all right so my name is Dustin medium I'm the chair of the Planning Commission and welcome to our Planning Commission meeting at home version today so when I'm first off we're we're kind of new at this so bear with us and please be patient and what I'm going to ask everybody to do is in the settings there there's a button at the bottom of your screen that says participants if you can make sure that your name is actually your name on that you can edit that to say what happy we want but as we accumulate a public record we want to make sure that we know know who is speaking when that time for public input comes ya just click on participants and then you should be able to hover your mouse over your name and then there's a rename option so please to make it easier for us go ahead and make that your actual name so you have it correct on the record and since this is also new I anticipate we won't start for a few more minutes and hopefully we can get going and have a good meeting [Music] [Music] only on [Music] I think you can go ahead and get started Dustin you're muted Dustin thank you for that I was doing pretty good for my opening but say you never gonna hear that again so it is 7:05 on April 21st and I'm calling to order the city of Shorewood Planning Commission meeting um we are digital today so we'll just start out with noting who is in attendance and I can see all five commissioners are in attendance and I believe I saw a councilmember labadie also in attendance with director darling also so we are all here today right into how this is going to work tonight so it's current no special to make sure we have a clear record we are recording us and all of our votes are going to have to be taken by roll call make sure that we document who voted which way and we're going to leave everyone muted that isn't a Commissioner or presenter until we open up the floor for public input and then we'll use the hand raising function when we get to that it sits under the participant list again but we'll deal with that when we get there on a first hearing with that are there any approval of the agenda is our first item are there any Corrections or additions it's nice crossed any so the only one I saw maybe director darling you can clear the so uh our first public hearing it's listed as 23:05 excelsior Boulevard and then the staff report listed 2325 successor Boulevard can you confirm which one it is of course that is two zero three to five excels your Boulevard okay so we'll note that we're changing that to the correct number of three zero two zero three to five excelsior Boulevard see no other changes do I hear a motion to approve the agenda I move to approve the agenda mark Riedl I second the agenda Dara Gault all right so the motion to approve agenda by Commissioner Reed oh and a second by Commissioner Galt's um we'll move right into a votes starting out with a roll call it'll be high or nay Commissioner gulls aye mr. Gorham High Commissioner Reagan Berger High Commissioner eatle I chair Maddy also says I the motion passes unanimously on to our second item of business approval of the minutes of our February 4th 2020 meeting does anyone have any additions or Corrections to those notes all right your motion I move to approve minutes mark riedle I second the motion Derek called the motion has been made and seconded to approve our minutes move right into it votes Commissioner Gorham High Commissioner Reagan burger High Commissioner gulp hi mr. riddle i and share Maddy also says I so the motion passes unanimously on to our first public hearing it is a preliminary plant conditional use permit in variances at two zero three to five excelsior Boulevard how this is going to work to everyone attendance who hasn't attended one of these before will have staff give us a report on the matter at hand and then the Commission will asked staff any clarifying questions and if the applicant is in attendance the applicant can add anything to review and answer questions if they feel so willing and then after that we will allow any public inputs for anyone who wants to speak towards the item reminder any Commission is a volunteer group appointed by this City Council our only Authority is to make recommendations to the City Council they're the ones to make the final decision so if we do take motions or positions on anything presented here tonight the City Council will take that under review and then make the final decision and I think now director darling if you're ready we can move into the report Thank You mr. chair members of the Commission can everyone hear me okay yes yeah yep the application before you this evening was submitted by say there Bergquist on behalf of the property owner the subject property is located at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and st. Albans Bay Road the property is one for who acres and is heavily wooded the surrounding properties to the west and north are developed with single-family homes and the properties the property to the south is South Shore Park is that south and east there is a wetland that lies to the north east of the property and see these hatch marks over here that indicates the wetland and it shows up a little bit more on the aerial photo the applicant proposes to remove the existing home located in roughly the middle of the parcel and subdivide the lot into four Lots to accommodate two twin homes with each half of the twin home on its own lot the property is owned our 2a and twin homes are permitted use in this zoning district the applicant would be required to extend sewer and water mains to serve all four homes the utility work would be in Excelsior Boulevard but mostly off the pavement on the west side of the property over here so on the east side of the street on the east side of the street and that would avoid disturbing for the most part the new pavement that was just laid down you can see the layout shown here that the townhomes would parallel essentially the front property line with Excelsior Boulevard the applicant proposes to import fill to the site so that the main floor of the homes are slightly above street level having the homes at this elevation would require a retaining wall on the north property line which you can see it runs parallel between the home the northerly most home and the north property line I'm sorry I have a limited amount of ability let me see if I could get a pointer yeah here we go so the the retaining wall is right in this location here staff required and the applicant provided to swale between the wall in the north property line to direct stormwater runoff from the homes to the rear of the property rather than directly over the property line into the neighbors lot to the north the walls would be proposed within a drainage and utility easement and we would require an encroachment agreement to assign maintenance responsibility for the wall to the homeowners the the developer would further grade the site to create an infiltration filtration Basin rather on the south side of the property this Basin would provide rate control and improve water quality for stormwater runoff that passes through the site because the grading is and especially the fill would require more than a hundred cubic yards of fill the applicant is required to apply for a conditional use permit the staff have reviewed the request against the measurable standards that are listed in the zoning ordinance as well as the standards that are open in to interpretation and we do find that with the conditions that we listed in the report the applicant can meet the city's requirements specifically staff looked at the impact to the drainage on the adjacent properties and I have just just discussed this with you a bit more about the retaining wall in this well that was put in and techniques to control erosion and protect the wetland on the northeast corner of the site additionally staff recommend that trucks breathing the fill to the site follow prescribed route from Christmas lake road to excels your