
accomplished to enhance several of the lots. Bean expressed concern regarding the proposed
density of development. He stated that the significant number of new homes already approved
for development in the area combined with this development puts pressure on services including
water and suggested that the opportunity for intensive coordination exists to solve the water
problem.
.
Rosenberger expressed concern regarding environmental issues and supported completion of an
EA W by the developer. Rosenberger inquired whether restriction of access to the island would
be appropriate. Bean suggested that outright dedication of that parcel to the City for the general
observation of residents would eliminate the issue and remove it from the P.U.D. The
Commissioners agreed to give credit to the developer for 2 Park fees in exchange for dedication
of that parcel to the City. Use of the lakeshore parcel should depend upon resolution of its legal
status.
In response to the Commissioners' concern regarding the water matter, Nielsen reviewed
options considered by the staff: 1) moving the road in new developments to leave a right-of-way
to accommodate extension of water at some future date; 2) incorporating protective covenant
provisions putting home purchasers on notice that city water may be extended; 3) installing dry
lines (not recommended by City Engineer unless extension is imminent); and 4) requiring impact
fees for water system improvements. Nielsen stated, however, that this project is probably too
far removed from any feasible extension of water from an environmental or cost standpoint.
The City needs to make a general overall decision on its plans for providing water throughout
the City. Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed to request a recommendation from
the City Engineer regarding the water issue.
Following discussion, the Commissioners agreed to set a minimum lot size of 35,000 sq.ft. for
this development. The Commissioners reviewed and discussed each of the conditions (a. through
m.) recommended by the staff and agreed on modifications to selected points.
.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the Heritage
Planned Unit Development concept stage plans, proposed by Mr. Charles Dillerud,
representing Abingdon Development Corporation and Tony Eiden Builders, to be located
south of Edgewood Road, approximately 700 feet east of Howard's Point Road, subject to
the staff recommendations a. through m. detailed on pages 4 and 5 of Nielsen's
memorandum dated June 2, 1994, modified as follows: b. Concept approval should allow
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 8
one unit per 40,000 square feet of net buildable area. with a minimum lot size of 35.000
square feet of area. (as opposed to a specific lot count). c. The proposed commonly owned
island should be dedicated to the City in exchange for 2 Park fees. j. The development
stage review of the P.U.D. process should include a hydrology study and report from the
City Engineer. k. The City will. require a tree inventory and negotiate a reforestation
program with a minimum of 3" diameter replacement trees as part of the P.U.D. Motion
passed 7/0.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting. Written
comments regarding the recommendation may be mailed to the Councilmembers and staff at City
Hall for receipt prior to the meeting.
The Chair recessed the meeting at 10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m.
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - JOHNSON HOLWW
Applicant:
Location:
Daniel Johnson
27920 and 27944 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case, outlined the procedures for a public hearing, and
acknowledged receipt of a June 1, 1994 letter from Mr. William W. Pye, 27968 Smithtown
Road, Excelsior, commenting on this application.
Nielsen reported that Ms. Elizabeth Lindow proposes to sell part of her property at 27920
Smithtown Road to Mr. Daniel Johnson, 27944 Smithtown Road. The division and combination
allows Mr. Johnson to acquire an existing tennis court located to the east of his property.
Together the lots (zoned R-IA/S) tota1169,735 sq.ft. in area. After the division/combination,
the Lindow lot will contain 58,535 sq.ft. and the Johnson lot will contain 111,200 sq.ft. of area.
The 2 existing lots (and 3 others) are served by a private road most of which is on Ms.
Lindow's property. As a result of the division/combination, about 600 feet of the road will be
located on the Johnson property. Nielsen stated that while the applicants' intent is rather simple,
it is complicated by strange lot configurations, cumbersome legal descriptions, and the existence
of the private road. To simplify matters to the extent possible, the applicants have been asked
to formally plat the division/combination. There is no intent to tamper with existing use. or
maintenance agreements for the private road at this time. Review of the final plat by the City
Attorney will ensure that the rights and responsibilities of all parties using the road will be
maintained. Nielsen recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions detailed
in his June 2, 1994 memorandum.
Mr. Daniel Johnson stated the amicable transaction to acquire the tennis court will clean up the
lot lines and does not affect any neighbors.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 9
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10: 15 p.m. there being no comments
from the public.
In response to Turgeon's inquiry about the "deep water" sign by t~e nearby pond, Johnson
explained it is actually a spring-fed pond which prevents skating during the winter etc.
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the Johnson
Hollow preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. applicants must provide up-
to-date title opinions or title insurance binders for both existing properties; 2. rmal plat
must be submitted within 6 months; 3. final plat must provide drainage and utility
easements 10' on each side of all property lines; 4. rmal plat should include a wetland
conservation/drainage easement for the designated wetland on Lot 1; 5. park dedication
fees and sewer connection charges are not required since no new lots are created. Motion
passed 7/0.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting.
3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - R. BOWMAN SECOND
ADDITION
.
Applicant:
Location:
James McNulty, representing R. Bowman
20025 Manor Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the background to the preliminary plat request. A subdivision of Mr. Richard
Bowman's property at 20025 Manor Road was approved in 1990 that created 2 lots and 2 outlots
located in Shorewood and Deephaven. The outlots were legally tied to their respective adjoining
lots so that they could not be developed or subdivided without City approval and without
constructing a city street. Right-of-way for future construction of the street was dedicated at that
time and the 2 lots shared Bowman's existing driveway.
Mr. Bowman now requests that the southerly portion of the property (Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot
B) be resubdivided into 3 building sites and asks that the development agreement required as part
of the original plat be amended to allow the replatting without construction of the street. A
concern of the original plat was that subdivision not be allowed to circumvent the City's
requirements for streets. Nielsen stated that with proper control, the current request does not
violate the Code or the intent of the original approval. Lot 1 will access directly from Manor
Road, Shorewood, and Lot 3 will access directly from Vine Street, Deephaven, therefore the
common driveway will still be shared only by the Bowman residence and the new Lot 2, and
will not require upgrading to private street standards. The
future public street need not be constructed until such time as Outlot A is replatted, however,
. Outlot A must remain legally tied to Mr. Bowman's existing homestead parcel.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 10
Nielsen reviewed the conditions upon which approval of the preliminary plat should be subject
to (conditions 1. through 7. detailed in his June 3, 1994 memorandum), and recommended
approval of the application.
Mr. James McNulty, representing Mr. Bowman, stated he and the homeowner have met with
Nielsen to discuss the proposal and indicated the owner wishes to defer construction of the
street.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 10:25 p.m.
Ms. Debbie Hegstrom, 5060 Hooper Lake Road, inquired where the access on Manor Road will
be located since the surrounding area is swampy low land. She expressed concern about the
access on Vine Street due to the amount of traffic on Hooper Lake Road which is used as a
short-cut. Hegstrom expressed concern that wildlife habitat will be destroyed and urged that
the area remain as natural as possible.
Mr. Jim Miller, 20060 Vine Street, whose property abuts the subject property, reiterated concern
regarding preservation of the natural area. He inquired whether ordinances could protect the
wooded area, provide for replacement of trees and regulate grading on the property. He
inquired how building on Lot I will affect the wetlands. Miller reiterated concern about
disturbing the habitat for wildlife especially for deer.
Mr. Scott Ziemer, 20175 Manor Road, inquired where the access will be for Lot 1.
Ms. Susan Hooper, 5005 Hooper Lake Road, inquired about the effect on property taxes if
expensive homes are built on Lot 3 adjacent to Deephaven.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the questions and concerns raised by residents during the Public
Hearing. Nielsen described the location of the access points and pointed out that preservation
of the wetlands is a major factor in the placement of the proposed homes and driveways. He
noted that action by Deephaven on the proposal will also be required. With respect to traffic,
Nielsen noted that while the majority of this project is in Deephaven, two of the lots will access
to Shorewood streets. Using residential development data of 8-10 trips per day per lot,
approximately 30 additional trips per day will be added to area streets. It is anticipated that 3/4
of the traffic will use Manor Road. The current signage and speed bumps are considered
adequate to control cut-through traffic. Nielsen explained that current ordinances do not require
tree replacement and speculated that Mr. Bowman may not wish to construct the street in the
interest of preserving the wooded area. In terms of grading, Nielsen stated Shorewood requires
a maximum slope of 3: 1 and it is assumed the homes will be custom built to fit the lots, grading
will be limited and slopes relatively undisturbed. He pointed out .that developers generally try
to preserve trees to mitigate the effect on natural surroundings to the extent possible and
.
.
.
PLANNING COl\fMISSION MINUTES
June 7, 1994 - PAGE 11
wetlands cannot be disturbed or altered. It is expected that City water will be extended from
the Amesbury development. It was acknowledged that the effect on property taxes is difficult
to determine. It was noted that restrictions may be attached to the approval to provide for
specific replacement of trees. Overall control of the subdivision will be mutually shared by
Shorewood and Deephaven. The Commissioners sympathized with concerns regarding wildlife,
particularly deer, but agreed that in general deer survive and tend to increase their numbers.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the R.
Bowman Second Addition Preliminary Plat subject to the staff recommendations 1.-7.
detailed in Nielsen's memorandum dated June 3, 1994. Motion passed 7/0.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its June 27, 1994 meeting.
4. MATTERS FROM mE FLOOR - None.
5. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its May 23 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions. The Planning Commission and Council will meet in a joint
session on Monday, June 27, 1994.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
PL ~-7~1+
IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
ADDRESS
AGENDA ITEM
/
V
I, V (J/ ~,f. J>.j.J. 'D.
e
~ .iI " if
f I It ((
t\ '\ .,
. , II (r
.\\ II , I
-.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Malam, Pisula and Turgeon; Council
Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Borkon and Foust.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's June 7, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
Comprehensive Plan Update
1. Land Use Chapter - Senior Housing - None. (Discussed with Council at Joint Session on
June 27, 1994.)
2. Community Facilities - City Water
Nielsen explained it is imperative to identify issues related to the provision of water for
developments progressing in Shorewood. He pointed out that without a plan for a City-wide
water system, a significant number of new individual wells will be drilled. Nielsen distributed
and reviewed a document outlining the components of Shorewood's current water system
including: supply, storage, distribution, and treatment. While the City's 7 wells currently
provide an adequate supply of water, critical issues surround the storage, distribution, and
treatment aspects of the system. Nielsen reviewed alternative courses of action and related costs
developed by City Engineer Dresel (detailed in Dresel's letter dated March 31, 1994) to provide
expansion of the water system.
The Commissioners recognized the urgency of the situation and reiterated their commitment to
the goal to provide City-wide water within the next 10 years. During discussion, related issues
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 28, 1994 - PAGE 2
were identified: the need for timely public awareness of the City's plans, financing of an
expanded water system; the need for review and revision of relevant City policies; and the need
for a united position by City officials on the issue.
The Commissioners developed a course of action: 1) Request the staff to provide additional
information as to alternative financing options; 2) Request the staff to provide a cost analysis for
installation of city water by the affected developers and the cost to residents; 3) Meet with the
affected developers; 4) Consider recommending that a moratorium be placed on development in
the City until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed.
It was agreed to further consider and discuss this topic and the additional information requested
at the July 19 study session and meet with the affected developers at the August 2 meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its June 27 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rosenberger adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CIlY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 5,1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Malam, and Turgeon;
Council Liaison Lewis; and Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent:
Commissioners Foust and Pisula.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None.
1.
7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - FORMAL APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT
Auulicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta
School
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the background to the formal application to amend the Comprehensive
Plan. He noted that Lundgren Bros. representatives appeared before the Commission and
the Council in April for a pre-application review of the amendment to accommodate a
proposed development located to the north of Smithtown Road and west of the
Minnewashta Elementary School. The application requests the City to change the land use
designation in the current Comprehensive Plan from Semi-rural Residential (0-1 units per
40,000 square feet) to Low Density Residential (1-2 units per 40,000 square feet). The
formal application submitted has been revised slightly to include additional parcels of land
along Smithtown Road and now totals 76.5 acres, of which 42.7 acres is City-designated
wetland. The lot count has increased from 36 (plus or minus) to 40 (plus or minus).
Lundgren's development plan shows 41 lots, three of which have existing homes on them.
The resulting proposed density is 1.3 units per 40,000 square feet.
Nielsen reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. It includes the pre-
application review conducted in April, the public hearing conducted on this date,
consideration and action by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and if approved
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 2
by the Council, review and comment prior to formal adoption by the Metropolitan Council.
An informal neighborhood meeting to review the proposal was conducted by the developer
on June 29.
Nielsen reviewed the merits of the proposal and the advantages of development by P.U.D.
(detailed on pages 2-3 of Nielsen's memorandum dated June 30, 1994.) These include: A.
beneficial assemblage of parcels for development to avoid construction disruption and
maximization of continuity of lots within the development; B. looped street pattern for
circulation consistent with Comp Plan Update concept; C. unification of neighborhood; and
D. protection of City and WCA91 wetlands. Nielsen reviewed density considerations under
the current Comp Plan and zoning regulations and required zoning necessary to implement
the proposed land use change (detailed on pages 3-4 in Nielsen's memorandum). Current
regulations would allow as many as 34 lots on the subject property; the applicant's
development plan shows 41 lots (7 more than allowed under current rules).
.
Nielsen reviewed development issues to be addressed regardless of whether density is
allowed to be increased or not (detailed on pages 4-5 in Nielsen's memorandum). These
include: A. limiting private access on the peninsula to a common driveway serving no more
than 2 lots; B. platting for an access drive for the proposed water tower site on the school
property; C. aligning Cathcart Drive when improved with the westerly street entrance to
create a 90 degree intersection; D. requiring public dedication of the strip between the
wetland and Smithtown Road; and E. increasing the Boulder Bridge water system
capacity/City water service to the development.
Mr. Mark Anderson, Lundgren's director of planned development, introduced the other
members of the development team present. Mr. Anderson stated that favorable action by
the Commission on the application for the proposed land use guide plan amendment from
semi-rural to low density residential will allow development of a high quality neighborhood
that will fit harmoniously into the community and respond positively to the significant
opportunities and strengths proposed by the site. Using visuals, he described the parcels
assembled to create the 76.5 acre development in a coordinated fashion, noting that the
Comp Plan amendment would increase the allowable lots from 31 to 38 lots. Anderson
outlined the preliminary work performed on various components of the proposal. He
indicated that concerns raised at the June 29 neighborhood meeting will be addressed during
the presentation. Anderson acknowledged that density may be the key issue before the
Commission, but stated that an increase to low density residential density, which will be
imperceptible, is justified by the unique conditions of the property and need for fleXIbility
to successfully develop the property in a manner consistent with the high quality of
surrounding neighborhoods.
.
Mr. John Shardlow, planning consultant, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., using visuals,
described the existing land use designations of surrounding properties and presented the site
development concept including the characteristics and features of the subject properties.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 3
Noting that detailed plans are not yet firm, he explained the preservation of existing
vegetation, buffer yards adjacent to the wetland, and looped road system. He noted the
proposed water tower area is considered a marketing constraint. Shardlow provided an
illustrative lotting plan which shows the largest lot with 37,000 sq.ft. of area and the smallest
with 22,000 sq.ft. of area for an average lot size of 31,000 sq.ft. In addition to future
realignment of Cathcart Road, traffic control will be enhanced with acceleration and
deceleration lanes at the Smithtown intersection. Lundgren Bros. is willing to consider a
park dedication for a trail connection in the private open space along Smithtown Road.
Shardlow stated prospects are good for saving the valuable trees on the properties and a
great number of trees will be added through the developer's reforestation/landscape plan.
Mr. Ken Adolf, civil engineer and surveyor, Schoell and Madson, stated the development
of the site will result in 5-1/2 acres of impervious surface on the property consisting of the
streets, driveways and residences. It will increase the run-off from the site; however the rate
of run-off will be directed from the streets and gutters and controlled by storm water ponds
for temporary storage prior to discharge into the wetlands. The long-term impact based on
a 100 year storm would raise the water level in the wetlands by 1/2".
.
Mr. Frank Svoboda, wetland biologist, Franklin J. Svoboda & Associates, using the aerial
photo, pinpointed the location of the proposed driveway to serve the lots in the peninsula
and indicated no impact to the flood plain is expected. With respect to the impact of 31 lots
vs. 38 lots, Svoboda stated no impact on the wetlands is expected from sediments generated
or fertilizer because the road network and lawn surfaces will not be measurably different
between 31 or 38 lots.
.
Mr. Anderson stated that in his view no problems exist that cannot be resolved with respect
to the site and development plans. He explained it is the developer's desire to build a
development to meet the market's needs as indicated by research for a specific product. He
explained that to build homes under the existing density would substantially increase the
starting price for a lot and home to $300,000 plus whereas a starting cost in the mid-
$200,000's is in the overall best interests of the community and the existing home purchasing
segment of the population. Increased density would provide for overall success of the
development and market success for a larger segment of the population. Anderson
acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood and indicated the developer respects and
understands the residents' stake in the future of Shorewood. Nonetheless, the developer
believes development of the property under the proposed land use amendment will be a fine
and harmonious addition to the City. According to Anderson, the small increase in density
requested will not set a precedent and is required to achieve a successful project for a
quality neighborhood resulting in significant benefits including a loop road, a master plan
for six parcels, extensive wetland protection, and housing diversity. (Refer to "Proposed Land
Use Guide Plan Amendment for Ledin/Wartman/Minniwasta (sic) School Property of
Shorewood, Minnesota" Prepared for the Planning Commission of Shorewood, Minnesota,
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 4
Submitted by: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata,
Minnesota 55391, dated June 7, 1994.)
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m., reviewed the Commission's
procedures for the hearing and thanked the audience for its tolerance.
Bob Whelan, 5910 Cathcart Drive, outlined three major concerns: 1) opposed to higher
density, prefer one acre lots, presentation and information indicates developer's desire for
increased profit; 2) zoning change gives developer opportunity to reduce lot sizes to 20,000;
3) Cathcart and Smithtown intersection is currently difficult and traffic speed problem on
Cathcart will get worse, suggest moving proposed new street more to the west. He stated an
adjacent neighbor will have the street in their living room and indicated traffic and street
maintenance require further study.
