Loading...
08-06-13 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 6 AUGUST 2013 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 July 2013 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GARELICK (Aug) LABADIE (Sep) MADDY (Jul) MUEHLBERG (Jun) DAVIS (Mar) GENG (Apr) CHARBONNET (May) 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. FOR AUTOMOBILE DETAIL SERVICE Applicant: Lucky's Gas Station Location: 24365 Smithtown Road 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO. FT Applicant: Ben Duininck Location: 22490 Murray Street 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Tommy Wartman, Jr. Location: 5985 Eureka Road 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Robert Shaffer (Smith Residence) Location: 448 Lafayette Avenue 5. NOISE ORDINANCE Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 6 August 2013 Page 2 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 9. REPORTS Liaison to Council SLUC Other 10. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2013 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:22 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Garelick (arrived at 7:22 P.M.), Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis and Labadie APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Nielsen asked to remove life cycle housing from the agenda because he does not have anyone lined up to talk to the Planning Commission about this yet. Garelick moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the agenda for July 2, 2013, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2013 Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Jeff and Jennifer Ische Location: 25365 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He noted that the Planning Commission is an advisory body only. He stated this evening the Commission is going to consider a request for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Jeff and Jennifer Ische, 25365 SmithtoN -,n Road. He noted Mr. Ische is present this evening. He explained that this item Nvill go before the City Council on July 22, 2013. Director Nielsen explained the Isches oN -,n the property located at 25365 SmithtoN -,n Road. The property is zoned R -lA, Single - Family Residential and contains approximately 87,346 square feet of area. The applicants are proposing to build a second detached garage on their property. The new garage Nvould be located on the Nvest side of the loop driveway. The floor area of the new garage when combined Nvith the Isches' existing detached garage and utility shed brings the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. That requires a C.U.P. under the City's Zoning Code. The existing house is a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 2of9 Nvallcout rambler Nvith approximately 3000 square feet of floor area above grade. The existing garage, located on the east side of the lot, contains 737 square feet of floor area. The utility shed located farther back on the property contains 151 square feet. The new garage Nvill be located in a small clearing north of the house just over 60 feet back from the street. It Nvill contain 900 square feet (30 feet by 30 feet), which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1637 square feet. Regarding the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He noted if an applicant's C.U.P. request complies Nvith the four criteria it is basically treated as a zoning permit. It does get the extra scrutiny of a public hearing and approval of the City Council. He reviewed how the applicants' proposal complies Nvith the Code criteria. 1. The total area of accessory space (1637 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (3000 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- lA zoning district (0.10 x 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). The proposed garage and the existing house comply Nvith the setback requirements of the R -IA zoning district. The new garage Nvill be approximately 27 feet from the Nvest side of the property N-,-here only 10 feet is required. It Nvill be approximately 62 feet from the front of the lot where only 50 feet is required. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping are not considered to be issues in this request. Although a couple of existing trees Nvill be removed to accommodate the new garage, it Nvill remain Nvell screened from both the street and adjoining properties. 4. The materials and design of the new garage Nvill be consistent Nvith the character of the existing house and garage. It Neill be a clone of the existing detached garage. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case staff recommends the C.U.P. be granted as requested. Mr. Ische clarified the existing garage contains 585 square feet of area (it is 24 feet by 24.4 feet). The neN-, garage Nvill have 960 square feet of area (it ��ll be 30 feet ��de by 32 feet deep but the surveyor N-,-rote doN -,n 30 feet by 30 feet). That Neill increase the total area of accessory space to 1697 square feet. Commissioner Maddy asked Director Nielsen to explain how total floor area above grade is calculated. Nielsen explained floor area above grade is whatever is above grade. For a rambler it is the main floor above grade. For a Nvallc out one half of it is counted. Director Nielsen explained that entire ordinance is intended to maintain scale. Seeing no one present to comment on the case Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for the property located at 25365 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JuIv 2, 2013 Page 3of9 3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REGULATIONS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. He noted the same procedures as described above Nvill be folloNved. Director Nielsen explained that during its March 25, 2013, meeting Council approved an ordinance establishing zoning permits. Fences Nvere one of the items to be covered by that ordinance. Fences six feet high or higher currently require a building permit. Fences Nvere removed from the zoning permit ordinance because Council thought it prudent for the Planning Commission to look at the general requirements for fences in entirety. Also, during Council's discussion there Nvas a question as to whether or not an 18- inch -high N-dre fence around a garden area Nvould require a zoning permit. Nielsen reviewed the changes proposed to Section 1201.03 Subd. 21 Fences — general requirements. They are the changes the Planning Commission discussed during its June 4, 2013, meeting. Item (1) permit required Nvas changed to read "No person, firm or corporation shall construct or erect any fence without first securing a zoning permit." It had read building permit. The folloNving Nvas added "Exception: No permit is required for interior yard fences used for landscaping, gardening or decoration, provided the fence does not exceed four feet in height and is at least 50% open." Item 9(a)(iv) Nvas changed to read " S'ublect to other restrictions within this section, fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side yard property line, but not on side yard property lines abutting a street, from the rear lot line to the required front yard setback line;". Item 9(a)(vi) Nvas changed to read "All boundary line fences over four feet in height in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open; ". Item 9(b)(1) Nvas changed to read "Any fence erected within any portion of the required front yard shall not exceed four feet in height." Commissioner Maddy asked if Item 9(b)(111) which reads "Chain link or woven wire fences (without slat screens, canvas or other screening material opaque in nature) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other recreational purposes shall not exceed ten feet in height." is in conflict Nvith Item 9(b)(1) above Nvith regard to the four foot height restriction. Director Nielsen noted tennis courts cannot be constructed Nvithin the required front yard. Maddy asked what someone Nvould need to do to be able to construct a ten - foot -high fence around a tennis court in a back yard. For example, Nvould it require a conditional use permit (C.U.P.)