Boulevard and access the site from st. Albans Bay Road this means that the new pavement on Excelsior Boulevard would be protected as I noted at the beginning of my presentation the applicant has proposed variances to lot area the two Lots in the middle be Lots two and three right in here would be 80 just under 80 200 square feet and eleven thousand eight hundred square feet where 15,000 square feet are required by the zoning district variances to the subdivision ordinance for smaller than typical lot areas are required were required to be reviewed by the four standards that are listed in the subdivision ordinance and all contribute then to the creation or the definition of and mitigation of unusual hardship on the site so the uses should be compatible with the existing uses in the area and as I noted in the staff report the archway zoning district allows for twin homes as permitted uses and there are twin homes in the broader neighborhood and I'm going to put the the location map back up so you can see there are twin homes located here twin homes over in this location and then along each cell is your Boulevard additionally the density proposed is consistent with the density allowed in the comprehensive plan for this area and also as I pointed out in the staff report there are other twin home locks in the area that are about the same size as the proposed blocks a second of the standards for subdivision variances indicates that there should be specific and unique circumstances for this property the unusual circumstances are related to the unique shape of the parcel with quite a bit of the Elat area down on the south and being unbuildable because of the narrowness of the lot in that area also st. Albans Bay Road crosses to the east of the parcel and the right-of-way between are the the distance between the constructed portion of the roadway and the property line adjacent to it is much larger than what we would normally find for a local street it varies between 20 feet right in this area to about 37 feet over in this area which does mitigate the impact of the lot size on the adjacent properties staff also find the other two standards met which include whether or not the applicant would cause a detrimental impact to the public welfare or adjacent properties and that the variance would correct the inequity of the unusual hardship caused by the shape of the property and the extra-wide distance between the property lines in the constructed roadway staff are recommending approval of the preliminary lat conditional use permit and variances based on the finding of the Lots would be consistent with the subdivision and zoning requirements and the standards for viewing both variances and conditional use permits and subject of course to the conditions that I had listed in the staff report I did receive one letter from Tom Tomo at 50 to 90 sa Albans Bay Road which was emailed to you separately today and is now part of the public record and the author expressed opposition to anything that is not currently allowed by the zoning district thank you for your attention this evening Thank You director darling commissioners any questions for a director darling I have some questions this time what is the pink area signify in the map director darling this pink area down here is a portrait gin basin it is the stormwater feature that was providing weight rate control and wonderful improvements and this is the first time I've seen this the lot line goes directly through the property each property is that common it is for multiple family when you have a multiple family structure it's very common to have a lot line that runs right down the middle of the structure okay and the last question the encroachment agreement would that be just for the owner of lot for does that have to be signed off by all the lot owners particularly it would just with the development of the with the owner a lot one but the maintenance of that retaining wall could be assigned to the entire homeowners association so it's not on one property because certainly the fill that's coming been events all four units that would be up for the applicant to decide that's all and so Marie this is Dara so the lots are defined by the dashed lines not the solid lines no the sword lines solid lines okay so the filtration pond is on wasp whatever the lot number is on the bottom there lot for I guess totally I have a question this is mark beetle so director darling if I understand correctly here the total acreage of all four parcels divided by four would meet the r2 a lot science yes is that correct no it's a little short it should if that were the case they would have to have 60,000 square feet and they are at about I think 53,000 square theater or closed but the the two Lots in question that are far below the minimum size are those two Center Lots because they benefit from the either narrow end of the triangle yes okay that's all I had and this is Dustin I just want to come back to that the proposal does call for more density than the zoning by you know their ski about 7,000 feet shorts when I was only good for dwellings they have enough I couldn't get to between home and a single-family home so max out at fifty thousand was a reason other than just the shade was a lot that they think are things that we should be gracious in this case it would to have the true twin homes together you can certainly ask the applicant to their their value but to have 220 homes together rather than one twin home and a single family together seems to be a a little more of a quickie sub design when you look at the homeowners association then all of the lots they would be a similar similar type of house on all four all four of the Lots and how much does the homeowners association actually have to maintain a site from that retaining wall the filtration basin and the exterior of the units so that they have a cohesive long term designed together so I think we've all seen the occasional home where they did not have homeowner associations or twin home and they've one person once a roof and the other person wasn't so half the rough gets redone and half of it doesn't what happened it is painted green and the other half is painted purple so the homeowner associations would also be for that purpose so you can have so to that point have we seen the homeowner association document that defines that typically submitted with a final plan application because the question I have is that filtration pond looks like it's totally on the southern property what not it's not in a commentary so it did have to be real clear that all four properties are responsible for the maintenance of that pond not just the southernmost lot and that can be defined either by covenants that are applied to each property or homeowner association documents I've seen it both ways and was there uh this is Dustin again was there a view as to if it would be possible to not require homeowners association just put it all on individual property owners or some other way that doesn't kind of entangle us we've run into issues with this before where people are sold houses that they weren't told that they're responsible for maintaining drainage areas and I just want to make sure we do our best to not do it again we could certainly add a requirement for notification of the initial property owners and then have that into the homeowners have that disclosed in the homeowners association is there a way to develop this land without a homeowner's association it can all be done by covenant all right any more questions for dr. darling so I assume final approval would be subject to review an acceptance by the city of the homeowners association or covenants if they did alter chooses to go that way we're not given final approval tonight no that would be went with their final plan application we would look usually look at those final details Marie this is net okay we get one more look at that map that showed the twin homes the exterior elevations or the neighborhood the