Dean (and Kay) Johnson, 5875 Cathcart Drive, supported the concerns expressed by
Whelan, and expressed concern regarding the precedent set for other future subdivision;
other re-zoning in the area has been denied; increased density is not in the best interest of
the surrounding residents; and requested denial of reduced lot size.
.
Pete Holmberg, 5955 Cajed Lane, expressed concern regarding home sites on the small strip
along Smithtown, requested more information on possible 30,000 sq.ft. lots, inquired whether
private wells would be approved for the development since the Boulder Bridge water system
is at capacity, supported retaining 40,000 sq.ft. zoning, and indicated that the Brentridge
development with 20,000 sq.ft. lots has already set a precedent and further development in
that size range should not be allowed.
Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road, supported the concerns expressed by previous
speakers with respect to retaining the current zoning to preserve the natural character of
Shorewood. She expressed particular concern regarding the wetlands buffer zone and stated
that Shorewood needs to develop a wetland ordinance to protect the wetlands. She
distributed copies of Chanhassen and Minnetonka ordinances.
Bev Decker, 5815 Brentridge Drive, supported the concerns expressed by previous speakers
and indicated that it appears many residents were not aware of the proposal and would like
to consider and comment on the issues. Environmental agencies contacted intend to view
the marshland. Further study on the proposal is necessary because of concerns and
questions.
.
Nancy Taylor, 5915 Smithtown Road, commented on the small-sized lots in Shorewood
Oaks, stated more people in the affected area should have been informed of the proposal,
and supported the one acre per home density level. She inquired what the advantage of
changing the density would be to Shorewood, expressed concern regarding the effect on
school capacity and on required services, and increased traffic.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 5
Richard Gay, 5695 Howards Point Road, supported maintaining 40,000 sq.ft. lots and stated
lots in both the Brynmawer and Abingdon developments in the vicinity contain lots of that
size. He expressed concern regarding development of the peninsula; it is a wet soggy area
requiring fill for a roadway which is not proper; emergency vehicles would have difficulty
accessing the area.
Becky Hendricks (and Bill Nichols), 5735 Brentridge Drive, presented a document
containing 100 signatures supporting the 1/40,000 density. She stated that 3/4 of people
contacted were not aware of the proposal and suggested that additional time be provided
for additional comment and study. (Nielsen accepted the signature document.)
Clay Atkinson, 5735 Brentridge Drive, stated it is not appropriate for the developer to
benchmark against Brentridge Drive. He pointed out that the most important long-term
environmental issue is land development. He stated this is the last large parcel in
Shorewood and 7 extra homes on the property is significant and supported the 1/40,000 sq.ft.
density.
Jim Lindsay, 5745 Brentridge Drive, stated that even though he is a Lundgren Bros. bond
holder and higher density would be more profitable for the developer, he supports
maintaining the 1/40,000 density.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, inquired whether a feasibility study has been
conducted relative to the effect on the school system and expressed concern regarding the
quality of schools and increased taxes for expansion of those facilities to accommodate the
development.
Martin Schuster, 26450 Noble Road, stated that good cause must be shown for increasing
density and it is important to preserve the nature of the City residents have chosen to live
in. He expressed concern regarding setbacks for the wetlands which could create narrow lots
with "row" type homes, uncharacteristic of Shorewood.
Philip Bortscheller, 27410 Pine Bend, expressed concern regarding the run-off that may
affect his property and suggested the issue be studied carefully. He supported the existing
density for the property.
Fremont Gruss, 27280 Smithtown Road, inquired about the width of the pathway going to
the point. He stated the vast majority of residents support the existing density which reflects
the lot sizes in the surrounding area. He expressed concern regarding the wetlands.
Tim Dosen, 26405 Smithtown Road, commented on the cost of the proposed homes and
stated the primary issue should be proper use of the land and economic factors should not
enter into the decision.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 6
Bill Burnsby ?, 5920 Afton Road, inquired whether the developer's purchase of the parcels
is contingent upon approval of reclassification to a higher density.
Bill Keeler, 27425 Pine Bend, stated that development of marginal land should not be tied
to reducing the lot sizes and the property should remain as is if it is not feasible to develop
as zoned.
Rosenberger acknowledged, for the record, letters from Albert E. and Elvera A. Hoops,
Fremont and Karen Gruss, and James K. Lindsay, opposing the application. Chair
Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
.
The Commissioners addressed the issues raised during the public hearing. Staff and
members of the development team provided answers to questions and concerns. The layout
of the street on the properties was designed to maximize the lot depth to provide an
adequate buffer zone for the wetlands. With respect to traffic in the Cathcart/Smithtown
area, additional analysis including a traffic study will be conducted. Zoning in the area is
primarily R-IA and the subject property could be either re-zoned or developed as a P.U.D.
wherein zoning becomes a part of the development agreement with specified lot sizes and
setbacks. Shorewood's single family zoning districts are: RIA allows single family homes on
lots 40,000 sq.ft. of land (an acre is 43,000 sq.ft.); R-IB allows 30,000 sq.ft.lots; R-1C allows
20,000 sq.ft.; R-1D allows 10,000 sq.ft. The advantage of a P.U.D. is that the density is for
a specific project so if it is not approved, the existing zoning remains, whereas re-zoning
changes the density for any future development.
The developer does not propose to build homes on the strip along Smithtown Road.
Shorewood's Wetland Ordinance is significantly restrictive as compared to other
communities' ordinances; it removes the wetlands from a development area and does not
allow its area to be used in calculating density. With respect to setbacks from the wetlands,
the ordinance allows 35' - 50;' however in recent developments, easements for outlots have
been recommended to establish a buffer. In addition, water quality as well as quantity will
be addressed in the Camp Plan update and has been considered as part of recent P.U.D.
analyses. Statutes require that residents within 350' be notified and that a public hearing
legal notice be published in the City's official newspaper. Since 1985, Shorewood has
required notification to residents within 500' of the property be notified and signs are posted
regarding proposed subdivision of property. The developer is also required to notify the
surrounding residents and it appears that notification has been extended to a larger area.
.
The developer pointed out primary advantages to the City: assemblage of the properties to
be developed in coordinated fashion and additional wetlands beyond the City's ordinance
are preserved. According to the developer, re-zoning does not legally bind the City or set
a legal precedent. With respect to the addition of fill to the peninsula, the details of street
construction have not yet been addressed by the developer. It was pointed out that
regulations of the Uniform Fire Code must be followed for emergency access and
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 7
turnaround. The City's regulations allow a 16' minimum street serving two properties with
a maximum width of 24'.
During the pre-application stage, the school district indicated the project would not adversely
affect the district. The City reviews with the school district, at least annually, the effects of
various developments on school operations. The Commissioners agreed additional
information should be obtained regarding the demographics of the area including Shorewood
Oaks and Near Mountain with respect to the impact on schools.
The developer reiterated that the water tower proposed for construction by the City will
have a detrimental effect on marketing of the homesllots in its vicinity. The City's plan for
construction of a water tower to serve the western section of the City continues under
discussion.
The developer stated agreements with the property owners for purchase of the parcels are
contingent upon appropriate governmental approvals.
The Commissioners considered aspects of the proposed development including: length and
construction of the cul-de-sac to the peninsula; environmental issues; benefits to the City
through assemblage of the parcels; P. U.D. designation of the project vs. re-zoning; additional
resident input; financial information regarding the viability of the project from the
developer's standpoint; specific information from the school district regarding the impact of
the project if developed to it's maximum combined with other developments in the area; run-
off analysis of overall impact of all developments; comparative analysis of the market impact
of the Waterford water tower; reforestation plan; and affordability issues. In addition, the
Commissioners acknowledged the absence of two Commissioners and their views. Following
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that significant issues have been identified that require
further information and agreed to table discussion of this comprehensive plan amendment.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to table for two weeks to July 19, 1994, consideration of
the application from Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. to amend the Comprehensive Plan,
to study the issues in order to make informed decisions. Motion passed 5/0.
Rosenberger stated the public hearing is closed and further oral testimony will not be taken,
however, additional written comments will be received and considered by the Commission.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened and 9:35 p.m.
2.
7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SMITHTOWN MEADOWS
Applicant: Abindgon Development Corp.
Location: 25655 Smithtown Road/25725 Eureka Way
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 8
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a Public Hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a preliminary plat for subdivision of
approximately 4.7 acres located south of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
property and east of Eureka Way. The developer proposes to subdivide two parcels of land
(zoned R-1C) into seven lots. Dwellings currently exist on proposed Lots 6 and 7. The
access for lot 6 will change from Eureka Road to the new road. The home on lot 7 will be
replaced with a new home. The development plan is based upon a resubdivision prepared
when the property to the north was subdivided from the subject site several years ago.
Nielsen reviewed how the plat complies with Shorewood's zoning and subdivision
requirements (detailed on pages 2-3 in his June 30, 1994 memorandum). In general the plan
is consistent with the previous subdivision sketch and meets or exceeds zoning requirements
of the R-1C district. With respect to the subdivision ordinances, Nielsen pointed out a
significant issue associated with this plat is the intersection of the new street with Smithtown
Road. Approval for grade crossing of the H.C.R.R.A. right-of-way by Hennepin County is
required and details for such approval have yet to be completed. The final plat should show
a different name for the street because Eureka Way already exists. Property owners to the
south inquired about extending the street to serve their property; however, it is
recommended that a street connecting to Eureka Road to the west should serve the those
properties. Nielsen described a drainage problem reported by the north and south neighbors
of the plat which has been addressed by the City Engineer. The Engineer's
recommendations are detailed in Dresel's June 27, 1994 letter to Nielsen. The natural
drainage flow pattern must be maintained, a system to eliminate erosion in the Smithtown
Road/Eureka Way intersection is recommended, construction of two additional catch basins
and an outlet are recommended to control the amount of runoff in the street gutters, and
drainage calculations will be required for final plat approval. The telephone company must
vacate an existing telephone easement which cuts through Lots 2,3, and 4. Park dedication
fees for five lots must be paid by the developer. Nielsen recommended approval of the
preliminary plat subject to conditions a. through i. detailed in Nielsen's June 30
memorandum.
Mr. Charles E. Dillerud, director of land development, Tony Eiden Company/Abingdon
Development Corporation, stated the preliminary plat is a conventional plat that meets all
the requirements of the City's zoning ordinances. He indicated the plat is part of a design
presented in the mid-80s and attached as a condition of that subdivision. Easement for the
roadway was previously acquired. It is intended to remove the home on Lot 7 and change
the street access. Trees on that lot will be preserved. Dillerud interposed no objections to
the recommendations contained in Nielsen's staff report. However, he indicated he has not
seen the City Engineer's report, but that objections to those recommendations are unlikely.
Dillerud committed to resolving the drainage problems in the northwest portion of the site.
Storm sewer drains as required will be installed. Acquisition of the railroad right-of-way is
in negotiation with Hennepin County and will be dedicated to the City. The new street will
be re-named, utility easements will be provided, and negotiations with Northwestern Bell are
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 9
in process for the necessary easements. A final plat will be submitted within six months and
it is planned that construction will begin Fall 1994. A new product/home will be built: 2
story, 2200-2600 square feet, and sell in the $200,000 range.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Rosenberger accepted for the
record a letter dated July 5, 1994 from Alan Krutsch and Susan Prince, 25725 Smithtown
Road, regarding the subdivision.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, expressed concern regarding the drainage problem
affecting her property. She expressed concern regarding tree removal and the wetlands and
inquired whether a reforestation plan is included. She inquired about the design and type
of materials used in home construction, and the utility service. Schaff stated concern that
the existing landscape will be changed and inquired about general plans for restoring it.
Pat Olson, 25775 Smithtown Road, inquired about the schedule for road construction,
expressed concern about the tree removal and drainage problems in the area, construction
noise, the bike trail which is heavily used and related safety issues. She inquired whether
City water will serve the project and strongly opposed requiring current residents to attach
to City water primarily because of the expense.
Mike Braun ?, 25805 Eureka Way, expressed concern regarding the water drainage. He
stated a drain tile running through his property also runs through the project site and
requested that it not be disrupted. He reported that tiles are already broken; the situation
has been reviewed by City engineers. The system works somewhat and he requested
assurance that it be maintained to avoid drainage to his property. He indicated that he and
others would be interested in gas hookups and they will work with the developer to make
those arrangements.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 10:06 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the questions raised during the public hearing and considered
the application. Dillerud stated that some or most of the trees will have to be removed, but
that several hundred evergreens could be relocated to the site from other project and other
reforestation will be considered. Nielsen indicated that a proposed fence located on a public
right-of-way suggested by the developer for trail protection and safety will need further
consideration. While construction materials have not yet been determined, Dillerud
indicated the homes currently being built by the builder are of brickstone and cedar.
According to Nielsen and Dillerud, no wetlands exist on the site. Nielsen reiterated the City
Engineer's recommendations with respect to drainage. He pointed out that drain tiles are
not relied upon for drainage and do not have easements, however development agreements
provide that if such systems are disrupted in the construction process, they must be restored.
Maintenance of a drain tile system is not assigned and originate from agricultural use. The
developer has agreed to locate the drain tile system and protect it.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 10
The telephone company easement will be re-located. All utilities will be placed
underground. Hennepin County is expected to grant an easement for the road crossing over
its property for dedication to the City and the issue will be resolved prior to the final plat.
Private wells will be drilled and gas hookups for interested surrounding residents can be
arranged. Construction of the new street in a base form will be completed prior to
development. Dillerud stated ordinances covering hours of construction will be followed.
Following discussion, the Commissioners generally concluded that the issues concerning
drainage and the railway crossing need further study and resolution and agreed to table
further consideration of the application.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to table for two weeks to July 19, 1994 consideration of
the preliminary plat for Smith town Meadows submitted by Abingdon Development Corp.
Motion passed 5/0.
3. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE
Annlicant: Vine Hill Market (James Pyle)
Location: 19215 State Highway 7
. Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen stated that considerable background documentation (attached to Nielsen's July 1,
1994 memorandum) exists on Mr. Pyle's request for a conditional use permit to install fuel
pumps at the Vine Hill Market since three previous applications have been denied. In Mr.
Pyle's current request, all variances except one, have been eliminated by proposing to
remove 12 feet from the west side of the existing building. The remaining variance is for
the setback between the proposed northerly driveway and the intersection of the Highway
7 service road and Vine Hill Road. In addition to removing part of the building, the
applicant proposes to construct a 30'x 43' canopy over the proposed fuel pumping area.
Nielsen reviewed the issues raised in previous request reviews which are resolved by
reduction of the building size. He stated the setback variance for the proposed northerly
driveway is justified because of the configuration of the site and the considerable
improvements being made to reduce the nonconformity of the parking lot.
.
Nielsen recommended approval of the C.U.P. for fuel pumps and driveway setback variance
subject to: a. provision of a detailed signage plan; b) revision of the landscape plan to reflect
the new site plan; c) provision of cost estimates for all required improvements; d. letter of
credit 1.5 times the cost estimates to guarantee their completion; e) elimination of the
phone from car facilities to avoid congestion; f. City Engineer approval of grading and
drainage; g. MNDOT approval of drainage; h. Fire Marshall approval of fuel pump and
tank installation; i. enclosure of the trash dumpster with a masonry wall. Nielsen reviewed
the applicant's plans for the removal of an entry to the property and lift the grade on the
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 11
entire site. While the site lines for Vine Hill Road are not the best, the plans are better
than the existing 2 entries to the plat.
Mr. James Pyle stated he has worked with the City and the Planner and would like to
improve the safety of his property and enhance the lot. Additional landscaping and a berm,
although not required, are included in the plans.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. there being no
comments from the public.
Turgeon inquired about the signage and lighting on the property. Nielsen indicated
ordinances provide restrictions for all signage and candlepower. Bean indicated that safety
issues and the installation of fuel pumps are separate issues and expressed concern regarding
the viability of the project and safe circulation of traffic. Mr. Pyle stated customers have
requested fuel service. Malam and Borkon interposed no objections to the provisions of the
conditional use permit for installation of the fuel pumps and granting of the driveway
setback variance. Rosenberger, while complimenting the applicant for his persistence and
work to improve the property, expressed some concern regarding the site lines, but
acknowledged the restrictions of the property. Bean stated the driveway setback variance
is not justified and the site has serious problems.
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve a conditional
use permit for fuel pumps and a driveway setback variance for James Pyle, Vine Hill
Market, 19215 State Highway 7, subject to the staff recommendations. Motion passed 4/1.
Bean voted nay.
The recommendation will be considered by the Council at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
4. 8:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FENCE
Applicant:
Location:
Judy Christensen-Waldin
5755 Merry Lane
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for approval of a setback variance to erect a fence
closer to Christmas Lake than the City Code allows. The property is zoned R-1NS which
requires a 75' setback from the ordinary high water level of the lake. The proposed fence
encroaches into the lake setback ranging from 12 to 25 feet. The existing home is located
entirely within the 75' setback area. Nielsen explained that if it is found that the variance
is justified in order for the applicant to make reasonable use of the property, ways to
minimize the variance and preserve the natural appearance of the shore line should be
considered. This would include requiring: a 4' chain link fence which is easier to screen
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 - PAGE 12
from view; use of green or black vinyl-coated fencing which is less visible than galvanized;
additional landscaping sized according to the requirements of the applicable Zoning code
to screen the fence from view of the lake; and a letter of credit or cash escrow to ensure the
landscaping will be completed this year.
Judy Christensen-Waldin stated there is a large amount of vegetation on the property and
did not understand that additional landscaping would be required. She indicated a decision
on the type of fence has not been made. She stated they have two small children and the
lake shoreline is within 50-60 feet from their play area. A 5' fence is customary for pool
areas. She explained the preferred location of the fence for esthetics purposes and felt there
is sufficient existing landscaping. Plans for installation of the fence are indefinite. Waldin
described the need for a privacy fence to block visibility into their home from the road.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 10:58 p.m. there being no
comments from the public. Letters dated May 22, 1994 from Horton & Bernice Brooks,
Daniel Noonan & Lucinda Aamot-Noonan, and Peter & Marie Lehman stating their
acceptance of the proposed safety fence plans and recommending approval of the requested
variance were noted for the record.
