02-03-15 Planning Comm Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2015 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MUEHLBERG (TBD)
DAVIS (Feb)
GENG (TBD)
MADDY (Jan)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
20 January 2015
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. — ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SO. FT
Location: 25880 Birch Bluff Road
Applicant: Don and Loretta Mann
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — SETBACK VARIANCE
Location: 5765 Eureka Road
Applicant: Nick Bender
3. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from
20 January 2015)
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club property)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2015
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, and Maddy; and, Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for January 20, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 310.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 6, 2015
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January
6, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 310.
1. MEET WITH PLANNING CONSULTANT JOHN SHARDLOW TO DISCUSS
MATTAMY HOMES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Director Nielsen noted that Council selected Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., and Senior Principal John
Shardlow to provide planning consulting services for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) residential
development project that Mattamy Homes hopes to move fonvard Nvith. Mr. Shardlow may also take a
broader look at the area around the MCC site. He also noted that Mr. Shardlow had done some planning
related training Nvork for the City in the past.
Mr. Shardlow stated there is no one in the community who Nvas alive when there Nvas not a golf course on
the MCC property because it has been there for so long. He commented there Nvill be some sense of loss
associated Nvith the course going awa -,T.
Mr. Shardlow explained that the City Council is the only land use authority in the City. Everything he and
the Planning Commission are going to be doing is advisory to Council. He has been charged Nvith
Nvorking Nvith the Commission, the community and the developer. The Council is his client and it Nvill
make the final decisions. A planning advisory committee NN-111 be formed; it Nvill be the primary Nvorking
group.
In his presentation to representatives from Council and staff he emphasized the importance of the
Planning Commission. The Commission is charged by law to recommend a plan for the future of the City.
He views the Commission as being the core of the Nvorking group. There is mandatory comprehensive
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 2015
Page 2of6
planning in the Twin Cities and it comes up every ten Nears. The MMC property is in man -,T waN-s a clean
slate even though it has various land uses and a network of roadwa -,Ts around it.
For this project many, many people Nvill have an opinion but they Nvill not all have the same level of
information. A big part of what the process Neill be designed to do is to educate the Commissioners and
facilitate a higher level of interaction between the City and the developer than there Nvould normally be
for just a standard subdivision.
He noted that every time Stantec does a project, whether it is Nvork related to a comprehensive plan or a
redevelopment project, it has a Nvebsite that allows the members of the community to keep track of what
is going on Nvith the project, to provide input, seek answers to questions and so forth. It could just be a
page on the City s Nvebsite or it could be link to a project MindMixer site. He explained that if a person
Nvants to participate using MindMixer they first have to fill out a simple registration Nvith their name and
address. Thev can then have full access to the MindMixer site for this project. Sometimes when people
provide feedback anonvmousIv they like to throw "bombs" to derail a project. The intent is to keep the
dynamics civil for this project. Residents Nvill have an opportunity to raise issues and ask questions and
each question Neill be responded to. There Neill be a picture of a person attached to the response.
Registering users Nvill allow the City to track who is actually actively participating in the process and
maybe track some of their demographics. He noted that because Stantec has purchased the right to use
MindMixer across its entire platform Stantec can offer MindMixer to the City at no additional cost. There
Nvill be some staff time required. MindMixer helps organizations create and distribute content. The
questions are straight forward. He provided statistics about people attending public meetings, using the
internet, owning cell phones, texting messages and so forth. He encouraged the Commissioners to let
residents know about MindMixer once it is up and running for this project.
He clarified the planning advisory committee is not intended to replace the Planning Commission. It is
intended to augment the Commission for the MCC project. He cited a project for the City of Roseville
N-,-here Stantec used the advisory committee concept Nvith good results. That committee included two open
minded, positive representatives from each of the neighborhoods abutting the site of a controversial
project. It also included a representative from each of the boards and commissions in that municipality
along Nvith representatives from the faith community and educational community. He noted it is extremely
important not to politicize the advisory process. He also clarified all of the normal public hearings Neill
take place. He stated to be on the planning advisory committee Nvill require a time commitment by those
individuals. There Nvill likely be six to eight Nvorkshops.
