05-05-15 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 5 MAY 2015 8:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
GENG (Apr) ______
MADDY (Jun) ______
BEAN (Jul) ______
JOHNSON (Aug) ______
DAVIS (May) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7 April 2015
1. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes (Friendly Residence)
Location: 5590 Shore Road
2. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES
Applicant: David Moe
Location: 20920 Forest Drive
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
7. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 2015 7:30 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Labadie
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Because Attorney Keane left the building Director Nielsen suggested Item 3 be postponed to a future
meeting.
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for April 7, 2015, as amended. Motion passed
5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 3, 2015
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February
3, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Bean abstaining due to his absence at the meeting.
Chair Geng noted the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are
serving as volunteers on the Commission. He introduced new Planning Commissioners Bob Bean, who
had been the Mayor at one time, and Pat Johnson, who recently moved to Shorewood. He also introduced
Planning Commissioners Sue Davis and Dustin Maddy and himself.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO HOUSES
TEMPORARILY ON ONE LOT
Applicant: Todd Cebulla
Location: 5530 Vine Hill Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the
City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to
hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding
recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning
Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on April 27,
2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit
(C.U.P.) application for two houses on one lot for Todd Cebulla, 5530 Vine Hill Road.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 2 of 9
Director Nielsen explained Todd Cebulla owns the property located at 5530 Vine Hill Road. He wishes to
keep the existing home on the property while his new home is being constructed. Mr. Cebulla has applied
for a C.U.P. to do so. The property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and ought to be zoned R-
1C, Single-family Residential; the underlying zoning is R-1C. The property contains 29,338 square feet of
area. The site is currently occupied by the applicant’s existing home and a detached accessory garage. He
intends for his family to live in the existing home while a new home is being built. Once the new home is
completed the old one will be demolished.
Shorewood's Zoning Code limits the number of principal single-family dwellings on a site to one. At one
time the City had granted variances allowing property owners to keep an existing house on the property
while a new house was being constructed. The Code was amended in 2000 to allow for such requests by
C.U.P.
Nielsen reviewed how Mr. Cebulla’s request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the Code:
1. The proposed home complies with R-1C district setback requirements; 35 foot front and side
abutting the street, 40 foot rear and 10 foot side.
2. Keeping the existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house. The
desire to have the new house farther from Vine Hill Road is understandable. Eliminating the
driveway to and from Vine Hill Road is positive from a safety perspective.
3. A detailed tree inventory and tree preservation/reforestation plan is required as part of the
building permit. It appears that the applicant will be faced with the maximum replacement – six
trees (8 trees x .75 acre). At least three of those trees should be located on the south side of the
property in the general location of some of the trees that will be removed.
4. There must be some assurance that the existing home will be removed upon completion of the
new one. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide bids for the
demolition of the existing home. A cash escrow or letter of credit will be required in the amount
of 150 percent of the bid to guarantee removal of the older home and restoration of the site.
5. The approval must have a time limit. The Code allows the builder six months to complete the new
house. For some larger or more complicated houses, this time limit has been found to be tight. If
it is necessary for the owner to request an extension, it should be made prior to the end of the six
months.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of Mr. Cebulla’s request subject to the following.
A. The applicant must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house.
B. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide the City with a cash escrow or
letter of credit for 150 percent of the bid amount to guarantee that the house will be removed and
the site restored.
C. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within six months of the applicant receiving
a building permit for the new house. If the applicant requires an extension, he should make the
request prior to the six-month deadline.
Todd Cebulla, 5530 Vine Hill Road, stated he agrees with what Director Nielsen explained. He explained
that he and his wife considered remodeling their existing home or putting on an addition but they could
not get rid of the mold smell resulting from water damage.
Commissioner Bean asked if there is a size requirement for the replacement trees. Director Nielsen
explained if deciduous trees 8 – 12 inches diameter at breast height are removed they have to be replaced
with two 3-inch caliber trees. If the diameter is 12 inches or larger they have to be replaced with three 3-
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 3 of 9
inch caliber trees. Bean then asked if there is a time limit for when the construction of the new house has
to be completed. Nielsen explained progress has to be maintained on the building permit and the City
interprets that as having to require an inspection at least every 180 days. Potentially the construction of a
house could stretch out three years. Bean went on to ask how many extensions for the C.U.P. the
applicant could get. Nielsen stated the last time that happened for a situation like this the extension was
for 90 days.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there is a timeframe requirement for completing landscaping and erosion
control after the existing house is removed. Director Nielsen explained erosion control measures are put
in with the original site work before work is started. The restoration and regrading would have to be done
before a certificate of occupancy would be issued for the new house. There is an exception to that. If, for
example, the new house was completed in December and the new trees have not been planted and
sod/seed has not been put down the City would require a letter of credit to guarantee that would be done
by June 1.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:57 P.M.
Jim Berdahl, 19205 Waterford Place, explained that there was a meeting of Mr. Cebulla and the
neighbors who live in close proximity to Mr. Cebulla’s property during which his plans were reviewed
and they are all very supportive of what Mr. Cebulla has proposed.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M.
Chair Geng noted that he appreciates the neighbors getting together about what is being proposed. He also
noted that he likes the location chosen for the new house.
Commissioner Davis asked if there is a full basement under the existing house. Mr. Cebulla responded
yes and noted it is a split level house. Davis stated she assumes excavated soils from the location for the
new house will be used to fill in the area of the existing house. She asked where those soils will be stored.
Mr. Cebulla stated, for example, that his lot is large enough to accommodate the temporary storage of
those soils. Davis suggested using more silt fence and covering the stockpiles. Chair Geng questioned if
that might be more appropriately addressed as part of the permitting process. Director Nielsen stated
erosion control is addressed during the permitting process and noted Davis’ point is well taken.
Mr. Cebulla stated the foundation of the existing house is slightly less than 1,000 square feet in size and
because it is a split level only one-half of the foundation is in the ground. The hole that will have to be
filled is much smaller than for a traditional house and therefore there will be less stockpiling of soils.
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for
temporarily having two houses on one lot for Todd Cebulla, 5530 Vine Hill Road, subject to staff’s
recommendations and subject to having adequate silt fencing for stockpiled soils and covering of
them. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SEWER LIST STATION
Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Location: 21445 Sate Highway 7
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 4 of 9
previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use
permit (C.U.P.) to replace an existing lift station.
Director Nielsen explained MCES operates the area regional sewer system. As part of that it operates a
sanitary sewer lift station at 21445 State Highway 7. The existing facility is located on a permanent
easement on City owned property. The property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Christmas Lake Road and State Highway 7. The property was acquired through a tax forfeiture process
for the purpose of making improvements to that intersection and for general drainage purposes. There is a
fairly significant wetland on the property.
MCES proposes to replace the existing above-ground structure, located in the very southeast corner of the
site, with a below-ground wet well and a small brick building housing control equipment and a bathroom.
The facility would be served by a new driveway and a small parking lot. To satisfy Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District requirements, a small drainage pond will be constructed on the north side of the
proposed building. The proposal is very thoroughly described in the applicant’s project narrative (a copy
of which was included in the meeting packet). Since “governmental and public regulated utility buildings
and structures” in residential zoning districts are listed as conditional uses in the Shorewood Zoning
Code, MCES is requesting a C.U.P. pursuant to Section1201.10 Subd. 4.a. of the Code.
The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-family Residential/Shoreland. Land uses and zoning surrounding
the site are as follows:
North: State Highway 7, then offices located in Excelsior and Greenwood; zoned
commercial
West: Church located in Excelsior; zoned residential
South: Single-family homes; zoned R-1A/S
East: Single-family homes and the Christmas Lake Public Access; zoned R-1A/S,
In its original request MCES requested an additional easement for their new facility. Staff recommends
MCES acquire ownership of the entire parcel. Staff also recommends the applicant deed back a drainage
and utility easement and a conservation easement over the wetland area. The plans will need to indicate
protection of the Christmas Lake piped outfall that crosses the property as mentioned in the City
Engineer’s report dated March 26, 2015. Transfer of the ownership should be subject to the City
Attorney’s direction.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how the applicant’s request complies with
Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.A., which contains two criteria for “governmental and public regulated utility
buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community”.