The Commissioners discussed the request and generally agreed that the situation is unique
in that the entire home is in a setback area having been allowed under grandfather
provisions as an exception to the ordinance covering lakeshore. The staff recommendations
assure that the lakeshore is preserved in its natural state.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend that the Council approve a fence setback
variance, subject to the staff recommendations outlined in Nielsen's memorandum dated
July 1, 1994, for Judy Christensen-Waldin and Rocky Waldin at 5755 Merry Lane, and
approve installation of a 5' chain link fence and a 6' privacy fence of the applicant's choice
in selected locations of the setback area. Motion passed 5/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
5. SIMPLE SUBDMSION/COMBINATION
Applicant:
Location:
Ellis Pike/Steven Pike
5810 Club Lane/24845 Smithtown Road
Nielsen reviewed the proposal of Steven Pike, 24845 Smithtown Road, to convey
approximately 37,450 square feet of his lot to Ellis Pike at 5810 Club Lane. The request is
a simple lot line rearrangement. While there is enough land between the two parcels to
create three lots, the applicants' subdivision and recombination results in parcels neither of
which can be divided into two 40,000 square foot lots. It is suggested, therefore, that the
applicants consider moving the new lot line about 35' to the north in order that the new
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 5, 1994 . PAGE 13
southerly parcel has 80,000 square feet of area; or Ellis Pike should sign an affidavit suitable
for recording stating he is aware that the new parcel cannot be subdivided under current
zoning requirements. Consistent with the City's past practice for substandard streets and
subdivisions and at staffs direction, the applicant has shown 21 additional feet of right-of-
way width for Club Lane, which exists as a grossly substandard public right-of-way.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend that the Council approve the simple
subdivision/combination request of Messrs. Ellis and Steven Pike, subject to the conditions
outlined in the staff report dated July 1, 1994. Motion passed 5/0.
Staff will inform the Commission whether the applicants elect to move the new lot line to
provide for future subdivision or a recordable affidavit is signed.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Borkon suggested that the City should be more aggressive in monitoring its established
ordinances. She stated it is unfair to expect citizens to patrol and report violations
particularly in the instance of neighbors. Nielsen provided illustrations of staff regulation
of ordinances and penalties that may be imposed for various infractions. The Commission
requested that a brief policy overview be prepared for discussion at a future meeting.
Bean inquired whether it would be beneficial to extend the 500' property owner notification
area for public hearings, particularly on the west side where the lot sizes are large. Nielsen
stated that 500' appears to be sufficient and does more than an adequate job in notification.
7. REPORTS - None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula and
Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's June 28, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 6/1. Foust abstained.
Malam moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's July 5, 1994
meeting. Motion passed 5/2. Foust and Pisula abstained.
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT
Chair Rosenberger stated the Commission is currently considering a number of development
projects in the City and is also working on updating the Comprehensive Plan. He explained
that the Commission will consider a recommendation to the City Council that it declare a
moratorium on development until the updates to the Comprehensive Plan are completed.
Nielsen reviewed the status of completed Chapters of the Comp Plan to date and submitted
a revised timetable for completion of the Comp Plan Update. The schedule, detailed in
Nielsen's memorandum dated July 14, 1994, projects that the updated Comp Plan would be
adopted in June 1995, subject to review by the Metropolitan Council. Nielsen outlined
procedures and a timetable for review and adoption of an ordinance declaring a moratorium
on development (detailed in Nielsen's memorandum dated July 15, 1994). He indicated that
if the Commission recommends, at this meeting, that a moratorium be declared, the
Ordinance could become effective on September 21, 1994 following its appropriate review,
public hearing, adoption and official publication.
The Commissioners considered the merits of a development moratorium. Bean stated that
as the last significant properties are being considered for development, decisions become
more complicated and difficult. He stated that the Lundgren Bros. Inc. application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment coming for consideration in the midst of work to update
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 19, 1994 . PAGE 2
the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the process be slowed down: A. to adopt the right
Comprehensive Plan, and B. with an updated Plan in place, the Commission and the
Council will have better guidance as to how to assess the final developments and the impact
on the community.
Turgeon and Pisula concurred with Bean's assessment of the need to slow down the process.
Foust inquired whether the proposed Comp Plan review schedule is realistic. Nielsen stated
the schedule is achievable barring any significant re-writes following the public hearings.
Bean noted that discussion will be tabled on significant developments and the Commission
will be able to devote more meeting time to focus on the Comp Plan update. Malam
inquired how long the Metropolitan Council's review of the Plan may take. Nielsen replied
that he will obtain that information, noted the Met Council is currently considering the
affordable housing issue, and indicated that future legislative actions may affect its review
process.
Rosenberger reviewed the significance of the Comp Plan as the City's strategy for
completion of its growth. He stated the process provides the opportunity for input from the
public on issues including environment, schools, wetlands, reforestation, streets, parks, senior
housing, etc. Rosenberger stated that the City staff and the Commissioners work diligently
to evaluate development applications and emphasized that it behooves the residents to
participate in formation of the City's Comprehensive Plan through neighborhood meetings
and public hearings.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it adopt an interim
ordinance to protect the planning process by restricting subdivisions of land in Shorewood
which create three or more lots. The interim ordinance would last for one year or until the
Comprehensive Plan Update is completed and submitted to the Metropolitan Council,
whichever comes first. Motion passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its July 25, 1994 meeting.
2. PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT. SMITHTOWN MEADOWS (tabled
from July 5, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
25655 Smithtown Road/25725 Eureka Way
Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to table to August 9, 1994, consideration of the
application of Abingdon Development Corp. for Smith town Meadows preliminary plat, to
obtain direction from the Council. Motion passed 7/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 19, 1994 - PAGE 3
3. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMAL APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT (tabled from July 5, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta
School
Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to table to August 9, 1994, consideration of Lundgren
Bros. Inc. application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, to obtain direction from the
Council. Motion passed 7/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Mr. Mark Anderson, representing Lundgren Bros. Inc., inquired how the proposed
moratorium is being defined; i.e., where in the process is a development stopped. Nielsen
stated a project that has not received preliminary plat approval would be affected. A
resident inquired what the effect would be on a preliminary plat approved ten years ago.
Nielsen stated that preliminary plats must be completed within six months or an application
for extension must be made.
5.
REPORTS
In the absence of Council Liaison Lewis, Commissioner Malam reviewed actions taken by
the Council at its July 11 meeting. Commissioner Foust inquired about the status of
installation of dry hydrants on the Islands. Nielsen explained that a change of ownership
has caused a delay in acquiring an easement for one of the locations; however completion
of the project is expected this summer. Nielsen reported on action taken regarding
construction violations.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula and
Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's July
19, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MANITOU WOODS
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
5580 Manitou Road (County Road 19)
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed Abingdon Development Corporation's proposal to subdivide property at 5580
County Road 19, zoned R-C, into two two-family residential lots (two base lots, four unit lots).
Although the four unit lots front on a public street, the applicant proposes to access them with a
single access road. Abingdon intends to connect to the Tonka Bay water system. Analysis of the
proposal indicates that the plat complies with R-C zoning requirements in lot area, width and
setbacks and with special provisions requiring separate utilities for each unit. With respect to
subdivision requirements, the proposed shared internal circulation system with one curb cut on
County Road 19 will limit direct property access on County Road 19 as advocated. An entrance
permit for the access road is required from Hennepin County. Nielsen stated the turn-around at the
south end of the access drive is too short for emergency vehicle use, inadequate room exists
between Lots 2 and 3 for cars to back out, and little room exists for guest parking. Nielsen
outlined a possible solution for these problems. Adequate sanitary sewer is available to serve the
development. Both water and sewer are located on the east side of County Road 19 and County
approval will be required for the extensions. Since stormwater runoff in the vicinity of the project
is a sensitive issue due to past drainage problems, the applicant proposes to construct a small
retention pond on the west side of the site. Detailed run-off calculations for review by the City
Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and necessary drainage and utility easements
must be provided as part of the final plat. Sewer and park dedication fees for each unit must be
paid upon final plat approval. Cross-easements and a maintenance agreement subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney must be provided.
Nielsen explained that this proposal may be subject to the development moratorium recommended
by the Planning Commission scheduled for consideration by the Council on August 8.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 1994 - page 2
Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon Corporation, concurred with Nielsen's analysis of
the project. He stated the development is for twin homes designed for a specific market and
compared them with another area project. The homes will sell for $150,000 and more. Dillerud
indicated the site is difficult to develop because of its topography and explained plans for grading
and a retaining wall. Dillerud generally agreed with the staff recommendations however he pointed
out that additional asphalt to provide space for emergency equipment and parking takes away from
natural ground cover. Dillerud questioned the application's relationship to the proposed
moratorium and requested the Commission's action in order that work may continue on the
development.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Mr. Mark Sawyer, owner of the property, expressed concern regarding how the proposed
moratorium may affect this project, and requested the Commissions favorable consideration of the
proposal. He reviewed the history of his acquisition of the property, commented on difficulties of
its development, and pointed out that although zoning would permit commercial development, such
use of the parcel has been rejected. Sawyer stated the proposal meets all the requirements of the
Codes and no special permits are requested.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Turgeon expressed concern regarding drainage in the area, pointed out there are a number of ponds
in the area collecting a substantial amount of water and inquired whether construction of the pond
would be under NERF standards. Nielsen explained that although current City ordinances do not
include those standards (which generally relate to water quality), careful attention will be paid to all
aspects of the pond's design to assure it is sized accurately and meets acceptable standards.
Turgeon inquired whether the fire marshal has reviewed the proposal with respect to access for
equipment. Nielsen stated the staff suggestion for inclusion of adequate turnaround space is based
on guidelines previously provided by the fire marshal.
Turgeon inquired about the amount of ground hard cover. Nielsen stated that calculation has not
yet been made, however, no specific amount of hard cover is required under the applicable
ordinance other than that required for setbacks. Turgeon asked when necessary approvals from
Hennepin County may be expected. Such approvals ordinarily are received promptly according to
Nielsen. Dillerud stated the County has already been contacted and a 2-week approval time frame
is expected. Turgeon inquired about reforestation plans for the property. Nielsen responded that
current ordinances do not address requirements for reforestation for this project. Dillerud stated
the Corporation's philosophy provides for preservation of natural surroundings to the extent
possible.
Pisula inquired whether the internal circulation system is subject to driveway or street standards.
Nielsen indicated it is to be constructed to street specifications and the plans adequately meet the
required standards. Under the City's definition, the street is considered a private road and its
maintenance is the responsibility of the development. Dillerud added that deed covenants will
cover street maintenance.
Borkon inquired about the water extension to the development. Nielsen explained that options are
private wells or connection to another city's system. Tonka Bay has agreed to approve extending
its system to the site upon payment of the connection by the developer.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 1994 - page 3
Foust requested clarification of the effect of the recommended moratorium on this application,
inquired whether the moratorium could be applicable to certain areas only. Nielsen reviewed the
Commission's recommendation and it would be difficult to place a moratorium on selected areas.
Preliminary plats approved prior to enactment of the moratorium ordinance would be allowed to
continue development, thus the Commissions approval recommendation for this proposal would be
exempt from the moratorium, subject to Council's action. Foust supported approval of this
preliminary plat.
Bean expressed no objections to the proposal, however, he pointed out that the Commission
should be consistent with its recommendations to the Council during the interim prior to Council
consideration and action regarding the moratorium. Borkon, Malam and Pisula stated support of
the application, however, they agreed that the Commission's recommendations should be
consistent with those previously made with respect to the proposed moratorium. Foust reiterated
support for approval of the application based on its favorable aspects including the fact that it is a
small isolated development making good use of the property, does not require any special
approvals, and appears to be generally acceptable under provisions of the updated Comp Plan.
Bean pointed out that NERF standards and reforestation requirements would affect the proposal.
Bean inquired whether a recommendation for approval could be made contingent upon Council's
action on the moratorium. Nielsen indicated that could be done, but noted such contingency has
not been made for other applications recently considered by the Commission tabled for
consideration until August 9.
Foust stated the application has no community opposition, issues of concern are routinely dealt
with by the Commission, does not require a lot of effort to closure, and reiterated support for
approval of the preliminary plat.
Following discussion, the Commissioners, with the exception of Foust, agreed that it would be
appropriate to defer action on this application to its August 9 meeting in order to maintain a
consistent stance on its moratorium recommendation. It was noted that the Council is expected to
consider and act on the recommendation at its August 8 meeting.
Turgeon moved, Malam seconded to continue to Tuesday, August 9, 1994
consideration of Abingdon Development Corporation's Manitou Woods
preliminary plat proposal at 5580 County Road 19. Motion passed 611. Foust
voted nay.
2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - ZACHARY WOODS
Applicant:
Location:
Brent Sinn
6035 Galpin Lake Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the application of Brent Sinn to divide his property located at 6035 Galpin Lake
Road, zoned R-IC, into five single-family residential lots. The property is occupied by the
applicant's house and a tennis court, surrounding land uses and zoning are single-family
residential, and a small wetland lies at the base of a hill near Galpin Lake Road. The 3.7 acre site
rises dramatically from the road and the existing home is 28 feet about the street on top of the hill.
A new street would provide access to the five lots which would extend through the existing
wetland. In turn for filling the wetland, two wetlands twice as large as the existing one will be
created. Nielsen explained how the development is subject to the City's wetland ordinance and to
the regulations of the Wetland Conservation Act. Under the City's ordinance an earth change plan
will be because a designated wetland will be altered. Nielsen stated that while the plat complies
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 1994 . page 4
with zoning requirements, site grading appears to raise questions about the buildability of the lots.
Staff has discussed possible alternatives for the location of the new road with the applicant's
consultants as it relates to alteration of the wetlands. Nielsen described the site grading issues
addressed by the City Engineer detailed in Dresel's July 28, 1994 letter. It is recommended that a
grading plan be prepared prior to approval of the preliminary plat specifically showing how the
existing home can be accessed without exceeding an 8% driveway grade and other issues. Nielsen
indicated that he was not prepared to address a revision of the plat received today that includes
changes to alignment of the new road. Nielsen recommended that lot lines on the plat be adjusted
to radiate from the center of the cul-de-sac and recommended changes to the proposed house
layouts to provide that the garages occupy the shallower portion of the lot and provide room for
decks, porches, etc. Due to the issues raised including the wetlands alteration and grading
requirements, staff can not recommend approval of the preliminary plat application at this time.
Additional time is requested to review the revised plat and to conduct discussions with the
watershed district. Nielsen recommended tabling consideration of the application.
Mr. Brent Sinn stated he has been working with Nielsen and with the watershed district with
respect to an acceptable location of the new road. He intends to build a new home and create a
new neighborhood. He expressed concern regarding the effect of the moratorium on the project
and requested the Commission's favorable consideration of the application.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Jay Donahue, president of the Galpin Lane Homeowners Association, stated Galpin Lane is a
private road maintained by the association and with one exception all homeowners are present at
this meeting. He stated that while the applicant has been working with City staff, he has not
approached the neighborhood regarding plans or requested their input. Concerns of the existing
neighborhood include creation and blending of another neighborhood, safety and increased traffic,
and integrity of the neighborhood. Changes to the plans are being frequently made frustrating the
residents. Donahue, speaking on behalf of the 7 homeowners, requested that the Commission
table consideration of the application to allow the residents an opportunity to provide input and to
discuss with the applicant his plans for the property to assure an acceptable development.
Richard Jensen, 6020 Galpin Lake Road, expressed concern that developers are allowed to divide
small 3 acre parcels, requested that the Commission consider this trend carefully because such
developments destroy the rural setting of Shorewood, and supported the moratorium ordinance.
Michael Herrick stated he is working with Mr. Sinn, acknowledged the plans have been changing
to address various concerns raised by the City, and agreed that a neighborhood meeting is
important, would be beneficial and will be conducted. The existing neighborhood sets the
precedent and its integrity will be maintained; homes in the $180,000 plus range will be
constructed.
John Blumentritt, Galpin Lane, reiterated concern about frequent changes to the plans.
Acknowledging that the application meets the City's requirements and that changes occur, he
expressed concern about the placement of the proposed home and road relative to the existing
homes. He requested that the Commission table consideration of the proposal to provide time for
the plans to be finalized with input from the existing residents.
Chris Rich, 22760 Galpin Lane, reiterated concern regarding changing the natural character of
Shorewood through developments such as the one proposed by Mr. Sinn.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 1994 - page 5
Georgia Kendrick, 22830 Murray Street, stated disappointment that the property is being
developed and placement of the homes and reiterated concern that the neighborhood has about not
been informed about the plans. She inquired about the purpose and location of survey stakes in the
neighborhood.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
Rosenberger urged the applicant to conduct a neighborhood meeting. The Commissioners
addressed the concerns raised during the public hearing. With respect to the character of the
neighborhood, Nielsen explained that the City's concerns regarding developments relate to
adherence to its regulations, including traffic safety and design, and pointed out a change to the
character of the neighborhood is inherent. Based on the established rules of the City, the
Commission and planning staff are cognizant of acceptable changes when considering development
proposals. Rosenberger noted that the purpose of the recommended temporary moratorium is to
allow for thoughtful consideration aI)d updating of the Comp Plan to minimize the impact of
development in Shorewood and encouraged residents to express concerns when the Plan will be
considered. Nielsen stated that additional traffic generated by the four proposed homes is within
acceptable standards. Nielsen reinforced the fact that the City does not dictate the precise type of
homes built, but that generally the market generally provides that influence. The markers in the
neighborhood have been placed for elevation calculations.
Turgeon stated sufficient information is lacking regarding the plan to consider the application.
Foust inquired about speed limit and adequacy of the street to handle added traffic. Nielsen stated
that the road is capable of handling 40 more trips a day. The speed limit is 25 mph. Malam
pointed out that Mr. Sinn has the right to develop his property notwithstanding the fact that it may
change the character of the neighborhood.
The Commissioners discussed the wetland, road placement, and grading issues and agreed that
more definitive plans including an earth change plan and detailed grading plan must be developed
and submitted for consideration by the Commission before a recommendation on the preliminary
plat can be made.