neighborhood showed where the twin psalm tune homes are located in the general vicinity sure there's twin homes on these two logs right here and there's twin homes in the seasons development over here and along Excelsior Boulevard and the Jason lots are single-family homes generally to the direct north and then the parcels across the street on the west side excels your Boulevard are in a different zoning district so the property is where the cursor is over now those are our two a and these properties are our two a okay thanks all right some there are no more questions is the applicant here and maybe you could identify him or herself maybe and reassure mr. Kiir the applicant for this item is dan schmidt let's say there Bergquist and matt Sayer is the property owner I'm saying are both of you here just Matt trying to figure out I'm here I'm Matt all right um is there anything you'd like to add to what director darling is just presented no I think it's she covered most of my points I think I would just be you know recovering ground but I'm happy to answer any questions if if you have anything specific for me great thank you commissioners do any questions for the applicants I do this is Marc riedle so I think the obvious question here have you considered building fewer than four homes on the property I guess building a pair of twin homes or a twin homes and a single-family home would allow for you to build without any lot size variances that done properly how'd you consider that option can you speak to why you're applying for a variance instead yeah um I did consider that and you know just a couple of reasons um one is I just return on investment frankly I've got some pretty serious costs that are gonna go in I mean I don't know how much you guys know about this property but it's just brutal shape I mean there's a house that's got to come down the guys treated it like a junkyard I mean the amount of of stuff that I got a haul off of it is brutal there's there's just it's you can't even really tell how bad it is because he had tarps and fences that the entire center of the property is kind of dug out and it's literally full of bikes and metal and I mean it's it's a significant cleanup cost and then you know once I get into one twin home it just didn't make a lot of sense to me to put a single family next to a twin home on the same property so you know you get into the with the covenants and the separate lots and whatnot it just seemed that it was gonna be a lot more streamlined for me to do two twin homes on this and and frankly again just to try to some return on this investment I just I'm not coming up with the numbers with single family but unfortunately that as part of your answer the reason that you gave is the reason why a city should not grant a variance if the primary motivation is economic in nature here so but everything that you said and nevertheless makes sense to me here it's particularly the argument that it's consistent with the neighborhood there are other such twin homes in the vicinity is compelling but I would be careful to make the argument that this is simply to increase your return amount investment because if I'm not mistaken that itself can't be the basis of the variance true under understood and being said mark I appreciate mr. sayers honesty the primary motive of any development I think is economic I agree the case would be more compelling if the total lot size could accommodate the four homes but these are twin homes and so they're just different in character as commissioner Gould pointed out or I'm not sure it was the you know the property line runs right down the center they physically look more like one structure than two here and it is a very unusual lot size with the weird triangular shape and the fact that part of the Lots the logical lot is shaved near the northeast corner so for all those reasons it does seem to meet the criteria of a variance having such an unusual lot science but that said this property could be developed with either two or three homes without variances so it's not clear-cut that one should be granted in my mind here all right we'll keep more questions to the applicants here we can discuss farther after the public hearing anyone else questions for Matt so I think you're just not really a question but just an observation and I'm looking at the plot layout and mark will I understand you know that three single-family homes on this property would be allowed to go up without a variance I think you'd have a hard time putting one on the southern part of the property due to the shape of the of the of the lot itself without running into setback issues off the st. Albans and an Excelsior Boulevard agreed all right if there are no more questions for the applicants we should open this up to a public hearing and I ask for everyone's patience on this we'll make sure we get this done in orderly fashion I'm sorry it is 7:33 opening this up to the public input portion of the hearing if you'd like to speak to this item please go to the participant list on the bottom of your screen click that and then there's an icon you can raise your hand once you click raise your hands and we'll decide who speaks next do people just a minute just in case they're fighting with Farrah your software here alright let's let's just get back into it and I think Greg you might be watching this or director darling if someone raises their hand let's just leave the public hearing open with the input open right now but then the commissioners will discuss this just to make sure we got one right now you please unmute mr. Dave Roy no sir Boulevard and one of the twin homes facing highway 7 so I'm very close to this development I generally support this development to make sense to me from where I sit my question more is about the trees and the whole ecological environment that would be created about it and there's a lot of wooded area there and so I'm curious about what the plan might be to replace or preserve the environment that's right thank you Dave and I don't think I heard it maybe others did can you give us your street address again so we can have it on the record 2:05 for 0x Ocean Boulevard all right thank you very much and director darling can you address his concern I think it's a tree preservation plan would be specifically what we should explain yes the site is heavily wooded and there will be a lot of trees that are removed in order to allow for the development of the homes and the filtration Basin a total of 45 significant trees on the site would be removed and the applicant is proposing to plans ten new trees which based on the size of the property is the is the required amount and I think I'd have a copy of the plan yep there this so you can see the new trees have you planted primarily in the front yards and at the corner and that does conform to the preservation plan it does that's a significant tree loss that's also thank you and we'll go to our next hello everybody this is d San Fran I live at - 775 Highland you wrote and I just had a question it has anybody expressed any concerns about this in the neighborhood regarding the construction and the higher density I can start answering that question but we've gotten one letter from a neighbor saying that they they were concerned about the density and then everything else that I know of in the public domain has happened tonight okay yeah I think to make sure that that that that's resolved and that that person has a say in the matter in terms of clarifying any concerns that they have regarding best I'm looking at an aerial map with an old photo of the area and if you want to note that it does look like a junkie heart so the new owner is cleaning it up so that's a great influence in the area just getting rid of that part so that's it for me all right thank you you know what else we'd like to raise their hand all right seeing none and hoping everyone's figured it out by now at a 738 we'll close the public input portion of the hearing and then