? Nielsen explained the City has not traditionally required a C.U.P. for fences around tennis courts. Director Nielsen stated Item 11 which reads "Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit." is somewhat vague; it's a catchall provision. He does not like a provision that references a C.U.P. Nsithout conditions. That is usually not a good idea. He recommended either deleting Item 11 or adding conditions to it. He also recommended leaving Item 9(b)(111) as proposed. Council Liaison Woodruff stated if Item 11 is stricken and someone does Nvant a fence for a special purpose he asked how that Nvould be processed. Director Nielsen stated it Nvould be processed as a variance. Woodruff stated he thought handling it as a variance Nvould be better than inventing conditions for a C.U.P. Director Nielsen commented that he has been speaking Nvith someone who Nvants a taller fence because of the topography of his property. He stated he agreed that Item 11 should be deleted and special purpose fences be handled as a variance. Variances do deal Nvith unique situations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 4of9 Commissioner Maddy asked if it Nvould also make sense to delete "shall not exceed ten feet in height" in Item (9)(b)(111). Director Nielsen stated people do Nvant higher fences around tennis courts or sport courts. Council Liaison Woodruff asked how many applications for tennis courts the City receives. Director Nielsen responded not a lot; maybe one a year. Commissioner Maddy suggested adding to Item (9)(b)(111) the clarification "shall be allowed up to ten feet" so it is clearly understood that fences up to ten feet in height are alloNved around tennis courts or other recreational surfaces. Commissioner Muehlberg thought that Nvould be redundant. Director Nielsen agreed Nsith that. Chair Geng asked if Item 11 could be changed to be by issue of a variance rather than a C.U.P. Director Nielsen reiterated that he Nvould like to delete Item 11. In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated interior yard is defined in the Code. Commissioner Maddy asked if the City regulates the planting of trees as fences. Director Nielsen responded no and added there are residents who Nvish the City did. He clarified there is an exception for that at street corners. It stipulates Nvithin a 30 -foot site triangle vegetation cannot exceed thirty inches in height. Maddy explained he Nvould need an agreement Nvith his neighbor to construct a four - foot -high fence Nvithin eight feet of his property line yet he could plant fifty- foot -high pine trees all the Nvay doom. Nielsen stated landscaping is encouraged and in many cases it is required, and man -made structures are regulated. Nielsen then stated if the Planning Commission Nvants to take that up it can be added to the Commission's Nvork program, but he does not recommend holding this up for that. Chair Geng stated the interior fence definition is found in Section 1201.02 on page 1201 -9 There Nvas consensus to delete Item 11. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he feels pretty good about the amended ordinances for fences — general provisions. Seeing no one present Nvanting to comment on this case Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code text amendment relative to fences subject to deleting Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.f.(11). Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that Council Nsill consider the Planning Commission's recommendation about this during its July 22, 2013, meeting. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR BICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS Applicant: James Steinwand Location: 5680 County Road 19 The applicant Nvithdrew this item prior to this meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JuIv 2, 2013 Page 5of9 5. DISCUSSION Noise Ordinance (Revised Draft) Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has been discussing a possible noise ordinance for quite some time — most recentIv off and on since the Commission's October 2, 2012, meeting. During that meeting there Nvas a great deal of discussion about an individual who oN -,ns property over on Hillendale Road who is extremely inconsiderate of his neighbors Nvith respect to noise. The draft ordinance amendment is intended to address activities that generate noise by defining reasonable hours during which that can be done. He commented that these types of codes are generally N ritten for a relatively small group of people (e.g., a person who mows their laN -,n at 11:00 P.M.). He stated that the noise ordinance Nvill help address the Hillendale Road situation by limiting hours of operation somewhat. Nielsen then explained that from the beginning staff has tried to make the draft noise ordinance similar to other South Lake cities' ordinances; in particular the City of Excelsior's. That ordinance is quite concise. Although the City may not have a code addressing construction hours, it does have a policy limiting the hours of occurrence. When a commercial builder pulls a permit from the City they are advised that construction hours are from 7:00 A.M. — 7:00 P.M. on Nveekdays, 8:00 A.M. — 6:00 P.M. on Saturdav, and no construction is allowed on Sundays. Nielsen noted that the hours agreed upon during the Planning Commission's June 4, 2013, meeting are reflected in the revised noise ordinance (a copy of which is included in the meeting packet). He also noted that because this is not a land use code it does not require a public hearing. He then noted that when someone in Shorewood calls the police department about a noise issue the police note that Shorewood does not have a noise ordinance. Commissioner Garelick asked if anyone has spoken Nvith the oN -,ner of the property on Hillendale Road about N-,-h-,- he is so inconsiderate of his neighbors. Director Nielsen stated that allegedly that individual has told the oN -,ners of the properties on each side of his that he ultimately Nvants to buy their properties. Nielsen explained that a noise ordinance generally doesn't address the person who Nvants to irritate people. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that the exception in Subd. 20 (a)(1) Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations — Recreational Vehicles only addresses snov'mobiles en route to or from trails or a lake. In his neighborhood there are a number of people who ride three wheelers or four wheelers onto the lake. Director Nielsen suggested changing it to include other recreational vehicles as Nvell. Woodruff then stated that in that same provision the hours of operation are limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. There are people who go out on the lake late at night and he Nvondered how they Nvould feel about that restriction. Woodruff then stated in Subd. 20 (a)(2) Domestic PoNver Equipment does not specify that the hour restrictions are limited to exterior use. That Nvould mean a person could not use a drill in their home during other hours. He suggested clarifying in the purpose of the noise ordinance that it applies to exterior noise. Director Nielsen indicated he agreed Nvith that suggestion. Woodruff then stated he thought the 9:00 A.M. start for hours of operation on a Nveekend or holiday Nvas too late on Saturday and suggested 7:30 A.M. Nvould be more reasonable. Woodruff also stated that a stop time of 9:00 P.M. Nvould be irritating to him. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he has been using a miter saw outdoors and he does not even consider using it before 8:30 — 9:00 A.M. because there are people who like to sleep in on the Nveekend. And, in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 6of9 the nicer Nveather months they may have their Ns ndows open. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he Nvas okay Nvith leaving the hours of operation as is in Subd. 20 (a)(2) and then Council can decide what it thinks. He suggested adding an exemption for emergency generators to this provision. Commissioner Maddv stated in Subd. 20 (b)(2) Emergency Nvork exempted states "The term "emergency work" means activities that are necessary to protect or preserve lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm, including work that is necessary to restore a public service or to eliminate a public hazard." He thought that Nvould cover generators. Council Liaison Woodruff agreed that Nvould cover generators. Director Nielsen stated after the last storm there Nvere backup generators running and the City did not receive any complaints about that. People understand the need. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Subd. 20 (d)(1) Enforcement duties states "... The City Administrator or its designees may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this article." He asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this. He questioned if it Nvould be okay for someone to go onto private property Nvithout being given permission from the oovrer. Director Nielsen clarified it Nvould not. Nielsen explained the process Nvould be the same as for a complaint and that requires an administrative Nvarrant or permission from the oovrer. The only time the City can go onto private property N ithout an administrative Nvarrant or permission from the oNsner is if there is some imminent danger such as someone screaming. Woodruff recommended the City Attornev review this provision. Director Nielsen noted the City Attornev Nvill review the entire ordinance and specifically provision Subd. 20 (d)(1) Enforcement duties. Commissioner Maddy asked if the language Nvas taken from Excelsior's ordinance. Director Nielsen responded he is sure it Nvas. Chair Geng agreed Nvith Council Liaison Woodruff s suggestion to have the City Attorney review the provision. Director Nielsen explained the Citv's policy is if a property oNsner states they do not Nvant City staff to come onto their property they don't. Director Nielsen stated he Nvill make the changes talked about, he Nvill ask the City Attorney to review the entire ordinance and then it Nvill be placed on the Planning Commission's August 6 meeting for consideration. The changes include clarifying that the ordinance Nvas for exterior activities and that the hourly exception for recreational vehicles in Subd. 20(a)(1) Nvill be expanded to include snov mobiles and other recreational vehicles. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he lives about 500 — 600 feet from the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka and he likes to go out on the Lake at 6:00 A.M. sometimes to go fishing and sometimes he Nvill stay out there until 10:00 — 11:00 P.M. Yet, the hourly exception for recreational vehicles en route to or from trails or a lake in Subd. 20(a)(1) are 7:00 A.M. — 10:00 P.M Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 A.M. — 11:00 P.M. on Fridav and Saturday. He noted he did not think the night restrictions are as much of a problem as the morning restriction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 7of9 Commissioner Maddy suggested taking out the language about the hours in the exception in Subd. 20(a)(1) and then Nyait to see if it is a problem. The exception Nyould be for snov mobiles or recreational vehicles en route to or from trails or a lake. Director Nielsen cautioned against alloNving someone to race around their yard at 6:00 A.M Council Liaison Woodruff asked if there are anv trails in the City Nyhere it is legal to operate snov mobiles or other recreational vehicles. Director Nielsen stated they cannot ride on the LRT trail anymore. Nielsen then stated he thought snov mobiles are alloNved to travel on the street on their Nyav to a destination Nyhere snov,mobiling is permitted. Woodruff suggested having a different set of hours for a recreational vehicle en route to a lake than for en route to a trail. He stated he agrees Nyith Commissioner Muehlberg's point about fishing early in the morning or late at night being a legitimate use, and he thought that should be acknovyledged. There Nyas discussion about snov mobilers riding on the lake very late at night and very early in the morning. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates the speed for snov,mobilers on Lake Minnetonka. Director Nielsen stated he thought there Nyas a regulation about distance from the shoreline. Woodruff stated that is a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) regulation and the LMCD's speed limit regulations are more restrictive than the DNR's. Commissioner Muehlberg noted the regulations make no difference unless there are enforcement personnel out on the Lake very late at night or really early in the morning. Commissioner Muehlberg asked Nyhat the other communities around Lake Minnetonka alloNy. Director Nielsen stated for the Planning Commission's next meeting he Nyill provide the comparison matrix Excelsior prepared. He then stated he agreed that 7:00 A.M. Nyas too late for snov mobiles or other recreational vehicles traveling en route to a lake. Commissioner Muehlberg stated early on Nyhen the lake is frozen fisherpeople tend to fish until 10:00 PM to midnight. Council Liaison Woodruff agreed Nyith making the hours somewhat consistent Nyith Nyhat other communities around Lake Minnetonka have. Chair Geng stated he does not think Excelsior's matrix includes snov mobiles or recreational vehicles traveling en route to trails or a lake. Director Nielsen stated then he Nyill have to prepare such a matrix. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he did not Nyant the surrounding communities to get annoyed because the City has an ordinance that prohibits reasonable use. Director Nielsen reiterated he Nyill make the changes talked about (i.e., clarIA-ing the ordinance Nyas for exterior activities and that the hourly exception for recreational vehicles in Subd. 20(a)(1) Nyill be expanded to include other recreational vehicles), ask the City Attorney to revievy the entire ordinance and then it Nyill be placed on the Planning Commission's August 6 meeting for consideration. He Nyill also prepare a chart shoNving Nyhat the hours of operation are for snov mobiles and other recreational vehicles en route to Lake Minnetonka for other communities around the Lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 8of9 Life -Cycle Housing This item Nvas removed from the agenda at Director Nielsen's request. Sale of City -Owned Property Located at 5795 Country Club Road Director Nielsen explained when Council decided to remodel City Hall it basically made the decision there Nvas no need for the City-- oN -,ned property located at 5795 Country Club Road. When the City purchased the property it Nvas to keep the options open for Nvhat may happen to City Hall. City Hall could have been expanded on to that property or City Hall could have been torn doN -,n and a new facility built. Instead, City Hall Nvas remodeled in place. The main reason the City has not sold the property Nvas because of the poor real estate market. The decision Nvas made to rent the property until the market started to recover. Council has decide that time has come. The Park Commission has Nveighed in on the property. It does not relate Nvell to Badger Park. He noted that when cities buy or sell property State Statute requires cities to have their planning commissions review the sale and comment on it. Therefore, as a formality the Commission needs to make a recommendation on the sale of the property. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Council authorized the replacement of the HVAC system and Nvater heater on the recommendation of the City's Building Official. He then stated he thought the City paid $305,000 for the property more than eight years ago. He Nvent on to state that if a city oN -,ns a piece of real property and has not put it to public use Nvithin a period of time (that Nvas changed during the last legislative session) then a city has to start paying property tax on it. As of last year, the City had to start paying property tax on it. Director Nielsen stated there Nvas some consideration given to swapping that property for a property in the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study area. The ov'ner of that other property Nvas not interested in doing that. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending the sale of the City -owned property located at 5795 country Club Road after review of that consideration pursuant to State Statute. Motion passed 4/0. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Garelick noted he served on the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization again this year. He stated that the appraiser for the City of Shorewood did such a great job that there Nvere no appeals to the County. Garelick asked Nvhat the catalyst Nvas for James SteinNvand, 5680 County Road 19, deciding not to move forward N ith his proposal to operate an auto detailing and bicycle repair business out of the building on that location. [Item 3 on the Agenda.] Director Nielsen explained during its June 4, 2013, meeting the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Mr. SteinNvand to this meeting to allow him the opportunity to refine his plans for the site and make sure the plans Nvere consistent Nvith the City's current zoning standards. The Commission Nvanted Mr. SteinNvand to also submit a landscape plan prepared by a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 9of9 certified landscaper and an updated survey. Mr. Steinwand did not Nvant to spend the amount of money it Nvould take to do that. On June 5 Mr. SteniNvand sent an email stating he Nvanted to Nvithdraw his C.U.P. application. On June 6 he sent another email stating the American Legion, the ovner of the property, may be Nvilling to help out and he suggested the two of them meet. When they met they spoke about an interim use permit as an alternative Nvhich may have gotten him around the need to install curbing. Mr. Steinwand did call one time after the meeting and asked Nvhat difference it Nvould make if he dropped the auto detailing portion of the proposal. A bicycle repair shop is a permitted use in that zoning district. That Nvould have eliminated the need for a C.U.P. but it Nvould not eliminate the need to bring the site up to standard. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are a lot split application and a conditional use permit application slated for the August 6, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission Neill be asked to make a recommendation on the revised noise ordinance. There Neill be discussion about life -cycle housing and he hopes to line people up to talk about life -cycle housing. He indicated he Nvould like to have Council attend a presentation so it does not have to be given to Council another time. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he has given any more thought to having the Planning Commission take a trip to the City of Chaska to look at the Aeon development. Nielsen stated he Nvill poll the Commissioners to find out when they Nvould be able to do a tour on a non - meeting night. Geng suggested inviting Council to come along to tour the development. 9. REPORTS Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the June 24, 2013, Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). SLUC Director Nielsen stated he attended the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session on June 26. Planning Commissioner Davis also attended as did Finance Director DeJong. The session had to do Nvith creativity N ith redevelopment projects. Unfortunately, the session turned out to be a bust. Other None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Garelick moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 2, 2013, at 8:56 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder r ,, ;I l a I I i MEMORANDUM 1 i TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council I FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2013 I RE: Lucky's Station - Conditional Use Permit FILE NO. 405(13.05) - I BACKGROUND I } i Mr. Scott Stevens has purchased the property at 24365 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached), formerly the Oasis Market/Marathon Gas building. He has re- opened the gas station and convenience store as Lucky's Station. The property was originally redeveloped in 1988, pursuant to a number,of conditional use permits: • Gas station and auto repair service • Car wash • Convenience food (the Dairy Queen was never built) • Multiple signage Mr. Stevens would like to make a number of revisions relative to the use of the property and has applied for conditional use permits to do so. First, he intends to convert the car wash facility into an auto detailing operation. He has also asked for approval to have limited outside display and sales for day -to -day items, such as propane, window washer fluid, water softener salt, etc. Finally, he requests permission to have seasonal sales of items such as j Christmas trees in the winter and plants /flowers in the spring and possibly some sort of vegetable stand during the summer /fall. The property is zoned C -1, General Commercial and contains 61,645 square feet of area (1.42 acres). Although the convenience store, car wash and gas station have been vacant for quite some time, the auto repair business in the lower, level of the building has remained in operation. A concrete pad was created for the Dairy Queen years ago,'but nothing more was I ®s -f ®0® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Memorandum Re: Lucky's Station C.U.P. 2 August 2013 done with the easterly portion of the site. On a ym positive note, the current buyer and the seller removed a billboard sign from the east side of the property, eliminating a nonconforming use. The applicant's request is explained in Exhibit B. No changes are proposed for the building itself. The auto detailing operation will simply take the place of the car wash. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Following is a breakdown of the various elements (existing and proposed) of the subject property and the zoning actions required for each: A. C.U.P - Gas Station and Auto Service. The provisions relative to these uses can be found in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.c. of the Zoning Code. Aside from cleaning up. the property, no changes are proposed for either of these two uses. The issue of outdoor display will be addressed as a'separate item. In reviewing the previous conditional use permit, the auto service operation was to have no outdoor storage and vehicles waiting for parts could not be kept on the site for more than 48 hours. While this has generally been complied with, the owners of the business frequently display a large enclosed trailer with their name on it, essentially using it as an advertising device., As part of this application, a condition should be established stating that the trailer is not to be kept outside overnight and during the day it should be stored on the back of the property. The applicant has asked permission to "clean up" landscaping in front of the site. While staff has no objection to revising the landscaping in front of the subject property, a landscape plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, should be prepared. This plan should be consistent with the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study. B. C.U.P. — Auto Detailing Business. Although this activity is what triggered the current application, it is actually considered quite simple. Auto detailing is considered to be a less intense use than the car wash. The one concern that should be addressed in the C.U.P. is similar to the auto repair operation. That is, cars waiting for service should not be parked outside for more than 48 hours. As with,the other uses on the site, this business would be allowed one wall sign, the size of which must comply with the current multiple sign C.U.P. C. C.U.P. - Outdoor Display. This activity is provided for in Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.g. of the Zoning Code and covers both the day -to -day display of items for sale as well as the seasonal sales mentioned on page 1. The original approval did not provide for outdoor display or sales, noting the level of activity already proposed. This has changed somewhat since then, in that the nonconforming billboard has now been removed and the Dairy Queen was never built. There is adequate parking and circulation on the site to accommodate a limited amount of outdoor sales /display. Following is how the proposal can comply with the Zoning Code: -2- Memorandum Re: Lucky's Station C.U.P. 2 August 2013 1. The area of outdoor sales /display is limited to an area no larger than the area of the principal use. It is suggested that day -to -day items be limited to the front sideivalk area, or some portion of it. Except for ice machines and propane tank exchange racks, items displayed here should be stacked no higher than the bottom of the windows. In no case should these items be stacked in front of the property or on pump islands. Signage for° these items should be small so as to be read from the site, but not from the street. With respect to seasonal sales, the space occupied should be limited to the concrete pad area on the site. A major concern with this use is the location and appearance of any temporary structures associated with the activity. First, any such structures must be located ivithin the concrete pad area and not in the parking areas. The Planning Commission should determine ifsome sort of review ofproposed structures is necessary, including limitation on the duration of the activity. Signage is another issue that should be addressed in the CUP. The freestanding sign does have a message board element that can be used to announce various items for sale. Also, commercial properties are allowed to have two temporary signs per year, for 10 days at a time. If the overall plan for multiple signage on this site is followed, each use gets one sign, with the total area of all signs not exceeding the building silhouette as viewed from the street. The applicant should submit a plan shoeing both existing and proposed signage relative to the building size. 2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from view of residential properties. The landscaping originally installed on this site has grown to be an effective screen as viewed from the south. As mentioned in A, above, the applicant should submit a landscape plan for the front of the building, including the right -of- -way area. 3. Lighting is to be hooded and directed so that the source of the light is not visible from the public r.o.w. or neighboring residences. No specific change in lighting has been requested, although it is reasonable to expect that a Christmas tree lot may want some additional lighting during winter months. It is recommended that this lighting should be kept low and should be turned off by 10: 00 P.M, at night. 4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust. The recommended sales area is concrete. 5. The use does not take up parking as required by Code. -3- Memorandum -Re: Lucky's Station C.U.P. 2 August 2013 It is important that the C. U.P, stipulate that the sales activities not be located on the bituminous portion of the site. Using the concrete pad area makes enforcement of the C. U.P. more effective. RECOMMENDATION First, the applicant is to be commended for his efforts and investment in cleaning up and revitalizing the subject property. As mentioned in the preceding, the initial request for an auto detailing operation is quite simple and should be approved. With respect to the applicant's concern about changing the detailing center back to a car wash in the future, the C.U.P. can be written so as to allow the change, subject to the conditions in the original C.U.P. The outdoor sales /display activities deserve additional consideration. If approved, the C.U.P. could be written approving the activities, but reserving final approval for more detailed plans addressing the issues cited herein. I Cc: Bill Joynes Larry Brown t Paul Homby Tim Keane Scott Stevens s r+ y I � `b Tonka Bay r N A 0 300 600 1,200 MM Feet x m..__ Subject Property int s• I" A. 0 Eel —2 W Lucky's Station 11340 Albovor Path m Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Mr. Brad Nielsen 2 July 2013 Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood MN 55331 Subiect: Conditional Use Permit Application Dear Brad Thank you for your time and guidance yesterday in providing instruction to submit the attached application. Per our discussions, Lucky's Station would like to change the car wash use of the property located at 24365 Smithtown Rd. to be modified as a car detail center. The plan is to remove the existing car wash and provide a bay operation to clean and detail cars. Reference documents to detail the site complimented with more detailed photos to illustrate the location are attached. Exhibit 1— General site survey • Exhibit 2 — Aerial view of property • Exhibit 3 — Site detail identifying proposed operation In addition to the proposed site change, I would like to obtain approval for additional signs for the concept and define more clearly what is acceptable in terms of outside merchandising. Specifically, we would like to place outside store merchandising consistent with other convenience stores along with an image upgrade similar with competition. I have included a before (Exhibit 4) and after photo (Exhibit 5) of our location in Minnetonka as a reference point. During the outside imaging process, I would like to respectfully request the opportunity to modify the city landscaping area to provide cleaner site lines and look more professional. Lastly, I would like to gain approval to allow seasonal concepts that will provide a clean visual presentation to the motoring public while enhancing the existing retail offering. In addition to the proposed changes, I would like some guidance in terms of what would be allowed if we wanted to bring the car wash back at a later day. Attached, please find the application, check and relevant documents to support my request. In the event you have any questions, I can be reached at 651.207.5047. Again, I thank you for your time and professionalism. I hope you have a great 4 th, . Respectfully, L__ Scott L. e President Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER p 651 - 207 -5047 i 651- 451 -7377 I y/ r � f i N N J 0 �Q 2 Exhibit REVISED ELSIOR Marathon Gas Station * The Excelsior Group 2J,36:5 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, MN Iarlie Hornig I charlie.liornig@excelsiorile.com 1 (612) 353-3303 r. ON � My- =Aim The Excelsior Group 11455 Viking Drive, Suite 350 1 Eden Prairie, MN 55144 (612) 353-1100 IV Interactive irlMaps y • k I I i f' I ii Property Map 2 r - - INS ' ` t This reap is a comIx1ation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. G ■ Guidlil , MOW July 25, 2013ji. I )2 013 City of Shorewood �` op �� c/o planning Dept �t 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Lucky's Station — Automobile cleaning business request For many of us in the nearby neighborhood, we have been very unhappy with this gas station /carwash being in business and closed several times over the years including the last year or so that it has been vacant. This is in addition to the vacant station across the street that has been closed for several years and is an eyesore. We do not need another car business on Smithtown road along with used car sales, a self service car wash and a car repair business. There is already a car cleaning business on Smithtown just a block from this proposed business. If the reopened gas station wants to reopen the automatic car wash like the one before, that would be a better option and desired by most of the neighbors. B & J Automotive that is next to the carwash is a long time and respected business and is the exception to th gain off again businesses we have been experiencing. He has many satisfied customers in the are an is an asset to the city. ,f Gene Marien 5815 Echo Road Shorewood, MN 55331 1 CITE' OF SHORE1W,00D 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhaI1 @c1.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 August 2013 RE: Duininck, Ben - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (13.06) BACKGROUND Mr. Ben Duininck owns the property at 22490 Murray Street (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to replace his existing attached garage with a larger attached garage, the area of which; when combined with an existing detached accessory building on the property; exceeds 1200 square feet. Pursuant to Shorewood's zoning regulations he has applied for a conditional use permit. The property is zoned R -1C /S; Single Family Residential /Shoreland and contains 76,012 square feet of area (1.74 acres). Exhibit B shows the location of the existing house and garage, the existing accessory building, and the proposed garage. The existing house contains approximately 2114 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. As part. of this project, Mr. Duininck proposes to add living space over the new garage, which will bring the floor area of the home to 3535 square feet. The existing garage contains 561 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage contains 984 square feet. The accessory building, currently used as a studio, contains 487 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1471 square feet. Plans for the building addition are shown in Exhibits C -F, attached. I k ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER i t Memorandum Re: Duininck CUP 1 August 2013 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1471 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (3535 square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R -1C /S zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet). C. The proposed garage complies with the setback requirements of the R -1C /S zoning district. Hardcover on the property will go from approximately 10.8 to 11.4 percent, well in compliance with the 25 percent maximum. It should be noted that the existing studio building is nonconforming with respect to building height (see Exhibit G). The Zoning Code limits the height of detached accessory buildings to 15 feet, whereas the current east side of the building is approximately 17 feet tall. The applicant's builder proposes to remedy that by removing an existing garage door on the east side and filling in the low area to achieve the required 15 feet. d. As shown on Exhibits C -F, the new garage addition will be integrated into the architecture of the existing home. As such the roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garage are consistent with the principle dwelling. In light of the preceding, the applicant's request is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit be granted subject to correction of the existing accessory building height. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Ben Duininck Jeff McCall -2- )1 'sew L N r� n� by •z 0 300 XA 5 3: e Y U M 1,200 Feet 0 Sm v Ze Chanhassen / Carver County border W BEN & ERIN DUININCK IN LOT 84, AUD. SUB. NO. 135 943.14 CONTOUR HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LINE (OHW) + N GALPIN LAKE N }' 229.65 N 85 044' 43'` (950.3) SURVEY LINE L0 O o � ° r of (972 5) (955.8) O Z�0 ...13.3 •• / r .14" SPRUCE O j (972.9) ED rl-k _�.% /,/��� _ O(97 �1 ,1\ _ 20" 'SPRUCE� .-35" SPRUCE_ 13=.� ..,9 .3. �6i ri" s• r-1 £1Sf 1'fP1rfi 1Rc1 , U \CE _ (a7a7) � ' DTCI,- (97119) 9 WALK i -__ I_ 4q 11- 78.5 t :i•.1.1.1.1,.� : r,, : ., - i1•.1.1.1.. . 'u�� j EXISTING m ....... d.DY � HOUSE 2,1 I�G 21V 0 j 2t WHTE _ EMIT- �5 .20" BASSWOOD PIE GARAGE X22490 0, ® J FLOOR �N•Irl�` i ..c.i.c.A.t- !.t /�.� C 3es r 22.0 PORCH PROPOSED z4" CANTILEVER 56" BASSWO D. PATIO e -20 0 20 46" CK 0 K / AbIr talT)� eRlac . zb" S C A L E I N (985.7) -988— —20" P O O (9887) d' 0 LLI DRIVEWAY 0 LO (96117) � t O C n ;. "} :•'• DECK Y v 1� (� 1 1111: o -.. •' (991x) 34.1 �t O M 12A r ....................... ',�. _4 ................... O �° WOOD EXISTING ST Z (992.1) BUILDING a PATE 21.9 (991.3) (992.5) 957.4 _ NOTE: ADD BERM SO AVERAGE ( 1) ROOF HEIGHT IS TO 15' OR LESS EDUCED CON E WALK (992b) (990.0) - - -- ---------- ----------------------------- 124.3............. .............. .... .................................. 9 °04' 0 N 8" 0 W. 1.18.67 1111 - - - I .-.. ---------- --------------------------------------- 110.0...._ p ` LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES LO ' o (989.5 2B•�•• O That part of the East 11040 feet of the West 124.3 feet of Lot 84, Auditor (992.9) DRIVEWAY _ 1z.6 ¢ , No. 135, lying north of the South 318.5 feet• thereof, also that part of said oSHEDo O �? east of the West 124.3 feet thereof, and north of the South 358.5 feet ther 1z.6 17 LO O '� o denotes iron . marker - ' }� (968.7) O - N 89 °00' 45.':` l/d 1.10.00 : {n (9o8.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea , level da. tum --917--: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum b DESCRIPTION Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. SOUTH LINE OF This survey �eScribed:-property, LOT 84, AUD. /SUB. No. 135 of four _.exisfjng_b. �iJdl . -i ,, spot- ,elevations, the _location .of '•1311 .visible. "hard( thereon It `does not._purport to show: any other improvements or' 'encr - ablim-er I hereby certify that this survey was prepared G R O N B E R G AND or under my direct supervision, and that I am A C C n r T A T 1ta ! c T "kT r registered � Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor unc inuro of +ho C +n +o of AAinnocn +n r,z 91 1jv�N�r�clLs�a� Kc� z�-(-qo Kv�ZZA s-r. 1 N I- r C - lie ��z, i t$ • `DES �a3k�i15�+� �# � `-�'�'� _ . -�., _' .. -_. _ _ • '�T��L to � � �-i 34D Jo ac- CA Cot4�4,AN, CAL _ 1 s jL 5 1 "s f Al ID 5 f ,� {? Exhibit E PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION it P WA I -+,J /- Al 114� 11- 1 1 1 f- Exhibit F PROPOSED NOV ELEVATIONS U40(c) KQn aa, 6129/13 0 (32(3442448) Q,VYLMS �-v Exhibit G EXISTING STUDIO BUILDING iittps://niail-attachment.googieusercotiteiit.