He stated the process is a combination of a focused community visioning, goal setting and education that
Nvill hopefully lead to community consensus that Nvill support Council in making its decision and provide
the developer Nvith clear, constructive input to use in developing its plans. It Nvill help ensure the Planning
Commission has access to a higher level of information than it Nvould normally have in a typical review
and approval process. The Commission along Nvith the Council and the advisory committee will have the
opportunity to identify and prioritize issues and help in creating a vision for the area. That vision
information Nvill ultimately be conveyed to the developer.
He noted that the process that Neill be used is intended to be a flexible process and a Nvork in progress
process. He stated Nvhen he submitted his proposal he had not had an opportunity to speak Nvith anyone.
He simply responded to a request for a proposal. Since then he has had an opportunity to meet Nvith
Mavor Zerbv, Councilmember Sundberg, Administrator Job -nes and some members of staff. He stated that
during the January 29 Council and staff retreat he Neill spend a few hours talking about the scope of the
process, various issues, land use alternatives and the area surrounding the MCC site.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 2015
Page 3of6
He highlighted the tasks in his draft process and schedule:
r Project Initiation
r Kick- off - meeting
Urban Land Institute (ULI) Minnesota (optional)
Visioning Workshop
Project Goals and Vision Statement
Water and Natural Resources
Transportation, Traffic Management
Land Use (this may be moved up)
Concept Alternatives
City Council / Planning Commission Joint Work Session
Prepare an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) — not sure if needed but if it is the
Planning Commission and advisory committee should participate in the effort
Mr. Shardlovy reiterated the process is intended to educate; to provide a higher level of information than
Nyould normally be provided; to have the Planning Commission, the planning advisory committee and the
broader community (through MindMizer) help identify and prioritize issues and help set goals for the
project. After the community has set direction Stantec envisions the project being done in partnership
Nyith the developer.
Commissioner Davis stated that Mattainy s (the developer) representative at the last Planning
Commission had indicated that the Commission needed to speed things up because of Mattainy s desired
closing timetable for the property. Mr. Shardlovy stated he and staff met Nyith the developer and everyone
came to the understanding that the pressure is off. He clarified that people Nyill be mindful of the need to
move things along but this redevelopment is too important to the City to rush things along. It is his
understanding that the developer is Nyilling to N ithdravy its preapplication for an amendment to the Citv's
Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He stated he thought the City has established a good relationship Nyith the
developer.
Mr. Shardlovy stated three of the individuals that served on the advisory panel for Roseville almost 15
Nears ago vievy their involvement on that panel as helping ready them to serve on the Roseville City
Council. From his perspective if people care about their community then serving on the planning advisory
committee Neill be time Nyell spent and that the community Nyill be better off. But, it Nyill not Nyork if
people drop in and out of the process. He noted the committee Nyill meet twice a month until this process
is complete in three to four months. Maybe those meetings can be scheduled for the same night as
Planning Commission meetings.
Director Nielsen noted that one of the reasons Mr. Shardlovy Nyas chosen Nyas his proposal indicated there
Nyould be strong involvement of the Planning Commission. He stated N-,-hen the MCC project first came up
the Commission talked about there possibly being a need to meet twice a month. He stated he Nyould like
the planning advisory committee meetings to be prior to the Planning Commission meetings. Mr.
Shardlovy stated that Nyould be respectful of the commitment the Commissioners have already made to the
community.
Mr. Shardlovy noted that he is a past chair of ULI Minnesota and currently serves on its management
Committee. He stated about two Nears ago there Nyas consensus that development in the region Nyas not
like it had been and that communities needed to rethink their development process. Therefore ULI
Minnesota developed a program titled Navigating the New Normal. That program is sponsored by the
Minnesota Housing Fund. The Housing Fund pars for a very detailed demographic analysis of a
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 2015
Page 4of6
community, that is done by a company called Excensus. The data is much more detailed than the normal
census data. The research is done at no cost to the City. That information Nyould be presented during a
joint Nyork session of the Shorevyood Council and Planning Commission. He highlighted the types of data
that Nyould be analyzed. A panel of a developer or tNyo, a municipal finance expert and some other real
estate developer expert Nyill volunteer their time to hear the presentation about Shorevyood. Questions Nyill
be prepared ahead of time for the panel and the panel members Nyill come to the meeting Nyith ansNyers to
the questions. The panel members Nyould have no vested interest in Shorevyood; their goal is to provide
their best advice. Thev Nyould tell Councilmembers and Commissioners N-,-hat they think the opportunities
might be. That has been done 33 times in the TN-,-In Cities and he has served on nine of the panels. He
noted a lot of communities have found value in that effort. That Nyork session is currently scheduled for
February 25.