we move on to discussion any more questions we might have and hopefully we'll move into a motion so recommend approval or denial so commissioners what are your thoughts I'm generally in favor of it this is Mark creedal and the the justification is the unusual lot that much of it is unbuildable and for that reason a variance is justified my only reservation ever expressed through the floor is that logically the applicant could have proposed a development that would have met the density requirements for the zoning without considered without applying for a variance and I'll admit that the applicants stated motivation being financial in nature and I fully agree that in the end all development is financial in nature but that does argue against it so I'm leaning to be in favor of it but I do think this when it's not clear-cut I'd like to hear everybody else everybody else does thoughts Thank You Commissioner Edel yeah I kind of feel similarly mark you didn't make a great case for the for the site but I do think the the the site is pretty awkward I don't know that like Dara said that this site is configurable in a great way like we know of maybe we say go back and look at this again and there isn't a really good solution to it the fact that it fits in with the neighborhood of other twin homes is a good aspect to it the fact that it is a junkyard and that there are some incongruous elements to it you know I guess I'm leaning towards and being in favor of it a little bit little bit gray here but I would support it I think yeah I am of the same opinion yah I would rather that the overall law size was enough that for four pieces or four homes on the site fell within the guidelines sixty thousand square for a lot but but you know I I don't see any other really feasible way well there are you know that could be developed I think that I think Matt and his his developer put together a good plan a certain it's certainly in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood on the east side of Excelsior Boulevard east and south side of Excel Subaru levorg and I would only ask that to Roy's are today boys a concern that a lot not being clear-cut and then just have you know ten trees put back in that you try to maintain I looks like you should be able to maintain as many of the existing trees certainly that are mature along the backside of the Lots as much as possible but I'm I'm for moving forward with this I do have concerns about the city having approval of the homeowner association documents particularly as it relates to the care and of the filtration pond which is a pretty key piece of the property as well as the retaining wall on the north side those cannot be left to the individual homeowners that they happen that it just happened to have it on their property just add I grooved everything at mark that are have said I think a single-family home with a two-family dwelling would look kind of goofy in this area might cause market problems down the road so I like this plan we haven't discussed that a conditional use permit for importing fill does anyone have any issue with that the staff report lays out in detail the conditions and there was much discussion of that with this with the city engineer so I'm in favor of that I don't see an issue with that conditional use permit I don't either if I was gonna vote for this I would you know in our motion to make sure that all the staff recommendations are met I do have a question for Matt given I'm I'm also looking at the aerial that we have on this property and have you done soil samples given given what's in that pit on the side of the property are you aware of any contamination there that you're gonna run into when you start clearing that up no I I have not done any samples you know obviously that's you know a concern with anything frankly most of the stuff was you know it wasn't a lot of what I would say like engine parts per se but mostly just metal and just junk you know if I was seeing gas tanks and things of that nature I probably be a little more concerned but but to answer your question directly no I have not done any samples if I could please interrupt the conversation Craig could you please unmute Dustin Mattie thank you I've been able to unmute myself before but I got locked out on that one so okay let's I think we can move forwards towards a vote if everyone's comfortable with that's I guess emotion comes first we're gonna be like to make a motion there are three issues the preliminary plat the conditional use permit and the variances and the variances that I'm not mistaken are for substandard lot size are there any other variances director darling no I think he's one by one or just all three I think we can take all three yeah what we should be able to do it as one someone else like to go since I'm a little bit ambivalent I don't want to be the one to propose the motion err I move that we approve the preliminary lot to subdivide the property into four lot said 2325 accessory Boulevard we also approve of conditional use permit for importing fill for the property and that we approve the variances for the middle - Lots I also then that motion I want to move that we adapt the staff recommendations and also do we do we want to say anything about the the association agreement or the covenants I would say yes we can say that it should be submitted to the city for approval director darling is that required anyway would that just be redundant it's required with the final blood application but you could certainly you can certainly add that in but I do have that listed in the recommendations with a final plan application I see it here now the homeowners association tour covenants must be provided here all right we've had a motion if I may edit it just a bit to recommend approval of the three items do I hear a second I'll stock in the motion all right the motion made by Commissioner docken Berger second by Commissioner Galt's is there any discussion on the motion seeing none we'll move into a vote on roll call Commissioner Gordon aye Commissioner Reagan burger aye Commissioner Galt's I Commissioner Riedl hi and chair Maddy votes in the eye as well so the motion passes unanimously on to our next item of business it is a 2-0 5:05 Radisson Road of variance to build on a substandard lat director darling whenever you're ready Thank You mr. chair and I would like to point out that you are not required to stay for the entire meeting after your application has been heard and acted upon just so people know they don't have to stick around till mine or however now for this next item the application is a request for a variance to allow the redevelopment a non-conforming one where a typewritten would do the ordinance requirements the property is located sandwiched between near the corner anyway of Shore Road and Radisson Ken Road and is within the shoreland overlay district for Christmas Lake all of the adjacent properties are developed with single-family homes the lot until recently had a home on it and that home was constructed in 1910 and it included a garage that was constructed into what is now public right-of-way the home was demolished last November the applicant is proposing to build a new home on the site the lot itself is 11,000 184 feet where 20,000 square feet is required by the r1c zoning district and a lot width is 83 and a half feet where a hundred feet is required the zoning ordinance lists several conditions that allow substandard Lots to be redeveloped without variance but unfortunately the slide does not meet them specifically the lot does not mean the impervious surface coverage requirement of 25% it would be reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site but which is allowed by code without variance but that does not mean it's the criteria to development on a substandard lot also the lot area is below 70% so the applicant is proposing to construct new home a lot and an attached garage and they would be reducing the amount of impervious surface as compared