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&,Ik=b4 564f22a4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 (952),960-7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us s I MEMORANDUM I i TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 July 2013 RE: Wartman, Tommy and Robyn — Minor Subdivision FILE NO. 405(13.07) I f BACKGROUND f Tommy and Robyn Wartman own the property at 5985 Eureka Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). They propose to subdivide the property into two, single - family residential lots as shown on Exhibit B. The property is located in the R -lA, Single- Family Residential zoning district 'and contains 102,842 square feet of area (2.36 acres). j The subject property is currently occupied by a single- family dwelling. A,small wetland area is located at the rear of the two lots with a man -made ditch conducting drainage through the property to a culvert located in Eureka Road. Eureka Road is substandard in terns of right -of- way width and, as part of the minor subdivision, the applicants have agreed to dedicated 8.5 feet E of additional right -of -way to the City. With the exception of fairly significant landscaping around the existing home, the lot is relatively open. As shown on Exhibit B, the northerly lot with the home on it will be 48,654 square feet in area, and the southerly lot will be 54,188 square feet. Both lots well exceed the minimum 120 -foot width requirement for the R -lA zoning district. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The subject property was once platted as Lots 2 and 3 of Prairie View Estates. The applicant proposes to resubdivide them as originally platted. Both lots exceed the minimum requirements for width (120 feet), area (40,000 square feet), and depth (150 feet) as required for the R -lA i zoning district. Per Shorewood's Subdivision Code, the applicants have shown drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide around both of the parcels. According to Shorewood's as -built o� ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Wartman Minor Subdivision 30 July 2013 utility drawings, a sanitary sewer service is available for the newly created lot. City water is also available in Eureka Road. Approval of the minor subdivision is recommended, subject to the following: 1. The applicants' survey must show the 35 -foot buffer area around the wetland. It should also show the 16 -foot buffer along the drainage ditch, as required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The survey should show where wetland buffer stakes will be located. These buffer stakes must be obtained from the City's survey marker vendor. 2. The applicants' surveyor must provide legal descriptions for the wetland and the buffer areas described in 1. above. From these descriptions, the applicants must dedicate conservation easements to the City. 3. The applicants' attorney must prepare deeds for the wetland /buffer conservation easements, the drainage, and utility easements, and the additional road right -of -way. 4. The applicants' attorney must provide a title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 5. Items 1 -4 above must be submitted no later than 30 August and before the application will be scheduled for City Council review. 6. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay $5000 for park dedication fees and $1200 for local sanitary sewer access charges for the new lot. Credit is allowed for the lot with the existing home on it. If the applicants choose to connect to City water, the fees are $10,000 per lot, minus any previous assessments. 7. Upon receipt of the certified resolution approving the subdivision, the applicants must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Bruce DeJong Tommy and Robyn Wartman Tom Wartman -2- (ValleW wuoom La-1 - E�I� K � elsi e o Sunn v e N v 3 a a eek�� w o La o n o Cr S ith o n ' it too R m N 4 °\ U ith o n L S mod° M n La \� a Minnetonka Country Club r Freeman Park Subject A Properly o aos mo 1 22 ®Feet U d A ����� � vano Tr �rl St�Rhway R5 i a s 1 -- 324.38 -- :.�, r---- •--------- - - - - -; ---------- - - - - - -- S 892200° E - -- 18.50 ------------------------- S 8922'00" E i ---- Proposed Drainage and Ut1/ity Easements -- ' 1 I ,9-- B/tum/nous on've- z W I Concrete H'o/k -- 0o I �o 21 Existing Dwelling f0 0 Parcet proposed to be deeded to the c /ly /or street parposes 2 0 m ,--Rot. wall "►"�+'� —Z �,- , , , ----------- �- - - -1-- - - - -- 11 -------------------------- N 892200" W ' eU �. ,�r,.•r +�/�+ to I ��s i f -- 1-------- W Proposed Wain V. and lJ Uldlty Easemen s - -� I I V ' !G i I I I I I I I I _ LI I I I J 10 I ( a I ! I y I I � I I om I 1 r llrotnoye end tWity Easements -' I ------- - - - - -- a I I t0 J ` -- ----- - - - - -- — _ � I 1 1 Ic I I v r,: 3 I to !Proposed Wclnoge and Ot /h'ty Ease is -_ - -sl- i I g a 66 '19 61' a 4 EXISTING HARDCOVER NORTHERLY PARCEL , House 1,742 Sq. Ft. Existing Deck 120 Sq. Ft, / concrete S Driveway 1,268 Sq. Ft. EXISTING HARDCOVER SOUTHERLY PARCEL concrete Surfaces 197 Sq. Ft. flat. Wall 30 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 0 Sq. Ft. I Patio Blocks 188 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 54,188 Sq. Ft. I / TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,563 Sq: Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 0.04 AREA OF LOT 48,654 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 7.34 GRAPHIC SCALE �a o ,o zo a ( M FEET Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY i MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FRONT: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2013 RE: Smith Residence - Expansion of Nonconforming Structure j� FILE NO. Property (448 Lafayette Avenue) BACKGROUND Last year the City approved plans for the expansion of a nonconforming home at 450 Lafayette Avenue. The architect, Mr. Robert Shaffer, managed to design additions to what was a very problematic building and site, without applying for variances. Dale and Sylvia Smith, the owners of the property at 448 Lafayette Avenue (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached), have now commissioned Mr. Shaffer to design an expansion of their home. In this case, the lot is considerably larger than the neighboring property and the existing house conforms better to the current zoning regulations. Nevertheless, since. the renovation involves an expansion of a nonconforming building, -it is subject to Planning Commission review and recommendation and approval by the City Council; Lafayette Avenue is essentially a private driveway that serves four lots on a small - peninsula of land extending into Lake Minnetonka The subject property is zoned R lA/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains only 7576 square feet of area, not including the bituminous driveway that cuts through the site. As shown on the site plan for the property (Exhibit B), the existing home encroaches into the side yard setbacks required in the R -1A/S district. The applicant proposes to add on to the south side of the building then add a second story to the home, all keeping within the required building setbacks. At 38 percent, the property is well over the 25 percent hardcover limitation required in the Shoreland overlay district. The applicant intends to remove an existing gravel driveway and some of the existing brick sidewalk which will actually result in a reduction in hardcover to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Smith Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 2 August 2013 34.2 percent, as described on Exhibit A. The applicant's plans are shown in Exhibits C -G. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Shorewood amended its regulations two years ago to comply with State legislation regarding nonconforrnities. Sections 1201.03 Subd. -1 .d. and Subd. I.i. of the Shorewood Zoning Code, shown on Exhibit H, provide the guidelines for addressing nonconformities. Following is how the applicant's request complies with the Code:. Subd. Ed. This section simply provides that where nonconfoi�rnities cannot achieve complete compliance, the plans for rebuilding are subject to Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. This section also requires a demonstration that the project conforms substantially better to current zoning requirements. The most significant compliance proposed in the applicant's plans is with respect to hardcover. A 3.8 percent reduction is considered quite substantial. It should be realized that one of the ways they intend to achieve the reduction is the removal of the existing gravel driveway. The Code requires two parking spaces, which are already provided by the existing garage and driveway leading to it. Subd. Id. 1. The proposed plans do not increase the nonconformity and the expansion areas comply with setback requirements. Again, the architect spent considerable time in his design in order to comply with the requirements in this regard. And again, the result is a creative solution to fitting more house on the property. In this case, the proposed home is a'contemporary design. 