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to table to September 6, 1994, consideration of
the preliminary plat application of Brent Sinn for Zachary Woods located at 6035
Galpin Lake Road. Motion passed 7/0.
3. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND C.U.P FOR MINNEWASHTA
SCHOOL PROPERTY
Applicant:
Location:
Minnetonka School District
26350 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen explained that in the recent assembly of land parcels for the Minnewashta Elementary
School, the legal description for the conditional use permit listed all of the property which the
School District controls including the 10 acre westerly portion of the property which the District
intends to sell. Nielsen recommended the City adopt a resolution stating the 10 acres are not
included in the C.U.P. as requested by the prospective buyer's title company.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. there being no comments
from the public.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 1994 - page 6
Malam moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it amend the
Minnewashta School Property C.U.P., by resolution, to exclude the western-most
10 acres which the School District intends to sell. Motion passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its August 8, 1994 meeting.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
5. REPORTS
Nielsen reviewed the Commission's meeting schedule. Future meeting dates: Tuesday, August
9, possibly Tuesday, August 30, and Tuesday, September 6. The Commissioners informally
discussed various issues before the Commission.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Foust moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7 :08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Malam, Pisula and
Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen.
Absent: Commissioner Foust.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the
Commission's August 2, 1994 meeting with the ~gU9rial~Il~l1ges noted.
Motion passed 6/0. . 1-
1.
DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNCIL ACTION ON PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
Chair Rosenberger reviewed the City Council's brief discussion at its meeting on Monday,
August 8 regarding the Commission's recommendation that the Council declare a
development moratorium. The Council voted to schedule a joint meeting with the Plannihg
Commission to discuss the recommendation. That meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m.,
Monday, August 15, 1994, at City Hall.
Nielsen presented an updated time table for review and adoption of an interim development
ordinance. He reviewed the status of applications before the Commission with respect to
deadlines for action. Nielsen pointed out that the schedule for completion of the
Comprehensive Plan update can be accelerated to avoid carrying the moratorium into the
1995 construction season.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMAL APPLICATION FOR
COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENT (tabled from July 19,1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta
School
Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to table to September 6, 1994
consideration of the Lundgren Bros. Inc. formal application for a
comprehensive plan amendment. Motion passed 6/0.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 9, 1994 . PAGE 2
3. PUBLIC HEARING . PRELIMINARY PLAT. SMITHTOWN
MEADOWS (tabled from July 19, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
25655 Smithtown Road/25725 Eureka Way
Bean moved, Malam seconded to table to September 6, 1994 consideration
of Abingdon Development Corporation's Smithtown Meadows preliminary
plat application. Motion passed 6/0.
4. PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT. MANITOU WOODS
(tabled from August 2, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
5580 Manitou Road (County Road 19)
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to table to September 6, 1994 consideration
of Abingdon Development Corporation's Manitou Woods preliminary plat
application. Motion passed 6/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
6.
REPORTS
Turgeon briefly commented on discussions of the Park Commission at its recent meeting.
Nielsen stated the next meeting of the Commission will be a joint session with the City
Council at 7 p.m., Monday, August 15, 1994.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7 :28 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
ADDRESS
Wf!5LAtv'
,5'Cj /0 CA-TH c.AIT 0 P...
-'" <)
\, L\ ,< . (--
""-/ .>
C', 1\'-)'1 ) r ",ft-I"'
,:I i 't-\', ['\, \
f' "
..jJ\\
_ \ ;) 1'1" !'~ \ r ;'?r'vJ
"l.... 'vV,,- i.i
//
f/
!+o L /'113e::R0
L\~
CR.IlJ;JJ
LN
IIIlI...
AGENDA ITEM
LlJ;JD6l2.EN f3RD5\...->
J
17
L t/ A/?> 6Jet9':4/'
~lhros
(
/,
11
(
l ,
~f
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
/
/
f
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and
Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPRO V AL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
August 9, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
1.
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION - BARB
SIKORA
Chair Rosenberger reported that Ms. Sikora cannot attend the meeting.
PROJECT STATUS REVIEW
Nielsen reviewed the status of development applications pending before the City. Action on
several applications was tabled for various reasons and two additional requests have been received.
Nielsen outlined options for action for each application as prescribed by City Code and State
Statutes. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed development
moratorium on September 20. The Council is scheduled to consider and take action on the
recommended moratorium on September 26.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMAL APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT (tabled from August 9,1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta School
This application was received on June 7 and a public hearing held on July 5. Neither the City
Codes nor the State Statutes prescribe a required deadline for action on an application for a
comprehensive plan amendment.
Bean moved, Pisula seconded to table to October 4, 1994 consideration of the
Lundgren Bros. Inc. formal application for a comprehensive plan amendment.
. Motion passed 7/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 2
.
3. PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT. SMITHTOWN MEADOWS
(tabled from August 9, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
25655 Smithtown Road/25725 Eureka Way
This application was received on May 24 and a public hearing held on July 5. Action by the
Commission is required so the Council may take action by September 21.
Nielsen described the location of the 7-lot plat and noted that a road extends parallel to the
Hennepin County Railroad and crosses it to Eureka Road. Approval from the Railroad Authority
for the crossing has not yet been received and, according to the Authority, easement for driveway
purposes rather than ownership exists for 25' of the railroad right-of-way. In considering this
issue, the Authority's Board is likely to favor the City's interest for a safe alignment of the road,
intersection, and pedestrian traffic.
.
Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing the developer, explained that legal interpretations of the deed of
conveyance of the right-of-way are at issue. The Railroad Authority Board is expected to consider
this matter at a September 13 meeting. Dillerud pointed out that a previous approval required
resolution of this matter, therefore until it is resolved, a final plat cannot be prepared and presented
for consideration. He requested that the Commission approve the preliminary plat with the
condition that the right-of-way issue be resolved. Dillerud stated the developer will commit to a
reforestation plan for replacement of coniferous trees that must be removed during development.
&>
Borkon supported the reforestation plan; but was uneasy about the railroad right-of-way issue.
Turgeon inquired whether drainage problems revealed during the public hearing have been
adequately addressed. Nielsen explained that installation of a new culvert and construction of the
new road will improve drainage from the interior lots and noted that with the City Engineer's
specific recommendations and direction, the problem is solvable.
In response to Malam's inquiry regarding the status of compliance with other conditions of
approval, Nielsen and Dillerud indicated all other conditions have been met. Foust inquired
whether issues presented during the public hearing have been addressed. In addition to a formal
reforestation plan, Dillerud indicated the field drainage tile has been located and the developer's
engineer is dealing with its connection and maintenance.
Bean and Rosenberger expressed concern regarding the problematic resolution of the railway right-
of-way issue and preferred that it be resolved before the Commission makes a recommendation on
the preliminary plat application. Nielsen surmised that the Railroad Board may render approval
with conditions or deny the request.
Borkon indicated the Commission should act consistently with respect to applications that may be
subject to the proposed moratorium. Nielsen explained t];lat should the Commission recommend
denial of this preliminary plat, the developer may re-apply; however, the developer may also
request an extension in writing.
.
Mr. Dillerud stated a written request for extension will be prepared, therefore the Commission took
no action on the Smithtown Meadows preliminary plat.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 3
.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MANITOU WOODS (tabled
from August 9, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
5580 Manitou Road (County Road 19)
This application for a preliminary plat for 2 twin-homes to be built on County Road 19 was
received on June 6 and a public hearing held on August 2. The Commission is required to take
action by October 4 so the Council may take action by October 24. According to Nielsen, the
application has no unresolved issues.
In response to Turgeon's question regarding the entrance permit and utility extension approval,
Nielsen explained that both must be included in the final plat and noted that private wells are an
acceptable option for the development under current policy.
Foust reiterated his previous support for approval of the preliminary plat.
Bean moved, Turgeon seconded to table to October 4, 1994 consideration of
Abingdon Development Corporation's Manitou Woods preliminary plat
application. Motion passed 6/1. Foust voted nay.
5.
CONCEPT PLAN - HERITAGE P.U.D. - REVIEW PROPOSED
APPROVAL RESOLUTION
.
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
South of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's
Point Road
This application was received on May 3 and a public hearing held on June 7. The Commission
previously recommended to the Council that it approve the concept stage of the Heritage P.U.D.
subject to a number of conditions. Upon consideration, the Council referred the proposed
resolution back to the Commission with conditions somewhat different than recommendations of
the Commission. The significant Council conditions differing from the Commission's include: 1)
the wetland island be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' association, and 2) the
density orone unit per 40,000 square feet of net buildable area be allowed in the concept plan. The
City Attorney advises expeditious review of the revised resolution for Council consideration at its
September 26 meeting unless additional clarification and information is requested by the
Commission. Nielsen reported that a letter was received at this meeting from Mr. Dillerud
requesting that action be tabled on the development stage Heritage P.U.D.
Turgeon requested clarification about development of the proposed pedestrian access to the
commonly owned island. Nielsen explained that when utilities are installed, the path will be
constructed to the wetland area and clearly identified legally as a common space. Turgeon inquired
whether an archeological review of the property is planned. Nielsen stated an investigation by an
authorized agency can be requested.
The Commissioners noted the Council accepted the Park Commission's recommendation that the
City require cash in lieu of land as a park dedication requirement.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 4
.
Pisula inquired whether an environmental assessment worksheet (EA W) has been completed for
the project. Nielsen explained that while the project does not meet the mandatory requirements for
its completion, the Commission strongly recommended that an EA W be included in the
development stage plan. Dillerud reported that work has begun on an EA Wand the State
Historical Society will be contacted with respect to archeological concerns.
Lewis explained the Council's position with respect to lot sizes for this development. While the
Council is not necessarily opposed to the Commission's minimum lot size recommendation, it's
view is that lot sizes should be considered during development stage review since the concept stage
does not typically include a specific layout of the property.
Foust inquired about the status of the ownership of the 50' lakeshore parcel which is being
eliminated from the P.D.D. Dillerud indicated the matter will be addressed in the development
stage plan.
.
Borkon inquired whether additional information is available regarding lot sizes in the area
surrounding the property. Nielsen described an example of a P.D.D. in the area that allowed
various lot sizes and pointed out that use of a P.D.D. provides such flexibility and a cluster
concept allows preservation of the natural features of property. Bean stated that while the
Commission previously discussed at length the issue of lot sizes of this plat, the issue remains a
concern of the Commission and it will be further considered during development stage review.
Bean inquired whether the Attorney's opinion has been received with respect to grandfathering of
the 50' lake shore parcel. Nielsen explained that the Council's resolution states that parcel shall be
eliminated from the P.D.D.
Rosenberger inquired what effect the proposed moratorium will have on this project. Nielsen stated
it will depend upon Council action. The Attorney advises that if a moratorium ordinance is
adopted, limiting project approvals is preferred. Nielsen noted that concept plan approval instills
some rights upon the developer. Borkon and Rosenberger expressed concern regarding
unidentified lot sizes for this development and how the project will relate to the character of the
entire neighborhood.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
Concept Plan, as set forth in its Resolution, for Abingdon Development
Corporation's Heritage P.U.D. located south of Edgewood Road approximately
700' east of Howard's Point Road. Motion passed 4/3. Borkon, Rosenberger and
Turgeon voted nay.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 26 meeting.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - ZACHARY WOODS (Tabled
from August 2, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Brent Sinn
6035 Galpin Lake Road
.
Chair Rosenberger accepted for the record a letter dated September 1, 1994 (received 09-06-94)
from John Blumentritt, member of the Galpin Lane Association, commenting on the design of
Zachary Court and realignment of Galpin Lane. This application was received on July 5 and a
public hearing held on August 2. The Commission must take action by October 4, 1994.
,
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 5
Nielsen stated the original submission for development of this property proposed a street or cuI de
sac that extended through the middle of the property bisecting an existing wetland that lies on the
east side of Galpin Lake Road. The staff report recommended that the road location be reexamined
and suggested a road coming on the north side of the site to avoid the wetland entirely. The
developer submitted a revised preliminary plat at the August meeting and stated the Watershed
district had indicated that if the wetland was to be altered the road should cross the wetland at the
previously filled location for the least impact on the wetlands.
The Commission, as recommended by the staff, asked the developer to explore locating the road to
the north which involved a combination with Galpin Lane. This would involve some City
condemnation, but from a planning and safety standpoint, Nielsen explained it would be a better
location for the road. The applicant was to submit a revised plan by August 30; however the
developer subsequently preferred not to prepare an alternate plan, and requested that the plat be
processed based upon the revision submitted at the August meeting. Discussion with the
Watershed District reveals that while it's staff understood there was no alternative to serving the
property, it's policy is that development should avoid alteration of wetlands whenever possible and
that wetland alteration be considered only when other alternatives are not feasible.
Based on the issues raised by the staff, the watershed district's position, and insufficient
consideration by the applicant of the Commission's prior direction, staff recommends denial of the
revised Zachary Woods preliminary plat. Nielsen stated that if the revision is denied, the developer
may reapply with a plan suitable to the Commission.
Mr. Brent Sinn stated he is working with the City and the neighbors on Galpin Lane, which is a
private road, to develop the best possible location for the new road. Results of a meeting with the
Galpin Lane residents concluded that: 1) all the Galpin Lane residents must be in agreement for
combination of the road and they were not in agreement, and 2) because of the topography of the
property, a substantial cut would be necessary to combine Galpin Lane and Zachary Court and
would require retaining walls to blend the property with Galpin Lane. Mr. Sinn stated that because
the affected residents are not in agreement, he is looking for direction from the Commission with
respect to location of the road so that the application can be revised appropriately. He indicated the
current plat shows the most feasible location of the road so as not to impact the north side or
Galpin Lane. Sinn stated the wetland is one of the lowest with 4"-6" of muddy water at the
deepest point.
Rosenberger stated the Commission supports the watershed district's position with respect to the
wetland and explained that the application before the Commission does not analyze the feasibility
of other alternative locations for the road. Nielsen reiterated that the developer is responsible for
demonstrating that alternatives are not feasible. Nielsen explained that while it would be ideal if all
the neighbors were in agreement with combination of the road, the City has the authority to
condemn the necessary property to facilitate that alternative.
Borkon inquired whether the developer has clear instruction for the recommended revision to the
application. Nielsen indicated the developer was provided with a conceptual sketch. Bean stated
that in addition to the wetland issue, the proximity of two intersections occurring within 500' on
Galpin Road is a safety concern and that clearly supports the northerly location for the road. With
respect to condemnation action, Nielsen reiterated the Council has that authority, however, a plan
including such a recommendation must be first presented for the Commission's consideration.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 6
.
Malam and Rosenberger stated it appears the developer should confer further with the watershed
district.
Mr. Sinn agreed the northerly option would be the best alternative; he preferred avoiding the
wetland. He stated the setback required for intersection work is an obstacle because of the
topography and elevation of the property.
Borkon stated the Commission is obligated to consider a workable alternative proposal that
complies with the watershed district's position. Bean stated that notwithstanding the watershed's
position, he could not support approval of the preliminary plat currently before the Commission.
Bean moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny
approval of the Zachary Woods revised preliminary plat submitted by Brent Sinn.
Motion passed 7/0. The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 26
meeting.
.
Mr. Sinn requested that the Commission consider tabling action on the application. He agreed to
prepare a revised preliminary plat reflecting the recommendations to meet a prescribed deadline.
He explained that because the Galpin Lane Association did not agree to combination of its road
with Zachary Court, revisions were not made to the current application.
Nielsen stated the Commission may consider rescinding its previous motion and ask the developer
to request an extension in writing. Mr. Sinn stated he will submit a written request for extension.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to rescind the previous motion to recommend
denial of the Zachary Woods revised preliminary plat. Motion passed 7/0.
Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to table to October 4, 1994, consideration
of the Zachary Woods preliminary plat application subject to receipt of a written
letter of extension from Brent Sinn, the developer. Motion passed 7/0.
7. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN - HERITAGE
P.U.D.
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
South of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's
Point Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing. This
application was received on August 2.
Mr. Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon Development Corporation, explained that the
unanticipated action of the Council referring the concept plan back to the Commission resulted in
premature submission and incomplete information on the development stage and preliminary plat
for the project. Referring to Nielsen's September 2, 1994 staff report, Dillerud reiterated that the "
50' lakeshore parcel is eliminated from the P.D.D. He commented on the lots sizes contemplated
for the project.
. Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 7
.
Bill Keeler, 27420 Pine Bend, expressed concern regarding the wetlands and the effect on the
marsh of numerous new developments which discharge additional water into the wetlands without
consideration of outlets and overall ability of the land to hold water.
Jeff Stebbins, land owner on Edgewood, stated there is no definition to the subdivision regarding
the lot size, the road, etc. which makes it difficult for the neighborhood to react intelligently. He
expressed disappointment that lot sizes were not prescribed with the concept stage approval and
strongly suggested that clear guidelines be given to developers that represent the best interests of
the residents of Shorewood and that the set guidelines be adhered to strictly.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Rosenberger explained the rationale for a development moratorium is to avoid piece-meal
development of the remaining properties through completion of an updated Comprehensive Plan
for the City.
Nielsen described the 3-step stages of a planned unit development (P.U.D.) which includes
concept, development, and final stage plans. Nielsen stated that based on staff review of the
development stage plans and preliminary plat for this project (detailed in Nielsen's 9-2-94
memorandum), a recommendation for approval cannot be made because of incomplete information.
.
The Commission agreed that further information on the development stage plan is necessary before
action can be taken. Mr. Dillerud requested additional time to appropriately address the issues.
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to table to October 4, 1994, consideration of
Abingdon Development Corporation's Heritage P.U.D. development stage plan
and preliminary plat. Motion passed 7/0.
8. 8:00 PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT STAGE PLAN - SHOREWOOD
SENIOR HOUSING
Applicant:
Location:
International Development IT
25600 State Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
.
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the plans submitted by International Development IT for a proposed 64-unit
cottage style senior housing project to be located on 2 parcels of land, approximately 12.8 acres,
located at the northwest quadrant of 6140 Eureka Road and 25600 State Highway 7. Nielsen
presented the staff analysis of how the proposed development complies with the City's regulations
for elderly housing. Nielsen's presentation is detailed in his memorandum/report dated September
1, 1994 -"Proposed Shorewood Senior Housing-International Development IT-P.U.D. Concept
Plan." Attachments to the report include the applicant's August 2 request letter and the City
Engineer's August 29 letter.