1. When abutting a residential use in any residential use district, the property is screened and
landscaped in compliance with § 1201.03, Subd. 2.g. of this chapter;
The applicant indicates that the proposed site plan will impact approximately 50 trees on the site,
most of which are cottonwood or ash trees. The trees that would be impacted are either
undesirable trees or trees that will likely have to be removed over the next 6-8 years due to
disease. The applicant proposes landscaping along the Third Avenue side and along the Christmas
Lake Road side of the property. The landscape plan shows a retention pond will be built to the
north of the proposed facility to handle runoff from the new hardcover that will be placed on the
property.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 5 of 9
2. The provisions of § 1201.04, Subd. 1.d.(1) are considered and satisfactorily met.
This section of the Code is essentially a “catch all” related to compliance with the Shorewood
Comprehensive Plan and ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area. MCES’ proposal is
considered to be a significant improvement over the existing conditions.
MCES has requested that the zoning provision requiring perimeter curbing around the parking lot be
waived. The City Engineer does not recommend doing that. The waiver would require a variance; the
applicant has not submitted an application for that.
Nielsen noted that staff recommends the C.U.P. for MCES be granted subject to recommendations
discussed above and to those of the City Engineer. The applicant has requested that instead of requiring a
cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of necessary improvements, an agreement to that
effect be executed. The City Attorney has been asked to comment on this issue and advise Staff whether
conditions in the C.U.P. and on the sale of the property are adequate to guarantee completion of
improvements (parking and landscaping).
Commissioner Maddy asked about the process for local units of government trading property. Will there
be a cash exchange? Director Nielsen stated the City has been told there will be. The County has given
the city a copy of the process it has to follow to acquire the property and the City’s attorney is reviewing
that.
Chair Geng noted that MCES’ project description states “Un-needed piping and structures will be
removed or abandoned.” He asked Director Nielsen is there is any concern about piping possibly being
abandoned on that site. Nielsen explained it is not unusual for that to be done. The new pipe will be in the
vicinity of the existing pipe and the old pipe will basically be emptied.
Commissioner Bean asked if the project is limited to the lift station or will there be piping that needs to be
run that will impact streets.
Dan Fick, with MCES and the project manager for this project, explained MCES will build two new
discharge pipes that will come out of the lift station cross Highway 7 and connect to a larger pipe MCES
has along/under Excelsior Boulevard. This project is somewhat related to the MCES Excelsior Boulevard
Forcemain Project that is in progress. The plan is to include extension of an 8-inch watermain at the end
of the existing watermain and ending with a hydrant at the end of the intersection of Third Avenue and
Christmas Lake Road. Commissioner Bean asked if that will impact the residents whose properties abut
those roadways. Will those roadways be impacted? Mr. Fick stated they will. He explained MCES will
remove the street, install the necessary utilities and reconstruct the street.
Mr. Fick noted that if this C.U.P. does not get approved there will not be a project. He explained that if
the C.U.P. is granted then the preliminary plans MCES’ consultant has prepared will be developed into
biddable plans. Details about the watermain are not in the preliminary plans. Pending the outcome of the
C.U.P., the watermain and roadway work will be added to the biddable plans.
Director Nielsen clarified the pipework does not require a C.U.P. or City approval because it is within
existing right-of-way (ROW) or easements. The facility is what requires a C.U.P. The removal of the
streets and reconstruction of the streets is done through a permit process. MCES will pay for all of that.
Chair Geng stated it appears there are some significant trees in the vicinity of where the new pipe will be
laid along Christmas Lake Road. He asked if they will be impacted by the new pipeline. Mr. Fick
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 6 of 9
explained the intent is to hug as close as possible to the tree line and the new pipe will be located as close
as possible to the existing pipe. There will be some impact to the trees; it will be kept to what is
absolutely necessary. Geng asked if any trees will be lost or is it too early to tell. Mr. Fick stated the
Demolition Plan lists the various trees, their types and their sizes. Director Nielsen noted that a lot of the
trees are Cottonwood or Ash. Cottonwood Trees are not protected trees under the City’s Code. The Ash
Trees are likely to be gone in the next 7 – 10 years anyway.
Commissioner Maddy asked how deep the new forcemain will put in and if it will be put in with
horizontal drilling or trench and cover. Mr. Fick explained they will be open cut and that there will be a
tunnel drilled under Highway 7. He clarified on the site it will open cut. The pipe will be approximately 7
feet deep.
Mr. Fick stated that this project will be similar to MCES’ Forcemain Project but the pipe will be smaller.
In response to a question from Commissioner Bean regarding security of the proposed facility, Mr. Fick
stated some of its facilities are fenced off and others are not. Mr. Fick noted that fencing is often decided
by a city. He stated MCES will install fencing if the City wants and explained that fencing can collect
trash and not look pleasing. Bean commented that in the past the City used rough contract on some of its
facilities to try and make it more difficult to paint on. He asked if the windows on the facility were to
allow light in. Mr. Fick responded yes and noted they are not functioning windows. He thought the
windows would be polycarbonate.
Mr. Fick stated the actual building that will be built on this site may not have as many windows or be as
large as what are shown on the preliminary plans.
Commissioner Bean asked why MCES had asked to waive the requirement for curbing. Mr. Fick
explained it was about the ease of shedding water off of the site and noted that MCES does not object to
installing curbing.
Commissioner Maddy asked what is underground with the lift station. Mr. Fick explained the electrical
equipment will be in the above ground building as shown on the Main Level Plan. There will be three
large submersible pumps under the grates. The mechanical system for the lift station will be in the
underground vault. Maddy then asked if the generator is oversized. Mr. Fick stated it is; it is what MCES
currently has. Maddy asked if MCES is still not peak saving at high usage electrical times. Mr. Fick stated
MCES is not doing that. Maddy went on to ask if MCES plans to have the wall lighting on around the
clock. Mr. Fick explained the wall lighting would be on a photocell and it would only come on when it
was darker outside. The light mounted on the pole would only be used when work had to be performed at
the facility at night. Maddy then asked if the wall lights could have motion sensors on them. Mr. Fick
explained that having the lights on at night tends not to attract inquisitive people; therefore, MCES’
preference is to have them on when it is dark out. The lights will be aimed in such a way that they will not
cast light to areas other than what they are trying to illuminate. Most of the lighting will be aimed
downward. Maddy suggested MCES consider having sensors because if the lights are always on
neighbors do not pay attention but if they come on periodically they may pay more attention.
Commissioner Bean asked Commissioner Maddy if he was concerned about light pollution to the
residents. Commissioner Maddy stated to some extent and noted that when there is no foliage on the trees
he would not like to live next to that facility. Bean noted there are three commercial properties across
Highway 7 that are lit up most of the time. Maddy stated if there is not a need for lighting then he
questioned why the lights would be on.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 7 of 9
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:32 P.M.
Steve Martin, 5750 Christmas Lake Road, noted he lives about three doors down from the site. He stated
his main concern had been if what is being proposed will improve things aesthetically and it obviously
will. He asked that the cutback of some of the existing trees be limited when possible because the foliage
tends to reduce some of the road noise from Highway 7. He stated that periodically the generator is tested
to ensure it will work properly when needed. Mr. Fick stated the generator will be relocated 50 feet back
from the roadway. When it does run hopefully the residents will hear it less. Mr. Martin noted that after
hearing the discussion this evening he and his wife support what is being proposed.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:34P.M.
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending Council grant the conditional use permit to
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to replace its lift station on the property located at
21445 State Highway 7.
Chair Geng suggested the motion be amended to state that the property be conveyed to Hennepin County
in the manner recommended by staff and that it be subject to the conditions identified in the City
Engineer’s report dated March 26, 2015.
Without objection from the maker or seconder, the motion was amended to include the property be
conveyed to Hennepin County in a manner recommended by staff and subject to the conditions
identified in the staff report dated April 2, 2015, and the City Engineer’s report dated March 26,
2015. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng noted Council will consider this application during its April 27, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng thanked Mr. Fick for the great project description.
Mr. Fick asked if the property acquisition and the C.U.P. will occur concurrently rather than sequentially.
Director Nielsen stated staff has not given that much thought. Mr. Fick stated in the interest of the project
schedule he hopes the acquisition of the property and the project could follow separate tracks.
Mr. Fick asked if staff needs authorization from the Planning Commission to assign a new address to the
property the County will acquire. Director Nielsen responded that can be handled administratively.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M.
3. DISCUSS OPEN MEETING LAW
Chair Geng noted that Attorney Keane came back for this discussion yet the Planning Commission
approved postponing this discussion.
Bean moved, Maddy seconded, adding the discussion of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law back on
the agenda. Motion passed 5/0.
