Loading...
06-05-12 Planning Comm Agenda packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 5 JUNE 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE CHARBONNET (May) ______ GARELICK (Oct) ______ MUEHLBERG (Jul) ______ DAVIS (Aug) ______ GENG (Sep) ______ HASEK (Jun/Nov) ______ HUTCHINS (Dec) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 May 2012  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicants: Mark and Amy Wagner Location: 27785 Island View Road RD 2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3 DRAFT 3. TRAIL PLAN – WALK CO. RD. 19 TRAIL ALIGNMENT (ADJOURN TO SITE) 4. DISCUSSION  Zoning Permits 5. GREENSTEPS STATUS/UPDATE 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 5 June 2012 Page 2 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng (departed at 7:37 P.M.); Commissioners Davis, Garelick, Hasek and Hutchins; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for May 1, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 3, 2012 Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicants: Dale Christensen Location: 5355 Elmridge Circle Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a May 29, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted John Dolan was present on behalf of the applicant who could not be present this evening. Director Nielsen explained Dale Christensen has applied for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to construct accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet on his property located at 5355 Elmridge Circle. The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and it contains 54,546 square feet of area (1.25 acres). Mr. Christensen has an existing garage on his property and he proposes to build a detached, single-story garage at the south end of his property. The new detached garage will have 896 square feet of area. It will bring the total area of accessory structures on the site to 1652 square feet. Therefore, he needs a C.U.P. Nielsen reviewed how the application complies with the criteria for granting a C.U.P for accessory space over 1200 square feet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 2 of 9 1. The total area of accessory buildings (1652 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the existing home (2264 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage addition complies with R-1A/S setback requirements. Proposed hardcover on the property is approximately 18 percent, well below the 25 percent maximum. The new garage will be situated in an existing clearing in the otherwise wooded front of the property. 4. The design and proposed materials for the detached garage are consistent with the architectural character of the existing home. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends the applicant’s request for a C.U.P. be granted as proposed. John Dolan, a builder who would be working with Mr. Christensen on this project, stated he was present because the applicant could not be here this evening. He explained that Mr. Christensen wants to build the additional garage to store lake toys. The applicant intends to plant additional trees near the proposed structure to help buffer it from the neighbors close by. Commissioner Hasek asked if the white stakes on the property show the proposed location of the garage. Mr. Dolan responded they do. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M. Commissioner Garelick commented that to him it appears that property owners in Shorewood want to build additional garages on their properties with some degree of frequency. He asked if it is always a nonconforming situation. Director Nielsen clarified there is nothing nonconforming about this application. But, when accessory space exceeds 1200 square feet of area it does require a C.U.P. Nielsen stated this is probably the most routine zoning action the Planning Commission takes. Commissioner Hasek stated it is his understanding that a C.U.P. is a permitted use with conditions attached to it. He asked Director Nielsen if that is correct. Nielsen explained it has specific conditions prescribed in the City Ordinance. The process also allows the Planning Commission to attach additional reasonable conditions as it sees fit. If the application complies with the criteria set forth in the Ordinance it basically has to be approved. If the structure is quite large conditions of additional landscaping may be imposed to remedy that. Hasek stated the site plan shows the building would be 14 feet from the property line. When he went to the site today he measured it and discovered that one corner of the building would be 12 feet from the property line. Although 12 feet is acceptable it is a deviation from what is shown on the plan. He then stated he would prefer to see the structures surveyed in for these types of requests in the future. He wants to know exactly where the building will be located; he doesn’t just want to be presented with a sketch. He also wants the sketch to be legible. He also thought it should show all buildings on adjacent properties. In addition he wants to see the locations of significant trees shown. He went on to state there is a tree (he thought Linden) that would sit 10 feet behind the back and center of where the proposed garage would be and if the tree is going to be preserved 10 feet will not be far enough. He recommended the application be recommended for Council approval subject to moving the proposed garage 10 farther to the west away from the property line and tree. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 3 of 9 Chair Geng asked Mr. Dolan if he thought moving the garage per Commissioner Hasek’s recommendation would cause any problem or result in any additional expense for the applicant. Mr. Dolan stated he thought the location arrived at was to keep the garage in an area that wouldn’t be in a site line in front of Mr. Christensen’s house. Mr. Dolan then stated the placement was also determined with the goal of trying to preserve trees. He noted that the applicant took a number of things into consideration when deciding on the proposed location. Mr. Hasek explained why he thought it would be difficult to preserve the roots of the Linden tree if the building is constructed in the proposed location. He noted he thought the tree should be preserved. Mr. Dolan explained an effort was made to keep the proposed garage away from a larger Linden tree in order to preserve it. Commissioner Hasek stated he, as a landscape architect, would save the tree that would end up behind the garage before the larger split Linden tree. Mr. Dolan asked if there is room to compromise on the 10 feet. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought he already compromised on the distance to move the garage away from the tree; a total distance of 20 feet from the tree. He thought it should really be 30 feet from the tree. Mr. Dolan again reiterated that Mr. Christensen was more concerned about the other tree. Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Dolan if the apron in front of the proposed garage will be blacktopped similar to the rest of the driveway. Mr. Dolan responded that he thought that Mr. Christensen was going to blacktop it, while noting Mr. Christensen has a lot of pavers on site and maybe he will try to utilize them as a border. Director Nielsen noted that when the hardcover calculations were done the assumption was it would be a hard surface. Hutchins asked if shortening the apron to accommodate Commissioner Hasek’s recommendation would cause any problem. Hutchins stated it would be helpful to know where major trees are located. Mr. Dolan stated the neighbors to the east had no problem with the plan as submitted. Chair Geng stated he shares Commissioner Hasek’s concern about conserving trees. It is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the Planning Commission would have to continue the public hearing if it requires the building be built 10 feet farther to the west. Director Nielsen stated the hearing would not have to be continued; it is within the ground rules for a C.U.P. Geng noted that Mr. Dolan had stated that the neighbor to the east had indicated support for this application based on where the proposed location of the garage was to be. He questioned if that neighbor may have concern if the garage is moved to the west which results in him having a more prominent view of the garage from his home. Commissioner Hasek stated Mr. Dolan has indicated that the applicant is going to plant additional trees to screen the view from the neighbors to the east. Mr. Dolan stated he agreed with Chair Geng. He then stated the closest neighbor is under the assumption that the building will be built at the proposed location. The neighbor may have attended this meeting if he thought the building would have to be located farther to the west. Director Nielsen stated two things could happen tonight. One is the hearing could be continued to allow the neighbor and the applicant the opportunity to address the Planning Commission about the relocation of the building. The other is to recommend approval of the C.U.P. subject to the building being located farther to the west and subject to the approval of the property owner to the east. Chair Geng noted that the property owner to the east would have the opportunity to be heard when the City Council considers this application. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Dolan if he does all of his designs by hand. Mr. Dolan responded he does. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for the property located at 5355 Elmridge Circle subject to locating the proposed garage an additional eight feet to the west so the northeast corner of the building would be 20 feet from the property line and approximately 20 feet from an approximate 30 inch Linden tree. Motion passed 5/0. Mr. Dolan asked who is responsible for notifying the property owner to the east of the condition of approval. Director Nielsen explained the property owners to the east were notified of the public hearing this evening. To date they have not commented on the application. Nielsen stated the City will send a letter to those property owners telling them the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the C.U.P. subject to moving the proposed location as specified in the motion. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. Chair Geng departed at 7:37 P.M. He turned control of the meeting over to Acting Chair Hutchins. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Planning Commission should talk about having, at a minimum, boundary locations and possibly surveys going forward. She then stated if a hand drawn survey like the one included in the application is all there is there needs to be more accurate information submitted with it. She went on to state in this instance the abutting property owners are supportive but when the property turns over the new owners may have issues. Director Nielsen stated the applicants did have a survey and they knew where the boundary line was. The hand drawing did not accurately reflect the location of the building. Commissioner Hasek stated if a person is going to construct a $30,000 – $40,000 structure on their property then requiring them to spend an additional $1,000 – $2,000 for a survey isn’t an unreasonable request. Commissioner Davis stated the survey would then be available for the future. Davis commented you can find surveyors to do the work for $500. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on the site plan submitted it is difficult to know where the boundary line of the property is and where the building will be located. He also would like to know where major trees are located near proposed structures on site plans similar to this. He then stated he thought the plans for the apron should have been noted on the site plan. He went on to state the applicant, or builder, could have done a few things to the plan to make it easier for the Planning Commission to evaluate. Director Nielsen stated in the future Staff will require more up to date surveys and more legible site plans. The requirements for showing major trees on the plans are stipulated in the City’s Ordinance. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVISING THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP REGARDING MINESOTA STATE AID ROUTES Acting Chair Hutchins opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a future Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen noted that this is a housekeeping matter. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 5 of 9 Director Nielsen explained that cities with populations of over 5000 are eligible for Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funding. Therefore, Shorewood is eligible. MSA money comes from the sales taxes generated by the sale of gasoline. Based on the number of miles of City streets, Shorewood qualifies to have approximately 20 percent of those miles in the MSA system. That amounts to 9.5 miles of streets. He displayed a copy of the Transportation Map included in the City’s Comprehensive Plan which shows the City’s MSA routes. Nielsen then explained MSA routes need to loop with another MSA route in a city, connect to a county or state aid highway, or connect to an MSA route in an adjoining city. In the past there was an allowance for an MSA route to go to the boundary of a city and not connect to another MSA route. Nielsen went on to explain that over time, as new street miles are added in the City, the total number of MSA miles increases. The City Engineer has refined the measurement of street miles in the City which resulted in additional MSA miles. The Engineer has proposed modifications to the MSA routes. The proposed modifications are as follows.  Birch Bluff Road and Eureka Road (north) will be added to the map.  Apple Road will be added to the map.  Grant Lorenz Road will be removed from the map.  Galpin Lake Road will be added as a future MSA route.  Excelsior Boulevard will be removed as a future MSA route. Nielsen commented that most of these MSA routes will never see any MSA funding because they are not built or will not be redeveloped to MSA standards. Nielsen explained that although the above changes are considered to be a “housekeeping measure”, they do require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which in turn requires a public hearing to present the proposed amendment. After the City Council has approved the amendment it will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. Staff anticipates that this item will be processed as a minor amendment, foregoing the need to route the amendment to adjoining cities and affected agencies. He noted the MSA division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has already approved the changes. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of this amendment to the Transportation Plan map which will be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chair Hutchins asked what the rational is for removing Excelsior Boulevard as an MSA route. Director Nielsen explained he thought it was because it doesn’t connect with any other route in the City. Commissioner Hasek asked if there any County State Aid roads in the City. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure. Hasek stated he plans to meet with the City Engineer to talk about MSA designations and he invited other Planning Commissioners to join him. He stated he hopes that the City Council wants to be smart enough about this and that they know what the criteria are for designating routes as MSA as well as what the possibilities are. He indicated it is possible that the Planning Commission may take a different approach to MSA designations than engineering does. He asked if there is a stipulation that MSA routes connect schools to residential neighborhoods. Nielsen stated there is not, noting he thought the assumption is that MSA routes would be higher traveled streets such as collector streets. Nielsen again explained they have to be wider streets. He noted the City has narrower roads. There was ensuing discussion between Commissioner Hasek and Director Nielsen about MSA roads in general. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 6 of 9 Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Hutchins opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Garelick moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan related to municipal state aid routes. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Hutchins closed the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M. 3. ZONING PERMITS Director Nielsen explained that during its April 6, 2010, meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code that would establish a system of “zoning permits” for items that the City has rules and regulations for but does not require a permit for. (A copy of the excerpt of the meeting minutes for that discussion is included in the meeting packet.) For example, the City processes fence permits as building permits even though the building code does not address anything less than six feet in height. A permit is not required for a driveway, yet the City has hardcover and setback requirements that apply. The Commission recommended approval of an amendment establishing a system of zoning permits on a 4/2 vote. The City Council considered the amendment during its April 26, 2010, meeting and the amendment died for lack of a motion. (A copy of the excerpt of the meeting minutes for that discussion is included in the meeting packet.) Nielsen commented the City of Chanhassen has a small brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one. (A copy of that brochure is included in the packet