The staff concludes that, in general, the proposed development is consistent with the City's past
study of potential senior housing sites. While the proposal is consistent with many of
Shorewood's elderly housing requirements, more work needs to be done prior to concept plan
approval. Therefore, it is recommended that the project be viewed favorably, but should be tabled
pending resolution of issues raised in the staff report. Nielsen reported the applicant requested that
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 8
this project be exempted from the pending development moratorium. Nielsen explained tax
increment financing (T.LF.) and indicated the staff could explore how the City could use such
financing to assist this project.
Mr. Alan Kretman, RKL Associates, addressed the issues raised in the staff report. In general, the
recommendations and suggestions made by the staff will be incorporated into the development as
further refinements and details of the plans are completed. Construction of the I-story homes to be
sold to persons 62 and older is expected to begin next spring. Kretman expressed appreciation for
the staffs cooperation and assistance and encouraged comments and suggestions.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. and reviewed the procedures for a
public hearing.
Katie Snyder, 5985 Eureka Road, stated that while Lan De Con has occupied the space for nursery
purposes for a long time, the area is zoned residential. The density is too high, setback issues are a
concern, an existing increase in traffic in the area will be made worse, exits and entries to Highway
7 are complicated, and fire protection is questionable. While western Shorewood may have the
largest remaining parcels of developable property, Snyder stated that services are not available.
She stated the proposal is not a good development for the area and should not be exempted from
the pending moratorium.
Mike Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, stated opposition to the development because of traffic concerns;
possibility of the project becoming a white elephant and residents may end up holding the bag; no
information is available about the developer; developments are approved piece-meal; an overall plan
should be developed; and deterioration of the rural atmosphere of the City. Agnew expressed
concern regarding additional water runoff and water service to the development. He inquired what
a conditional use permit is and suggested the concept plan be denied.
Karen Coune, 5935 Seamans Drive, expressed concern about the density of the development being
5 times higher than the rest of the neighborhood which will significantly change the character of the
area. Neighborhood meetings indicate that residents generally oppose development of any kind
with high density. Coune questioned whether the proposal meets the open space requirements.
She requested information about the developer, its background, financial condition, the investors
and expressed concern about failure of the project.
Mike Petersen, 5910 Eureka Road, thanked Nielsen for his comprehensive analysis of the project.
He expressed concern about the effect on traffic on Eureka Road and stated that widening of the
road would lead to higher speed limits. He stated that lack of capacity to serve the development
adequately with water and fire protection could lead to City water in the area which would not be
favorably received by the residents. He inquired how taxpayers will be affected if the water is
provided through T.LF., how default would be handled, and suggested that before city water is
committed for the development, a City referendum be conducted. He inquired whether the wetland
boundaries have been field located and requested completion of a E.A.W. to address the drainage
and wetland issues. Additional concerns include the effect on property values and potential
assessments that would be detrimental to the neighborhood and make it difficult to sell their
properties in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 9
.
.
Bernadette Thomson, 6100 Seamans Drive, commented on the published notice which referred to
approval of a P.U.D. for this site. She understood that the Planning Commission makes
recommendations not approvals. Thomson opposed exempting the development from the pending
moratorium in order that neighborhoods can provide input regarding Comp Plan changes. She
reiterated questions regarding T.I.F. for this project. She inquired whether the homes will be for
sale or for rent and expressed concern regarding complying with the original zoning of the
property.
Jim Thomson, 6100 Seamans Drive, referred to the ordinance regulating C.U.P. and inquired
whether the information required by the ordinance has been provided such as lighting, curb cuts,
storm sewer, grading, landscaping, setbacks, etc. He stated the public needs more information.
Keith Monjak, 6140 Pleasant Avenue, stated that a neighborhood meeting resulted in the same
concerns as those expressed about the MeadowWood project - traffic, water, fire protection,
lighting, etc. He stated that Freeman Park is not a senior-friendly park - it lacks water, seating,
shade, etc. Monjak questioned whether this project could actually be a re-written version of the
previously considered MeadowW ood project which was unacceptable to the neighborhood. The
main concern of the residents is the proposed density along with traffic problems and financial
feasibility of the project.
Sandy Pesheck, 6060 Seamans Drive, questioned the effect of ordinances on the project including
water, private roads, variances, etc., whether this would be appropriate land use, and whether
existing City services would be overloaded. She inquired whether the project is for seniors and/or
low-income people, asked about subsidizing the project and noted the lack of amenities and
services. She expressed concern about the financial feasibility of such a project for a private
company, inquired about the location of a senior center and commented on zoning and right-of-
way issues. Pesheck asked whether another public hearing will be conducted.
Don Willis, 24835 Yellowstone Trail, supported free enterprise and developer profit, but
questioned why senior housing is necessary in Shorewood. He stated that if senior/low income
housing is deemed necessary, western Shorewood is the worst location for such housing.
Jim Pennington, 5860 Eureka Road, stated that from a business standpoint, construction of
$300,000 homes would be more profitable for all concerned. He stated opposition to projects for
low income housing that could bring undesirable elements into the City.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the issues raised during the public hearing. Nielsen stated an
ordinance amended about a year ago allows higher density senior housing in residential zoning
districts. Land zoned R-IC allows up to 8 senior units/40,000 sq.ft.; R-IA allows 4 senior
units/40,000 sq.ft. Generally, seniors do not have the same impact as families. The proposal is
for 64 units thus meets the allowable density requiret;n.ents which could be up to 78 units.
Nielsen stated Eureka Road is identified as a collector road connecting Smithtown Road to
Highway 7. It is also an MSA street eligible for state funding for reconstruction under specified
width and right-of-way requirements; it is not currently in the City's CIP, however. The Highway
7 corridor study recommended no additional direct access to or stop lights on Highway 7. Some
. improvements are slated for Highway 7 in 1995. Nielsen stated that water to the site could be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 10
.
provided by Chanhassen from a technical standpoint or T.I.F. could possibly be used to enhance
the Boulder Bridge system.
Rosenberger and Bean indicated that lack of services for senior individuals is not a significant issue
according to research that shows they are a mobile group. .
Nielsen acknowledged that drainage problems exist in the vicinity. Plans including detailed
calculations and on-site ponding need to be provided for the development stage plans/preliminary
plat. Nielsen pointed out that quality of run-off is also an issue.
With respect to City/resident exposure to liability with T.I.F., Nielsen explained there are various
methods to utilize such funding and the staff can explore the options with a view to avoiding
liability .
Mr. Kretman provided a brief summary of International Development, which is a Canadian
company, described some of its USA affiliations/projects and indicated that financial information
will be made available.
.
Nielsen explained the City's use of the Conditional Use Permit as a zoning tool. He noted that
another public hearing will be conducted during the development stage review of this proposal.
With respect to open area, Nielsen indicated that while specific information is not yet available, it
appears that open space will meet the 20% requirement. Mr. Kretman stated that wetland
boundaries have not yet been field located, but will be done. It was pointed out that the City
cannot require completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet; such initiative must be
petitioned by at least 25 persons.
The role of the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council who makes
final decisions on recommendations. Detailed questions regarding T.I.F. were considered to be
premature. Mr. Kretman reiterated that the homes will not be for rental, but will be for sale.
Jennifer McCarty, Chair of the Park Commission, described plans for Freeman Park, described
existing amenities, and indicated the Park did not present any impediments to senior persons.
Nielsen reviewed the history of the zoning of the Lan De Con property. He indicated that details
regarding such items as site lighting will be addressed during the development stage review. With
different principals involved in this application, the proposal is not associated with the previously
considered MeadowWood project. Details regarding the financial feasibility of this project are
unknown at this time. Nielsen agreed that connection of water from the Boulder Bridge system
would overload the system, but suggested that enhancements to the system could be incorporated
by the developer. He stated the City's sewer system is adequate and storm sewer capacity is
resolvable. Bean noted that the fire marshal will provide input on the proposed project.
Nielsen explained the City's regulation of private roads. With respect to a senior center,
Rosenberger briefly commented that its possible construction is an on-going discussion among the
surrounding communities. Nielsen explained Shorewood's requirements for senior housing and
described the City's analysis Of suitable sites for senior housing in Shorewood. The work and
results of a Task Force survey regarding the need for senior housing was described. It was
pointed out that the developer selected this location for a senior housing project. Bean explained
the eligibility requirements for residents of senior housing prescribed by the City's ordinances.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 11
The Commissioners raised no specific questions relative to the proposal. The Commission
acknowledged residents' concerns regarding the higher density of the project and sympathized with
life-long Shorewood residents who may wish to continue living in their City, yet are denied that
opportunity due to the lack of affordable senior-type housing in Shorewood. The Commissioners
agreed the project should not be exempted from the pending moratorium. They viewed the
proposal favorably and agreed that while significant additional information is needed, the proposal
merits further consideration.
Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to table to October 4, 1994, consideration of
the concept stage plan submitted by International Development II for Shorewood
Senior Housing at 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road. Motion passed 7/0.
9. 8:15 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SMITHTOWN WOODS
Applicant:
Location:
Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland
25895 and 25865 Smithtown Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicants' proposal to combine their lots at 25865 and 25895 Smithtown
Road and replat the resulting parcel into 6 single-family residential lots. The properties are located
in the R-1C zoning district and total 3.9 acres. The proposed lots range in area from 20,000 to
25,500 square feet averaging 21,583 square feet and are served by a 410' cul-de-sac street.
Nielsen reviewed how the plat conforms to the City's development regulations (detailed in
Nielsen's memorandum dated September 1, 1994).
Nielsen stated that the plat would be subject to delay if the proposed moratorium is adopted.
Pending the outcome of Council action on the moratorium, Nielsen suggested the application be
tabled during which time the developer be directed to revise the preliminary plat to show the change
in the north end of the road and straightened lot lines between Lots 1 and 2, and provide a
statement that the plat shows all existing easements and encroachments on the site. Nielsen
reviewed the details and information required for submission with the final plat.
Mr. Clint Carlson presented the history of the parcels which were considered for identical
subdivision in 1978. He pointed out the current owners (the applicants) agree that the subdivision
is acceptable. The applicants concur with the staff recommendations and request approval of the
Smithtown Woods preliminary plat.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 11:30 p.m.
Ed Landt, 25900 Smithtown Road, read an extensive written list of questions and
recommendations regarding the proposed development. The written document is made a part of
these minutes by reference.
Craig Anderson, 25920 Smithtown Road, inquired whether the zoning of his property is the same
as that of the proposed subdivision and if so, when was the zoning changed to allow 20,000 sq.ft.
lots. He requested that the developers provide access to the trail system.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 11 :40 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 12
.
Brian Ohland stated that provision of a walk-way could be incorporated to facilitate access to the
trail system which would further enhance the value of the property and provide safe passage for
trail users.
The Commissioners addressed the issues raised during the public hearing. Nielsen explained the
requirements ofR-1A and R-1C zoning and the boundaries of the districts in the area existing since
the '70s, and compared the proposed subdivision with the Smithtown Circle development.
Nielsen indicated that certification of lot sizes is being requested to assure that variances are not
required. The developer stated a typical home will contain 2200 square feet, 3-car garage, and sell
for $150,000-$200,000. The City Engineer has reviewed the project and made recommendations
with respect to the site and drainage issues (detailed in Dresel's August 29, 1994 letter). Nielsen
commented on each of the suggested recommendations contained in Mr. Landt's written document,
some of which are covered by ordinance and some over which the City has no authority.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to table to October 4, 1994, consideration of the
application of Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland for Smithtown Woods preliminary
plat at 25895 and 25865 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 7/0.
10. 8:30 PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET
.
Applicant:
Location:
Joseph Kiser
21115 Christmas Lane
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to add a 16'x 28' addition to
an existing garage. The addition, plus the existing garage, and a utility shed exceed the maximum
1200 square feet of allowable area for accessory space. The application complies with the criteria
for granting accessory space conditional use permits with the exception of encroachment in the 10'
side yard setback area by an existing game court and tall masonry backstop. Nielsen recommended
approval of the C.U.P. subject to a condition that the nonconforming game court and block wall be
removed prior to framing of the addition.
Mr. and Mrs. Kiser had no comments.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 12 midnight there being no comments
from the public.
Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve
the application of Joseph Kiser, 21115 Christmas Lane, for a conditional use
permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. Motion passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 26, 1994 meeting.
11. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Brian Ohland reflected on the feasibility of senior housing at the Smithtown Woods location. The
. Commissioners expressed willingness to consider such a proposal.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 6, 1994 - PAGE 13
12. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis was available to respond to questions regarding the Council's August 22
meeting; the Commissioners had none. Foust asked Nielsen to investigate possible construction
violations.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 a.m., September
7, 1994. Motion passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
PL ~'y~~ ~!~(.; PLEASE ~ ::~':::':::L~ * 1.
E
c: I,' wt
(J" (0
ADDRESS
2-0"L
10 ~() R.J::/l- 12D-
~ s:
(p(~ ~\v...~~ .(jr-
AGENDA ITEM
.
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger (entered the meeting at 7:08 p.m.); Commissioners Bean,
Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning
Director Nielsen.
APPRO V AL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
September 6, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 PM PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDER AN INTERIM ORDINANCE
DECLARING A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
Vice Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen stated the City is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan which was last updated in
1981. He explained that as City officials near completion of the update, a number of proposed
developments before the City raise some questions that relate to the Comprehensive Plan. Because
these developments comprise a significant portion of the remaining developable property in
Shorewood, the Planning Commission concluded that it would be judicious to complete the Plan
update before making important decisions related to the proposed developments.
Nielsen reviewed the issues- of concern identified by the Planning Commission: density, city
services, wetland, environment, schools, transportation, housing, shared powers agreements, and
parks. To allow time required for completion of the Comp Plan update, the Planning Commission
recommended to the Council that it adopt an interim moratorium on review and approval of
subdivisions that would result in 3 or more parcels. Subsequently, the Council directed the
Commission to conduct a public hearing on its proposed ordinance. Nielsen stated a schedule for
completion of the updated Comprehensive Plan has been developed.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. The Chair accepted for the record letters
from: Susan Prince and Alan Krutsch dated September 20, 1994; Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros.
dated September 12, 1994; Dale A. Woodbeck dated September 6 and September 14, 1994; the
residents of Shorewood Oaks dated September 6, 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 1994 - PAGE 2
.
Keith Monjak, 6140 Pleasant Avenue, supported the moratorium because this is an opportune time
to review the issues. He expressed concern regarding consideration of less than 1 acre home sites
and piece-meal decisions on developments. He suggested that the undeveloped parcels could
remain undeveloped. Monjak suggested the moratorium should be in effect no less than one year
and suggested input from the community be obtained through a questionnaire regarding the
Comprehensive. Plan.
.
Mark Sawyer, Elk River, property owner at 5580 Manitou Road, stated development of his
property by Abingdon Corporation for 2 twin homes is currently before the City. He
acknowledged the value of the Comp Plan but questioned whether a moratorium is necessary. He
explained that if a moratorium is needed, it should be placed upon future applicants, not those
whose applications have already moved through the consideration process. He described the
location and details of his development and indicated that any changes to the Comp Plan will not
affect his application. To avoid further hardship with respect to his property, Sawyer requested
that his development be exempted from the moratorium.
Chuck Dillerud, 4100 Berkshire Lane, Plymouth, representing Abingdon Development
Corporation/Tony Eiden Company, delivered a copy of his letter dated July 21, 1994, and
reviewed the salient points of the letter. He observed that the issues delineated appear to be out of
the realm of the Comprehensive Plan and are policy matters before the City. He expressed concern
about the length of time a moratorium will be in effect and its negative impact on development
plans.
Clint Carlson, 202 Peninsula Road, Medicine Lake, spoke on behalf of himself and Brian Ohland,
Smithtown Road, with whom he shares a project currently before the City for approval. He stated
the moratorium will be unfair in situations where substantial time and money have already been
expended. On behalf of himself and Mr. Ohland, Carlson objected to the moratorium and
requested equity in their situation.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, thanked the Commission for being responsive to the
community and suggested the issues be viewed without concern for the spring construction
season. She supported a reforestation policy and suggested a school feasibility study be
conducted. Schaff inquired whether construction will begin before the Comprehensive Plan is
completed. She expressed concern about the negative situation created by the moratorium, i.e.
homeowners vs. builders.
Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road, supported the moratorium as being in the best interests of
the community. She expressed concern about the wetlands and inquired about the adequacy of the
City's wetland ordinance in that it is not updated to '90s regulations. She stated the Council's
concern regarding the '95 construction season is not a relevant issue.
.
Rene Dussault, 26365 Noble Road, expressed support for the moratorium in order to explore
issues such as traffic, increase in school density, etc. He described the difficulties faced by the
residents on Noble Road during a recent lengthy construction period. He supported sending a
questionnaire to all residents to get feedback.
Martin Schuster, 26450 Noble Road, stated a I-year moratorium would only allow the developers
to prepare a better case that could not be stopped. He supported the 1 acre minimum and expressed
concern that as the current applications before the City are approved, surrounding existing homes
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 1994 - PAGE 3
will lose their value. He inquired how potential legal issues related to the moratorium will be
defended and who will pay the cost.
Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros., 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, stated Lundgren
has worked with communities on their comp plans and with the Metropolitan Council, etc.
preparing community developments. He explained his concern was related to timing, requested
equal treatment, and offered assistance to the City in completing it's comp plan update in order to
proceed with construction in 1995.
Kathy Thulin, 23690 Noble Road, reiterated the difficulties endured by Noble Road residents
during a 3-year construction period. She supported a one-year moratorium to give everyone a
break from construction annoyances and to discuss the issues.
Clay Atkinson, 5735 Brentridge Drive, reiterated concerns previously expressed, acknowledged
the rights of the developers, and supported concerted efforts to resolve the issues to benefit the
City of Shorewood.
Susan Lande, 26575 Strawberry Court, expressed support for planning and consideration of the
list of issues, explained that residents are also concerned with financial aspects such as taxes. She
noted the property currently proposed for development will retain its value even if it is not
developed in 1995.