Attorney Keane explained the Open Meeting Law (the Law) and answered the Planning Commissioners’
questions. The Planning Commissioners are appointed by Council and thereby bound by the Law when
conducting City business. They are expected to conduct their City business in this forum. He encouraged
the Commissioners to be mindful of the Law when considering talking about City business. He noted
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 8 of 9
there are not many Open Meeting Law violations because they have to be brought as a claim in District
Court; in effect as law suit. He explained the first and second violations result in $300 fines. He clarified
the City is not responsible for paying any fine. The violator may end up paying the legal fees of the
person who made the claim. The fees are capped at $1,300.
Following are some of the noteworthy clarifications made by Attorney Keane.
There was discussion about the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) for that redevelopment project. The project consultant uses a tool called
MindMixer to keep the public informed and to take comments and respond to them. Attorney
Keane stated that is a public forum. The Commissioners are members of the PAC. He
encouraged the Commissioners to be more of a consumer and observer of that process because
the Commission will assess the PAC’s recommendations and make a formal recommendation to
Council. It was noted the PAC members were encouraged to talk to their neighbors about the
process and clarified communication among members is only a violation when it is done by a
quorum of the PAC.
Director Nielsen explained that when he receives an email about materials in a Planning
Commission meeting packet or gets asked questions about it he tends to send a reply to all of the
Commissioners. He asked if that is an issue. Attorney Keane stated if it becomes an iterative
email conversation that could be a gray area. That should take place in the public meeting.
Keane clarified that email communication about City business is public data. He also clarified
that the Commissioners have no duty to retain City related documents. He explained the City
Clerk is responsible for record keeping and that the City has a Document Retention Policy that
covers all forms.
Council Liaison Labadie stated that during a session for newly elected officials she learned that
any response should be directed to the City Clerk, Director Nielsen or the City Administrator
(for planning related items).
Attorney Keane explained that if, for example, Council Liaison Labadie sent an email to
Commissioner Johnson and if she wanted that email to be part of the public documents then the
City Clerk should receive a copy of the email.
With regard to contact from constituents and site visits, Attorney Keane stated site visits are an
important part of what the Commissioners do and it is okay for them to gather information. They
should not express their opinions or observations with the property owner, developer or
developer’s representatives. He encouraged the Commissioners to exercise wisdom and good
judgment.
There was a question about whether or not Commissioners or the City would be liable for a
developer’s claimed loss of development potential if some of the Commissioners violated the
Law. Attorney Keane stated he is not aware of such a claim and noted that would be a long
reach. The claim would have to be about malice and the aggrieved would have to prove that.
Attorney Keane stated the League of Minnesota Cities provides a supplementary publication that
provides additional information. He will send Director Nielsen a link to that and Nielsen can distribute
that to the Commission.
Chair Geng thanked Attorney Keane for his sharing his insights.
4. DETERMINE LIAISON TO COUNCIL SCHEDULE
Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needs to establish Council Liaisons for the next five
months.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 7, 2015
Page 9 of 9
Council Liaisons were selected as followed:
April 2015 Chair Geng
May 2015 Commissioner Davis
June 2015 Commissioner Maddy
July 2015 Commissioner Bean
August 2015 Commissioner Johnson
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
None
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a setback variance slated for the May 5, 2015, Planning Commission
meeting. There may also be a study session that evening.
Director Nielsen stated the discussion on land use during the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planning
Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting just prior to this meeting was very good.
Commissioner Davis asked for an update on the trail schedule. Director Nielsen explained that owners of
six properties that will abut the Smithtown Road East sidewalk extension will be asked for easements.
They have all been contacted. The plans and specifications for the extension are about 90 – 95 percent
complete. The current plan is to start sometime in September 2015. Chair Geng asked what the
construction bidding environment is like this year. Nielsen stated he did not know yet.
8. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
• SLUC
• Other
9. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 7, 2015, at 9:20 P.M. The
motion was seconded. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
I "th;%N �
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE:
30 April 2015
RE:
Friendly - Request for R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
FILE NO.:
405(15.06)
BACKGROUND
Nate Wissink (Elevation Homes), on behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly, proposes to build a
new home on the property located at 5590 Shore Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit
A, attached). As can be seen on the applicant's existing survey, the right -of -way for
Shore Road partially bisects the Friendly property, resulting in setback issues for the site.
These are illustrated on Exhibit C which shows how drastically the existing R.O.W.
affects the buildability of the lot. As a result, the applicant has requested a vacation of
the R.O.W. in question. Further, due to how Shore Road comes up to the property, the
applicant requests a setback variance that would treat the easterly property line as a side
yard versus a rear yard. The applicant's request is well explained in his letter (Exhibit D)
and the result of the vacation and variance is illustrated on Exhibit E.
The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland, and contains 33,079
square feet of area. The existing home is shown on Exhibits B and C. The proposed
home location is shown on Exhibits E -G
The proposed house is two and a half stories (35 feet) tall with a main level footprint of
4029 square feet, which' includes an attached three -car garage. Proposed building
elevations are shown on Exhibit H.
®"
0.04 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Friendly R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
30 April 2015
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
A. Right -of Way Vacation. Shore Road currently dead ends inside of the Friendly
property. You may recall that the Friendlys purchased the two outlots to the west of
their home and combined them with their main lot a few months ago. Those lots have
very little value to the owners with the R.O.W. where it is now.
There is actually an advantage to the City in vacating the R.O.W. in question.
Currently, the street is a dead end with no provision for turn - around. Over the years
city maintenance crews have pushed snow off onto the Friendly property and then
have had to back around onto the property to the west. This a very difficult
maneuver, due to the proximity of the street to the small wetland to the north. The
Friendlys have agreed to trade back a better turn - around area on their property as part
of the R.O.W. vacation (see Exhibit F). The area is longer and wider and will be
surfaced with a parking lot block that allows grass to grow in the cells of the block.
Public Works has reviewed the plans and is in agreement with the solution that seems
to be in everyone's interest.
B. Setback Variance. The applicant proposes to locate the new home 10 feet from the
easterly property line instead of the 40 feet required for what is technically the rear
yard of the subject property. As explained in the applicant's letter, the variance
would allow the Friendlys to enjoy the same lot orientation and side yard setbacks as
the properties on both sides of theirs.
Following is how the applicants' request complies with the criteria for variances set
forth in Section 1201.05 of the Zoning Code:
1. Much of the owners' "practical difficulty" comes from the way Shore Road butts
up against the west side of their lot. That, combined with the lakeshore setback
on the south side of the lot, the wetland setback on the north side, and the sewer
easement that bisects the property, all pose challenges for building on the subject
property.
2. The variance allows the owners to enjoy the same lot/house orientation as the
properties on either side of theirs. Further, the combination of the two outlots
with the Friendly property, the removal of the old deck and shed on one of the
outlots, and the reduction of impervious surface on the property all result in better
conformity with Shorewood's zoning regulations.
3. The conditions establishing practical difficulties in this case are not due to the
actions of the applicant /owners. In fact, the Friendlys have done everything they
can (purchasing the two outlots) to enhance the buildability of the site. As
mentioned above, the new plans bring the property into compliance with the
current impervious surface restrictions, going from 29 percent to 25 percent.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: Friendly R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
30 April 2015
4. The practical difficulties are not economic in nature. To the contrary, the owners
have spent extra money to acquire the outlots and to provide a turnaround at the
end of Shore Road.
5. The variance is considered to be the minimum necessary to build on the site,
particularly given the desire to preserve the natural vegetation on the north side of
the property, while still providing the aforementioned turnaround.
RECOMMENDATION
The Friendlys and their consultants should be commended for working with city staff
from the very beginning of their project, resulting in drastic improvements for all of the
property involved and resolving a longstanding problem relative to snowplow service.
Approval of the street right -of -way vacation and the rear yard setback variance are
recommended, subject to the following:
a. The owners will deed back easements over the turnaround area necessary for use
and maintenance of the turnaround.
b. The owners will deed back easements as necessary for access and maintenance of
the sewer line that currently extends through the property.
C. The applicant should provide an engineered design for the turnaround,
demonstrating that it can support the weight of snow removal equipment.
d. The owners shall have one year from the date the City Council approves the
request to apply for a building permit.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Larry Brown
Paul Hornby
Nate Wissink
Ian and Carol Friendly
-3-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The following legal descrlptlon Is per Certificate of Tltie No. 1324515
Lot 1, "Radisson Inn Addition'.
Subject to the permanent right ofway easement on the turn -about road now existing on said premises as shown
In deed Doc No 161830;
The West line of which addition has been Judicially determined and marked by Judicial Landmarks, one at the
Northwest corner of Lot 26, of said addition and one at the meander corner In said line;
Together with pemanent easment over and upon Lot 11, said addition for the purpose of Ingress and egress to
the bathing beach on said Lot 11, said addition as shown In deed Doc No. 161830. (NOT SHOWN).