to the previous home all right all of my presentation no it's just got jumbled together okay staff reviewed the application subject to the variance criteria that are located in the zoning ordinance which are different than the variance criteria we just looked at for the past application for the for zoning variance we look at a number of items including whether or not the applicant has shown practical difficulties in this case the practical difficulties all three of these criteria must be met in order to consider it the variance first up they have to propose a reasonable use the property is zoned for single-family homes and has had a single-family home on it since 1910 so the use that they're proposing is therefore reasonable the the size of the lot is not something that the applicant created she merely purchased the salaat as was and it also has to add to the essential character of the area so the home that the applicant proposes to build on the lot would not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood it's situated among other properties that are also some similarly substandard if you recall this whole area was once part of the Radisson Road lakeshore resort and a lot of these small homes that are in the area date back to that era the applicants proposal has a very limited impact on the adjacent block and staff find that is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use pretty close home and the garage or in scale with the size of these consequently we do recommend approval of the variance subject to the requirement that the applicant submit a construction management plan which is required for all infill bus that would have to widen areas contractors to park make sure that deliveries are able to take place without blocking the road impact on the adjacent neighborhood to accept possible and similar requirements in addition to of course acquiring all their needed permits and with that I would let you know that we did receive letters with this proposal and they are from other property owners in the area Michael Willie Nancy Seyfert at 5550 Shore Road and with that I thank you for your attention this evening thank you dr. darling any questions from the Commission for dr. darling so director Darlene I see that the previous home was intentionally demolished through a control voluntary controlled burn as training exercise for the fire department can you comment on that yes that was last November the applicant worked with our fire department to give them the opportunity to do some training so essentially what they do is they they clear out they make this situation safe so they can control the fire but it also gives the ability for them to start fires within the home and then offer that as live training for the for the firefighters and there was a video that was made and we did held that posted on our website I am not certain if it's still on the website but it was it was interesting to see Thank You Marie your your section there about substandard lots of record I don't number one the lot must be in separate ownership from adjoining properties you tell us where that comes from or or why that's part of the criteria yes essentially when you're looking at a variance application if the applicant owns especially when you're looking at a substandard a lot of record and they own adjacent property that can be consolidated then you have a lot so that is of course the first the first that's the first thing you want to do is to get your get rid of the non-conformities in this case the property owner does have an interest in the property to the east but is not the sole owner does the city make a different differentiation I mean I don't it doesn't say sole ownership or from adjoining properties just says the lot must be in separate ownership so you must feel that that's a differentiator in some way I think that it is different if it was the husband they both owned two adjacent blocks that were next to each other neither one of them met the criteria they would be required both by City requirements and by the DNR to consolidate those two properties so that they would have one conforming lot we have seen a number of those instances in this case the home to the east is owned with a larger family group and that's the reason that the applicant purchased this lot so that she would be maybe she's lived in this area for a long time and wanted to have her own come president this area and she can probably let me explain those reasons okay that's that's awful just just one other question about the in the variant section item 2a or under reasonable it's a little different from what we usually get for a reasonable explanation the applicant has designed a new home to comply with setback requirements that are intended for lots nearly twice the size what are you what are you trying to say they're exactly what's the message behind that statement there just to clarify that the new proposed home does meet other required setbacks yes that's what that means is that the setbacks were intended for Lots that are nearly twice the size of the subject property okay so it's not that the home is twice the size of okay and that that has caused some practical difficulty in this case for the house itself to comply and still don't totally I mean to look a lot small ya know the main thing here is what they're proposing is is that it's just a home on a lot that zoned for residential uses I would say okay and I mean that's what we usually get I wasn't sure what this was trying to yeah so when I read this not only are they complying with the setback but it looks like the submitted plan is also complying with hardcover for all intents and purposes not going to quibble about half a percent but the I guess 5% but they you know they're they're really improving the coverage on the lot even though the lot is significantly smaller than then what a person would be trying to build the size house on I agree it makes the case compelling that what they're proposing is not to build a larger house than what was there before to increase an unconformity but actually to reduce it and I think that's what director Darling meant by the practical difficulties being reasonable they are proposing to build a home of reasonable size given the size of the lot being so small right any more questions oh darling no seeing none I do think I saw an a joist in the meeting if the applicant is here and she'd like to be unmuted or representative raise your hand we'll make sure you get the right one otherwise Greg my chests it's right on YouTube we got some echo here little video you know actually if you turn off the sounds on your computer you're getting feedback through your phone worst-case scenario she can just text her ex I'm not sure if messaging is allowed for the video like this yeah we can hear you know justjust speak clearly and I think we can make this work can you hear us okay so is there anything you'd like to add - director darlings presentation right so I think I got most of that I'll see if I can reiterate to make sure when you got the gist of it you confirm that yes you have family in the area and you like to have your house here you've reduced the setback so you're completely conforming and reduced the other basically echoed what we just said that you've made it a better lot from or a better development than from what it used to be is that an OK paraphrase okay great um any anyone want to have any questions to the applicant if she wants to answer though seeing none thank you for your time we'll move on to discussing the motion or shaping of motion maybe discussing to the Commission any concerns are we gonna open it up to the public oh I think we should do that director darling correct me if I'm wrong we're not required so do public hearing on this but we usually do it yes public testimony is to be taken at the Planning Commission level okay I and I like to make sure everybody in the room has their voice so thank you for that reminder it is 804 and we will