Bill Keeler, 2724 Pine Bend, expressed concern that additional developments in western
Shorewood will continue to add water/runoff to the marsh and implored the City to study the issue
in depth.
Steve Guzzi, 2665 Strawberry Court, reiterated the concerns expressed by other Strawberry Court
residents with respect to traffic, schools, and water supply/service. The Chair accepted for the
record a letter dated July 18 and September 20, 1994 from Steven and Shirley Guzzi.
Phil Bortscheller, 27410 Pine Bend, reiterated the concerns expressed by Mr. Keeler regarding
potential water problems in the area and requested the matter be studied. He supported 1 acre lots.
Bev Decker, 5815 Brentridge Drive, stated that residents are not aware of and informed about
proposed developments. She supported the suggestion to mail a questionnaire to obtain input. She
read a "Petition to the City Council from the Residents of Shorewood re: Lundgren Bros., Inc. and
other potential developments in the City of Shorewood." The Chair accepted for the record the
petition signed by a number of residents.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the questions raised during the public hearing. Nielsen reviewed
the proposed ordinance. Because no applications for subdivision resulting in 3 or more parcels
(including those currently before the City) will be accepted, processed, or approved until the
moratorium ends, no construction will begin before the Comprehensive Plan is completed.
Nielsen reviewed the provisions of the City's wetland ordinance which is more restrictive than
others. He noted the mapping of the wetlands is not consistent with the Wetlands Conservation Act
and the ordinance does not address the quality of wetland waters. The Commission has expressed
interest in a reforestation ordinance to ensure that trees and vegetation removed during development
would be replaced. The Commission has also expressed interest in considering a policy dealing
with fertilizer and its effect on the wetlands. Acting City Attorney Peter Coyle explained the
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 1994 - PAGE 4
standard procedures that will be followed should the City be sued because of the moratorium. He
stated that throughout the country, development moratoriums have long standing legal support,
including the Supreme Court, as a means to assist communities in planning.
A resident inquired about construction of a water tower near the Minnewashta School. Nielsen
stated that based on a study conducted in the '80s, a plan was developed for serving all of
Shorewood with City water and included a water tower site for the west side near the Minnewashta
School property.
At Bean's request, Nielsen described use of the P.D.D. as a zoning tool as it relates to
determination of lot sizes as compared to lot sizes determined by the City's zoning districts
ordinance.
Bean stated the Commission's commitment is to accomplish its obligation to update the
Comprehensive Plan in a timely manner in order to honor its responsibilities to both the City and
the developers. With respect to exemption from the moratorium because of a perceived hardship,
Bean stated that an inordinate amount of time would be consumed to develop an exemption policy,
therefore it is sensible to proceed with updating the Comprehensive Plan in order to return to the
normal conduct of the City's business as soon as possible.
Malam expressed appreciation for the public's input. He reiterated the purpose of the public
hearing and reviewed the Commission's recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed
moratorium. He explained that in the interest of fairness, all the developers will be treated equally
and be subject to the moratorium. Malam supported the rights of land owners with respect to use
of their property. He suggested residents contact the School District Board regarding concerns
related to school issues. Malam stated that development of the marshland will not be allowed.
Borkon requested clarification regarding the probability that the City's remaining parcels would not
be developed. Nielsen stated that rights of individuals allow development of their property within
the rules of the City and its Comprehensive Plan. In general, development in Shorewood is
intended to achieve and maintain the residential nature of the City. The City does not intend to
acquire property for additional parks, therefore, development of the remaining parcels is inevitable.
He pointed out that the existing homes in Shorewood are the result of development.
Borkon supported Malam's suggestion regarding contacting the School Board and indicated the
Commission will be reviewing information provided by the School District. Borkon empathized
with the hardship of individual land-owners under the moratorium but stated it behooves City
officials and staff to persevere to update the Comp Plan.
Foust inquired whether the subdivision referred to in the proposed ordinance could be increased
from 3 to 4 or 5. Nielsen explained it was not the intent to burden a property owner who wishes a
simple split of property into 2 parcels, but that to gain any impact from the moratorium, the
division of property falling under the ordinance was set at 3 or more lots. Borkon stated that in
order to be consistent and fair, 3 or more parcels is appropriate.
Rosenberger agreed that exemptions from the moratorium should not be granted. He
acknowledged that some of the issues before the City involve policy decisions and noted that
neighborhood meetings will be conducted to give residents the opportunity to provide input on the
. Comprehensive Plan.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 1994 - PAGE 5
.
Nielsen reviewed a revised 6-month schedule for Comprehensive Plan completion, adoption and
submission to the Metropolitan Council for its review. He explained that work on the update has
been in progress for about 1-1/2 years. During October and November 1994, three remaining
Chapters will be finalized and a presentation draft prepared; in December 1994 the Planning
Commission and Council will review the presentation draft; in January 1995, neighborhood
meetings will be conducted; during February 1995 revisions based on public input will be
discussed; and in March 1995, it is anticipated that a public hearing will be held, the Plan update
will be adopted and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for its review. Nielsen stated Met
Council review may take 90 days or more and adjustments to the Plan may be required. Concerns
of the Met Council include water quality and affordable housing. Nielsen indicated the City
intends to prepare a separate housing plan document.
Borkon inquired whether it will be appropriate to consider applications once the Plan is submitted
to the Met Council. Nielsen explained that applications could be reviewed on the basis of the
existing Plan and the Updated Plan.
.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve "An
Interim Ordinance Adopting a Moratorium on Review and Approval of Certain.
Subdivision in the City of Shorewood," drafted by staff, with the following
amendment to Section 4. Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect from
and after its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until completion
and submission to the Metropolitan Council of the revised Comprehensive Plan,
as approved by the City Council, not to exceed 12 months from the effective date.
Noting that the motion reiterates the Commission's original recommendation, the Commissioners
contemplated what the Council's reaction may be. Lewis stated that Council would likely accept
the recommendation with a specific time line for accomplishing each element in the schedule
including the neighborhood meetings. Lewis explained that the intent of the Council is to review
the progress of the update process on November 14, 1994.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to amend the motion to restate Section 4 as
follows: Section 4. Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect from and after
its passage and publication and shall remain in effect until completion and
submission to the Metropolitan Council of the revised Comprehensive Plan,
approved by the Council, per the Planning Department's schedule of review
attached for reference, not to exceed 12 months from the effective date. Motion
passed 7/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 26 meeting.
2. STUDY SESSION
- Discuss Comprehensive Plan Review Schedule
Nielsen reviewed the schedule developed for review and completion of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 20, 1994 - PAGE 6
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Borkon inquired what action has been taken regarding installation of a traffic signal at County
Road 19 and Country Club Road. Nielsen explained that the proposed comprehensive plan
suggests that Hennepin County conduct a study and determine how the costs for such installation
will be allocated. Chair Rosenberger accepted for the record a petition from Ingrid Schaff signed
by a number of residents with respect to this matter.
Turgeon commented on construction activity at Gideon Wood. Malam expressed appreciation to
the Park Commission for its completion of Silverwood Park. Foust inquired about installation of
the "No Outlet" sign to be posted near Zimmerman Launch. Hurm reported the City has retained
the services of a new recycling firm.
4. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reviewed actions taken by the Council at its September 12 meeting and
answered Commissioners' questions.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
J- 'kr'1<./ PL CtM')
IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
AGENDA ITEM
I~
#-'/~
.:1:t- '___
#//
-=#=j ~
.J!.. , c;,.--
~
d~
f' Y/9FP
C-\W\~ Uftv
Smlll-+IDW r-.J ~
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Borkon, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council
Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen. Commissioner Bean entered the meeting
at 7:18 p.m.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
September 20, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
Howard Lerohl
25585 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed Mr. LerohI's request for setback variances to build a detached 2-car garage on
his property at 25585 Birch Bluff Road. He also proposes to raise his existing home, construct a
new basement, and expand the existing structure. A variance is required because the home does
not comply with current R -1 C district setback requirements. The subject property is substantially
nonconforming containing only 11,100 square feet of area. The garage requires a 32' rear yard
setback variance and a 17' variance on the side yard abutting a street. The existing house is located
approximately 20.7' from the right-of-way of Birch Bluff Road and 18.3' from Eureka Road.
The subject property and 2 lots to the east of it are relatively small for the RI-C zoning district.
The home, built in 1908, has a small single car attached garage on the east side. The house
immediately to the east is located slightly closer than the applicant's to Birch Bluff Road (16.5').
Both Birch Bluff Road and Eureka Road are 66' wide creating more open space than the standard
right-of-way. Nielsen stated the additional right-of-way is a factor in considering the applicant's
request.
Nielsen recommended the garage be placed at least 10' from the south lot line, as far to the east as
possible without damaging existing trees in the southeast comer of the lot. Nielsen noted the Code
allows use of an average setback when homes on adjacent lots are closer to the street than
requirements allow. He explained that a basement will not visibly increase the nonconformity of
the house and expansion of nonconforming structures is allowed to improve its livability.
Nielsen explained how the applicant's request is consistent with the criteria for granting variances.
Nielsen recommended that the applicant be granted a variance to build a basement under the
existing home and placement of the garage be approved 10' from the south property line asfar east
as possible.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 1994 - PAGE 2
Mr. Howard Lerohl, the applicant, stated a basement will be constructed beneath the porch
expansion on the front of the house and the floor in the existing. garage will be replaced. He
justified his 8' variance request (rather than the recommended 10') for placement of the garage
because his neighbor's is less than 7' from the line and going 18-19' from Eureka Road would line
up with the west wall of the house, and it would be closer to the road. The 2-car garage will be
24' long and 22' wide and will be entered from Eureka Road.
Chair Rosenberger opened and closed the public hearing at 7: 18 p.m., there being no comments
from the public.
The Commissioners interposed no objections to the variance requests, supported the recommended
10' rear yard variance, and noted that while the property is nonconforming, the proposed
improvements are favorable.
Pisula moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
setback variances for Howard Lerohl, at 25585 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the
staff recommendations, with a 10' setback variance from the southerly lot line,
with aI' extension to the porch further to the north of the house, and maintaining
the setback from the Eureka Road as proposed by the applicant. Motion passed
6/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its October 24, 1994 meeting.
2. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
Applicant:
Location:
Wm. Pat Cunningham
6180 Ridge Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case. Nielsen stated the applicant owns the southern-most lot on
the west side of Ridge Road and land immediately south in Chanhassen. In the subdivision of the
land in Chanhassen, Mr. Cunningham proposes to rearrange the southerly lot line of the
Shorewood lot. The Shorewood lot is zoned R-IA1S, is vacant and contains approximately
23,310 square feet of area. The proposed division will increase its area to 27,829 and increase its
width from 47' to 92' significantly improving the lot. Although the proposed lot will be 171 square
feet short of the zone's area requirement, it is within the accuracy range of the instrument used to
measure lot size.
Nielsen explained that the division/combination results in a small triangle of Shorewood property
connected to a Chanhassen lot and a larger triangle of Chanhassen property connected to a
Shorewood lot. To avoid problems associated with 4 taxing jurisdictions, Nielsen recommended
that protective covenants be prepared stating that any structures built on the Shorewood parcel must
be located north of the municipal boundary line and that any structure built on Parcel 2 must be
located entirely south of the municipal boundary. The covenants should also legally tie the
Chanhassen triangle to the Shorewood lot and the Shorewood triangle to the Chanhassen lot.
Nielsen recommended approval of the application subject to: 1) approval of the
division/combination by Chanhassen; 2) provision of the required legal descriptions; 3) preparation
of protective covenants setting forth building restrictions and legal combination of the parcels as
recommended; and 4) provision of an up-to-date title opinion for review by the City Attorney.
Items 1-4 must be submitted to the City within 30 days after Council approval. Following receipt,
a resolution for final Council approval will be prepared. The resolution must be recorded with
Hennepin and Carver counties within 30 days of final approval.
Mr. Pat Cunningham, the applicant, stated he intends to sell the north lot, give the center lot to the
family trust to remain in its natural state, and retain the third lot. He intends to comply with the
staff recommendations to facilitate his plans for the properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 1994 - PAGE 4
.
Nielsen stated that Lundgren Bros. Construction Inc. requests that the formal application of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment be withdrawn from consideration from the October 4 Planning
Commission meeting agenda and requests that the item be continued until the November 1 or 15
Planning Commission meeting (l0-04-94 letter).
Nielsen stated the Land Use Chapter of the Comp Plan is scheduled for consideration at the
November 15 meeting and indicated Lundgren Bros. wishes to address the Commission with
respect to its Comprehensive Plan amendment request.
The Commissioners discussed the Lundgren withdrawal request. Rosenberger stated that adequate
information has been provided by the applicant, a public hearing has been conducted and other
issues besides density may arise during the Commission's Land Use discussion. Bean stated there
is merit in treating all the pending applications equitably therefore favored tabling the application.
Malam and Borkon supported giving the applicant an opportunity to address the Commission in
view of its atypical request as compared to the other pending applications.
Bean moved, Pisula seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, Lundgren Bros. Inc. formal application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for 76.5 acres of property located north of Smithtown Road, west of
the Minnewashta School. Motion passed 4/2. Malam and Borkon voted nay.
Mr. Marc Anderson, representing Lundgren Bros., stated its application is at a different stage than
the others and the project is at a disadvantage compared to the company's competitors.
5.
PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MANITOU WOODS (tabled
from September 6, 1994 meeting)
.
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
5580 Manitou Road (County Road 19)
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, the.. application of Abingdon Development Corp. for Manitou Woods
preliminary plat, 5580 Manitou Road (County Road 19). Motion passed 6/0.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN - HERITAGE
P.U.D. (tabled from September 6, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
South of Edgewood Road approximately 700 feet east of Howard's
Point Road
Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, the application of Abingdon Development Corp. for Heritage P.U.D.
development stage plan located south of Edgewood Road approximately 700' east
of Howard's Point Road. Motion passed 6/0.
7. PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT STAGE PLAN - SHOREWOOD SENIOR
HOUSING (Tabled from September 6, 1994 meeting)
.
Applicant:
Location:
International Development II
25600 State Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, the application of International Development II for concept stage
plan for Shorewood Senior Housing at 25600 State Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka
Road. Motion passed 6/0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 1994 - PAGE 3
.
Turgeon inquired whether the applicant accepts each of the staff recommendations. Mr.
Cunningham stated he intends to totally comply. Pisula inquired about the driveway for lot 1.
Nielsen stated the property will be accessed from the Chanhassen side of Ridge Road. Bean
inquired whether annexation to maintain the City dividing line at the lot line could be considered.
Nielsen explained annexation is a complicated process and even though the municipal line is
changed, the County border would still remain the same. Despite the tax complications, jogging
the borders through annexation is not worth the effort.
.
Borkon requested clarification regarding the driveways. Nielsen explained each lot will have
individual driveways coming from the south from the Chanhassen portion of Ridge Road. Borkon
inquired about the building restrictions in the protective covenants. Nielsen explained that to avoid
division among 4 taxing jurisdictions, structures on the Shorewood parcel must be built north of
the municipal boundary line and structures on Parcel 2 must be located entirely south of the
municipal boundary.
Mr. Cunningham stated it may be difficult to sell the parcel with a condition that a home must be
built in a specific location. Nielsen strongly recommended that the restriction be included and
pointed out that the parcel contains plenty of buildable space.
Rosenberger commended Mr. Cunningham for his plan to preserve the center lot.
Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve
the application of Wm. Pat Cunningham, 6180 Ridge Road, for a simple
subdivision/combination subject to the staff recommendations outlined in
Nielsen's memorandum dated September 29, 1994. Motion passed 6/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its October 24, 1994 meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - ZACHARY WOODS (tabled
from September 6, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Brent Sinn
6035 Galpin Lake Road
Nielsen reported that at its September 26 meeting, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 296, "An
Interim Ordinance Adopting a Moratorium on Review and Approval of Certain Subdivision in the
City of Shorewood," to remain in effect until March 1, 1995. The Ordinance affects the remaining
items on the agenda. The City Attorney recommends the items be tabled subject to expiration of
the development moratorium.
Nielsen referred to the City Engineer's memorandum dated September 28, 1994 reviewing the
preliminary grading plan submitted by Mr. Brent Sinn for Zachary Woods. Nielsen suggested the
applicant continue preparation of the plat application and noted that condemnation procedures
regarding Galpin Lake Road will require discussion.
Malam moved, Turgeon seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, the preliminary plat application of Brent Sinn for Zachary Woods,
6035 Galpin Lake Road. Motion passed 6/0.
4.
PUBLIC HEARING - FORMAL APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT (tabled from September 6,1994 meeting)
.
Applicant:
Location:
Lundgren Bros. Inc.
76.5 acres north of Smithtown Road west of Minnewashta School
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 4, 1994 - PAGE 5
8.
PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SMITHTOWN WOODS
(tabled from September 6, 1994 meeting)
Applicant:
Location:
Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland
25895 and 25865 Smithtown Road
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to table, pending expiration of the development
moratorium, the application of Clint Carlson and Brian Ohland for Smithtown
Woods preliminary plat at 25895 and 25865 Smithtown Road. Motion passed
6/0.
9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Ingrid Schaaf, 25605 Smithtown Road, stated a request for installation of a stop light at County
Road 19 and Country Club Road has been referred to the County for consideration. A feasibility
study will be conducted by the County. Schaaf expressed concerns regarding use of snowmobiles
in the City.
10. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reported on actions taken by the Council at its September 26, 1994 meeting
and answered Commissioners' questions.
Commissioners commented on inaccurate newspaper coverage of the development moratorium.
Nielsen stated the paper has been asked to print a correction. Borkon presented a matter of concern
relating to run-off into Christmas Lake that possibly affects the apparent natural resistance against
milfoil in the lake. She requested direction from the staff and Commissioners. It was suggested
that the matter be referred to the Department of Natural Resources and/or the watershed district.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Bean seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon;
Planning Director Nielsen. Commissioner Borkon entered the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
October 4, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Foust abstained.