The following legal description Is per Certificate of Title No. 1384650
Outlet C and D, Larson Estates.
The west line of the plat of'Radisson Inn Addition" has been Judicially determined and marked by judlclal Land
marks, one at the nortwest corner of Let 26 of said addition and one at the Treader corner in said line:
Together with an easement as diflned In plat of survey filed In Torrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of
which is filed as Doc. No. 3042144, for access to the beach area, the use of the beach area, and for construction,
maintenance and use of dock extending from the shore line of Lot 11 Into Christmas Lake and general
recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock for the benefit of lands described In
Order Doc. No. 3042143 over that part of Lot I 1 determined In Torrens Case No. A- 24774, and described In
Court Order Doc. No. 3042143. (NOT SHOWN).
,TITLE NOTES:
Subject to Sanitary Sewer Easement per Doc. No
1170612 (shown graphically).
Subject to Restrictions per Doc. No. 2797099
Subject to permanent right of way easement on the
turn -about road now existing on said premises. per
Doc. No. 161830.
LOT AREA:
PARCEL AREA TO W 3079 QT 0.76
ACRES
SURVEY NOTES:
$
1. FIELDWORK COMPLETED DEC. 2, 2014
2. BEARINGS ARE BASED UPON THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM.
BENCHMARK:
I $
MNDOT GEODETIC STATION #1 1090,
MoDOT DISK LOCATED ALONG TRUNK HIGHWAY 7
AT MILEPOST 183.95, MARKED °ALBANS NO 1 1979
ELEVATION= 963.53 (NAVD88)
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS CALCS:
e
HOUSE
3341 SF
SHED
96 SF
DRIVE
4246 SF
WALK /ENTRY
360 SF
REAR PATIO
535 SF
CONC
264 SF
WALLS
388 SF
DECK
356 SF
STEPS
151 5F
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS
9737 SO, FT.
%LOT IMPERVIOUS 29.4%
$ LEGEND:
O DENOTES MONUr.IENTSET
AND MARKED RLS 25718
DENOTES FOUND
MONUMENT AS MARKED
VA WATER VALVES
K HYDRANT
p CULVERT /F.E.S.
® SANITARY MANHOLE
e CLEAN OUT
4 SIGN
a UTILITY POLE
a LIGHTPOLE
9 HAND HOLE
TELE /ELEC BOX
m° ELECTRIC METER /GAS METER
.� GAS VALVE
--ELECTRIC LINE
TELEPHONE UNE
—WATERLINE
STORM SEWER LINE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
WALL
---F
CURB
CONCRETE
3 DECIDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
TREELINE
EXISTING CONTOURS
SPOT ELEVATION
I FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING
DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH
UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY
ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKETR141142419. SOME MAPS WERE
RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST, MOST UTLITIES WERE NOT MARKED AT
THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES EXIST ON
THIS THIS THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP.
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
I'll —A4EA ell- 155-0003 1 em
T — -8 2 -1166 III G�- ,_'war•
L
,w
�o
n' — / _5b
ie
ter -
ti • e
\ ' a
� 1�0
0 20 40
w
9�
V':
$o \+993
\ \ ;awap�
EDGE � -��
ElEyk E ,�
(NgLDC .�
I
I
•o i _ 112
Ron Pi
9a<s %
-Four 112.
p r1 � a`' iaorl P t
2
NAP E n o
IO (PL 1) P. c 5
z. � (era
>sey/ I
<q
� i 1
Ali, 9M2
1V =928.1 I 1 # (I7
n5
t$
d5o
t
FRIENDLY
PROPERTY
CONTACT:
$
NATE WISSINK
ELEVATION HOMES
18312 Minnetonka Blvd
Wayzata, MN 55391
Phone: 952-346-2488
Email: nate@
elevationhomes.com
COUNTY:
$
H EIV N EPI IV
COUNTY
REVISIONS:
DATE REVISION
12 -05 -14 INITIAL ISSUE
04 -06-15 REV. ADJACENT HOUSE
CERTIFICATION:
1 hereby certify that this plan eras prepared
that me, or under my direct Land Slslan, and
that I the a duly Licensed hstar Land Surveyor a.
under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.
C�tMk
Daniel L. Thurmes Registration No: 25718
Date: 12-05 -14
iw
PROJECT LOCATION:
5 S !:_31' O
SHOREWOOD RD.
PID #3611723210008
PID #3611723210029
PID #3611723210030
O
Suite #1
6750 Still wafor Blvd. N.
Stillereter, KIN 55082
Phone 651.275,8969
Fax B5 .2'71.'2'76
dan @c survey
.net
CORNERSTONE
LANC) SURVEYING, INC
Exhibit B
EXISTING SURVEY
Cher ie
&cQ
POND
20' -0" F
SIDE YD.
FFFR \
� 75 SFTggC,K
NINA, _
23'_0"
FRONT YD.
HOUSE
CHRISTMAS LAKE
U
�m
ow
Y
g
Existing Setbacks & House
INARY HIGH WATER LINE
EXISTING CONDITION
LOT COVERAGE:
Lot Area: 33,079 sq. ft.
Impervious Area: 9,737 sq. ft.
9,737 sq. ft. / 33,079 sq. ft.
= 29.4% (25% MAX)
EXISTING NON - COMPLIANT ITEMS:
1. Impervious Area exceeds maximum.
2. Shed and deck located in Lake Setback.
3. House breaches Lake Setback.
4. House breaches Rear Yard Setback.
5. House breaches Front Yard Setback.
b. Pergola located in Pond Buffer /Setback.
Friendly Residence
Exhibit C
CURRENT SETBACKS
April 7, 2015
Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: 5590 Shore Road Setback Variance and Right of Way Vacation
Dear Brad,
On behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly, the following is our setback variance and right of way vacation
request based on the practical difficulties they face in developing a new single family home at 5590 Shore
Road.
As a way of providing some context to the circumstances at hand, in 2010, Ian and Carol Friendly
acquired the property at 5590 Shore Road that has the existing non - conforming home on it. In 2014, Ian
and Carol purchased two adjacent non - conforming lots on the West and North side of the 5590 Shore
Road property and legally combined the two adjacent lots with the property that has the house on it. The
collective three parcels is now defined as 5590 Shore Road.
Overall Premise: the way 5590 Shore Road is accessed with respect to Christmas Lake is unique
relative to the other properties on Shore Road. As a result, the side yard and rear yard setbacks are
viewed differently than the other parcels. Additionally, the city right of way extends into the Western side
of the property more than 50'. Both of these conditions make the property very difficult to develop. In an
effort to build a new single family home that is fully compliant with the City of Shorewood zoning code in
comparison to the existing non - conforming home and improvements on the property, we're requesting a
setback variance on the Eastern property line as well as a vacation of the city right of way that terminates
significantly into 5590 Shore Road from the West.
Practical Difficulty of Site Conditions: More specifically, due to 5590 Shore Road being accessed from
the end of a city street, what would typically be a side yard setback on the East of the property at 10', is
considered a rear yard setback at 40'. Additionally, the city right of way terminates 57' into the Western
property line of 5590 Shore Road and there is a 23' setback encompassing the end of the right of way.
These two items, coupled with the setbacks from both Christmas Lake on the South side of the property
and the pond to the North side of the property, result in the practical difficulty of only 15.6% of the
property being developable. See Exhibit "Existing Setbacks" showing this condition. Under the setback
parameters, the resulting developable shape of the property cannot be put to reasonable development
use and would create an aberration from the existing development pattern along Shore Road.
Exhibit D
18312 Minnetonka Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391 I O 952.449.9z APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
EIevation Horn es.c
Non Conforming Aspects of Existing Home and Property Improvements: In reviewing the existing
home and improvements on the property (see Exhibit "Existing Setbacks and House "), there are
significant non - conforming aspects relative to the City of Shorewood zoning code. The non - conforming
aspects are highlighted in red on the exhibit and include:
• Impervious surface area at 29.4% versus the 25% code maximum
• The shed and deck on the South side of the property are in the Christmas Lake setback
• The house and terrace breach the Christmas Lake setback
• The house breaches the rear yard setback.
• The house breaches the front yard setback.
• The pergola is located in the pond buffer /setback
Variance and Right of Way Vacation Request: In an effort to have 5590 Shore Road treated the same
way as the other properties on Shore Road with respect to Christmas Lake as it relates to front yard, side
yard, and rear yard setbacks, we are requesting a variance for the 40' rear yard setback to be treated as
a 10' side yard setback.