open it up to public testimony is there anyone here who would like to click on participants and raise their digital hands and add to the testimony you know mark you can just talk where you music hey cuz I was getting the same message as you thank you I just couldn't I knew myself I don't know why this is a strange feature I don't know if the hosts after I meet myself has to expressly unmute me but yeah it's not a perfect system but it's intentional to make sure one behaves themselves yep agreed agreed no but to eliminate the zoom bombing that's become a problem all right so I'm not seeing any hands I'm sure Greg will keep an eye on any hands and let us know if one comes up but let's move on into discussion amongst Commission I guess formally close the public testimony at 8:05 just for the record we can open it back up with somebody else raises their hand but Oh what if that's I mean I have no concerns like very reasonably thought out this is exactly what variances are intended for when there's a substandard I like this all right let's just note that there's only one condition and that's for the construction management plan do I hear a motion Justin I'll make a motion oh no go ahead I'll make a motion to approve the variance or 2505 Radisson Road subject to the submission of a construction management plan with their building permit application all right let me change it that's recommending approval correct that's what we do all right do I hear a second sure I think the mark feet are on that one so the motion was made by Commissioner Gorham and seconded by Commissioner riedle and any discussion before we go to the votes has seen none do roll call votes Commissioner Gorham High Commissioner Aegon Burgert High Commissioner gulls I mr. Narita l-- i-- ceremony also votes aye motion passes unanimously sheriff I made both of the to pursue items would be on the agenda for April 27th at the City Council meeting thank you moving to our next this is a variance to front setback that's two three one zero zero Summit Avenue when you're ready dr. darling please proceed Thank You mr. chair this application is a request from Clayton tesla's for a variance to the required front setback to allow a home to be constructed seven feet from the front lot line 435 required the part is located at the top of Summit Avenue and all of the adjacent properties are developing single-family homes the property has very steep topography with 60 feet of elevation change from the front along Summit Avenue to the bottom of the lot along Mayflower it's the slope situation that is at the root of the applicants dilemma the further into the lot that he constructs the home the greater the amount of braiding tree removal and retaining walls that are needed his request is to construct a home at seven feet from the front property line where 35 feet would typically be required staff have reviewed the request according to the variance criteria and finds that the applicant has met them special circumstances related to this request are the slopes and the need to construct the home as close to the front property line as possible to reduce the impact on the slopes and the just a physical condition a lot extra-wide right of way in the front of the applicants home phase about 27 feet lot line and the street which reduces the impact on the variance on the surrounding neighborhood the properties to the south of the applicants home and let me put up that location map again over in this area have received variances as well to construct closer to the property line now it wasn't quite as big a variance as what it's proposed here but the slopes are also not as steep as what's proposed as what is existing on the applicant property so [Music] but with those Lots to the south there were conservation easements that were applied the steepest part of the proper cold statute always like to work with the applicant you have a conservation easement applied over the north side like this property where the slopes are the very steepest with that condition staff would conclude that the impact to the public welfare in other plans and improvements in the area would be minimized eliminate and that the request they have necessary to the practical difficulties we therefore recommend approval and staff have received a letter from Brett Johnson the owner of 23 110 Summit Avenue indicating support and that concludes my recent change of the savings all right thank you unique questions for director darling so a few questions mark readable as you know mirror report our city code has specific pursuit of provisions for bluffs definition of bluffs and limitations on constructing the vicinity of Bluffs but bluffs only applied to shore land district properties I understand correctly city policy but not code is to encourage or enforce best management practices that in some sense are similar to those that would be required around a bluff for properties such as this can you comment on city policy and just to say a little bit more about the discussions you've had about the steepness of the slope of the city engineer and the property owner with respect to the development since I think that is the dominant concern here yes well we do have some concerns with the steepness of the slope for the overall grades on the property are at about 28 percent although the north part of the lot which is not proposed for development is even steeper so we would propose to keep the development itself proposed at the the top of the lot they would have to put in erosion control methods which will probably include at least one row of silt fence that that's two and I would leave that for discussions with the applicants engineer as they finalize the design of their stormwater retention Basin on the practicality of putting in the two the two rows of silt fence sorry you said that we had previously granted variances for the homes to the south of this property on Summit Avenue yes they're set back is that correct well its purity flexibility is is what was approved the properties to the self were developed through a Planned Unit development and the further if you look at the home that's directly south with the applicants you can see it's about twenty feet from the property the front property line that right where I have the laser pointer there no yeah and there were less adjustments to the front setback further south and that reflects the increasing steepness the further north well actually if you the aerial photo shows the property further south those three properties that you're showing right there are all in alignment in terms of their setback the two parties the next two properties cells are actually closer to Summit Avenue then those three are so but my question is is I can't tell from how much closer to the street is this proposed house I guess if I was to draw a line following the curve of the street using those three houses to the south and just continue around the street how much closer would this new construction be or would it be closer to the street you know I don't think that I measured out to the constructed street each one of those homes I mean just anecdotally can we say that there's a lot more right-of-way between the street and the property line right at the tip of the curve local subject property yeah there certainly is here's here's the reason for my question is not so much yo its it's closer to the right away but it's not in the right-of-way my question is how is it in keeping with the visual appeal of the other houses that are along the street if you know this this a little bit like the question we had for the Country Club where they were asking for a setback variance but it was in keeping with the profile of the other properties in the neighborhood my question you know that's that's the basis for my question here I guess the answer that I would give is that the right-of-way at the bend in this road is substantially wider than the width of the road in the right-of-way as you know okay so it's so it's every