STUDY SESSION
1. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED FENCE REGULATIONS FOR PRE-
EXISTING SWIMMING POOLS
Chair Rosenberger announced the case, stated the Commissioners will accept public comment, and
outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen stated a resident, Daniel Lundgren, requested the Council to consider amending the current
Code relevant to swimming pools that do not meet current regulations (Zoning-Chapter 1201.03
Subd.2.f.). The resident believes the swimming pool ordinance requiring 4' nonclimbable fences
should be applicable to pools that existed prior to the current regulations. Existing pools without
fences were allowed under grandfather provisions. The City Attorney advised that owners of the
grandfathered pools, as identified, be notified of the current fence requirement and informed that
their property does not comply. This notification does not require the owner to comply, but invites
them to consider the procedures for compliance. Mr. Lundgren urges the City to take a more
aggressive posture with respect to the nonconforming pools through amendment of the ordinance
and requiring a fence. Nielsen explained that the Council referred the matter to the Planning
Commission for study and a recommendation as to whether the Code should be amended or the
current practice be continued.
Mr. Daniel Lundgren, 5520 Sylvan Lane, stated he and his wife are concerned about the safety of
their daughters, ages 3, 4, and 7 years. He explained that two properties with pools adjoin his
property; one has a split rail fence that is missing sections and the other property's fence does not
meet Code requirements. These neighbors advised Mr. Lundgren that their pools were
grandfathered in when pool fence regulations were enacted. Mr. Lundgren stated the Code should
be strengthened to make sure that all pools have proper fencing. He explained it is not feasible for
him to fence his entire property, stated that his children are supervised, but that the safety of all
children is a concern. Lundgren stated other surrounding communities do not allow
nonconforming pools.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7 :08 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 18, 1994 . PAGE 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
.
2.
Natural Resources
Nielsen directed the Commission's attention to the document dated 10/94 containing: Natural
Resources - Chapter Outline; Goal and Objectives; Issues; and Policies. The text incorporates the
Commissioners' previous suggestions and recommendations. Sections V. and VI., Natural
Resources Plan and Chapter Summary, respectively, are not included in this document. Nielsen
explained the purpose of each Section and reviewed the content of the document.
The Commissioners conducted and completed a line by line review of the material. Revisions were
made to the document through discussion and agreement among the Commissioners. Nielsen
responded to Commissioners' questions.
The Commissioners agreed to review a revised document with the changes incorporated and to
consider the Plan Section of the Natural Resources chapter in detail at its November 1 meeting.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 10:35 p.m. and reconvened at 10:40 p.m.
Community Facilities
Nielsen presented a "City Water-l0 Year Plan Outline," dated 10-18-94 which proposes a three-
phased plan for implementing a City-wide water system within 10 years.
The Commissioners discussed at length the pros and cons of City water. It was agreed that each
Commissioner will develop a list of 5 justifications for City water. The staff was requested to
design a process to assist the Commission in making decisions relative to City-wide water.
. Discussion will continue at the next meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Bean suggested the City may wish to consider action with respect to the potential sale of the
country club/golf course. Nielsen confirmed future meeting dates and agendas: Tuesday,
November 1 (City water, Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters) and Tuesday, November 15.
The Commissioners tentatively added Tuesday, November 22, to the meeting schedule. Nielsen
recommended an Open House format for the public/neighborhood Comprehensive Plan meetings
scheduled in January 1995.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Malam moved, Foust seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Borkon; Commissioners Bean, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon; Council
Liaison Lewis; and Planning Director Nielsen. Chair Rosenberger entered the
meeting at 7:33 p.m. City Administrator Hurm attended a portion ofthe meeting.
Absent:
Commissioner Foust.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
October 18, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 5/0.
1.
7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCES TO SETBACK REGULATIONS
AND SHORELAND DISTRICT HARD COVER REGULATIONS
Applicant:
Location:
Lawrence DeWitt
28090 Woodside Road
Vice Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen presented background information on the applicant's proposal to remodel and add to an
existing residence. The existing structure and the proposed addition do not comply with the R-
INS District requirements since both are too close to the side lot lines and the total area of
impervious surface on the site exceeds 25%. The request for variances to the setback requirements
will increase the nonconformity and will further exceed hard surface restrictions. The largest
portion of the house is 8' from the south property line and the north end is 15' from the north lot
line. A wing wall to be removed as part of the remodeling extends to within 8' of the property
line. Information from the applicant's survey indicates existing and proposed hard surface to be
34.5% and 35% respectively. The Shoreland District limits impervious surface to 25%.
Nielsen reviewed the provisions of the Code providing for expansion of nonconforming residential
structures and the staff analysis of the proposal. Strict enforcement suggests that the 2' discrepancy
on the south side be made up on the north side and that a 22' setback be maintained on the north
side. However, given the age of the structure and granting of a previous variance in 1984, Nielsen
recommended that the south side of the lot be considered the 10' side and that a 20' setback be
required on the north side to maintain a total 30' side yard setback for the property. To accomplish
this, the proposed addition would have to jog in 5' from the existing building line. The applicant
prefers not to jog the addition because it would eliminate an existing window on the east side.
Reconfiguration, according to the applicant, may jeopardize a large tree. Nielsen pointed out that if
the tree is part of justification for a variance, it should be identified on an updated survey.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1,1994 - PAGE 2
With respect to lot coverage, Nielsen stated it is unlikely the lot will ever comply with the 25%
requirement, but recommended that if an addition is approved, it should be contingent upon
removal of an equal amount of hard cover elsewhere on the site to avoid increasing hard cover.
Nielsen explained that the applicant's request, as proposed, fails to meet certain criteria for the
granting of variances: 1) the property is not unique in size or configuration, 2) a previous variance
provides the applicant with more use of the lot than those who comply with current regulations,
and 3) the applicant does not adequately demonstrate he is not able to make reasonable use of his
property. Therefore, based on the analysis (detailed in Nielsen's October 26, 1994 memorandum),
Nielsen recommended that any addition to the existing home comply with current setback
requirements and that any increase in hard cover area be mitigated by removal of hard cover
elsewhere on the site. If the applicant wishes to provide further evidence of hardship, the request
should be tabled pending analysis of additional material.
Mrs. Donna DeWitt introduced Ms. Lynn Pirkl, architect, handling the project. Ms. Pirkl stated
the applicant does not wish to eliminate a window as recommended because of its aesthetic value,
noted the wing wall will be eliminated, and explained the hardship with respect to the tree on the
site. She stated the applicant wishes to retain the setbacks as proposed in the plans submitted since
a variance was previously granted notwithstanding the fact that the property was in
nonconformance. She stated that alterations to decrease the hard cover by about 1/2% are possible,
however, any further reduction is not feasible because of the limitations caused by the shared
driveway and a tennis court on the site. Mrs. DeWitt reviewed the plumbing problems which led to
the remodeling and proposed addition. Ms. Pirkl pointed out that the project enhances the
neighborhood and value of the property.
Vice Chair Borkon opened and closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. there being no comments
from the public. Letters from Greg and Lorraine Scott and Ann Leavenworth, neighbors of the
De Witts, were accepted for the record.
The Commissioners reviewed the guidelines for approving variances. Turgeon expressed concern
regarding the excessive hard cover and found it difficult to justify a variance that increases the
existing nonconformity. She suggested additional options be considered by the applicant. Pisula
sympathized with the aesthetic concerns, was encouraged by the willingness to reduce the
hardcover, however, he suggested that additional remedies be explored to avoid creating further
nonconformance. Malam described a possible alternative configuration for the addition. Mrs.
DeWitt stated an unacceptable jog would result. Malam pointed out that State statute mandates the
criteria used by the Commission in its decision-making process. He suggested options without the
need for variances be examined. Bean stated the variances requested are not justifiable, reiterated
that options be explored, and pointed out that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
disapprove the variance previously requested in 1984, even though the Council subsequently
approved the variance. Borkon reiterated that the Commission is required to adhere to the
guidelines for variances. Pisula inquired whether the applicant wishes to re-examine its proposal
with a view to re-submitting a revised acceptable plan for the Commission's consideration at a
future meeting. Mrs. De Witt and Ms. Pirkl stated their preference that the current application be
brought before the Council regardless of the Commission's recommendation.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny the
application for variances to setback regulations and Shoreland District hard cover
regulations of Lawrence De Witt, 28090 Woodside Road. Motion passed 6/0.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its November 29, 1994 meeting.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1, 1994 - PAGE 3
2. REVIEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Hurm directed the Commission's attention to the: "Proposed City of Shorewood Capital
Improvement Program, Consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan and a Finance Plan for the Years
1995-1999." He reviewed the planning process and the finance plan. Hurm pointed out that some
programs will require revision upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. Hurm also
noted editorial corrections in the document.
The Commissioners asked questions; the staff and Councilmember Lewis responded. The
Commissioners participated in a lengthy discussion on several proposed programs and identified
issues for reconsideration during the Commission's updating of the Comprehensive Plan.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
proposed Capital Improvement Program for the Years 1995-1996, recognizing
that while it is generally consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan, it is
contingent upon reconsideration when the Comprehensive Plan is completed and
approved. Motion passed 6/0.
3. STUDY SESSION
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Nielsen reviewed the proposed zoning changes in the Land Use Chapter of the Plan. He stated that
no change from the 0-1 units per 40,000 square feet is currently contemplated in the zoning district
that includes the proposed Lundgren Bros. development of the LedinlWartmanlSchool Property.
Lundgren requests re-zoning from 0-1 to 0-1.3 units per acre in a Planned Unit Development.
Rosenberger stated that the Commission's consideration of this issue at this time will establish its
view with respect to the requested re-zoning amendment. Bean requested that the Lundgren
representatives present general information to assist the City in determining its long-range
development direction rather than specific information on the Lundgren development proposal.
Mr. Mark Anderson and Mr. John Uban, representing Lundgren Bros., presented considerations
the Company believes supports its request for re-zoning to 1.3 units per acre in a P.U.D., outlined
in a document distributed to the Commissioners.
U sing the Land Use Map, Nielsen reviewed current and proposed zoning (changed to reflect
present land use) of areas adjacent to and surrounding the Lundgren development property.
The Commissioners participated in an extended discussion on zoning, the City's infrastructure,
market demand, affordable and diversified housing, senior housing, and the desires of Shorewood
residents, and responsible city management. The Lundgren representatives provided additional
clarification as requested.
With the exception of Malam, the Commissioners agreed that to re-zone the subject area to a higher
density is not in the best interests of the City because the residents do not favor higher density, the
character of Shorewood should be maintained particularly the western section, buyers can still be
found for one-acre lots, the property can still be developed and controlled using a P.U.D.and
raising the density will not necessarily provide affordable or diversified housing in the City.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 1,1994 - PAGE 4
Commissioner Malam, on the other hand, stated it is clear that re-zoning is a natural transition from
one district to the other. He supported raising the density across the board because the City needs
to: react to the increased cost of land in the City to keep home sites affordable; recognize and
accept Shorewood's status as a City rather than a rural area; and be responsive to buyers desiring
less than one acre lots.
Rosenberger moved, Bean seconded to retain the current density of the City's R-
IA zoning districts at 0-1 units per 40,000 square feet. Motion passed 511.
Malam voted nay.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:22 p.m.
Rosenberger described an area that he advocated for re-zoning from R-1A to R-1C to facilitate a
goal, identified by the senior housing survey, to provide affordable rental property in the City.
The Commissioners discussed the recommendation and considered other methods of
accomplishing the goal. In general, while the Commissioners supported the goal, the majority
considered such re-zoning to be "spot" zoning, therefore, inappropriate action.
Rosenberger moved, Malam seconded to re-zone the tier of lots along Highway 7
from the Lan-De-Con property to and including the golf course from R-IA to
R-IC. Motion failed 2/4. Bean, Borkon, Pisula, and Turgeon voted nay.
Natural Resources
The Commissioners accepted the Natural Resources Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as re-
written to reflect the Commission's recommendations.
Community Facilities
The Commissioners re-scheduled discussion on the Community Facilities Chapter to its November
15 meeting.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
5. REPORTS
Council Liaison reported on the Council's October 24, 1994 meeting. Bean commented on a
resident's inquiry regarding allowed height of a house. Nielsen referred to the ordinance covering
the issue.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Motion
passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Malam, and Pisula; Council
Liaison Lewis and Planning Director Nielsen. Commissioner Foust entered
the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Administrator Hurm entered the meeting at 8 p.m.
to participate in a portion of the meeting.
Absent:
Commissioner Turgeon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Borkon seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's November 1,
1994 meeting, with corrections to be made by Nielsen at the question marks on pages 2 and
3 and at the second motion on page 4. Motion passed 5/0.
STUDY SESSION
1.
ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
REQUIREMENTS
SWIMMING POOL FENCE
Nielsen recapped the background to the issue of enforcement of the swimming pool
ordinance which was referred to the Commission for review by the Council. Nielsen
presented data requested by the Commission at its October 18 meeting. Prior to 1985 when
the current ordinance was passed, 65 pools existed, 14 of which had no fences and 10 were
in substantial nonconformance. Nielsen described and circulated photographs of various
nonconforming pools and fencing taken during staff research. He requested the
Commission's direction as to whether the ordinance should be amended to require that
nonconforming pools be brought to Code or the current practice should be continued -
notifying owners of nonconforming grandfathered pools of the requirements and inviting
them to consider compliance.
The Commissioners reviewed the photographs and Nielsen responded to questions. The
Commissioners discussed the issue and considered safety factors, local and national data and
research, setting a deadline for compliance, parental responsibility, honoring the grandfather
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. November 15, 1994 - PAGE 2
concept, insurance practices, voluntary compliance, safety of pool covers, current notification
methods, and existence of other water hazards.
Following discussion and consideration of a series of motions (subsequently withdrawn and
not voted upon), the general consensus of the Commissioners was that a review be
conducted of the entire current ordinance with respect to pools and fences.
Borkon moved, Bean seconded to continue the discussion to its November 22 meeting to
consider additional information including the current swimming pool/fence ordinance,
relevant historical statistics, and insurance data to be provided by the staff and
Commissioner Foust. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened at 8 p.m.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - COMMUNIlY FACILITIES CHAPTER
Chair Rosenberger introduced the issues: City Water, which the Council and Commission
agreed to implement over a 10 year period, (Exhibit I, 10 Year Plan Outline dated 10-18-94
drafted by Nielsen) and Substitute Language for the CIP Municipal Water Section (Exhibit
II dated 10-4-94 drafted by Hurm).
.
Nielsen reviewed the current draft of the Comp Plan with respect to City water. He referred
to the 10- Year Plan Outline, reviewed the three phases proposed in the outline, explained
the decisions required, clarified the current and long-term ramifications if the plan for city-
wide water is dropped, and responded to questions.
The Commissioners conducted a line by line review and discussion of the Short Term and
Long Range Objectives related to the current City water system as contained in Exhibit II.
Through its discussion, the Commission agreed to short and long term objectives for
inclusion in the Municipal Water Section of the Comprehensive Plan that reflect the
consensus opinions of the Commissioners.
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to recommend to the Council that Exhibit II, Municipal
Water Section, as revised by the Commission, be adopted for inclusion in the
Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 6/0. Revised Exhibit II is made a part of these
minutes by reference.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
.
The Commissioners conducted a line by line review and discussion of the lO-year Plan
Outline for City Water (Exhibit I). Nielsen answered questions and elaborated on the
individual components and policy issues of the 3 phases of the Plan. Following its
discussion, the Commissioners agreed that the outline as presented, with minor revisions,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. November 15, 1994 - PAGE 3
reflects the consensus opinion of the Commission to achieve the goal to provide City-wide
water within a lO-year period. Nielsen indicated the text for the Comp Plan will be
prepared based upon the outline.
The Commission will review the final formats of the Land Use, Natural Resources, and
Community Facilities Sections of the Comprehensive Plan at its November 22 meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
4. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reported on discussions and actions taken at the November 14
Council meeting and responded to questions from the Commissioners.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Borkon moved, Malam seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
.
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
. November 15,1994 - PAGE 4
EXHIBIT II
October 4, 1994
Planning Commission Revision - November 15, 1994
MUNICIPAL WATER
A. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES
1. Undertake a water system analysis to accurately determine the limits and capacities
of the current independent systems.
2. Provide a reliable source of water for fire suppression in areas where the municipal
system exists.
3. Strive to have the system on the west side of the City financially viable. Make the
system reliable by providing elevated storage capacity.
.
4.
Evaluate financing alternatives induding consideration of T.I.F. financing for senior
housing projects, private development connection fees, and other funding sources.
S. Strive to provide municipal water to make a senior housing project more viable to
support the goal of affordable senior housing.
6. Coordinate municipal state aid and local road improvements with water main
construction projects.
Rebuild roads with water main extensions or with plans to accommodate water
main extensions.
B. LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES
1. Inter-connect all municipal water systems to form one system to provide multiple
sources of water.
2. Evaluate the feasibility of a combined South Lake municipal water system utility to
maximize efficiencies.
3. Establish a depreciation fund to provide funding for system replacement.
.
4.
Provide water service to as many residents as feasible.
.
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1994
CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
At 7 p.m., Nielsen distributed Comprehensive Plan text (dated 11/94)-Issues-Water System, and
Community Facilities/Services Plan-Municipal Water-for the Commissioners' review prior to
discussion at the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Borkon; Commissioners Bean, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and Turgeon;
Council Liaison Lewis, and Planning Director Nielsen. Chair Rosenberger entered
the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pisula moved, Malam seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
November 15, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Turgeon abstained.
1.
STUDY SESSION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - COMMUNITY FACILITIES CHAPTER
Nielsen reviewed the text (described above) written to reflect the Commission's views, based on
its discussions, for the updated Community Facilities Section of the Comprehensive Plan and
answered Commissioners' questions.
Following review and discussion of the material presented, the Commissioners concurred with the
content ofthe updated Sections including Issues-Water System and Municipal Water.
ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION - SWIMMING POOL FENCE
REQUIREMENTS
Commissioner Foust distributed copies of a 13-page informational document regarding safety
associated with swimming pools, etc.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to continue discussion on the swimming pool
fence requirements/zoning ordinance to its Dece,mber 6, 1994 meeting. Motion
passed 7/0.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 22,1994 - PAGE 2
3.
REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis responded to Commissioners' questions regarding the status of several
issues before the Council. Lewis reported that the City of Deephaven voted to participate in
financial support for the proposed senior/community center. Nielsen reviewed future meeting
dates and agenda items for the December 6 meeting. A joint meeting with the Council is scheduled
for December 12.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1994
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Rosenberger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Rosenberger; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Foust, Malam, Pisula, and
Turgeon; Council Liaison Lewis; Planning Director Nielsen.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Borkon moved, Pisula seconded to approve the minutes of the Commission's
November 22, 1994 meeting. Motion passed 7/0.
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant:
Location:
John Grable
4720 Bayswater Road
. Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen reviewed John Grable's request for a setback variance to build a 6' x 10' deck on the
northwest side of his recently completed patio home in Amesbury West. The proposed deck
would encroach approximately 2' into the 50' perimeter setback of the plat and 48 square feet of
the deck encroaches into the common area of the planned unit development.
As explained in detail in the December 1,1994 staff report, Nielsen referred to an on-going debate
between the staff and the Amesbury/West developer regarding allowable encroachments into p.u.d.
common areas. As set forth in an October 31, 1990 letter to McNulty Construction, the staff
maintains that the common area was set aside as green space and that the unit lot lines establish the
limits of construction for buildings in the project. The record shows that the developer disagrees
with this position. The matter has been ignored until consideration of a variance is necessary.
Nielsen stated that when construction of the patio home began in July 1994, the builder was
advised that the permit would not be issued until the deck issue was resolved. In order to begin
construction, plans were drawn to show a 6' x 10' deck to comply with current requirements and
does not encroach into the common area. However, the patio door was installed in anticipation of
receiving a variance, at the owner's risk.
.
Nielsen explained that under variance rules, an applicant must demonstrate that some hardship
exists to prevent reasonable use of the property without a variance. Nielsen stated the request fails
to meet the criteria for a variance in that ample room is clearly available to build a deck without a
variance and the variance could have been avoided through design of the residence. Nielsen
explained that the p.u.d. zoning tool guarantees that green space will be maintained and may not be
subverted by any other agreement. Based on the staff analysis, Nielsen recommended that the
variance be denied and that any deck be built within the confines of the unit lot.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 2
Mr. James McNulty, 400 Second Avenue, developer of Amesbury and Amesbury West,
representing Mr. Grable, stated the recently completed residence was occupied over the weekend.
He explained that when the original development was begun in the 1970s, its concept was encoded
into the deed restrictions, adopted by the City, which allows encroachment into the common area
for minor items such as air conditioners, deck overhangs, patios, etc. All units fit tightly into the
lot area so a need for encroachment occurs from time to time to accommodate additions. McNulty
circulated photographs of other units with encroachments previously approved by the City under
the planned unit residential development at the original construction stage. The deed restrictions
provided for encroachments for future additions which are reviewed by the association's
architectural committee. McNulty referred to the disagreement with the City's position that applies
the single family zoning requirements to this development. He explained the placement of the
proposed small breakfast deck allows a window in the kitchen, is reasonable, noncontroversial,
and is permitted under the deed restrictions, therefore a variance is not required.
McNulty acknowledged the concern regarding encroachment into the 50' setback from the property
line and stated that with some compromise of Mr. Grable's desires, a deck could be placed,
encroaching into the common area, without encroachment into the setback area. According to Mr.
McNulty, other design options have been considered, but a hardship exists due to the confines of
the lot. (The applicant, John Grable, was not in attendance due to a schedule conflict.)
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and accepted for the record a November
28, 1994 letter from Evelyn W. Sayer, 4730 Bayswater Road., Excelsior, supporting denial of the
application.
Robert Jochims, 4765 Bayswater Road, president of the Homeowners' Association, stated the
encroachment has been considered and approved by the members of the association, as -have other
similar situations. He stated the members believe that further consideration is necessary if the City
is going to be making decisions in these matters since that may infringe upon future requests.
Dean Thomas, 4785 Bayswater Road, stated the association deals with requests on a cooperative
basis for the good of the entire development. He explained that the construction of the deck in the
requested location could be helpful in deterring illegal cut-through traffic on a closed road in that
area where balyards have been erected.
Robert Torkelson, 4725 Bayswater Road, stated his residence is similar to the Grables and he has
a deck with 65 square feet of area. He supported approval of the variance to enable construction of
the deck to augment the home.
Felicity Furber, 400 Second Avenue, stated she is working with Mr. Grable and he is eager to
have the deck constructed as it will enhance the useable area of his residence.
Susan Lind, 110 Carlson Parkway, (on the sign-up list) did not respond when called upon to
speak.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
The Commission acknowledged that the public comments support the variance request. Nielsen
explained that during the platting of Amesbury and Amesbury West, a gap was left at the end of
Garden and Bayswater Roads to be used and maintained only as an emergency access to the
development. Nielsen stated the City has responded in various ways to complaints regarding cut-
through traffic at that access, but doubted the deck has little bearing on that concern, and has no
impact on the variance request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 3
.
Foust requested clarification of the change in location of the deck from the original plan submitted
for the building permit. Nielsen clarified the change reiterating that the original plan complied with
the current setback requirements. Turgeon inquired how other units have been allowed to encroach
into the common area. Nielsen stated he was not aware of other encroachments into the common
area, but would investigate and review the approved plan. Pisula shared Turgeon's concern
regarding the other encroachments referred to during public comment.
.
Malam requested clarification of the City's position regarding encroachments allowed under the
deed restrictions. Nielsen explained that the development agreements and protective covenants for
Amesbury and Amesbury West do not clearly specify what private improvements are allowed to be
constructed in the common areas, the language is vague and no limit is established. Therefore until
the p.u.d. agreements are amended to provide clarification, the City's current p.u.d. guidelines are
considered applicable for determining setback requirements. Malam expressed concern that a deck
design complying with the requirements was submitted with the building permit application, yet the
current application claims that a hardship exists.
Bean asked Mr. McNulty why the disagreement was not resolved when first raised in 1990.
McNulty responded that it was believed that the development agreements supported his position
and to amend the agreements involved lengthy and costly legal action. The association has dealt
with additions on a case by case basis and there are 15 or more units with encroachments into the
common area. The number of units encroaching into the 50' perimeter setback area is unknown.
Nielsen explained that the association's architectural committee considers only the design aspect of
additions, not City Code conformance.
Bean stated that to avoid esoteric debates and absent clear guidelines in the development agreement,
the Commission must apply the City's variance criteria in considering this application since the
developer was advised of the City's position in Nielsen's letter dated October 31, 1990. Bean
inquired whether the agreement could be amended from a date forward to apply only to new
requests. Nielsen expressed uncertainty about such an approach and preferred that an amendment
not be limited.
Borkon acknowledged the architectural committee and association's consideration of the
application. She requested additional information regarding the other encroachments. She
expressed concern that a breach of the p.u.d. guidelines for granting variances would set an
unacceptable precedent. Rosenberger was troubled by the applicant's apparent assumption that a
variance will be granted since construction of the residence deviated from the plan submitted to the
City with the building permit request. Rosenberger stated the Commission adheres closely to the
variance criteria as required. Turgeon stated that the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship
exists preventing reasonable use of the property and construction of a deck. She requested that
information about the other encroachments in the development be included with the
recommendation submitted to the Council.
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that it deny the
setback variance application of John Grable, 4720 Bayswater Road. Motion
passed 7/0.
The developer was strongly encouraged to amend the development agreements to delineate the
specific encroachment criteria.
The Council may consider the recommendation at its December 19, 1994 meeting.
.
2.
7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - JAEGER ADDITION
Applicant:
Location:
Abingdon Development Corp.
25655 Smithtown Road and 25725 Eureka Way
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 4
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
Nielsen explained that the 7-10t Smithtown Meadows subdivision is a proposal suspended by the
current development moratorium. Abingdon Development Corp. requests approval to plat the 2
lots which currently have homes on them. The buyer of the home on lot 2 wishes to take clear
possession of the property and the substandard home on lot 1 will be destroyed. At the direction
of City staff, the developer proposes to plat the right-of-way for the future street and plat the
remaining portion of the property as an outlot to remain undivided until the moratorium expires.
The proposed plat is consistent with the intent of the development moratorium; 2 buildable lots will
be platted and both have existing homes on them. The street will be dedicated to the City, but not
built until Outlot A is platted. The lots are consistent with R-IC zoning requirements, therefore,
Nielsen recommended approval of the application subject to a development agreement prepared to
address the future development of the outlot, street, and utilities.
Charles Dillerud, representing Abingdon Development Corporation, explained the preliminary plat
before the Commission will facilitate the purchaser, Mr. Jaeger who has been renting the home on
lot 2, to take possession and will provide for removal of the substandard Tessier home from the
property. He reported the use restrictions over a portion of the plat once owned by the railroad
were released in July 1993. Dillerud reiterated that no new buildings will result from this platting
and noted the City Attorney has reviewed the preliminary plat application.
Steven Jaeger, 25655 Smithtown Road, stated a contract for purchase ofthe home was executed in
August 1994, and with interest rates rising, the Commission's favorable consideration of the
preliminary plat would be appreciated.
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and accepted for the record a letter dated
December 6, 1994, regarding the application, from Susan Prince and Alan Krutsch, 25725
Smithtown Road.
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, inquired why the replatting of both lots is necessary and
indicated lot 1 was originally part of Smithtown Meadows and expressed concern that it is actually
part of the subdivision and the home will be used as a model home. She expressed concern that use
of Eureka Way will exacerbate its current deteriorated state. She inquired whether the 12' areas
from her property line to the new road will be ditches, grass, etc. She inquired how many trees
will be replaced and of what type when the road is built. She inquired whether this platting is
consistent with the Comp Plan update.
Torn Kelsey, 25605 Smithtown Road, stated his property will be profoundly affected by this
platting. He expressed concern regarding the impact of the road and development on the existing
aesthetics, seclusion, value of his property, noise, and visibility. He stated that substantial trees
will be needed to maintain his seclusion. Kelsey believed the sale of the home should be
completed without drawing up the road and replatting two lots. He was concerned that a model
home will be constructed and that 5 homes will be built one by one. He inquired what the price of
the homes will be.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
The Commissioners addressed the questions from the public. Nielsen explained that the replatting
of 2 lots is required because the City's subdivision ordinance does not allow new lots to be created
without frontage on a public street. By platting the road, lot 2 will be in compliance. He clarified
that the street will not be constructed at this time. He provided additional information regarding the
roads, driveways, sodding, drainage, etc. Nielsen explained that at the time outlot A is platted, the
street will be built and reforestation will be defined under an ordinance to be developed resulting
from the Comp Plan update. The plan is consistent with the current and updated Comp Plan with
respect to zoning. Dillerud indicated there are no current plans for a model home and the value of
any new homes is expected to be similar to, or more than, existing homes in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 5
.
Malam stated that development of the remaining parcels of property is within the owners' rights as
long as development is in conformance with City codes. In his opinion, new homes will likely
increase the value of existing homes and properties. The developer has indicated that a generous
reforestation program will include sizable trees to restore screening and privacy and mitigate noise
in the affected area. It was pointed out that this preliminary plat is essentially an extra step for the
developer recommended by the City and the development of the 5 lots of Outlot A of Smithtown
Meadows is subject to the current moratorium, therefore marketing will not occur, since homes do
not exist.
Turgeon requested clarification of reference in the resident's letter regarding Eureka Way right-of-
way to access the subject properties. Nielsen stated the titles will be examined, however,
easements are granted from property to property, not person to person. Bean inquired whether the
development agreement could restrict a model home until Outlot A is re-platted. Nielsen indicated
he would check with the City Attorney. Borkon supported a restriction against a model home on
the plat. Malam doubted that a restriction would be legal, but suggested that a mutual agreement be
considered with respect to a model home.
Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve
Abingdon Development Corporation's preliminary plat-Jaeger Addition, 25655
Smith town Road and 25725 Eureka Way, subject to preparation of a development
agreement to address the future development of the outlot, street, and utilities.
Motion passed 7/0.
The Council may consider the recommendation at its December 19, 1994 meeting.
3.
7:30 PUBLIC HEARING
EXCEEDING 1200 SQ.FT.
C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE
.
Applicant:
Location:
Steven Simon
26710 Edgewood Road
Chair Rosenberger announced the case and outlined the procedures for a public hearing.
.
Nielsen reviewed Steven Simon's application for a conditional use permit necessary for significant
remodeling at 26710 Edgewood Road, that results in the amount of accessory space exceeding
1200 square feet of area. Four buildings result in 2458 sq.ft. of accessory space. Nielsen
presented compliance analysis of the request under the zoning code criteria (detailed in his
memorandum dated December 19, 1994). Based upon that analysis, Nielsen recommended the
c.u.p be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) existing concrete pad must be corrected to
comply with setback requirements; 2) a landscape plan, subject to the approval of the City and the
DNR, must restore vegetation on the shoreline to its former extent; 3) bids for the landscape plan
(once approved) must be provided to determine the amount of a letter of credit; 4) lot coverage
calculations must demonstrate that impervious surfaces will not exceed 25% of the lot area; 5) the
pool house must be redesigned to eliminate the kitchen.
Bill Brueggeman, contractor representing Mr. Simon, stated the Planning Director's
recommendations have been reviewed and intend to comply with the all the issues. A landscape
architect has developed a plan to restore vegetation along the lake shoreline. He explained that the
material/vegetation removed when the project began was considered unacceptable because of
delayed and/or lack of maintenance on the property over a 15 year period which was seldom used.
Recalculations regarding hardcover will be provided at week end.
Steven Simon stated his support for the recommendations proposed and considered them
reasonable. He explained the objective is to restore the property to its natural beauty.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 6
Chair Rosenberger opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Howard Kushmar, 26720 Edgewood Road, inquired about the number of buildings on the
property and stated he supports the project.
Chair Rosenberger closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
The Commission discussed the application. Turgeon, Foust, Malam, and Borkon interposed no
objections to the plan, subject to the staff recommendations. Pisula inquired about the a
neighboring property owner's suggestion that there may be a restrictive covenant over the easterly
66' of the lot along the lake. Brueggeman explained that the covenant restricts fence or a hedge
along the eastern-most lot line of the subject lot. Bean expressed concern regarding the
extraordinary amount of accessory space. It was, however, acknowledged the size of the lot (4.09
acres) allows the 2,458 square feet of accessory buildings.
Malam moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the
application of Steven Simon for a C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200
Square Feet, at 26710 Edgewood Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the
Planning Director's memorandum of December 1, 1994. Motion passed 7/0.
The Council may consider the recommendation at its December 19, 1994 meeting.
Chair Rosenberger recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
4. ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION - SWIMMING POOL FENCE
REQUIREMENTS
Rosenberger introduced the issue and stated the discussion is not open for public comment. For the
record, letters were accepted from Dan Lundgren, 5520 Sylvan Lane, Excelsior; Bill and Pat
Carrothers, 26620 Wild Rose Lane; and David W. Raisbeck, 26640 Edgewood Road.
Nielsen reviewed the issue before the Commission: whether or not the current fencing requirement
for swimming pools should be amended to apply retroactively to properties which are in
noncompliance. He stated that City records provide sketchy background information on the
rationale for adoption of the current ordinance, referred to the 13-page informational document
regarding safety associated with swimming pools provided by Commissioner Foust, and referred
to the letters received from interested/affected residents noted by Rosenberger. The staff seeks
direction as to whether to amend the ordinance to require grandfathered pool owners to comply or
to maintain the current policy of notification of noncompliance and inviting such pool owners to
comply. Nielsen indicated an acceptable compromise would be a suggestion made by
Commissioner Borkon that to speed up compliance of the grandfathered, noncompliant pools,
conformity be required at the time a change in ownership takes place.
Considerations of the Commissioners during comprehensive discussion included: setting a time
schedule for compliance; pools enclosed with a fence vs. reliance on a perimeter fence, require
pool covers, deterrent value of gates-locks, enforcement problems, costs to pool owners, statistics
indicate the majority of drownings are resident rather than outsiders, parental/personal/adult
responsibility, supervision and education, fencing creates a false sense of security, aesthetics vs.
human life, other water-related dangers such as lakes, ability of an ordinance to assure safety,
design ordinance to apply to density zones, 4-sided pool fences, prohibit pools.
Malam moved, Pisula seconded to recommend to the Council that the current
ordinance be maintained to require fences around pools. Motion passed 7/0.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 6, 1994 - PAGE 7
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that the ordinance
regulating swimming pool fence requirements be amended to provide that the
grandfather provisions terminate at any change in title to the property. Motion
failed 3/4. Turgeon, Pisula, Foust, and Rosenberger voted nay.
Rosenberger moved, Bean seconded to allow re-consideration of the previous
motion. Motion passed 611. Foust voted nay.
Bean moved, Borkon seconded to recommend to the Council that the ordinance
regulating swimming pool fence requirements be amended to provide that the
grandfather provisions terminate at any change in title to the property. Motion
passed 4/3. Turgeon, Pisula and Foust voted nay.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Ingrid Schaff, 25605 Smithtown Road, reported the cost of installation of a traffic signal on
County Road 19 is estimated at $100,000-$110,000 of which Hennepin County will pay 25%, the
remainder and maintenance would be shared by several jurisdictions. Nielsen indicated the County
will be asked to conduct a corridor study to provide options for the intersection.
6. REPORTS
Council Liaison Lewis reported on actions taken by the Council at its November 29, 1994 meeting
and answered Commissioners' questions. Malam stated that the Park Commission will conduct a
public hearing on December 13 on the Silverwood Park turf trail. Foust inquired about installation
of a dead-end sign at Enchanted Islands. Nielsen assured that the sign will be installed.
. Future meeting dates: Joint Meeting with Council-December 12. The Commissioners agreed to
cancel the December 20, 1994 meeting. Neighborhood meetings to consider the Comprehensive
Plan update will likely begin in January 1995.
.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion
passed 7/0.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
, ~ III n n i t'\~ IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION BELOW
dl~tr 1'2- - ()~ -,1/
'E ADDRESS AGENDA ITEM
r2c{
-e-