Similarly, we're requesting that the city right of way be vacated to allow for reasonable development on
the West side of the property, while in the meantime allowing the city to continue using a portion of the
property as a turnaround area and to store snow that accumulates from plowing Shore Road (note that
the other houses along Shore Road have short Rear Yard setbacks to Shore Road and we would have
significant distance to Shore Road with the proposed request). The outcome of the variance request and
right of way vacation results in a buildable area of 36.5% of the lot and a shape that allows for
development consistent with the other properties along Shore Road (see Exhibit "Proposed Lot and
Setbacks ").
Resulting Conforming Proposal: By granting the request for the 40' rear yard setback to be treated as
a 10' side yard setback, as well as vacating the right of way in return for use to store snow in a specific
area on the site and have turnaround access, the proposed new home would be compliant in every way
with the City of Shorewood zoning code. See Exhibit "Proposed Lot, Setbacks & House" noting the
removal of any non - conforming items as noted above with the existing home.
Besides reducing the non - conforming aspects of the existing house on the property, there are other
significant benefits that result from the lot combination completed associated with the variance and right
of way vacation requests, which include:
As the client and City work to formalize the agreement for an easement to use a specific area for
turning around on the property (proposed as the blue area on the Site Plan), there will be an
improvement for the current practice of turning around and plowing snow, both in terms of a
defined area and a more durable surface to turn around on.
The owners decided to combine the three non - conforming lots into one which cleans up various
challenges associated with the properties being separated.
A dock was removed as part of the property combination.
D -2
Meeting the Variance Findings: In reviewing the criteria set forth in Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood
Zoning Ordinance, the variance request meets all of the criteria at hand including:
• The circumstances are unique to the property. This was noted in the background information
above that the setbacks are defined differently than the other properties on Shore Road. Note
that this would not set a precedent for other properties due to the unique condition at hand.
• The property demonstrates practical difficulty. Also noted above, the property is only 15.6%
developable under the current setbacks. This is due to how the road is accessed and not
associated with the current property owner.
• The variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality. As noted above, the
variance will provide consistency with how 5590 Shore Road and the other properties along
Shore Road are treated with respects to setbacks to Christmas Lake. And it will remove the
current aspects of non - conformance and replace them with a new single family home in full
compliance of the zoning code.
• Also noted in Section 1201.05, there are conditions governing the variance request as noted in
Subd. 1 and Subd. 2. All of these conditions are met with the variance request.
Thank you for your consideration of our variance and right of way vacation request.
With appreciation,
Nate Wissink
Elevation Homes, a division of Streeter & Associates, Inc.
(612) 250 -0829
D -3
_ o a
N�to
Z M N N Q
O t CO cl
M M s
$ C
Q N ?
v
C
LJ M O
°° O °o
� � 3
W o °�
N O
L^ Q -O L
N
Q a 4)U
E �N
/ " z
Q
a
/ � I O
/ � �IJb913S 3�Ib1
19-09
ZO
I sn
\\
\ \ \ \ U
m \
o �
M
1 O C" o
I
N
U
C �
N �
in W
IL•Y� F -7i
•/
Fil
W 1
�L
L
N
U)
O
2
M
U
(a
N
cn
0
70
(D
U)
0
CD-
C)
�1
� Q
®o
�v
^
FRIENDLY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: \ ; - -` - ; -
$ , --'.; � d` PROPERTY
The following legal description Is per - �
SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS FOR ORIGINAL I
Lot 1, °Redisson Inn Addition'. p, / , - EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION APR Subject to the permanent right 1` Cy1 c �� ' V / v \ _ r I I f 1- f� R (�� {/1
In deed Doc No 161830; of 2 " ` 0 15
The West line of which addRi r^ o °O t \
/.n T °Oqq 7 9 a }
Northwest corner of Lot 26 �� +M F�• •` YI'
S oa o 0 0 0 /q a /' 4/ q/ \ _ SIL�o
c' o 0 o q° p , / O/ Cu
Together with pemanen[ �� O a0 p0 OoQ O O i
�5 aq qo 00 ,R� CONTACT:
the bathing beach on sa \ Opoo 00 a o °0� �' VIER
qrtr °q�°A / / / (3 S� ' NATE WISSINI<
The follovdng legal descr C`� \ o pq o� gao�q o'er ,^ "� / �� P QUG ELEVATION HOMES
rEL, 0 0o co 0 po o� Q R
oudpt C and D, Lar ° °o ° °o °� ! ✓ 15312 Minnetonka Blvd
The west Ilne oft �q" °paggo 0 00 '1 7 "� j� .00 Wayzata, MN 55391
marks, one at th nO Qj /// f 4
f r'fs,"� Phone: 952-346-2488
Email: Hate@
TogethervAth Q �D o° Op Op O S \ ' I elevationhomes.GOm
which Is Pled
maintenanc I cD i
recreation 1O N I I Ifo 1 N \°
Order Do q st \'>^ V (p I tp 1 ° Cr U1 ++ / j 1 t, % / y
Court Or �� R�� _ _ ►� '` I(0 j t / — 1IVEJ SIC 1 i I♦ j ° •
TITL R/ qN ^� , 1i7 ;y✓f1 Is/l7l� y�M1O COUNTY:
$ �F p tMrH y , _ $
.` H IE N N E P 1 N
5 UN — _ i ( an "< i COUNTY
Ivs
7
_1a3
N/ yT DATE REV15ION
Ras
12-05 -14 INITIALISSUE
WN°ol
$ L1 E- 04 -07 -1 S PROPOSED SITE PLAN
S _ /�, o ,� �' i o I 9 04 -27 -I5 OPTION I REV
NOI+'s� /� >; <� C /`° , � /tip /` "' Eu� fr�'�a
V °' •",_,r. � ;_ f 1 �'Ar0 ��A1 � a r7 �-:� 1` / oRAOO �- /�_ �''°�°s°„yBg° "% _ _ i /i / , 'lyc a�" Inasa� _ , \ I ) I �` ,
Q' ` I I _ . > ja C� iglp
/ r'J ` / R V R0 s �'4
O
tCl, q�Ti N I Iiv I I 1 lit. F� 1> L8 R'Sa
940
t7' oRlvf�NefH q
1 �T / I
3j SO,S� �Ak Or 680�� \' /6`fis / s °R
FsFr OS s4�
•� O s Egck rn
RSYEAALR K P( AT OQ GBUy pfi pF`R ¢ 6%` C �` ! / \ \ �r p / / �/ - \ qse \ \ °? q -. / / \ j 1, r ` ry o � Xp , •/ s`Ba 4 o �> s s ` i `j ° y / 1 ��� / Tr � s<'BO � ro
T s s 4Ra a YGti.qa � P'Riq p Rases e! y - CA�CP / . � Ro Tq �� ms/ s9 " I
$
CI hE R TIFICAT ION: „ y eby ctify that this p
lan vprepared Q '
D N s9 bhmeam ara undermydirect superdslan, and
at[ duty ucensea Lana s °weror I O yO \;> under the laws niche state of MINNESOTA. CONC
WALLS
DECK 356 \ �q opP vW°e y� O`rFQ (�
STEPS 157 SF ANp ^% 36 ` -.� o> Rqq %Rag FR L !7 y'�1.1' -
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 9737 SQ. F"f. oR� Daniel L Thurmez Reg svat(on No: 2571 R
d• _ ��\ \tea k•+ �\$o\ 1 sPo. s >6se'�C'F �a S` y$ ? V LTO� Date: 12 -05_14
%LOT IMPERVIOUS 29.4% P 6 - ^ ^
R '` REP AIN
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS CALCS: v91�r: °��
HOUSE 4,070 SF o< % °/"vr \ r �e �>' , -- �TFPo Y -
ROOF IN EXCESS OF 2' 232 SF -m TELEPHONE L, 0, r�,gsfr Qyq sH �qr \ BF4C;H 9'zj �� l - s/+a�F -z .
DRIVE 1.3325F —WATERLINE SHOREWOOD RD.
TURN AROUND CREDITS (IN DRIVE) (- 698)SF STORM SEl'fER uN!