also.) Nielsen explained that a couple of Planning Commissioners wanted this item to be reconsidered. Therefore, it is on the Commission’s 2012 work program. He noted Staff continues to believe that this would be a valuable tool for enforcing the City’s Zoning Code. Nielsen stated that within about two weeks of Council not taking action on the zoning permit system amendment there was an instance where a zoning permit would have helped. A property owner put in a driveway that went over the property line. Commissioner Davis stated she stands by her original perspective that this would be micromanagement. She questioned if there are many people putting in very large patios and sidewalks. Director Nielsen commented no one really knows. Commissioner Hasek stated that is the problem; no one knows if there is a problem and the problem usually arises when another property is impacted. He indicated he doesn’t think micromanagement in this case would be a problem. He stated he doesn’t think there is a reason not to require zoning permits. Commissioner Garelick commented the City of St. Louis Park has a brochure that explains zoning. He stated he thought requiring these permits could prevent problems from happening. He also thought it would help maintain a better community. He then stated he highly recommends implementing a zoning permit system. Acting Chair Hutchins asked if the current City Council has the same membership as in 2010. Commissioner Davis stated it does not. Director Nielsen explained there are two different Councilmembers. Nielsen noted that he had been reminded that this had been turned down by Council once. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Hasek expressed his displeasure that Council did not even make a motion about the zoning permit system proposed Code amendment. He stated from his perspective that at a minimum a motion should have been made and then it could have failed and conveyed Council’s lack of support for it. He indicated that he thought that was a little shortsighted by the then Council. Acting Chair Hutchins asked if Staff has any indication of what the current Council’s thoughts are about this matter. He questioned if the Planning Commission and Staff should spend more time working on something similar to present to Council if Council has no intention of supporting it. Director Nielsen stated if there is Planning Commission consensus that this should be implemented this could be added to the agenda for the June 11, 2012, joint meeting with the Council prior to holding another public hearing. Acting Chair Hutchins stated boundaries are important. He then stated he installed a fence by permit on both sides of his property (it was surveyed and staked) and after the fact he found out the adjoining property owners had both installed invisible fences on his property. The alarms no longer worked. He noted invisible fences are not included on the old list of items that would require a zoning permit. Director Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission review the 2010 list of items proposed to require a zoning permit and decide if there is something on the list that seems onerous that should be taken off of the list. Commissioner Hasek cited an example about issues with playground structures on two properties abutting his. Council Liaison Hotvet noted she was not on the Council in 2010. She stated it would be helpful to her to receive examples of what other cities do; cities of similar age and build out and so forth. She went on to state there is a point when there is enough permitting and regulation. Commissioner Davis suggested that prior to the joint meeting with Council the Planning Commissioners develop a list of things that they agree with and disagree with. She then stated maybe the Commissioners could find some middle ground. Commissioner Hasek stated if an applicant was required to plant screening as part of the approval for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to build an accessory structure he asked if a new buyer of the property could cut down the screening. Director Nielsen stated they could but if it became an issue and if the City found out about it the landscaping would have to be restored because the C.U.P. goes with the property. Hasek stated if the City required a permit to cut down trees (something he advocates) he asked if that would make the City aware of the plan to cut the landscaping down prior to it being done. Nielsen explained a tree ordinance would deal with significant trees; not landscaping. Commissioner Davis stated she thought tree removal coincides with finding out what significant trees are and naming them. Those specific trees could and should be protected. She then stated if the topic of zoning permits is going to be discussed during the joint work session with Council she suggested it start earlier than 6:00 P.M. because the Smithtown Crossing Study is also going to be discussed. Director Nielsen stated he will ask Council about an earlier start time. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 8 of 9 5. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Garelick stated the Planning Commission spent a lot of time discussing electronic dynamic signs. He asked if that has ever been resolved by Council. Director Nielsen explained Council approved the ordinance per the Commission’s recommendation. Nielsen noted there have been / or will be three requests for that. 6. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Garelick stated he had volunteered to be a mediator between two property owners and they eventually resolved their disagreement. He went on to say that often he stops in at businesses in the City and asks them what we can do for them. The previous week he was at Tinos Pizza and the owner asked him what the process for getting a beer and wine license is. Nielsen suggested Garelick speak with the Deputy Clerk to get that information. Garelick asked if that is difficult to get. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Planning Commission’s government training session has been scheduled. Director Nielsen responded that it has not and it will likely happen in June or July. Hasek offered to go on site visits for applications with the Planning Commissioners to help them while noting he has some experience with doing site plan reviews. Hasek commented that he drove existing and proposed MSA routes in the City prior to this meeting and he found that to be helpful. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are at least three items on the June 5, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. One is for a setback variance. There will be discussion about a third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Study Report that incorporates the changes the Commission has discussed. He asked if the Commission wants to see a draft ordinance about an accessory apartment Ordinance amendment before holding a public hearing on it. There was Commission consensus to see the draft first. Nielsen stated he will have a draft available for this meeting. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Acting Chair Hutchins gave a brief report on the April 9 and April 23, 2012, City Council meetings. • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition session. The speaker was Ray Harris, a developer. She bought the speaker’s book titled “Why Not?”. She highlighted a couple of things from his book. She offered to share it with the other Commissioners when she is done reading it. She suggested getting a copy of Mr. Harris’s presentation if it wasn’t too costly. Council Liaison Hotvet suggested inviting some business owners to the joint work session with Council to discuss the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Study Report. Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission started that study process with business owners. • Other Commissioner Hasek stated he stopped by the Christmas Lake launch site earlier in the day. There was a Department of Natural Resources inspector at the launch site. He indicated he spoke with her for about an hour. He commented things such as canoes and kayaks are inspected. He stated he asked the inspector if CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 1, 2012 Page 9 of 9 an owner of a property fronting on Christmas Lake takes their kayak to another water body and then immediately puts it into the Lake could zebra mussels be transported into the Lake that way. She responded they could. Director Nielsen explained the Christmas Lake Association is well aware of that possibility and it has been very proactive in this effort. Hasek also asked her if waterfowl can transport zebra mussels. The inspector indicated to him it would be a very rare possibility. Director Nielsen stated he gives the Association a lot of credit for stepping up to fund 100 percent of the inspections at the Lake. 9. ADJOURNMENT Garelick moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 1, 2012, at 8:36 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -6927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us . dtyhaI1@d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 May 2012 RE: Wagner, Mark and Amy - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (12.06) BACKGROUND Mark and Amy Wagner own the property at 27785 Island View Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to convert their existing garage into additional living space and then add a new two -car garage in front of it. They have requested a setback variance to build the new garage closer than 50 feet from the easement for the street (see Site Survey — Exhibit B, attached). Their contractor, Mr. Bill Wurms, has explained the request in Exhibit C. The property is located the R -1A/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district and contains 21,659 square feet of area. Island View Road, the street on which the property is located, is a private road located on its own platted lot. That lot was platted as a half cul -de -sac, which was never constructed (referred to as a "paper street "). The proposed garage will be approximately 36.5 feet from the are of the cul -de -sac. The R -IA District requires a 50 -foot setback. Exhibit D shows the proposed floor plan with the new garage addition relative to the setbacks. While the structure is more than 50 feet from the straight portion of the street, it is 13.5 closer to the cul -de -sac than what is required. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits E and F. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION As you are aware, the standard for the consideration of variances was changed recently from a demonstration of "hardship" to one of "practical difficulties ". Following is how the request confonns to the new variance standard: ® S ���® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Wagner Variance 30 May 2012 The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The home, even with the added space, is relatively modest compared to other homes on the block. The proposed bedroom additions and new garage is considered to be a reasonable use of the property. 2. The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. The Code requires a 50 foot setback. The applicants wish to be 36.5 feet from the cul -de- sac. 3. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The cul -de -sac was never built and, due to the topography on the north side of the street, it will likely not be built where it was platted. Although closer to the road than the house to the east, it is farther from the street than the house to the west. Since the garage is well back of the straight portion of the road (approximately 58 feet) the resulting green space is considered to be consistent with the open space requirements in the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. 4. The ordinance creates "practical difficulties" in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a)reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a. Addressed in 1. above. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. The "paper cul -de -sac " is extremely unique in Shorewood. As mentioned above, the location of a cul -de -sac, if the owners on Island View Road ever decided to build it, would be better at the west end of the street. C. Again, as mentioned above, the home is relatively modest for the neighborhood. The proposed location of the garage addition is in line with the two homes adjoining the subject property. In light of the analysis above, the proposed plans are considered to have merit, and approval of the variance is recommended. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Mark and Amy Wagner Bill Wurms -2- m f \ / O t- "V Z) X l�I� N 'g � o � r. \ _ I r X X o ' rn Y) E ) CQ -- x-- -_ - -_� 8 'OU I f t O l � G? r � N - -�35 w N lo .� ------- - - - - -- , O / X a rn - �' / o f tre _ m_ e _. - ,, I t "3 X p/ - m �� i _ _ L t� c � I p� L� o, � - �`��11 C;,; - -� - -- -r l N L m 41.4 � �.X C> k - - - -- �-- --------- - - -� -- o m uNi p 09 X 33Ar_ X n'�� �j ° �• �d dt 0 7hre v$.1 X s„ rn o 9 X door <r X- ' p i I� rn c� M] {Y M 8 ' Y �� X �� b W �`O - --- 50---- -- -rT- -- t` R rn n z N 1 nr� , v )f _ rn i N o> m i LO N , I L,' v� , 11 N , A ' V p 4� L rn I f A i v M I N C4 I IJC F - ZP n X \ X cn X O X a4 = // 4� N u x N o (on p m 'I!) '/O N N N N .9 p0 O �'� r II iz N � O '� rn O Z 1� p w i I 1 I p cp 0 f'") p ri C anijg snout M18- ° L � N cz cq rn M ! rn Oj X m X � N Ln X ar m O .O . / �Q l ,\X X }) V / _Ed e of tre X o 3 - -- - - - rn O5 F -- N rn CN ? _ - X U) - - ne s - Pole - o I utility6 - - - LPo�er- X / d he ld "- X I X��� f i X F� 1 O .. s e m X Ak C X - - r f �, X ode` - �` O - o a w w a 0 Exhibit B SITE SURVEY BayChffHomes architecture : design : build G.C. #BC454492 Date: 5/1/12 Project Location: Mark & Amy Wagner 27785 Island View Rd. Shorewood, MN. 55331 Background: The Wagner's will have purchased 27785 Island View Rd. this May. After growing up in the area they were enthusiastic to purchase in Shorewood. The existing home was built in the 70's and is in good condition, but the current plan does not reflect the unique needs of their current life styles. So we have considered altering the floor plan to reflect their current life style, after numerous schemes we decided on adding on a 26' (deep) x 26' (wide) garage north of the existing garage and using the existing garage space for house program expansion. After reviewing the site envelope -(side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks) and considering the house floor plan it was determined to expand the garage towards Island View. This allowed the existing bedrooms in the rear of the house to maintain there egress requirements per IRC and Minnesota residential building codes. Unique Circumstances: What is unique to this property is the "Paper" cul -da -sac, which does not exist and is only graphically depicted on 27785 Island View Rd., thus incomplete in its proposed existence. This directly effects our front yard setback. If this "Paper " -Cul da -sac did not exist we would meet the 50 foot front yard setback. It should also be noted that the grade north of island view and adjacent to the "Paper" cul -da -sac would not permit a complete circle, if not for major grading /retaining walls. We also believe this sets no precedent in the neighborhood, since we are still within the 50 foot front yard setback, if we were to draw a line parallel to Island View Rd. or north property line. 17809 Hutchins Dr. Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phor Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 1 May 2012 G.C. #BC454492 Conclusion: All properties within 500 feet 27785 Island View Rd. contain single family homes with attached garages. The reasonable use of 27785 Island View Rd. is for a single family home with an attached garage. The "Paper" cul -da -sac is unique to only this property. The zoning requirements of 27785 Island View Rd. for construction of a garage addition to an existing single family home cannot be met without a front yard setback - variance. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor will it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed home will blend in with the existing homes in the neighborhood and the requested variance is consistent with preexisting standards in the neighborhood; therefore, we believe our variance does not alter the character of the locality. We respectively request the following: 1 -We are asking for a front yard setback of 36.5' from the "Paper" cul -da -sac. Thanks for your consideration Frank "Bill" Worms ALA,NCARB, LEED, BATC 17809 Hutchins Dr. Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 401 -8830 Fax (952) 401 -8100 � . ©� Exhibit D PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 May 2012 RE: Trail Plan – County Road 19 Trail Segment Update and Trail Walk FILE NO. Comp Plan (Trail Plan) One of the items on next Tuesday’s agenda is a discussion of the status of the plans for the County Road 19 trail segment. In addition to an update on the plans, we propose that the Planning Commission physically walk the trail (part of our trail planning process). This helps to better visualize issues associated with the design of various trail segments. Our intent is to adjourn the meeting to the site, reconvene the meeting for the trail walk, adjourn the meeting back to City Hall, reconvening to continue the meeting. I can take four (friendly) people in my vehicle. Perhaps someone else could drive four people so as to keep the number of cars down. While it is not a long walk, you may wish to wear comfortable clothes and shoes, which is always good advice! Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Laura Hotvet