Mr. Shardlovy stated that is all he has to share N ith the Commissioners this evening. He also noted that he
is excited to Nyork N ith City staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Chair Geng thanked Mr. Shardlovy for coming this evening.
Commissioner Davis asked N-,-hat the second step in the process is. Director Nielsen stated the discussion
during the January 29 Council and staff retreat is the next step. Mr. Shardlovy stated after that there Nyill
be a visioning Nyorkshop the beginning of March.
Director Nielsen asked the Commissioners to submit names of residents N-,-ho they think may Nyant to
participate and be a positive, open minded representative on the planning advisory committee.
Commissioner Maddy stated during its January 6, 2015, meeting Mattamv presented its preapplication
information related to a Comp Plan amendment and hoNy it currently Nyould like to redevelop the site. He
asked about the status of the preapplication. Director Nielsen stated it is still in play. Nielsen explained
Mattainv had submitted its formal application. Staff and Mr. Shardlovy had told the developer's
representative that the City Nyould have much better information after going through the process Nyhich
Mr. Shardlovy Nyill facilitate. The developer has graciously backed off and staff Nyill return the formal
application. Staff plans on passing on issues the City has identified along Nyith the preapplication to
Council. During the Council and staff retreat on January 29 there Nyill be discussion about Nyhether or not
to consider other alternatives for the project itself and the broader area around the MCC site.
Maddv commented that the schedule identified is fairly aggressive. Mr. Shardlovy noted that is
intentional. Maddv asked N-,-hen the 60 -day rule timeline begins. Director Nielsen explained that
technicalIv it began Nyith the preapplication being submitted; it should be addressed Nvithin the required
timeframe.
Mr. Shardlovy stated that should the Citv Nyant to amend the land uses in the area around the MCC
property it Nyould not make any sense to process tNyo land use Comp Plan amendments. He and staff
conveyed to the developer that the City needs to step back and assess the full implications of N-,-hat is
being asked for and what the City Wants to do. The proposed land use change is a significant change in
the community for a property that has been used differently for more than 100 Nears. The developer Nyas
informed that the City does not Nyant to delay things unnecessarily but it also Nyill not be rushed. He noted
that the City could adopt a temporary development moratorium. He explained that if the City Nyere to do
an EAW a moratorium goes along N ith that. It Nyas clear to the developer that the City Nyill not be rushed
and it Nyill not get tripped up because of some 60 -day rule and be forced to approve something because of
an administrative misstep.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 2015
Page 5of6
Chair Geng stated everyone agrees that transportation is an enormous issue and that a solid traffic study
needs to be done. He asked where that Nvill be done in the process. Mr. Shardlow stated the traffic study
needs to coincide Nvith the vetting of the alternatives and noted there is money in the budget to do a traffic
study. He clarified it is not a standalone analysis. He noted that before this process is complete a traffic
study Nvill have been done. One byproduct of this process Neill be traffic recommendations.
Geng then stated in addition to thinking about recommendations for the planning advisory committee he
asked what else the Planning Commission should be doing. Mr. Shardlow suggested thinking about what
the most important issues are that must be addressed through this process from the Commission's
perspective because he Neill be asking for them the first time the committee gets together. He also
suggested that the Commissioners give thought to what it Nvould look like if this process Nvent very Nvell
and the outcome is very good. Director Nielsen suggested the goals and policies in the Comp Plan should
be reviewed because they are still valid. Mr. Shardlow suggested consideration be given to how the goals
and policies should be modified in response to the redevelopment.
Mr. Shardlow noted that a real clear set of goals Nvill be a byproduct of this process.
Chair Geng again thanked Mr. Shardlow for coming and Mr. Shardlow thanked the Planning
Commissioners and Director Nielsen for their time.
There Nvas discussion about the planning advisory committee membership selection process. There Nvas
also discussion about the MindMizer tool.
2. PREAPPLICATION — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from
January 6, 2015)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club Property)
Director Nielsen noted that this item Nvill be moved to the Planning Commission's February 3, 2015,
meeting agenda.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
_5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Chair Geng stated in addition to the preapplication for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for Mattamy
Homes he asked what else is on the February 3, 2015, meeting agenda. Director Nielsen stated a
conditional use permit for accessory space and a setback variance are also slated for that agenda.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 20, 2015
Page 6of6
Commissioner Davis noted that the next Sensible Land Use Coalition session is titled How Has the Great
Recession Changed the Home Building Industry?
Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 20, 2015,
at 8:02 P.M. Motion passed 310.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
yell
I'M
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 28 January 2015
RE: Mann, Donald and Loretta - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200
Square Feet
FILE NO.: 405 (15.02)
BACKGROUND
Donald and Loretta Mann have applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 25880 Birch Bluff Road (see
Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The Manns propose to build anew detached garage
to the south of the existing house. Since the area of the garage, combined with an existing
attached garage on the property exceeds 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. is required.
The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland and contains 30,649
square feet in area. As shown on Exhibit B the site is occupied by the owners' home and
attached garage, and a'14' x 16' shed. The applicants propose to remove the existing shed.
The new garage contains 882 square feet. Combined with the existing garage, the amount of
accessory space on the site will total 1399 square feet. The proposed garage will be on the
south side of the existing home, 10 feet from the side lot line, approximately 116 feet back
from the right-of-way of Birch Bluff Road. The applicants' request is explained on Exhibit C.
Plans for the new garage are illustrated on Exhibit D attached. The existing home, shown on
Exhibit E, contains 3172 square feet of floor area not including the basement level.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional
use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicants' plans
®"
0 ®o® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Mann CUP
28 January 2015
comply with the Code:
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1399 square feet) does not exceed the floor area
(3172 square feet — main floor) above grade of the existing home.
b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size
for the R -1C /S zoning district (10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complies with R -1C /S setback requirements. It is worth noting that
the proposed hardcover for the site will be 31.27 percent, down from the existing 32.4
percent. While this is greater than the the maximum allowed in the "S ", Shoreland overlay
district, the City's policy in such cases is to allow improvements /additions where
hardcover is actually being reduced. In addition, the driveway has been reconfigured to
further reduce hardcover. This reduction, combined with the removal of the very
nonconforming existing shed, brings the property closer to compliance with the Zoning
Code.
d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house.
Siding and roofing will match the house.
Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a
conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following:
The existing shed should be removed before the builder calls for a framing inspection on
the new building.
2. The driveway reconfiguration should be completed prior to final inspection of the
building or 31 August 2015, whichever comes first.
cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Joe Pazandak
Donald Mann
-2-
irsh-Pt
J
N
A
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
dgewood_R
Lake Minnetonka
lCD
CD
ar_d n
�I r.
C,.
Ielsine.Dri
L�
J
� �v
i
UVEERINGCO. W PVC DRPLI D 10.0%
W
2) 225 0502 w W.ADVSTIR.COM , te eD� - °� OUTLET MV.-93E4
µDrk Dt ; I
tgh Weer L
5 Minnesota, described as follows:
-
sof said Lot 15toapoin4 which point is
thence Northerly along a line parallel to.�:,�,''
dinnetonka , which intersection isatright
ly along said shore line to its intersection -
dLot15to the point ofbeginning.
pdon. 77iescopeofourservicesdoesnot - ❑- -�5=-
•legal description with your records or ------
and that any matters of record, such as;;>';_ ______��______= _;� /,;;�''
:property.
nor review and for the review of such
iar with yourplansas you are norarewe
:s Ore. We suggest that you review the
ie survey to such governmental agencies / -
)efore beginning construction or planning
:t, unless otherwise noted. w ,...
orundermy direct supervision and that I
laws of the state of Minnesota. \
fo.: 9235 Date: December 10, 2014
ee
T `
O
ho, o
N
w 1
20.5 °� 9` 1 ,qw, RE -
b r enrfna
```� I � FQOP�SED
I H/
niKe9619
NORTH1 4 I
A�
I
A - oRrna, •� ,,�
to 1
\ I b¢ r$ �✓
-
I,, o
-
`22-
-
1\ ; U Lot 15 Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
,Par
140818 2014 12 1013 JP PROPOSED
Regarding application for Conditional Use Permit from Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann
We are applying for a Conditional Use Permit because we want to build a detached garage in our yard
that will increase the accessory space as follows:
Internal square feet of present garage attached to house
517
Square feet of present non - conforming shed
243
Total present square feet of accessory space
760
Add: Internal square feet of proposed detached garage
882
Deduct: Square feet of present non - conforming shed to be demolished
243
Total square feet of accessory space after project is completed
1399
We want to do this project for the following reasons:
We need to protect our three vehicles and two boats from the elements and increasing crime.
We want to get rid of our old terrible looking non - conforming 243 square foot shed.
We want to reduce our hard cover by 346 square feet as per survey.
We want to be a good neighbors by cleaning up the appearance of our property.
Exhibit C
APPLICANTS' REQUEST
Foundation footprint: home of Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann 25880 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN 55331 952 -474 -6444
69'10"
(A) = Two levels of living space
(B) = Two levels of living space
(C) = One level of living space
(D) = One level of living space and one level of garage
Total living space = 3,912 sq ft
Square feet: home of Donald B. and Loretta L. Mann 25880 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN 55331
Kitchen /dining /living room
Lower bedroom floor
Upper bedroom floor
Family room above garage
Basement
Total
Dimensions
Feet & Inches
Inches
Length
Width
Length
Width
48'6"
24'4"
582
292
33'0"
21'4"
396
256
33'0"
21'4"
396
256
24'4"
24'0"
292
288
312"
23'9"
374
285
Square
Feet
1,180
704
704
584
740
3,912
C -7
The front of the garage: All exterior siding will be cedar shakes and cedar trim same as on the house.
The height from the floor to the mid -point of the roof shall be approximately 14 feet (no more than 15 feet).
d
r
Both ends will look like this. The windows and copper covered eyebrow over them will be same as on the house.
d
N
oltor ewrw 6�-Ali>s OF Pnonosee -b G+ftoo./}G =E alle Li)614
D -3
4S yS'o gjZ ee'/ gza'a` 2oft�
Exhibit E
EXISTING HOUSE
ay3 SquAw,E Poor s���, ?/.A7' b rc QF
Exhibit F
EXIS'T'ING SHED
RE: Mann, Donald and Loretta — C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet
r
File No: 405 (15.02)
At the February 3, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting I agreed to provide a sketch of proposed
plantings on the east side of my proposed garage to "soften" its appearance to my neighbor to the east
of me. I propose some arborvitae type plantings to the east side as shown in the sketch below. The
final number and location will depend on if there is an entry door and /or a window on the east side
which will be determined after I have worked with an architect after council approval.
Donald Mann
NORTH
III
1-3
0 02'
■■■N■O■■■
■�
■W■■
■'�■'��N���■■N■■°N■�N
■p��■N�'
\AN■
■■°■��
:'■°■
N'N8'N■WnN
�■'C■°■N■:■
■�N■�'
0■�NY
o....N°
■
■ ■N
..C.■■
N■
■N■■N
■N�■®■�NN.p■
\■°■n.
■NNN■
gyp■■
■N■■
■
■NN
■ ■ ■N■■
■°iii°
�NNMERE
N ■
■■■nNNNN■■N
NpN
■ ■nWn
■■ ■His
°■■■
ER
■�'p�E
n
■1 ■ ■pB��aN
nN■■■
W■■_
NW�■�
_�_.B
■�
■ ■N
■YU
■ ■
®� ■
■N°pWp
■
■�0�
■'�
�uW■
'N'
■
■� ■�
■
■n
■■
N■■
N■
N�
■NN
■NqO�
..n■■■
■BN■N
■dNB
N
■ ■
■�■■
■. ■
■nNNNB�■■WY
WIMS
ME
0
ME
NEW
ENRON
WE
OEM
Mr.
Emu
■N■
■NON
NN■N■'■�i��iio■N""i7i■wiui
■NBN
■nN
NN■��
■� ■N..NN■■NtlNN
�NN�om�■.
■ ■NNNON■■°N■
NW
NWN-
■■■NNN
■iiN
■■
'■i'■uM,'
'■N
a■
i_
■i■
NN■
�N■
■
■
�WN
■mn
■N
n ■
■■■
■O ■N■'pB
■i
■pp
W
N■°
■
■
NN
N ■p■N
W
■
■ ■i■
■N°■NNiN�mN■
N
Ni ■
■
no
0
coo
�i■s■p■m�■■p■�mm�opNia
■■■■
■■tl
■ ■N■NNNN■
■Bii■imPu■°iN
■N■■■■■NN�
mW
■N
■■NNN
■n■
■N■■
■■
pN■
N■
■ HNNn�°■pN■�■�W�■�
■°■■■■■■■■■
�N■■
�p
�■■■p■N■n�■mC■N
■■ ■NU■■■IN■W■
■■
°■�°�■'■ONp■p■■
■■■■
aB■N
■
■NN
■NN
■ ■■N■.■NNNNNNO■�■■
N
®a
■n
■NN■
■Nr■pN
■ ■N■
■ ■■■W
■B
■■■N
t■
■ ■n
■N
■N■■
■■■
■NN
■w
■■■■
■■
■ 'r°N■N■N■WNii
■■N
■ ■N■■
W��■�■
■ n�
■�.■N�■p■�N■Bn■■i■iu■
■ ■ ■N
■WNi
'i■■°
°
°a■W'Ni�i
"'
■■■■
■
n ■NNY■
N
■ ■NW■
■nBN■.
N
N■
■■NNN�N
■
■■ ■NNN
N■■"'a■
.�W
W■■��NN
■ ■W
■
WEB ®W
■■■■W
■N�W
■OpNN
a�N■
O'N■q■■W■■
■ ■N■■N
■n�O:■■NdO�Y■
•
::lC:
■NO��Y���■°■�
■i■n
■N
o■N■t
■•NN■liB
■■�N
l��■���
'iiN °■
■��
■
ni
■■■■■
■:.�NWW
■NN
WpN■■
■'Eu■■
■■■N■■�pN
®
■�°�N■■■.
■WN■
■■pMEN
�■_
"u■■■
NN■r
■�■W■°■■°
■
■ ■W
■NW■�
■■■N
■ ■�
■
N
.WNNN
■ ■N
■
■ ■ ■°
■ ■NNNNNp■■
■N�N■■A■
III
1-3
0 02'
Lle.�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 29 January 2015
RE: Bender, Nick - Setback Variances
FILE NO.: 405(15.03)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Nick Bender has requested setback variances to construct a detached two -car garage on
his property at 5765 Eureka Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He also
proposes to replace his existing deck with anew one on the south side of the house. The
property is zoned R-IA, Single - Family Residential and contains 12,020 square feet of area.
Exhibit B shows the location of the applicant's existing home and garage, the proposed
garage, and the existing and proposed decks. In addition to the substandard lot area (12,020
vs. 40,000 square feet) the lot is 53+ feet shallower in depth than the R -1 A zoning district
allows. His request for variances is explained in his letter — Exhibit C.
The garage, shown on Exhibits D and E, measures 22' x 26' and is proposed to be constructed
on the north side of the house, replacing a dilapidated existing garage on the south side of the
house. Since the new garage is located 10 feet from the rear property line, the request
necessitates a 40 -foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement. The proposed deck is
located toward the middle of the south elevation of the building 'replacing the existing. deck
further back.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the house does not currently meet setbacks
on the east side of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building setbacks, even taking
advantage of an average front setback established by adjacent properties, render_ s the lot
unbuildable. The new garage will be 60 feet from the front property line.
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Bender Variances
29 January 2015
Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The
applicant's request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors:
The substandard area of the subject lot is aggravated by its shallow depth.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature.
3. A two -car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood.
Some cities go so far as to require at least a two -car garage.
4. The City has in past cases recognized that the inability to have at least a two -car garage in
Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty).
5. The applicants did not create their practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were
created prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two -car garage.
Further the existing garage is grossly substandard from a Building Code perspective.
6. The proposed garage is a modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be
oversized. While the garage could technically be moved closer to the street, it would then
interfere with the windows and entry to the home on its north side. The proposed location
also minimizes an overcrowded appearance along Eureka Road. The location of the new
deck complies somewhat better than the old and relates much better with the side entry to
the home.
It is worth noting that despite the very substandard lot size, the proposed improvements to
the home only result in 23.3 percent hardcover on the site, whereas 33 percent is allowed.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Nick Bender
-2-
MEN
IM FOER
MEN
it
U)
Freeman Park
U
Subject
Propert
11
a
Cir
Minnetonka Country Club
N
A
0 300 600 1,200
Feet
State Highway
Smo
------------ DWMM
4e-
FOVND RON
-N!
�A "
PRU
of'
GAR
7� .\
S
EKISTI MW G
Z
PRCr
-j, P. L,4
PftMCISFD It
17.0
.............
o
Sc
---- ---------- -
o
-
36.35 1 ---------
---------------- L,.
4e-
FOVND RON
-N!
�A "
PRU
of'
GAR
7� .\
"5 i0VA9 IRON
us R As T,
W7
U
'45,06- E ;=1
1? � j r=-- I
--------------- -------
-FrOr4r-V7'tJ
(to be
It
W44j)
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
EKISTI MW G
Z
-j, P. L,4
PftMCISFD It
17.0
.............
o
Sc
�j
"5 i0VA9 IRON
us R As T,
W7
U
'45,06- E ;=1
1? � j r=-- I
--------------- -------
-FrOr4r-V7'tJ
(to be
It
W44j)
Exhibit B
PROPERTY SURVEY
porn: Nick Bender nickjbender @me.corn
Subject: 5765 Eureka Rd Variance Application
Date: January 6, 2015 at 11:53 AM
To: Brad Nielsen planning «ci.Shorewood.nnn.us
AIr Nielsen,
This is a letter describing our practical difficulties nvith our existing garage and deck at our home, 5765 Eureka Rd Shorewood,
AIN 55331. I'm applying to build a new 2 car garage and deck in different locations while bringing them into greater
conformity
Our existing garage is a small single car garage built in the 1950s. The concrete floor or slab is breaking up and has many large
cracks. Pieces of the flooring are coming up in large clucks. The garage isn't elevated enough to divert the water around it, so
during heavier rains we get standing water in the garage. Certain times of the year this water freezes and further damages the
concrete floor. The wall framing is also being damaged by the moisture and movement of freezing and thawing of ice. The size
of the existing garage is very limiting. Ale drive a typical small crossover SUV, which we can barely fit into the garage with no
additional room for other yard and personal items. It can be only used for storage or one small car, not both. The wiring in it
is not to code and is some areas, not safe. Improper wining size, circuit size, and wire protection issues are all present. The
existing garage is only 1.3 feet off the back property line.
I'm proposing to replace this substandard non - conforming garage with a new 2 car garage in a different location. The new
location would be on the north side of the house, 10 feet of the back and north side property line. This is very similar to what
was approved for the adjacent lot directly to the south of me, 5785 Eureka Rd, about 10 -12 years ago. The size of the garage
being more standard for current needs and the location is in greater conformity to my existing set backs. The existing garage
and driveway would be removed.
The deck has many of the same issues. Unusable size, it's in need or major repair or replacement, and with our current interior
remodel its no longer needed in its current location. The only option I have for a deck, is on the south side of the house.
There's not enough room in the back or the front, and the new garage would be on the North side of the house. I'm proposing
a nenv deck on the same side of the house as the existing, closer to the middle of the house which brings it into greater
conforinitj� I would remove the existing deck and stairs. The new deck location would connect to a new double door off the
living room.
This project would bring 2 structures into greater conformi", and would only increase the hardcover fi-om 21% to 23.2 %, I feel
these changes are the best practical solutions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Nick Bender
5765 Eureka Rd
Shorewood, AIN 55331
Exhibit C
APELICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
Exhibit D
FRONT ELEVATI®NTERSPECTIVE
West
SW
SE
East
M
Proposed Garage & Side Deck
Exhibit E
ASSORTED PERSPECTIVES