TURN AROUND CREDITS (NORTH) (- 447)SF SANITARY SEIVER LINE s, '� -� `mss / /
AUTO COURT 1,3455E EXISTING SVALL \v oar ! > o
_ PID #3611723210008
ENTRY 131 SF —FENCE ` — �`� <
UPPER TERRACE 976 SF CURB epse ar�l1'N
LOWERTERRACE S
PID #3611723210029
GARAGESTOOP 102 SF CONCRETE
f /F� -`'\`� A /cr `G��� V O�gOp'aO 90 3p PID #3611723210030
LAKE PATH 304 SF DECIDUOUS TREE /'� fa °FC a (i� / 4 'VrR ?�+ o
AC PAD 12 SF CONIFEROUS TREE l y 9`oBg,, zo /p `'\ ` F' s,' / s ••tom o
EAST STEPPERS 55 SF R�ts`
EXISTING WALLS 215 SF J /-A.
PROPOSED WALLS 266 SF ` TREE TO BE REMOVED ' ✓ /i1� -'
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 8,2845F '�I / 91> $
TREEUNE ` -
% LOT IMPERVIOUS 24.3% EXISTING CONTOURS �kF �'�� ��``
NORTH \
,{,945.00 PROPOSED ELEVATION -\. P -�
,,;�, \\\ ,: SuPe #1
I s' v 776 6750 Stillwater, M '5508 N.
<— DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
.. v \ Stillwater, 697 .8969
3 Phone 651.275. 8969
PROPOSED CONTOURS 0 20 40 - \ \ Fax 651.275.8978
'® PROPOSED VACATION AREA n 1 9'�'1p `` dan @cssuNey
PROPOSED WALL „iy' fAO'4s6rE� / 9
1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL 7F� To 3grF4 \ .nef
$
UNDERGROUND UTILITY NOTES. e
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING •r” eti „y,
DRAWINGS, THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPROMISE ALL SUCH A.
UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE 'PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN AND INFORMATION PER CHARLIE �-
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THATTHEY AND COMPANY DESIGN, LTD. APRIL 6, 2015. CORNERSTONE
ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY
LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET #1 41 1 4 241 9.50ME MAPS WERE "GRADING AND SITE PLAN INFORMATION PER TRAVIS VAN Vii' ',-
RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. MOST UTLITIES WERE NOT MARKED AT LIERE STUDIOS APRIL 7, 2015. LAN SURVEYING, I N C
THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES EXIST ON ��.`
THIS THIS THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP. `{J
Exhibit F
SITE /GRADING PLAN
CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI
TN nun A9FA 651 -951 -0002 TINS CM
Tou rate. 1- eoo-zsz -1166 II6 ��CI1,L
SHORE ROAD
_ -r PROPOSED SNBW
'— 5 ORAGEAREAFORUSEBY
CITY
NEW ENTRY WALL,
ADDRESS MONUMENT
PROPOSED VACATE
SECTION OF PROPERTY
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES W
t;H ED
TO REMAIN, SAVE AN) 0;.,..
PROTECT
NEWTERRACEAREA W/- �s
STAIRS��_________ ____ -- -
I LANDSCAPE RETAINING.---- -
WALL - r.....
,r
�1
REMOVE EX. SHED DECK
STRUCTURES AT LAKES
NEW WOOD BURNING
FIREPIT 9,
sue,
-- ORCI. k tIIGH \JAI t7
OHY t E T IIO'J dJ!.79
- (AD 1 -J TED TO I L88)
3
sn
O � i
1
LANDSCAPE / SITE PLAN - OPT. 1
a - SCALE: i /16" =1' -0"
F E
EDGE or Ice 1cm DFC. s,, 2,1
ELE l= 932.1 (NAW188)
CHRISTMAS LAKE
s 1 ,
,t
I
xf� st
EXTEND MAN HOLE RIM TO NEW
GRADE (PER CITY STANDARDS)
EX. SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
Jk01',,.121' HIGh Jll1LR
UI11/ FI E \•I TI() 1 !3271
(kC),IUB TFD TO
north
0 4 B 16 32 64
i I6" = 1•-0"
one sixteen h Inch equals one foot
GENERAL NOTES:
1. REFER TOARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.
2. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE,
AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER
DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS.
3. REFER TO SITE SURVEY FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR.
4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTENDIMENSIONSARE TO BE
USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OFANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES.
6. ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR
FIELD LAYOUT.
B. VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING.
9. COORDINATE W/ CLIENT ON PHASING OF LANDSCAPE. NOTIFY IF EXISTING
WORK IMPEDES ANY FUTURE WORK.
TV LS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC
4146 CO FFMAN LANE MINNEAPOLIS, NN 55406
t 6127600494
IP51 WHITE PINES 14
TREES 8 SHRUBS
VERIFY LOCATIONS IN FIELD
LEGEND
LANDSCAPE RETAINING
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
WALL
e h
AGGREGATESURFACING
w
SEEDED AREA
o
AS SUOAR MAPLE 1
� o
VERIFY LOCATION IN FIELD 3° CAL
BaB
NEW 15' WIDE�-
1ITUMINOUS DRIVE MATCH
LOCALSOURCE
EX. AT SHORE ROAD
'
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES^! ---r—
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
TO REMAIN, SAVEANT. D
-
.,PSOI-f:C -
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
(TEND MAN HQLE IM TO
'
-k
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
I NEW )N� Yt.b
EX. TURN.AROUNDAREATO REgIAIN,'',,,r_r�r's
I9ht2ols TramU— s Van U st—,
.II p
REPLACEW /IRF BLOCKORAPPROVED
GftOUNDCOVER
IL EQUAL
WOOD DECKING
EXISTING ROADWA
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
REMAIN SAVEAND \
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SHORE ROAD
_ -r PROPOSED SNBW
'— 5 ORAGEAREAFORUSEBY
CITY
NEW ENTRY WALL,
ADDRESS MONUMENT
PROPOSED VACATE
SECTION OF PROPERTY
EX. SIGNIFICANT TREES W
t;H ED
TO REMAIN, SAVE AN) 0;.,..
PROTECT
NEWTERRACEAREA W/- �s
STAIRS��_________ ____ -- -
I LANDSCAPE RETAINING.---- -
WALL - r.....
,r
�1
REMOVE EX. SHED DECK
STRUCTURES AT LAKES
NEW WOOD BURNING
FIREPIT 9,
sue,
-- ORCI. k tIIGH \JAI t7
OHY t E T IIO'J dJ!.79
- (AD 1 -J TED TO I L88)
3
sn
O � i
1
LANDSCAPE / SITE PLAN - OPT. 1
a - SCALE: i /16" =1' -0"
F E
EDGE or Ice 1cm DFC. s,, 2,1
ELE l= 932.1 (NAW188)
CHRISTMAS LAKE
s 1 ,
,t
I
xf� st
EXTEND MAN HOLE RIM TO NEW
GRADE (PER CITY STANDARDS)
EX. SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
Jk01',,.121' HIGh Jll1LR
UI11/ FI E \•I TI() 1 !3271
(kC),IUB TFD TO
north
0 4 B 16 32 64
i I6" = 1•-0"
one sixteen h Inch equals one foot
GENERAL NOTES:
1. REFER TOARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION.
2. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/ PAVING, CONCRETE,
AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER
DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS.
3. REFER TO SITE SURVEY FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BYA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR.
4. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTENDIMENSIONSARE TO BE
USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OFANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES.
6. ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR
FIELD LAYOUT.
B. VERIFY ALL GRADES IN FIELD PRIOR TO FINAL GRADING.
9. COORDINATE W/ CLIENT ON PHASING OF LANDSCAPE. NOTIFY IF EXISTING
WORK IMPEDES ANY FUTURE WORK.
TV LS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC
4146 CO FFMAN LANE MINNEAPOLIS, NN 55406
t 6127600494
•t.s EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION aetT49 PROPOSEDSPOT
ELEVATION
O
PROPOSED NEW TREE
EXISTINGTREESTO BE
PROTECTEDANO SAVED
a EXISTINGTREES TO BE REMAIN O PROPOSEDSHRUB/
PERENNIAL
EXISTING TREES TO BE DRAINAGE FLOW
REMOVED
TREE REPLACEMENTS
• TREES REPLACENT TO BE PER CITY OF SHOREWOOD TREE PRESERVATION POLICY.
• MAX NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED ON 1 ACRE SITE IS 8 TREES.
• LANDSCAPE PLANTING INDICATED ON PLANS SHOW INTENT ONLY. FINAL
LANDSCAPING PLANTINGS TO BE INDICATED ON FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE
ISSUED FOR PERMIT ON PROJECT.