2. Even with the proposed additions, the house and existing garage do not exceed the 30 percent building to floor area ratio (27 percent). 3. In spite of a more contemporary design, the proposed materials, size and the compliance with setbacks of the home should not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. 4. Although the upper level will be larger, the angles of roof lines minimize any impact on the two adjoining residences. 5. Since the existing structure is already too close to both side lot lines, there is no opportunity to make up any deficiency. -2- Memorandum Re: Smith Residence — Expansion of Nonconforming Structure 2 August 2,013 RECOMMENDATION As with the house next door, the architect and the owners are to be commended for their efforts to comply with Shorewood's zoning requirements. Approval of the plans is recommended. Cc: Bill Joyner Joe Pazandak Bob Shaffer Dale and Sylvia Smith Eel Eo Z Tin m o �O� C y Cn `� O 0 0 int m 1 I D Subject Proaert 300 A 1,200 09 Fe FIR ZKY u u V in L,4<E I„IINNETONKA g_-- L - - - - -- SETBACK GRAVEL TO 5E REMOVED 51-M FOOTPRINT 1,399 aF SET- _AVE_RACsE i BACK - - -- 454 OP ` O pASN1 =D LINE IN ICATES PERIMETER OP /NEW SECOND FL OR (= XISTINCx/ ADJACI =NT/ BRI REMOVE AT / HOUSE \\ OUT ADDITIO S +� O OS SOU / F F OTPRI / RIN = 154 / - -- ----- - -- -- .------- --. - -- 51TE FLAN 6CALE: P = 20r -011 DOCK L,4<E 11INNETON<4 1 INDEX OF DRAWINGS TI A TITLE PAGE & GENERAL NOTES T1.2 SPECIFICATIONS SURVEY AD1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING A1.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A1.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 ROOF PLAN A9.1 RENDERINGS A9.2 RENDERINGS ZONING NOTES R1A Lot Requirements Area 40,000 SF Min. Width120' Min. Depth 150' Min. Setbacks Front Ave. Setback Rear Ave. Lakeside Setback Side 10' East, 20' West Shoreland Overlay Lot Requirements Max. Impervious Surface - 25% 25% of 7,576 =1,894 SF Existing Impervious Elements: Actual 8,691 SF (7,576 SF w/o Bit. Drive) 85' -3" on South End, 47' -0" North En( 161.9' (East Property Line) Line shown Line shown 7.0' (West P.L.), 4.6' (East P.L.) Existing Site is 38% Impervious Updated Site Impervious Elements Updated Site is 34.2% Impervious Reduction of 3.8% Site - 7,576 SF House 1,395 SF Garage 487 SF North Gravel Drive 434 SF South Gravel Drive 503 SF Brick Sidewalk 77 SF TOTAL 2,896 SF Existing House1,395 SF South Addition 154 SF Garage 487 SF South Gravel Drive 503 SF Brick Sidewalk 52 SF TOTAL 2,591 SF THE 1. . h 1e N ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave, N, Sulte 460 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www,fou ndationarc h.com p. 612.340,5430 f. 612,340.5431 C-a Se, ro I certify that thls plan, speclfication, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervlslon & that I am a duly reglstered ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Date XX.XX.XXXX Reg. No. 20603 Revlslon No. Dale W M M Zz >Ln _� az W cL 1= Q Z F- '^ a X V1 0 vi LLJ =a0 �To '� 0 W a, �JW ao 0 0 �LA N Q qr 'it N copyright 2013 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN & ZONING NOTES Date 07.02.2013 Project No. 12.16 Exhibit B SITE PLAN AND AREA TABULATIONS 1 L F1R5T FLOOR PLAN = EXISTING SCALE: 3116" = I' -0I' i J THE ,. ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave, N, Suite 460 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www,foundationarch,com p. 612.340.5430 f. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Date xxxxXXXX Reg. No. 20803 Revision No. Date W M =) M U Ll.t =n 7 M M W Q Z Ln Y w E a z W L_ TWO N fro °o O (a0 LLI 00 O _ N d4' 11 N copyright 2013 EXISTING AND DEMO PLAN Date 07.02,2013 Project No. 12.16 Exhibit C EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 J THE ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave. N, Suite 460 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www,foundatlonarch.com p. 612.340,5430 f, 612,340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered ARCHITECT under the laws of the slate of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Date xx.xx.xxxx Reg. No. 20803 Revision No. Date W ^ M Z U W � M Ln W Q Z pW� `= > W1 E a z In 0 W H ai W � 0 0 � ro 0 J N C 00 O -T N G it N = V -tT N copyright 2013 FIRST FLOOR PLAN Date 07.02,2013 Project No, 12.16 Exhibit D PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN THE , ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave. N, Suite 460 Minneapolls, MN 55401 www,fou ndationarch,com p. 612.340,5430 f. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Date XX.XX.XXXX Reg. No. 20803 Revision No. Date W ^ � M Z M V W � M Ln W Q Z i= > Ln a E N H IIn vi W W O . 0 F--�� �a rb 0 �tA !� dam- _ d' V1 copyright 2013 SECOND FLOOR PLAN Date 07.02.2013 Project No, 12.16 Exhibit E PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN �s ((�J THE a t ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave. N, Suite 460 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www.foundatlonarch,com p. 612,340.5430 f. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duty registered ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Dale xx.xxxxxx Reg. No. 20803 Revision No. Date W M M Z Ln VW in a) rh Z >Q Z yU, DWG :it Ea'z W d W 0 °o ro 4 00 0 C G J NT M -' l/1 N Co 0 Wt t) copyright 2013 RENDERINGS Date 07.02.2013 Project No. 12.16 ERING - SOUTH t �t THE (a ' ., ,', t I ' , ".1 N ARCHITECTS 212 Third Ave, N, Suite 460 Minneapolis, MN 55401 www.foundationarch,com p, 612,340.5430 f. 612.340.5431 certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Robert A. Shaffer Date xx.xx.xxxx Reg. No. 20803 Revision No. Date W M Z in U W Ln M zaz_�� p W E.'z 3 =ao° LU x 00 O C J cr �v N O � 2 d' N copyright 2013 RENDERINGS Date 07.02.2013 Project No. 12.16 ERING - NORTH Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. l.d. d. In instances where complete compliance cannot be achieved, nonconforming structures may be moved or rebuilt, when it can be demonstrated that the structure has less impact on adjacent properties, and conforms substantially better with current zoning requirements. Approval of such cases shall take into consideration existing and proposed landscaping, sight lines, and site drainage, and shall be subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Subd. U. i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located; (2) That if the nonconformity exists because the lot area does not meet the minimum requirement for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30 %. (3) That the granting of the expansion shall not adversely affect the aesthetics or character of the adjacent property. (4) That any expansion shall take into consideration the protection of light and air to the adjacent property. (5) That in cases where a structure is too close to a lot line, the city may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard space. (Example: where a building is eight feet from a side lot line in a district in which a ten foot setback is required, the city may require a 12 foot setback on the other side.) Exhibit H EXERPT — ZONING REQUIREMENTS Noncon--ormities