further back is what you're saying okay more to the more like the property to the west of it not that far back obviously but more more like that yeah and I wouldn't point out to you that the homes that are shown in the aerial photo here so these four are in the city of Sherwood and the homes that are further so are within the native Chanhassen that explains it any more questions for director darling all right seeing none is the applicants in the room and if you are would you like to speak yes I would like to address that the last question Melissa Kurtz do I would look from the street let's clear up one thing just so we don't forget just tell us your name and what your address I suppose we can figure it out it's probably 23 107 but clay testing us 23100 some adaption thank you so so in regards to that last question how it would look from the street we were trying to plan something that that coincided with everybody along the street and talking with I believe it was a matte almond that actually looked it up for me and suggested the five to seven feet from the lot line just because that would coincide with other homes on the street on an average of five to seven feet so that would put me at from the road side to the front of the house right at about the same as everybody else down the road okay and also I you know I guess I just want to bring up the one condition that that kind of scares me as far as what you guys were suggesting the conservation easement and I understand it for a large developer to kind of give up something especially in what JMS did by making these Lots so narrow they made it half half as narrow as my lot and so they had to kind of give up something and I understand that but the only thing about me giving up the north side I'm a little bit concerned about that time my hands if there was any issues because I might want to replant something that more stabilizes that hillside where the conservation easement doesn't necessarily let me do that so that's just one thing I wanted to bring up you know I want to work with you guys and make this happen just just a little bit concerned about that is this is this is that the back the north side of a lot is a lot steeper than any of these other Lots in a I guess I don't know who's liable if if I just let it go and let me to play its course whereas if I was in control and didn't have to check with everybody first I believe that I could plant as needed in help to stabilize the hillside more so than than just leaving it run off and even by creating less of a canopy allows some of the the low growth you know indigenous grasses to really grow and help stabilize the soil as well so that's just one thing I wanted to bring out but it is there any other questions that you guys have for me and Mark riddle I didn't quite understand your concern with the conservation easement is it that your concern that perhaps the current your current plan for building a property might change or might not be approved and you may want to actually build into the conservation easement area or is it the details of what the conservation easement would require an entail and your management of the property could you explain a little bit more oh so I I don't so if you have never been out that lot just kind of common sense would tell you that nobody's gonna build on that hillside I won't imagine anybody it's it's just not feasible to build on that north section of a lot but I would like to be able to maybe plant some things that would more stabilize the hillside whereas this conservation easement doesn't really allow me to do anything with it so if the tree falls over and dies on its own it doesn't allow me to replant anything on there really without checking with the city and getting approval in I don't if you guys have anything in place to actually go out and check on it to make sure it's it's thriving in its natural state I couldn't find anything on that but I have no intent of building anything on that backside I don't imagine anybody ever ever would I just wanted people to move forward and address any situation that may come up in the future so just to follow up if I may I'm looking at a copy of what Summit woods LLC did years ago and what you're saying doesn't seem to be in conflict with that contract it doesn't say you can't plant anything it just says you can't cut down anything healthy okay I guess when I was talking with matt baume and he said the whole intent was not to do anything with what's in a Conservation District and to get prior approval for any things that were to be cut down I'll see if I can find it but there was a couple of things I think it sounds like we all kind of want the same thing we just because they we've seen people clear-cut steeper areas and this is I mean this is I'm not you know a developer this is this is from my own home they plan on living there a very long time and that's what I just want to make sure it's protected to the best of my ability you know exactly if there is something in place I didn't find anything in place that you guys would be coming out and checking on it and planting if needed the easement being request and even as such as like outcroppings that's you know that would benefit you know to tear a situation to if needed and this would not allowing you to create tears on that backside and that's something that if me that would be nice to have that option especially if you know mentioned here maybe came up with a plan that stabilized even better besides the plantings he didn't find it no memory can you comment think there was a request can you comment on if we could reword this somehow to make it less restrictive but still get the same point across or what what what are you thinking as far as your recommendation for the conservation easements I was thinking is something fairly similar to what was proposed or what was approved in recorded against the properties and that would be similar to what had attached in the similar to what I put in the packet essentially you couldn't construct anything in the conservation area removal usually only occurs if there is noxious weeds or treat disease it wouldn't mean that if something fell down on its own you couldn't remove it I don't think but it would say that you couldn't do excavation filling control your yard waste in the area out just outside storage like story your junk cars in that area although I don't know how once you start them down the hill I'm not sure to stop until they got to me flower and or other activities that are detrimental to the scenic beauty you know putting in retaining walls that would have a very significant impact but too much of that Northside I would be concerned about tearing that tearing the north side of the lot the director darling short of building a retaining wall what would erosion control measures how would they impact the conservation easement would they be allowed or not and by Road naturally put in there too that the applicant would have means to submit a plan for erosion control if something if some kind of over for being did develop in that area if you want we could continue this item to the next meeting and I could put something together and writing so you can see it before you think I'm ready to keep moving forward you know I don't want to hold it up I just figured if there was something easy that we could handle um you know just leaving it some so you don't want to get delayed and I think we can just say in our recommendation of the council who have again final say on this maybe you could work with director darling before it gets to the council and just kind of clarify that you know a good idea comes out there's a way for you to do it I'm as far as the erosion control is concerned but still keeping in the sense that we want to make sure those anything stays there so we don't get a washout and right so let's yeah let's just kick this down I will keep the process moving forward but if you're willing to work with director darling and maybe council if it comes to it just to kind of clarify what exactly your easement would contain that sounds great okay I guess if I can suggest that maybe to alleviate concerns on both sides that director darling provides mr. Tesla's with with a a depiction of how the easement would apply to his lot specifically and if there's you know to come up with a mutually agreed depth from the back of the water I'm looking at the the other Lots and I don't those other Lots are significantly deeper than this one is so I think the whatever the depth of the easement is has to be substantially less than what was granted on the others for the summit PUD there's took 164 feet off of the back of this lot I think you're gonna have a problem even building the house all right um I guess we're the applicant question anything else you want to say or any questions for the applicants all right thank you we might bring you back a little later for conversation but in fact to move into the public testimony part of the public hearing it is 8:28 and we'll open up for comments anyone who would like to raise their digital hand you push the participant button to the bottom of your screen and the raised hand button and we'll let you speak to the item at hand all right seeing none yet we'll go back into conversation just close close the public testimony down we'll open it up if somebody has a late entry that's at 829 all right back to the Commission discussion and that's on the notion I think we're all in agreement that the front yard setback variance is very reasonable it allows the owner to build closer to the road and so minimizes the impact of that steep hillside I have no issues with that whatsoever and I'm an agreement with the conservation easement it seems like a reasonable requirement given this type of lot and it's in keeping with what the other adjacent homes have agreed to so everything seems consistent illogical here to me my main concern was consistency with other properties and they had received variances for similar slopes summary answered my main question at the beginning but I agree with mark to that I support a conversation like our conservation needs minute it's not a death sentence I think we all want the same thing so if there's a better way to to to maintain the property you know I think that's a future conversation can be had I'm sure the language and the conservation easements you know it doesn't preclude you from planting it says nothing you I think you and in general you can plant as much as you like on your own property it doesn't prohibit you from cutting anything that's dead and it doesn't prevent you from cutting buckthorn or in other ways managing the undergrowth or the understory it simply means that you can't go and start cutting down a healthy trees and other vegetation and you can't you know store store your your are traveese and other other appliances on the property so it all seems very reasonable to me but that said I agree with the discussion we had with the owner if he has specific concerns about managing the erosion on that's that were my property I might I had a similar property to be honest it's a very steep and I do a lot of the erosion control myself I wouldn't want to be constrained in doing that completely I think that I think the concern that's being expressed is that the conservation easement basically says you can't put any man-made structure within the easement and event that there needs to be a retaining wall constructed for erosion control I think is the concern that's being expressed I couldn't imagine if if there was a need for a man-made structure because the home was in danger or something that the city wouldn't it be reasonable in granting some kind of structure to be built if that was the case and we can always add with conversations later add some sort of text in that easement to says you know if it is some minor erosion control project or if it's required or something city gives it approval I mean I don't we need to work all the details out right at the Commission level but I think we're 95% of the way there agreed so just echo what everybody's saying perhaps an additional provision stating that erosion control that doesn't involve structures is permitted and erosion controls that would involve structures such as a retaining wall would require a permit from the city so that in the language for future Planning Commission's suggests that we don't consider that entirely unreasonable it just has to be permitted or approved overproof yeah I agree I think that a retaining wall more than three feet tall would require permit anyways on any property anywhere maybe I'm wrong about that but I think we're all in agreement here so we can continue - I hear emotional I just want to ask a director dialing are you okay with everything that's been said so far I mean you having concerns I just have one clarifying question did you want this easement written up before it would go to the City Council meeting so they would have that in front of them I believe the owners imply that they would like this to keep moving forward oh wait is he saying yes or not yes okay so yeah let's try to get this at least something drafted for the council to take a look at it bare minimum yeah just a minor change to make sure you can do reasonable things with his yard and then you know work with him to put that in words thank you okay I think this item would have to go to the May 11th meeting before that sends the packet is due tomorrow so if we if we just left everything alone what do we be able to be on the 27th meeting as it's written right now yes okay then I guess I'd probably like to just leave it along because it is somewhat written ambiguously anyway for the roughly 50% and a couple of other things as long as you guys are on with me and understanding moving forward I'd like to keep this moving I mean I don't see any reason why anybody would ever want to build there and I don't have a problem with the conservation easement I just want I just wanted to understand where you guys were coming from and you know safety's sake or moving forward for protecting my property but it sounds like everybody's on the same page and that I shouldn't run into an issue so I think I'd be fine with just leaving things alone and I think I think we can do that because the recommendation is for a conservation easement similar to the other one so that that implies that we can make some modifications that are that recognise your concerns it's not exactly I think the issue is that director darling doesn't have enough time to draft up the conservation easement or make any changes before the packet has to go out to the council which is tomorrow so I think it has to go out in its present form the present form does say similar maybe director darling can clear this up can we send it forward with similar and let the council see a similar contract that includes a few concerns or just those contract need to be drafted before a public announcement it's an easement and typically I draft those after approval okay well that makes it even easier then let's say let's do that alright so here motion okay that's when I can make a motion here to recommend the approval of a variance to a front setback for 23100 Summit Avenue and including the recommendations from staff rather than get into each one I second all right the motion was made by was that connected quorum yes seconded by Commissioner Megan burger yes we recommend approval of the request including staff recommendations any discussion on the motion oh don't see none we'll move into a votes Commissioner Gordon aye Commissioner Reagan burger I pushing her go I push needle I was there Maddie also that's high the motion passes unanimously thank you all right just do we need to take a break psycho bouts hour and 40 into it is do I just take five minutes sure we have one more case right I have two more two more cases so let's just take five minutes I want to go hug my kids good night sounds good and we'll we'll reconvene in cr8 843