PRELIMINARY PLANTING SCHEDULE
TREES 8 SHRUBS
n<tl el9 sMnn and described h<reb
LEGEND
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
Including ell tecMkal drawingr, graphks
aiw apec ncauow me.eP6 are
Prpprktary arM cannot be copied,
COMMENTS
AGGREGATESURFACING
PS PIfJUS STROPUS 4
SEEDED AREA
Whale Pr in pacummerdaiiy expbned In
rt. w Iheut the
Itten Van Ll erp U
WHITE PINE
FIELD. TO BE SPADED FROM
w TravN
perM[sbn of ere
Ilmuted revkw aM ovalua0oe nyfcpants,
EX. BEACH AREA
LOCALSOURCE
CONCRETE /STONE
nsNltaN[, <Pniraclor[, govemement
.oen ,, and vewors ony lnaccormme
3'CALB +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
❑
SURFACING
with This mace.
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
I9ht2ols TramU— s Van U st—,
.II p
GftOUNDCOVER
WOOD DECKING
LLCAe[erved.
ri9n[s r
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
PLANTING
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SUGARMAPLE
- - -- - -
EXISTING CONTOUR
PROPOSED CONTOUR
•t.s EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION aetT49 PROPOSEDSPOT
ELEVATION
O
PROPOSED NEW TREE
EXISTINGTREESTO BE
PROTECTEDANO SAVED
a EXISTINGTREES TO BE REMAIN O PROPOSEDSHRUB/
PERENNIAL
EXISTING TREES TO BE DRAINAGE FLOW
REMOVED
TREE REPLACEMENTS
• TREES REPLACENT TO BE PER CITY OF SHOREWOOD TREE PRESERVATION POLICY.
• MAX NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED ON 1 ACRE SITE IS 8 TREES.
• LANDSCAPE PLANTING INDICATED ON PLANS SHOW INTENT ONLY. FINAL
LANDSCAPING PLANTINGS TO BE INDICATED ON FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO BE
ISSUED FOR PERMIT ON PROJECT.
PRELIMINARY PLANTING SCHEDULE
TREES 8 SHRUBS
SYAI DESCRIPTION OTY
SIZE
COMMENTS
PS PIfJUS STROPUS 4
8'HTB+B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
WHITE PINE
FIELD. TO BE SPADED FROM
LOCALSOURCE
AF AC FR XFRELUANIN X 2
3'CALB +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
VEIII. RSRRD'
FIELD. SINGLESTEM
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
SPECIES, UNIFORM IN
APPEARANCE
AS ACLR SACCAROM 2
3" CAL B +B
VERIFY FINAL LOCATIONS IN
SUGARMAPLE
FIELD. SINGLE STELA
SPECIES, UNIFORM IN
APPEARANCE
PERENNIALS d GROUNDCOVERS
SYM DESCRIPTION QTY
SIZE
COMMENTS
PERENNIAL TBD
FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS/
PLlINTINCS
BEDS ADJACENT TO HOUSE.
TO BE DETERMINED
FINAL PLANTINGS TO BE
SELECTED PRIOR TO
PERMIT
GI SOD /LAWN
SOD MATTING
ALLAREAS INDICATED ON
PLAN. STAGGER JOINTS OF
SOD MATS. LAY $OD
PERPENDICULAR TO
! hereby —Ify that INS Ph,,
CONTOURS.
specllica6un, or report wes Prepsred by
antlermy mpervkiopantl
02 CUSTOM SUN/
HYDROSEED PER SOURCE FROM TWIN CITIES
tnzilam UCense
11-
aauiy d landscape
SHADE MIX WITH
RECOMMENDED SEED OR APPROVED
Ar<Nte<t under the laws ofthe state of
MlnneseG.
WILDFLOWERS
RATE.
EQUAL. ADD 1" LAYER OF
- CYE-EYE. DA IN
COMPOSTTO ALL SEEDED
print name: TRAVIS VAN HERE
- COREOPSIS
- !'✓ILO PLI/E PHLOX
AREAS. SEE PLANS FOR
LOCATIONS.
SIgPSturc. ,/
Vwt
- E,10OWPARS1,IP
IT— m' 43226 date: 03353015
- SHORTS AS I ER
NOTE:
h— Rtvisbn
VA tANCEAPPUCARONDRAVVING.S 04.07.15
VARWKEAPPLICATIONREVISKINS O4211fi
Friendly Residence
ss90 snpm Roaa
sMrewood, MN ss331
Do g
Landscape / Site Plan -
Opt. 1
P,*d 1504
DrawnM M
Exhibit G
SITE /LANDSCAPE PLAN
_, � -
Z
®tea - -
�Da �Ee
.6
®9
LIAPORTANT I TOFF FOR
ALL CONTRACTORS G
SUB - CONTRACTORS
r:. /G:YCI
- c�.4d�..rn
mid -ae
_ rFLt�r�1':c5. t
ail G- 'rey:.. lar i . ,yri
mL• mr[bTn� d7dMSA[
LU
U
Z
w
❑ o
V)
w
J
❑
Z
W_
CkL
LL-
West
Elevation
Not for
Construction
Exhibit H
DIJIILDING ELEV kTIONS
_Z
�o
u
o0
I�.MPOPTANT NOTE FOR
ALL CONTRACTORS G
SUB - CONTRACTORS
G.r �rr�i n�31_0
�rfi� -rr. d �n -as
o- ra..re c-d
Gel all Cn-r --n. h» -
oJ .rrvrtk� n i�;eu} m
„a
r_.u,u"
LLI
U
Z
w
� a
LLI w =
J
Q r
Z
111
LL.
South
Elevation
Not for
Construction
A 2.0 H_2
H -3
11 -4
Brad Nielsen
From: Wille, Michael J [mjwille @cbburnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:04 PM
To: Brad Nielsen
Cc: 'Leslie Wille'
Subject: 5590 Shore Road
Hi Brad;
Thank you for sending the Public Hearing Notice regarding 5590 Shore Road on Christmas Lake in Shorewood.
Neither Leslie not I will be able to attend the Hearing this evening, but we both give our full support to the Friendly's
project and believe it will both beautify and improve the immediate area.
We support vacation of the Shore Road right -of -way, which extends into the property, and their request for a Setback
Variance.
Kind regards,
Michael
Michael Wille
Realtor, Broker - The Wille Group
Coldwell Banker Burnet
3033 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Direct: 612-924-7122 Cell: 612-860-7040
www.WilleGroup.com We appreciate your referrals!
Licensed REALTOR and BROKER in the State of Minnesota
The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this interact
electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in
reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful.
The sender believes that this E -mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worn, Trojan horse, and /or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could
have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts frill responsibility for taking protective and remedial action
about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments.
Nothing in this email shall be deemed to create a binding contract to purchase /sell real estate. The sender of this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a
contract via written or verbal corrununications including, but not limited to, email communications.
Barbara M. Ross
Attorney DIRECT 612.341.9722
bross @bestlaw.com
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
TEL 612.339.7121 FAX 612.339.5897 BESTLAW.COM
BEST & FLANAGAN
May 5, 2015
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: 5590 Shore Road, Shorewood MN (the "Subject Property ")
Request for R.O.W. Vacation and Setback Variance
Your File No. 405 (15.06)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We represent Carol McCleary, owner of both a home located at 5480 Carrie Lane and two
undeveloped lots adjacent to her home. Ms. McCleary's property lies immediately to the east of the
Subject Property. (See attached Map.)
We understand two requests are before the Planning Commission at its hearing today with respect to
the Subject Property: (1) the vacation of a portion of Shore Road; and (2) a variance permitting the
rear set -back for the Subject Property to be 10 feet, rather than the required 40 feet.
Ms. McCleary first received written notice of these requests from the City this past Saturday, May 2,
2015, and has only had an opportunity to meet with the owners of the Subject Property regarding
these requests this morning. Based on Ms. McCleary's current limited information on these
requests, she has no objection to the proposed vacation of Shore Road, but objects to the proposed
variance.
As you know the City's Code and Minnesota law provides that the City may only grant a zoning
variance if the "practical difficulties" test is met. In applying this test, the party seeking the variance
must establish certain facts, including that the proposed property use necessitating the variance is
reasonable, that unique features of the property create the need for the variance, and that the variance
does not unreasonably diminish the value of neighboring properties. These facts must be established
independent of any other proposed governmental changes with respect to the property. In other
words, a variance cannot be granted if some other concurrently proposed governmental change for
the same property, if granted, would eliminate the need for the variance.
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
May 5, 2015
Page 2
For all the reasons set forth in Mr. Nielsen's April 30, 2015 Memo to the Planning Commission and
the developer's materials attached to it (collectively, the "Submitted Materials "), the vacation of
Shore Road appears to be an appropriate and sensible request. If the City were to approve this
request, however, it does not follow that the requested variance is legally permissible. Rather, the
developer must separately show that the requested variance - taking the Shore Road vacation into
account - meets the Code and statutory requirements. The Submitted Materials do not adequately do
this. Among other things, the Summited Materials address none of the following:
• The percentage of the lot that is developable if the vacation was granted but not the
variance.
• Whether, with the road vacation, the proposed variance is the minimum necessary
variance as required by the City's Code.
• Whether, in light of the road vacation, the variance request is reasonable, or could the
proposed development be oriented, positioned, and /or designed to reduce or eliminate the
need for the variance.
In this regard, Exhibit E of the Submitted Materials appears to show that, with the road vacation,
there is a sizable amount of developable land west of the proposed new house and east of the side
and front -yard setbacks. Yet the Submitted Materials undertake no analysis of why such area could
not be built upon in lieu of the variance or to lessen the extent of the variance. That such changes
may increase the costs of the project is not, as you know, a legally sufficient reason to grant the
variance.
Similarly, the Submitted Materials provide no analysis of the variance's effect on neighboring
property values, including the value of Ms. McCleary's property. The proposed development will
substantially increase both the height and footprint of the already non - conforming structure on the
Subject Property. Given the proximity of the proposed development to Ms. McCleary's property,
whether there is a variance will have a material impact on the extent to which these increases impact
the value of McCleary's property. Yet, the Submitted Materials provide no discussion of this
impact, as required by the City's Code.
Moreover, Mr. Nielsen's Memo states that the variance will allow the Subject Property to have the
same lot and house orientation as the properties on either side. It is, however, not apparent from the
Submitted Materials whether the existing lot orientation of the Subject Property differs from the
orientation of the undeveloped lot immediately to the east owned by Ms. McCleary. This
City of Shorewood Planning Commission
May 5, 2015
Page 3
undeveloped lot is subject to a PUD but the Submitted Materials do not state the setback restrictions
under the PUD and whether they are consistent with this variance. For instance, does this
undeveloped lot have a rear 40 -foot setback line that is perpendicular to the shoreline, just as the
Subject Property has in absence of the variance? As to house orientation, it is not apparent how the
variance is needed to achieve this objective since the variance does not determine house orientation;
it only determines the extent to which the house extends to the east. Accordingly, without more
information, the Submitted Materials do not provide a sufficient basis to determine that the proposed
variance will not simply provide a benefit to the Subject Property that is not enjoyed by Ms.
McCleary's neighboring parcel to the east, and thus a benefit that cannot be granted under the City's
Code by a variance.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission not recommend the approval
of the variance as the Submitted Materials do not provide a sufficient basis to establish the facts
necessary to lawfully grant the requested variance.
Very truly yours,
BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
By: &tZmPL= oi, 00)-,0
Barbara M. Ross
Gregory D. Soule
016026/204025/2126437_1
fn " 31
i Q m U
N
T
y
N
IN
UD =1 kK
uz< Lo
�{ N
V � O
��
.da a
0
. Exhibit A
,� SITE E®CATION
FILE NO.: 405 (15.07)
BACKGROUND
Mr. David Moe owns the property at 20920 Forest Drive (see Site Location map — Exhibit A,
attached). The property is significantly substandard with respect to its width. For that reason
he has had difficulty marketing the property. Prospective buyers want assurances that they can
build a new home on the site, and those assurances can only come with the granting of setback
variances. Consequently, Mr., Moe has designed a home for the site, and applied for the
necessary variance to construct a home on the lot.
The property is zoned R -ID /S, Single - Family Residential and contains 10,288 square feet of
area. The lot is only 49 feet wide at the front building line, tapering to 37.5 feet at the rear of
the site. As can be seen on the survey (Exhibit B) and the proposed Site Plan (Exhibit C), the
lot is unbuildable without some sort of variance from the current standards. The width
problem is compounded on the south side of the lot, where the setback is 30 feet for the side
yard abutting the street. That, with the north side 10 -foot setback, leaves a buildable width of
less than 10 feet.
The house plans illustrated on Exhibit C,, show the proposed house located only 10' -10" from
the right -of -way of Forest Drive — a 19 -foot variance. The house is also located six feet from
the northerly lot line, a four -foot variance, but maintaining the setback for the existing home..
The proposed house contains 1023 square feet of floor area on each of two levels. The
proposed garage contains 440 square feet. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits D
through D -4. Mr. Moe's request is set forth in his letter, dated 2 April (Exhibit E).
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
It is worth noting that the initial plans submitted by the applicant included more and greater
setback variances. After working with staff, Mr. Moe redesigned his plans to eliminate the
®�
� ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Moe Variances
29 April 2015
need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving the home.
In addition the depth of the house and garage were decreased so as to minimize the extent of
the variances which are part of this application.
In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently meet
setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the building
setbacks render the lot unbuildable.
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:
1. The narrow width of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a 30-
foot, side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest Drive is a dead -end road with
a right -of -way (60 feet) that exceeds the minimum 50 -foot standard prescribed by the
Shorewood Subdivision Code. As proposed, the house will be 20 -30 feet from the paved
surface of the street.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single - family
residence is considered a reasonable use of property in the R -1D /S zoning district.
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 three -car garage. 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).
4. The applicant did not create his 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 house was built in 1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective.
5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized.
6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home will only result in 17 percent
hardcover on the site, whereas 25 percent is allowed.
Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed.
It is important to remember that the variance must be used within one year. If the applicant
chooses to request an extension to that deadline, he must request it prior to the end of the year.
Cc: Bill Joynes Joe Pazandak
Tim Keane Patti Helgesen
David Moe
-2-
C-�
nu
on
o �
C) oLL-
Lo
El
N
r
o �
O
M
� e
3mMe
�mm
Jal
—"Iwlqlq IS-PAOPA IV,
Ulm a
CO U)
T- N
LM
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
�A
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
o
J
•a_
p
�1
xa
_--
cc
J`
M �m
m
Q L 'L P�
Lr
�p11. O
I
Y
1
I
I-
O
00
_
1
I
�
t
t
l
1
1
l
I
N `
'
X
T
.. - mod... f""w�.'•'rj�.'"!.. .. � �
i
I-
O
a�
;Q
�o
c
w
0
3
j
o o
rRl rr�l
Exhibit
N
EXISTING
SURVEY
O U
-
p
m
�
h
^
CID
�
a
Q3
�
� o
U
•� p
N
01 O
��'
�
:Q,
•C
C
�
p Q) (b
•
*J a �;
a�
i
a
rz
o
0
o
0 o v
a,
L�
ci
�1JJZ
] �
3 b�
o
b
4-1
� b(j
7
p-
a�ivr
o
T
.. - mod... f""w�.'•'rj�.'"!.. .. � �
..: 1
a�
O
co
c
0
3
j
o o
rRl rr�l
Exhibit
B
EXISTING
SURVEY
T
.. - mod... f""w�.'•'rj�.'"!.. .. � �
a �
0
I
1 I
I I
1 I
I I
1 I
1 I
I 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I i
I I
�1
� I I
I I
I I
I I
I
1 I
1 i
1
1 I
I I
1 I
1
I I
I I
I I
I
1 I
II
II
1
II
II
m
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
III
°T Exhibit C
RUSTIC WAY PROPOSED SITE PLAN
w
0 (D LL
O w LL W
$
0 cc
p�mx
¢a°
aC7
O
F
�.......,_._
-,. .��. w
O'
¢
O
11
m
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
III
°T Exhibit C
RUSTIC WAY PROPOSED SITE PLAN
W ww>
O w LL W
$
p�mx
ax.-w
m
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
III
°T Exhibit C
RUSTIC WAY PROPOSED SITE PLAN
n
Exhibit D
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
le
D-2
D -3
s
m
April 2, 2015
Dear Mayor of Shorewood and City Council Members,
My name is Dave Moe and I am a Shorewood resident. I am looking for a right of way
variance to build on my lot located at 20920 Forest Drive. This lot was platted before the
current regulations. The lot is narrow and tapers to the east and resides at a dead end.
There is an extraordinary right of way, with an extra 5ft on each side of Forest Drive.
Due to the narrowness of the lot I cannot build without this variance.
The current dwelling at this location was built in 1938 and it is cost prohibitive to restore.
I would appreciate your vote for this variance thank you for your consideration.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns,
Sincerely,
1071Ra►TM
20920 Forest Drive
763 - 250 -0437
Exhibit E
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER