Loading...
09-01-15 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 1 SEPTEMBER 2015 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE DAVIS (Nov) ______ GENG (Sep) ______ MADDY (Oct) ______ BEAN (Dec) ______ JOHNSON (Jan) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 18 August 2015  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre Location: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 5. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  6. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD SOUTHSHORE COMMUNITY CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; City Engineer Hornby; and, Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng asked that Item 3.A Determine Liaisons to Council be added to the agenda. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for August 18, 2015, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 4, 2015 Bean moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2015, as grammatically amended on Page 3, Page 4, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, and Page 13. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – FORMAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONCEPT STAGE APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY (Continued from August 4, 2015) Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M. for a Shorewood Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment and a Concept Stage approval for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property, and he noted that it is continued from August 4, 2015. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to assist 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 non-binding recommendations to the City Council. He explained during the August 4 Public Hearing the Planning Commission heard at great length from Planning Director Nielsen. It also heard from Mr. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes (the developer). The Commission then took public testimony. About 12 residents spoke. Once all of the residents wanting to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 2 of 18 speak had the opportunity to speak the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed. The Commissioners decided they wanted time to think about everything it had heard about the proposed redevelopment. Therefore, the Commission voted to continue the Public Hearing to this meeting. He then explained this evening’s Planning Commission discussion will be about what it heard on August 4, the recommendations of the MCC Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), the discussions it has had over the last 6 – 8 months, and comments from residents. After the Commission concludes its discussion it will take two votes. One vote will be a recommendation on the developer’s request to amend the Comp Plan. The second vote will be a recommendation on the Concept Stage plans. He reiterated the Commission’s recommendations are not binding. Only Council has the authority to approve or decline the applications. In response to a comment from someone in the audience, Chair Geng explained the land use specified in the Comp Plan for the former MCC property is “Semi-Public”. That was to allow for the use of the land as a golf course. The golf course was shut down and the property was sold to a developer who intends to develop it as residential. The applicant has asked to amend the land use classification in the Comp Plan to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. He then explained that per state law a PUD follows a three stage process. The Concept Stage is the first stage in the process. The Concept Stage is to acquaint the City and its residents with what the developer has in mind. It is a broad overview of the concept; it is not a detailed plan. The Concept Stage also gives the developer the opportunity to find out if the concept of the plan is acceptable to the City. For the Development Stage, the second stage, the developer submits the preliminary plat and all the supporting detail documents. The developer has to obtain approval of the Development Stage plans. For the Final Plan Stage (the third stage) the developer submits the final plat. He suggested the Commissioners use the staff memorandum (memo) for this item as an outline to frame its discussion. He noted the memo was divided into five categories – natural resources, land use, transportation, community facilities, and the developer. He recommended discussing them in that order. He stated the memo does not cover all of the issues that have been raised at various times. He encouraged the Commissioners to raise other concerns they may have during this discussion. Natural Resources With regard to contaminated soils, Chair Geng explained this issue was raised by staff during the August 4 Public Hearing. The soils where the tees and greens were have some amount of mercury in them. Mercury is commonly used in fungicides to help keep tees and greens healthy. He noted that during his college years he had been a greens keeper for two years so he has some familiarity with caring for greens. He stated the developer hopes to excavate and remove the contaminated soils from those areas over the winter. Commissioner Johnson stated it is his understanding there is some benefit to doing that during the winter. Geng asked Mr. Packer if there is a reason for doing that during the winter. Mr. Packer responded it is to have less of an impact on the nearby neighborhoods. Commissioner Bean asked if there would be any load limit issues. Engineer Hornby stated the trucks would have to follow load level restrictions and noted there is more concern about that during the spring. Commissioner Bean noted the memo indicates the soil tests Mattamy had conducted will be subject to review and comment by representatives from WSB & Associates (the City’s engineering consultant). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 3 of 18 Chair Geng stated the Commission has not discussed the impact trucking equipment will have on City roadways. In the past for PUDs staff has photographically recorded the conditions of roadways before construction began and after it was complete. Director Nielsen stated that staff has recommended the developer submit a traffic management plan. Nielsen explained a lot of the movement of soils will occur on the site and not on to and off of the site. The traffic will primarily be routed on County Road 19 to Smithtown Road and not on the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail / Lake Linden Drive collector route. Geng noted the traffic management plan will be submitted as part of the Development Stage plans. Councilmember Johnson asked if that would be similar to a logistics plan. Nielsen responded yes. Johnson then asked if that would have to be updated for different phases of construction. With regard to tree preservation, Chair Geng stated the developer has done a detailed tree survey. He asked when staff will review that. Director Nielsen responded during the Development Stage. Nielsen noted a graphic showing the tree massing was presented during the last Public Hearing. He explained the tree inventory would be much more detailed. It will identify type, size and condition of trees. The developer will also have to provide a tree reforestation plan. The City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy recognized that trees will be lost to construction; during both the land development portion and the construction of houses. The Policy requires the replacement of trees based on a formula included in the Policy. Commissioner Davis asked if the inventory has been done yet. Nielsen explained the developer has inventoried trees located within 200 feet from the centerline of surrounding roadways. Those trees are all the developer intends to disturb. Chair Geng stated that during the PAC process it was noted that the property will lose ash trees due to emerald ash borer infestation. PAC members walked the property last spring and saw a large number of ash trees on the site. Commissioner Johnson stated the memo states “…preserving existing trees in the area in question may be more beneficial than restoring the old wetland.” Director Nielsen explained the PAC had discussed the possibility of restoring an old wetland on the site that had been located on the southeast part of the site. It is not subject to current regulations. The City’s engineers have indicated that the cost of restoring that wetland would not balance with the potential credits received from a “wetland bank”. He noted that when wetlands get restored or created trees are usually lost. That would be the case with the restoration of the large wetland. It now appears that preserving existing trees in that area may be more beneficial than restoring the old wetland. In response to a question from Commissioner Bean related to the tradeoff between trees and wetlands, Director Nielsen explained wetlands are delineated and they are shown on the developer’s concept plan. Director Nielsen explained that at this time the most logical place for a second access point onto Smithtown Road would be on the northwest corner of the site. Putting that access in would require some wetland alteration. The developer would have to create some additional wetland somewhere else on the site to mitigate the alteration. There is more than adequate space to do that with all of the proposed open space. A development does have to manage its own drainage. Therefore, there will also be stormwater management ponds in the development. The ponds can be designed in a way that saves trees to a large extent. That will be described in the development plans. Chair Geng stated it is his understanding that the developer will have to comply with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD’s) stormwater retention, treatment and drainage regulations. He then stated the PAC learned the MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) consider larger wetlands to be of greater benefit than smaller wetlands. The larger ones are more effective. He recommended people keep that in mind. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 4 of 18 Geng explained that during the PAC discussions a natural resources expert from Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., (the firm that provided planning consulting services to the City to guide the PAC process brought forward the former existence of the large, old wetland that had been filled in decades ago. He noted the MCWD considers the former MCC site to be landlocked to some degree. That means there is no natural way for stormwater to flow off of the site. He explained there is an old 24-inch-diameter drainage pipe that goes south from the golf course and ultimately the stormwater flows into Lake Minnewashta. That pipe is deteriorated on primarily the north part. The pipe needs to be repaired and restored. The MCWD would allow that, but it will not allow the capacity of the pipe to be increased. He stated he assumes that will be addressed during the Development Stage. Director Nielsen responded it would. Land Use Chair Geng explained the developer has requested the land use for the former MCC property be changed from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. That requires an amendment to the Land Use Plan in the Comp Plan. The property is currently zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential (1 lot per acre). Staff has previously noted that although 1 – 2 units per acre is on the low end it is consistent with the surrounding densities. The PAC recommended single-family residential would the best use for the redevelopment of the site. The PAC raised concern about housing choices. The pre-application concept plan only had one higher priced choice. The plan proposed 121 lots. The PAC recommended there also be a lower priced housing choice. The developer took that into consideration and revised the concept plan to include 40 age-targeted homes (a home where all the main living is on one level). The age-targeted homes would be on smaller parcels of land than the traditional homes would be on. They would not be restricted to people of a certain age; they would be targeted to people at or near retirement age. The majority of the remaining 100 homes would be the larger, traditional style homes. The developer is considering hiring another developer to develop some of the 100 lots with custom homes on them with the price point starting at around $1 million. They would be developed on the south and southeast portion of the proposed development. The concept plan proposes clustering the residential units. The houses would be grouped closer together than would normally be allowed under the City’s standard platting. The concept of clustering of homes is a development tool that is recognized in Shorewood’s Comp Plan and it is part of Shorewood’s Zoning Ordinance. Section 1201.25 of that Ordinance governs PUDs. The Comp Plan specifically recognizes as a policy that “Innovation in subdivision design and housing development shall be considered through use of devices such as the cluster and planned unit development concepts”. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes the flexibility of developers to cluster housing on better, more buildable ground to preserve natural features such as wetlands, trees and areas with less suitable soils. There are portions of the former MCC property that have very poor soils. The concept plan seems to be consistent in that regard. They would be good areas to consider for stormwater ponds and wetlands. The plan clusters units on the higher, better buildable areas of the site. Commissioner Bean stated that for more than 20 years the Comp Plan has had objectives related to diversity of housing stock and preserving what the City has with objectives to create affordable housing options. The Comp Plan acknowledges that given Shorewood’s proximity to Lake Minnetonka affordable land is a very nebulous opportunity. He noted that he wished there could be affordable housing. He stated that when he got married in 1975 he could not afford to purchase a house in Shorewood. His four children cannot afford to purchase their first house there either. He finds it disappointing that Shorewood cannot effectively create that opportunity for first time home buyers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 5 of 18 Bean then stated there is an objective in the Comp Plan to create senior housing. The City has received a lot of feedback over the years about people wanting to downsize within the community but there are limited options available. Over the years there have been a couple of designated senior housing projects in the City. There is a very limited amount of apartment style options. By developing the site using a PUD it allows the developer to build a little diversity in housing. The proposed age-targeted units would provide opportunities for some people to downsize. He explained that during the August 4 Public Hearing a question was raised about the number of proposed units to be developed being increased from 121 to 140. Those extra units (age-targeted units) will be empty nester houses. That style of house would to some degree lessen the number of vehicles going from and coming to the development. Those individuals likely won’t have children, they may travel a lot and they may spend part of the winter in a warmer climate. In response to a comment from a woman in the audience, Chair Geng clarified that the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing occurred during the August 4 Public Hearing. That was the opportunity for residents to speak. Now is the time for the Commissioners to talk about the concept plan. A man in the audience challenged Commissioner Bean’s comment that the people buying the age-targeted housing would be empty nesters. He also challenged Bean’s comments that young, first time home buyers cannot afford to buy in Shorewood and stated there are many homes to purchase that are less than $200,000. Commissioner Bean clarified the senior housing he was referring to is on St. Albans Bay Circle. Chair Geng noted that he was not trying to be disrespectful or silence anyone. He clarified there is a procedure the Planning Commission is following. He stated if people have reactions to what is being said the record is still open for written comments. Those can be mailed or emailed to Director Nielsen and Nielsen will circulate them to the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted the City Council will hold a public hearing on this Comp Plan amendment and the Concept Stage plans on September 14, 2015. That public hearing will be noticed to a much larger number of residents than is required by State Statute or the City Ordinance. A man in the audience asked Chair Geng if all of the concerns brought up during the August 4 Public Testimony are going to be addressed this evening. Chair Geng reiterated that after the August 4 Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed the Planning Commissioners decided they wanted time to think about everything it had heard about the proposed redevelopment. Therefore, the Commission voted to continue the Public Hearing to this meeting. He noted the meeting minutes for the August 4 Public Hearing summarize the comments made and concerns raised by residents during the Public Testimony. He stated now is the Commissions time to discuss what it heard and learned on August 4 and during PAC discussions from other information relative to this agenda item. Commissioner Bean clarified that he had been attempting to answer a question raised by a resident on August 4. He attempted to provide background information on discussions small groups of PAC members had and made comments about the Comp Plan. Bean stated the Comp Plan is quite specific about using planning tools that allow the City to ensure the greatest amount of green space is created or maintained with any development. He thought the PUD process accomplished that. What has been proposed will preserve a significant portion of the property as CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 6 of 18 green space that would be open to Shorewood residents. That would be a positive outcome of the PUD. Commissioner Maddy stated with regard to the Comp Plan definitions he asked if it refers to real acres or Shorewood acres for density. Director Nielsen responded density is based on units per 40,000 square feet and noted an acre is 43,560 square feet. Nielsen explained the 3,560 square feet that is “short” of a full acre basically accounts for the roadway right-of-way (ROW) in the project. That is not counted for density. Maddy asked if the current zoning of R-1A, Single-Family Residential would more appropriately fall under “minimum density” in the Comp Plan. Nielsen indicated yes. Maddy then stated the proposed age-targeted houses would have basements and stairs going down to the basements. People who are retiring typically do not want stairs in their houses. He viewed the age- targeted units as higher density housing of the same type. He doubts they will only be occupied by seniors who take three car trips a day. He thought a lot of families would try to get into the community at the base price point ($400,000 plus) for those units and that is a concern for him. He cautioned against bringing the density up to much. He stated the site is somewhat landlocked between lakes. There is a very congested small road that goes to one good roadway near the site. He noted that he does not think 140 units for the site are appropriate; it is in excess of the density for the existing zoning. He also noted he considered the pre-application concept plan to be more appropriate (it proposed 121 units). Chair Geng asked Commissioner Maddy how many units he could support. Maddy stated when Mattamy bought the property it was zoned R-1A and that would allow 114 houses. Maddy then stated if the developer wanted to entertain the idea of age-restricted units (which would result in less traffic) instead of age-targeted units he would be much more willing to grant that type of density. Chair Geng stated 114 houses would be developed under standard platting and not under a PUD. Commissioner Maddy stated he thought the developer could do a PUD with 114 houses so there could be relaxed setbacks to maintain more open space. Commissioner Maddy noted he is skeptical about the age-targeted units. He stated he does not think that is what the PAC envisioned or what was heard during the August 4 Public Hearing. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought the developer had indicated it was reluctant to construct age- restricted housing. Commissioner Maddy noted he thought the proposed smaller setbacks would be great because doing that would result in more open space and be better for the environment. From his perspective it is a better way to develop on the site. He stated from his perspective if the zoning were kept the way it is, the Comp Plan should be amended so that the land use is minimum density housing rather than low density housing. Chair Geng stated that low density housing is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. Director Nielsen explained the areas to the east and west of the former MCC property are zoned R-1A one unit per 40,000 square feet. The areas to the north are two units to the acre. Some of the areas to the south are two units to the acre. The project as currently proposed comes in at 1.22 units per 40,000 square feet. Chair Geng expressed concern about the small side yard setbacks between the age-targeted houses. The units will be very close together. They will create a wall type appearance. He explained the staff report suggests the setback requirements for the project be based on the R-1C district setbacks (i.e.; front – 35 feet; rear – 40 feet; side – 10 feet; and, side-abutting street 35 feet). His concern is about the 10-foot side yard setback. There is a provision in the PUD Ordinance that states “…no two buildings shall be nearer to one another than one-half of the sum of the building heights, giving due consideration to solar access”. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 7 of 18 Director Nielsen stated staff does not know what the roof pitches on the single-level buildings will be. Nielsen noted the developer is concerned that requirement may force a different design such as lower roof pitches. He explained that has to be worked out during the Development Stage. It is possible on a single- level dwelling unit that they could be as close as 15 feet and meet that requirement. There are a couple of those situations in The Seasons development. Height is measured from any portion of the grade to the mid-point between the eve and the peak. Mr. Packer stated the age-targeted houses would be single family with all of the living functions on one level. He noted Mattamy’s target market would be 55 years of age or older who want to move into their final house and live on one level. He explained that residents who live near those types of units prefer them because they are not very high. There would not be the appearance of a wall. Mattamy’s traditional houses are 70 feet wide with a 10 foot setback on each side. That equates to 20 feet of open space for every 70 feet. The age-targets houses would be 40 feet wide with 15 feet of open space on each one. There is considerably more open space as a total on a row of the age-targeted houses than on a row of traditional houses. He noted Mattamy has a variety of roof styles. He explained that from a management perspective it is difficult to decide what to build and where when the setback for one house depends on the height of another. He stated to get the extra 2.5 feet on each side to allow for potential solar there would be a lot of monotony with the housing. He noted Mattamy is open to discussing that. He explained that typically it builds the age-targeted units with five-foot side yard setbacks. The properties would be maintenance free so there is no need to pull a trailer, for example, to the back of the yards. Streets cost $1,800 a front foot (including engineering and overhead costs). An additional five feet costs $9,000 and that gets added to the cost of the house. Mr. Packer noted Mattamy included age-targeted housing because the PAC wanted some variety in housing types. But, he is not going to “fall on his sword” over it. Mattamy included it because the community asked for it. With regard to benefits to the community, Chair Geng stated the staff memo indicates the proposed development will create over $100 million in new tax base for the City in addition to generating park dedication fees to fund improvements to City parks. He asked how long it would take to create the new tax base. Director Nielsen stated once the project is built out that tax base will be in place. Nielsen clarified the tax base is the value of the development; it is not new taxes. He also clarified that additional tax base has never driven development in the City. If the City had allowed that there would be apartments and presumably much smaller lots in the City. Director Nielsen stated he thought the greater benefits from the project would be the public open space and the trails that will be constructed as part of it. The project includes constructing a trail parallel to Country Club Road. The trails that would be internal to the project area would be available to the public. The trails through the project, particularly near the wetland areas and stormwater management areas on the south of the site, would create a very different experience than, for example, the Smithtown Road sidewalk. The PAC concurred with that. Chair Geng stated one of the outstanding issues is who will maintain the open space. Director Nielsen clarified that the proposal is it would be public open space and therefore the City would be responsible for maintaining it. He stated that currently the intent is to leave it as a more natural area. Commissioner Johnson asked how buckthorn will be controlled and noted that trails within Freeman Park have been overrun with buckthorn. Nielsen stated the City does not have a buckthorn removal program for City- owned property at this time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 8 of 18 Commissioner Johnson noted that he was pleased to hear the trails will be public. Transportation Chair Geng stated that transportation is the most challenging aspect of the proposed redevelopment of the former MCC property. The Public Testimony the Planning Commission heard on August 4 emphasized what staff, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the PAC and residents have recognized since last November. Shorewood has existing traffic problems along the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail / Lake Linden Drive collector route regardless of the proposed development. He then stated that during its August 10, 2015, meeting Council unanimously voted to form a traffic committee to specifically discuss improvement options for the collector route and to consider what could be done to mitigate current and future traffic issues related to the proposed redevelopment project. He commented that from his vantage point if the PAC fell short in any area it was with regard to traffic. He stated the PAC discussed traffic issues but it did not recommend much about how to address them. He noted he strongly supports the formation of a traffic committee. The traffic committee’s efforts would be supported by the City’s engineering consultant WSB. WSB anticipated the committee would work for about six months on this effort and it will report back to Council. Chair Geng noted that from his perspective this evening the Planning Commission should recommend issues that the traffic committee should consider. Commissioner Johnson recommended the traffic committee be provided with the most current redevelopment plans. He stated there would be a roadway internal to the development that to some extent would run parallel to Country Club Road. That could eventually end up becoming a segment of a collector route. Commissioner Bean suggested consideration be given to lining up a cul-de-sac on the east side the development with Echo Road and making that intersection a 4-way stop subject to the feasibility of it. That may be one way to mitigate speed issues on Country Club Road. He stated extending one of the cul- de-sacs out to Country Club Road might make it feel like a more direct route to County Road 19 rather than going to Yellowstone Trail. That could possibly reduce the traffic from the development on Yellowstone Trail. He noted staff has indicated there is a need for another access point on the northwest corner of the site. He stated he thought the PUD process would be well into the Development Stage by the time the traffic committee has finished its work. Chair Geng stated that although six months sounds like a long time for the committee it is his understanding that the developer anticipates the development would be built out over five to six years. It would be done in three phases. Therefore, he does not think a decision about another access point or intersections need to be made immediately. He clarified he is not saying those decisions should be postponed. Geng expressed concern about the substandard nature of the collector route; the same concern many residents, Planning Commissioners, members of Council and staff have. He noted the route is designated as Municipal State Aid (MSA) collector route. He stated roadways that are part of that collector route are too narrow. He then stated at this time part of Country Club Road may be on the former MCC property and there is very little ROW in some spots. He noted he agrees the traffic speed issue on Country Club Road needs to be addressed further. He stated some suggestions have been mentioned to help mitigate the speed issue and to reduce the amount of traffic travelling on the collector route. One suggestion mentioned was to reconstruct Country Club Road as a parkway and possibly as a bendy parkway. Another CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 9 of 18 was to put down speed bumps. Another was to put in pedestrian crosswalks and possibly manually operated stop lights. Another was to make Country Club Road a one-way roadway going north and making Minnetonka Drive a one-way roadway going south. He thought the traffic committee and WSB engineers should discuss all cost effective, possible options. Commissioner Bean stated that when traveling north on Vicksburg Lane in the City of Plymouth there are crosswalks where pylons are put close to the edge of the roadway and that creates a visual appearance that the roadway is narrowing. It seems they encourage drivers to slow down. Visuals like that could possible encourage drivers to change their behaviors or routes. Commissioner Johnson asked how frequently the traffic committee would report back to Council and/or the Planning Commission. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that to his knowledge Council has not decided on the frequency of reporting or the format of the reports. Director Nielsen explained in the proposal WSB submitted for providing support services to the committee, they indicated the committee’s effort would take about six months. The details about things like who the committee would report to and the makeup of the committee need to be worked out. Director Nielsen stated as part of the subdivision of the former MCC property the City would acquire additional ROW along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. The legal description of the property goes to the middle of Smithtown Road. That needs to be platted so that there is a 66-foot ROW. The City has 66 feet of ROW on the north end of Country Club Road yet the description of the property goes to the middle of the roadway. There is 33 feet of ROW in some locations. The City will end up with the full 66- foot ROW all along Country Club Road except for the parcel at the south end. The City will have to acquire that at a later date. Acquiring the ROW along Country Club Road would allow for some improvement options that are not possible now. Nielsen noted that a standard local street has a 50-foot ROW standard. Chair Geng asked if the proposed trail parallel to Country Club Road would be located within the ROW. Director Nielsen stated the design of that would be part of the development plans. The City’s preference would be for it to be outside of the ROW area but that may not be possible for the entire length of the trail. Commissioner Davis stated the elephant in the room is the traffic congestion at the intersection at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road near Country Club Road. That will continue to be a big problem no matter what is done to other roadways. County Road 19 is a Hennepin County road and there is nothing the City can do about that. Commissioner Bean stated the PAC had discussed that if/when the commercial area north of Badger Park was redeveloped there may be an opportunity to make improvements near that intersection. Davis noted that drivers are already using the Lucky’s site as a cut through from Country Club Road to County Road 19 going east. Bean stated some drivers drive behind the auto care business and up to County Road 19. Chair Geng stated that although the City has no control of that property he encouraged the traffic committee to talk about that area. Commissioner Bean stated there had been a suggestion to make the new intersection with Yellowstone Trail a 4-way stop. The staff memo indicates that will be the case unless the City Engineer recommends differently. Engineer Hornby stated from an engineering perspective often a stop sign does not mitigate traffic issues and sometimes it can make things worse. He thought that would be discussed by the traffic committee. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 10 of 18 Chair Geng stated he thought a second access point along Smithtown Road would be imperative. The concept plan indicates there would be an emergency vehicle access on the northwest quadrant of the property. But, he does not think that would be sufficient. The concept plan reflects a very long cul-de-sac; it is longer than Shorewood’s restriction of a maximum of 700 feet long. Another access point along Smithtown Road would also improve internal circulation. Commissioner Davis noted the developer has indicated if there were to be a second access point along Smithtown Road on the west side of the site it would not be constructed in the first phase of the project. She stated she thought it would be needed from the very beginning. Chair Geng stated he understood the developer to indicate the project will be developed from east to west. If that would be the case he questioned the need for access on the northwest corner early on in the project. Davis stated she thought the developer stated it will not construct the infrastructure until lots are sold. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy will not build roads in the middle of no place because there have not been any sales. Mr. Packer explained the phasing for the project. The first phase would be in the northeast quadrant and the cul-de-sac where the custom homes would be. It would be served by the proposed access point along Smithtown Road on the east end. The second phase would be the southeast corner and there would be an access point along Yellowstone Trail. The third and final phase would be where the long cul-de-sac currently would be and another access point onto Smithtown Road would be built during the third phase. That access point would have a median in it. Chair Geng stated he thought it would be very important for the traffic committee to seek input from public safety; specifically the South Lake police and fire departments. Geng then stated during the Public Hearing a concern was raised about the proposed illuminated monument signs at the access points. The resident who spoke about it lives directly across from the proposed entrance to the site. That entrance would be west of where the entrance was onto the former MCC property. He suggested the Planning Commission recommend to Council that any lighting should be designed to that it doesn’t negatively impact surrounding residents. That resident also had concern about the lights on vehicles leaving the development. The vehicles would be pointing directly at his living room windows based on the current concept plan. Commissioner Bean stated the only thing that could be done would be to shift the development roadway to the west or east or curve it so vehicles would not point directly at his window. A man in the audience stated there is an open lot next to his property that the City had purchased. Chair Geng asked Engineer Hornby if the vehicle lights issue is something the traffic committee should discuss. Hornby responded that topic has come up with every new subdivision he has been involved with. Hornby explained if a roadway is curved there will be headlights crossing a house. Public safety needs to be taken into account as does screening. Director Nielsen stated screening and placement of the roadway on the site would be addressed during the Development Stage. Community Facilities Chair Geng stated the staff memo noted that staff had previously reported the City has adequate public utilities to serve the development. Municipal water along Smithtown Road would be extended into the development. There is a metro sewer line in the southeast corner of the site that would either have to be relocated or there will have to be some redesign of the street and lots in that area. Storm sewer would be subject to the review of the MCWD and the City Engineer. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 11 of 18 Commissioner Bean stated there had been previous mention of the possibility of substantially improving stormwater management issues to the south of the property as a result of stormwater management improvements made to the site. Chair Geng stated the staff memo also noted that on August 11, 2015, the Park Commission voted to recommend to Council that no additional park land should be required within the proposed redevelopment and that Badger Park remain intact. Park dedication fees generated from the redevelopment should be used to fund improvements to the City’s park system. Current park dedication fees are $6,500 per lot. Director Nielsen noted that State Statute requires that credit be given for public facilities such as public open space and trails. Geng stated the Park Commission agreed there was value in the proposed public open space and trails; both the trail parallel to Country Club Road and the trails internal to the development. Commissioner Johnson stated that although it is sad to have the golf course go away the residents would benefit from there being additional trails. Commissioner Maddy asked if the Park Commission is saying it does not want any management responsibility for the trails in the proposed redevelopment. Chair Geng noted the PAC discussed relocating some of the Badger Park amenities to the redevelopment but recommended against that. The Developer Chair Geng stated the staff memo states “Although the developer’s resume and ability to buy the property probably speaks for itself, any concerns about its ability to complete the project as ultimately approved can be addressed in the development agreement for the project.” Director Nielsen explained that within any phase of the project the City gets a cash escrow or letter of credit that guarantees the improvements will be made for that particular phase. Nielsen stated that if, for example, the third phase never gets completed that area of the site would return to the original zoning. Chair Geng noted that concludes the discussion about the items identified in the staff report. Commissioner Davis stated it would be unlikely that more than one-half of the trees on the former MCC property can be saved. She explained that on the tree massings exhibit she counted ash was mentioned at least 41 times. The ash trees would likely be removed for preventative measures. Red oaks generally do not live more than 100 years. Some of the other trees will have rot inside and come down during storms. She encouraged people not to overstate saving a lot of trees. She noted that she does a lot of tree inspections for her job. Commissioner Maddy commented the good news is new trees can be planted. Chair Geng recessed the Public Hearing at 8:48 P.M. Chair Geng reconvened the Public Hearing at 9:00 P.M. Chair Geng stated he has been advised by staff that the traffic committee will not do a formal traffic study. That committee will discuss traffic issues and options for resolving them. If Council decides to have a formal traffic study done it would hire a consultant to do that. Commissioner Bean stated it is his recollection that when the Seasons project was developed there were a serious number of hoops that had to be jumped through before a property could be considered a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 12 of 18 designated senior housing (or age-restricted housing). Director Nielsen explained things have changed since those projects were done (The Seasons and Shorewood Ponds). Now the housing is referred to as housing for people over 55 years old. There is still a list of items (e.g., transportation, possibly community meals, design) that are geared toward that age group. There can be a requirement that people have to be 55 years of age or older to live in a development. Shorewood gives breaks for age-restricted housing; park dedication fees are less, utility fees are less, and developments get additional density. Those breaks do not apply to age-targeted housing. In response to a comment from Bean, Chair Geng clarified the City would have nothing to do with making sure all the legal requirements would be met if the age-targeted housing was switched to age- restricted. The private developer would have to do that. Bean asked if a potential switch of the proposed 40 age-targeted housing to age-restricted housing could be discussed during the Development Stage. Director Nielsen explained that switch would strictly be up to the developer and noted that he is not sure that Mattamy builds that type of product. Mattamy builds a product that targets a certain age group. Staff had asked the developer about doubles (courtyard type) units and the developer does not build them. The developer wants to build what it builds. Director Nielsen stated the current concept plan is for 140 units with 40 of them being age-targeted. The concept plan submitted with the pre-application was for 121 units and there were no age-targeted units included. Commissioner Bean asked if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation approving the 140 units subject to there be age restrictions on some of them. Director Nielsen stated if the Commissioners believe that needs to be a condition for that density then that should be included in the recommendation to Council. The developer would have to decide if it wants to do that or just go back to its original 121-unit proposal. Commissioner Johnson stated being a relatively new Planning Commissioner he is not sure where the Commission’s freedoms are. He then stated he appreciates Commissioner Maddy’s comments about density. The proposed age-targeted housing on the west side of the site is not consistent with the surrounding density there. The proposed age-targeted housing on the east side of the site is much more consistent with the surrounding density there. Therefore, he would be more comfortable with the age- targeted housing on the east side. He went on to state he is not sure how the Commission could make a recommendation for approval of a hybrid of the 121 units and the 140 units proposals. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy would consider adding age restrictions to the age- targeted unis. Mr. Packer responded Mattamy would not consider age-restricted units even for a minute. Mr. Packer stated Mattamy has proposed 40 units of maintenance free, single-level style living for people who may want to head south for the winter. The market refers to that type of housing as age-targeted. He reiterated that Mattamy will not do age-restricted units. He noted that he has not looked at doing just one cul-de-sac of age-targeted units (40 units). But, he thought it needs to do the 40 units to make the numbers work. Commissioner Davis asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy ever platted the site out without considering a PUD. Mr. Packer responded yes. Davis asked how many lots he got. Mr. Packer responded 90. He explained they did do a plat with 40,000 square-foot lots. But, there would not be any open space or trails with that. He thought that would be a terrible waste of the public asset of open space. From his perspective utilizing the existing zoning would be the worst design people could possibly imagine. He noted Mattamy never CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 13 of 18 approached the City with the standard platting for existing zoning. But, it has always been in its back pocket. Davis commented that she would have liked to have seen it. Chair Geng stated if the City were to reject the concept plan as a PUD the developer could develop 90 units on 40,000 square foot lots. He thought that would be a shame. He explained the City’s residents would gain from the PUD approach because of the open space and public amenities the City would get with the PUD. It would not get the amenities with existing zoning. Commissioner Bean added the City would not get the improvements to Country Club Road and Smithtown Road because it would not get the additional ROW. Director Nielsen clarified the City would get the additional ROW with the existing zoning approach. Geng then stated that when the Planning Commission learned there was a purchase agreement for the former MCC property Director Nielsen had indicated the property would be developed with a PUD. From the very beginning the Commission talked about the tradeoffs and benefits there would be by using the PUD process versus standard platting. He noted that he thought the PUD gives the City and its residents much more. He would strongly prefer going with a PUD than with existing zoning. The City gets much less by going with existing zoning. He clarified he does not like every aspect of the concept plan. He has some of the same reservations that others do. Yet, he realizes that with a PUD there is give and take between the City and the developer. He also realizes the developer has the right to develop the property in a reasonable way and a way that is lawful. He stated that although the concept plan would not be his ideal plan he does think it is reasonable. He noted the most concerning part of the proposed redevelopment for him is the traffic; it has always been the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Commissioner Davis stated there are too many proposed lots for her. Commissioner Maddy stated he sensed there was consensus among the Planning Commissioners for some sort of PUD. He asked if there was a way the Commissioners could recommend approval of the PUD concept but not the quantity of units. Director Nielsen responded the Commission can recommend approval of the concept with a reduced number of lots along with some rationale for the reduction. Nielsen stated that, for example, the recommendation could be to eliminate the age-targeted housing on the west and replace them with, for example, 10 traditional homes. Director Nielsen clarified the developer has to have some direction going into the development stage. Commissioner Bean commented that replacing the 20 age-targeted units on the northwest with 10 traditional units would reduce the number of units to 130. Chair Geng asked if that is a desirable outcome. Would reducing the number of units by 10 change much or mitigate people’s concerns? Commissioner Bean stated he did not think so. Commissioner Bean stated there is the option to go back to the original 121 units and say age-targeted housing at this density does not work. Then the City should start to work with the property owners on the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area on hopefully getting senior housing built over there. Or, maybe senior housing is not an objective the City can achieve at this time. Bean then stated he thought there are four options to consider for moving forward with the concept plans. There is the option of going with the existing zoning which would allow 90 traditional homes that will be larger and more expensive. There is the option of a 121-unit PUD as originally proposed. There is the option of a 130-unit PUD with only 20 units of age-targeted housing that would be located in the northeast quadrant. There is the option of the 140-unit PUD that is currently proposed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 14 of 18 Commissioner Johnson asked what flexibility there is for the developer to move things around on the site. Chair Geng clarified the Planning Commission cannot vote to recommend a proposal for a different number of homes because the developer has not submitted such a proposal. Commissioner Bean stated the Planning Commission can recommend Council deny the concept plan as submitted. Chair Geng stated he thought that if Council did not approve the concept plan as submitted it would be likely that the developer would come back with a standard plat under existing zoning. Chair Geng clarified that technically the request for an amendment to the Comp Plan needs to be considered first. Commissioner Bean stated that from his perspective approving the Comp Plan amendment to residential under a PUD could work regardless of what the density outcome is. He strongly suggested the PUD would be the best way to develop the property in order to give the City the most control regardless of what the concept is. Chair Geng concurred. Chair Geng clarified the amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan would be to change the land use for the former MCC property from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. Director Nielsen stated that is the request before the Planning Commission. Mr. Packer stated he submitted a sketch with Mattamy’s request for a Comp Plan amendment. That is a requirement of a Comp Plan amendment. He then stated the Comp Plan amendment goes hand in hand with the concept plan PUD. He noted the Planning Commission and ultimately Council have every right to tell Mattamy what the maximum number of units is it can build. He stated that if the Commission likes the concept plan but does not want the age-targeted homes and just the 121 traditional homes, then the Commission needs to provide findings of fact that explain what is so bad about 140 units. Then things move on. But, just picking a different number of units does not give him enough direction to come back with another proposal. Director Nielsen explained the land use would change to residential with some range of density. R-1A, Single-Family Residential is consistent with minimum density (0 – 1 unit per acre). Low density is 1 – 2 units per acre. The proposed project necessitates 1 – 2 units per acre. If the developer went back to the 121-units concept plan it might be able to slide in under the minimum density. The density of one unit per 40,000 square feet under a PUD basically allows a developer to go 10 percent higher than that. Commissioner Maddy asked when the actual number of units gets solidified. Director Nielsen responded the Concept Stage is the time to do that. Director Nielsen noted the developer has to have direction when he moves in to the Development Stage of the PUD. He also noted there is a tremendous amount of work that goes into the preliminary plat. He explained the PUD process is not intended to have the developer just guess at what number of units the City will allow. The process is intended to give the developer that direction during the Concept Stage. He stated if 140 units are too many then the Planning Commission needs to tell the developer that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 15 of 18 Mr. Packer stated there were PAC meetings over a period of about seven months. All of the Commissioners were PAC members. Mattamy did what the PAC recommended. The concept plan reflects that. This discussion seems somewhat like an about face to Mattamy. Commissioner Maddy asked if the applicant applied for the amendment to the Comp Plan Land Use Plan or did the City initiated that. Director Nielsen stated the developer’s application includes the amendment and the Concept Stage plan for the PUD. Chair Geng stated action should be taken on each of the two items with a separate vote. Director Nielsen concurred. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan as requested to change the land use for the former Minnetonka Country Club property from “Semi-Public” to “Low Density Residential (1 – 2 units per acre)”. Motion passed 5/0. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the Concept Stage plan for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road limiting the number of units developed to no more than 121. Chair Geng asked if the Planning Commission needs to provide findings or conditions for the restriction. Director Nielsen stated he hoped the motion would include some of the details discussed such as the open space should be public, the trails within the development should be available for public use, and there must be another access point along Smithtown Road. Geng stated if an item is omitted from the motion he asked if the item is excluded. Nielsen responded no. Director Nielsen reiterated the intent is to give the developer as much direction as possible to keep the developer from having to rearrange the preliminary plat a number of times. Council Liaison Woodruff asked if the Planning Commission has to dispose of the idea of there being age-targeted housing. Director Nielsen responded no and stated the developer could decide to make 21 units, for example, age-target housing. Woodruff asked if it wants to offer the developer the latitude for possible age-targeted housing. Commissioner Davis stated she thought that would be a good idea because as Commissioner Maddy stated earlier the age-targeted housing provides a price point that may be more affordable to people. She commented she does not think people over the age of 55 will buy the age- targeted housing. Commissioner Maddy stated that he believes the community thought density and traffic were first and foremost and everything else was behind them. Mr. Packer reiterated that Mattamy will not propose any age-targeted units if it is restricted to building no more than 121 units. That is the way the economics work out. There was ensuing discussion about details to add to the motion on the table as previously suggested by Director Nielsen. There was also discussion about the second access along Smithtown Road and about if it should be a median access or a full access. Chair Geng stated the motion should include the City acquiring the additional ROW along Country Club Road and Smithtown Road to bring the amount of ROW to 66 feet wide. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 16 of 18 Commissioner Maddy clarified that he chose 121 units because that was on the initial concept plan and it could be done with a PUD based on existing zoning. He asked if any Commissioners had issue with that number. Chair Geng noted he thought the number was arbitrary and stated he did not think there was that big of a difference between 121 units and 140 units. He stated he recognized the argument and thought it was good. He then stated some of the people attracted to the age-targeted housing might not end up being the target market. It could be younger people looking for an affordable home in Shorewood. However, he thought having age-targeted housing there would be a desirable thing for Shorewood. He noted that the City has heard from developers and consultants in the past that there is a desire for senior housing in Shorewood. He stated that Director Nielsen has indicated to people that developers have shown a higher interest in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Area since the proposed redevelopment of the former MCC property surfaced. Nielsen stated that he thought the proposed Mattamy development would trigger some redevelopment in that Area. Geng stated that could provide the City with an opportunity to address issues with access to or near that intersection. Geng reiterated that he supports the idea of age-targeted housing and thought there is a market for that. He stated it would provide residents in Shorewood with an opportunity to downsize. He then stated that from his perspective replacing 21 traditional homes with 40 age-targeted smaller homes would generate less traffic than the 21 traditional homes provided they are occupied by the target audience. Commissioner Johnson stated if an age-targeted home was occupied by a couple with an infant the residents would generate less traffic and hopefully the couple would be looking for a larger house in the future. Commissioner Maddy stated the fact that 121 units are what the developer could build with a PUD based on the existing R-1A zoning is how he justifies the number. Chair Geng stated the change to 140 units was to accommodate PAC recommendations. He noted he liked that accommodation. He commented he does not know if it will actually work out the way the developer anticipates. He stated he would like there to be some diversity in housing in the proposed development although it may not be the type of diversity the Commission wants. Without objection from the seconder, the maker amended the motion to include the conditions that the trails and the preserved open space within the development will be owned and maintained by the City and open to the public, a second full access point along Smithtown Road in the northwest quadrant of the site be added, and that the City acquires enough additional right-of-way along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road to bring the ROW to 66 feet wide. Motion failed 2/3 with Geng, Bean and Johnson dissenting. Geng moved, Bean seconded, recommending approval of the Concept Stage plan for the planned unit development (PUD) of the former Minnetonka Country Club property located at 24575 Smithtown Road, as proposed subject to the conditions that the trails and the preserved open space within the development will be owned and maintained by the City and open to the public, a second full access point along Smithtown Road in the northwest quadrant of the site be added, and that the City acquires enough additional right-of-way along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road to bring the ROW to 66 feet wide. Motion passed 3/2 with Davis and Maddy dissenting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 17 of 18 Director Nielsen noted these two items will go before Council for another Public Hearing during its September 14, 2015, meeting. Chair Geng thanked people for coming and reiterated how pleased he was with how people conducted themselves during the August 4 public hearing. He was also pleased with how people conducted themselves this evening. It says a great deal about Shorewood and the quality of its residents. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:38 P.M. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 3. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS A. Determine liaisons to Council for September through December 2015 Council Liaisons were selected as followed: September 2015 Chair Geng October 2015 Commissioner Maddy November 2015 Commissioner Davis December 2015 Commissioner Bean January 2016 Commissioner Johnson 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a setback variance slated for the September 1, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 5. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other Commissioner Bean asked if there is any way the Commissioners could get a copy of the minutes for the previous meeting prior to getting the meeting packet so he does not have to take public time to go over his “obsessive/compulsive” edits during the meeting. Director Nielsen stated that in the past he has recommended that typographical or grammatical corrections should just be submitted to him and he will have the corrections made. They do not need to be brought up during the meeting. He clarified that material changes should be brought up. Chair Geng suggested the corrections be given to staff and that it be noted that he submitted minor corrections for incorporation into the minutes on file. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 18, 2015 Page 18 of 18 6. ADJOURNMENT Bean moved, Maddy seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, 2015, at 9:53 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 August 2015 RE: Hartmann/Letendre - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (15.12) BACKGROUND Wayne Hartmann and Michelle Letendre own the property at 27460 Maple Ridge Lane (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to build a small addition on the southwesterly coiner of thoir home, as shown on their property survey (Exhibit B). Upon applying for a building permit, the applicants discovered that their home is nonconforming with respect to the front yard setback requirement for the R -1A/S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland District in which the property is zoned. As explained in their request letter, dated 2.7 July 2015 (Exhibit C), they are requesting a setback variance for the addition. The existing home is located as close as 32 feet from the right -of -way of Maple Ridge Lane, with a footprint area of 3275 square feet, including the attached garage. The 197 square -foot addition would fill in the southwesterly corner of the home as illustrated in the applicants' request letter. The property in question contains 42,359 square feet of area and backs up to the channel on the north end of Lake Virginia. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The background and circumstances of this case are highly unusual. The home was built in 1974. The building permit application notes a 50 -foot setback and that no variances were necessary. The survey submitted with the application contains a note regarding the 50 -foot setback yet, once built, the home ended up at approximately 32 feet from the public right -of- way. While this could be explained as a simple error, the same type of error appears to have been made on several homes in the immediate vicinity, particularly on the west side of Lake Virginia Drive. Out of 10 homes on that side of the street, eight of them do not comply with 8 ®04 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Hartmann/Letendre Variance 27 August 2015 the 50 -foot front setback requirement (see Exhibit C -5), There is no record of any variances having been granted for these properties. We can only speculate that whoever performed the inspections on these homes may have been measuring from the traveled surface (pavement) of the street instead of the public right -of -way. All of the homes appear to be 50 feet or more from the pavement: Variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. The applicant's request appears justified, based on the following factors: 1. The variance will not alter the essential character of,the area in which it is located. Given the number of homes similarly situated nearby, the proposed addition is in keeping with the homes in the neighborhood. 2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. The applicants are not requesting the variance because it is cheaper to build as they propose. They are trying to improve the functional layout of the home. 3. Neither the applicants nor their predecessors created their practical difficulty. In fact, it could be argued that the City did: 4. The proposed addition is minimally sized to fill in the corner of the home. Also, due to the way the house angles away from the cul -de -sac; the addition is actually four feet farther from the front property line than the existing house. Once completed, the property will have only 18.3 percent hardcover, well below the 25- percent maximum. Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be granted as proposed. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Wayne Hartmann/Michelle Letendre -2- usaaW CD Lo L U C O O �0 O 1> s' U �I ®aa�u�a0 -T—C�o a1� � pv� Q i `a) \ Q� _ Ui .E U� �5, � 0 J� O U W U ro 0 U_ O e� Elm Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Hartman variance request ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 WWW.ADVSUR.COM SURVEY FOR: WAYNE HARTMANN SURVEYED: July, 2015 DRAFTED: July 8, 2015 ADDRESS: 27460 Maple Ridge Lane, Shorewood, Mn LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 3, Virginia Highlands Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: L Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing and tabulating hardcover area and the area of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. 5. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we are not as familiar with your plans as you are nor are we as familiar with the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees are. We suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the proposals we show are what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over your project and gain their approvals if you can before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. 6. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. we have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for constmction on this site. The elevations shoran relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benclunark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations foruse on this site or before beginning construction. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "0" Denotes I/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer and Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature: �aqn m, X. Y`0114vlit Typed Name: James H. Parker Reg. No.: 9235 Date: July 8, 2015 J GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 (IN FM) N tt�. s�a� A =_ i LM I ice/ I I i I I Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY Request for Variance Wayne Hartmann Michelle Letendre 27460 Maple Ridge Lane —Shorewood 7/27/15 We are requesting a variance to Shorewood's front setback ordinance in order to allow a small addition to our home. The addition would increase space to the Master Bedroom closet. The existing closet has approximately 20 square feet (2' x 10') of usable area and is not functional based on modern standards. We have had a full property Survey completed (copy included), and that survey shows that a significant portion of our home sits inside the current 50' front setback requirement. While we cannot explain this fact (no prior variance request was recorded), it does leave us with difficulties in making any changes to significant portions of our home that now fall inside the 50' setback area. As noted above, no evidence can be found to explain the reason for the home not complying to the current setback requirements at the time it was built. However, the Survey provided shows that one of two adjacent neighbors also does not comply with this setback requirement. Indeed, an analysis using the Hennepin County GIS site shows that 6 of the 8 homes along the Lake Virginia Channel — ours included — do not meet the front setback requirement, leading one to conclude that: 1) The lack of compliance on our home is not an anomaly; 2) It is possible that there was a conscious decision when these homes were built to bias them towards the street and further away from the water's edge. As the pictures and attached information show, the proposed addition would extend the end of the house towards the side border, and not towards the street. The new corner of the house would actually be farther away from the street than the current corner is (41' vs the current 38'). Therefore, there is no further encroachment to the current 50' setback. The new addition will match the character and quality of our home, with siding and stone work that matches the current finishes. We intend to put footings in and enclose not only the new addition, but underneath a previous addition that extended the Master Bathroom. We believe this will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the house as the former addition does not match the character of the house. The new addition will also match the character of the Virginia Highlands neighborhood. As noted, the new portion would match existing finishes on our home. Additionally, with the majority of houses along the water already biased towards the street, our improvement would be in line with those houses. Thank you for your consideration, Wayne Hartmann Michelle Letendre Exhibit C APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER Dated 27 July 2015 3 Jbd 1� ID D� COD Cf)O r- m -0 ^Cic r� N o LA W c Z 00 00 VII P1 U1 W w W W N 3 V y ZE C, 3 o !L y � 3 Z a y to Lm :3 Wmfi w 3 'n' 3 N rD r CD CDm 7 a CD 91."U'L 9 4'0£'9 :elep N SNOISN31MI0 "Ild lJIH3A Ol S8(1S , L = ,.174 :31H3S NHId ONIlSIX3 6ugslxe of jellwls luled/6uIpIS aull loa ul -ell Jolelm sera sleoolay uoglppe/lesop olul Joold pooeepaeH ul -eoe-I uoglppe Molaq jig w pue e1eneox3 qnl anoway - 41e8 6ulislx3 owed W SNOISN31NIG lib lJIH3A Ol Saf1S . L = .,b /L :31VOS Mdld ONIlSIX3 3!DVd -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D>>3D �sosat �sosec �sosac - - - - - - - - - ,AL /eL b-,SZ r >�cr - - - - - - rrnnrr11 �semr rm -o> CD CD M O t / O ti) O H m -1 AIJOM ON I LA m , w n9w� Zr ceac O I co w n Ln w C% / / / IN tA 4 — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — z�ll -4" liu ° a,< � w X L -,S x „L -J7 ro C 0 (aoualxa) bu!lslxa of jel!w!s lured /Bu!p!S aalalry seO aleoo!aa I a ZI3MOHS 9 = \ o m y m u!elS'S lined J0ualu!p0ualx3 - y ainlonilS loob MaN I a Bwls!xa of u! -paoel i0oll poOMpJey yl!M laso!O aalse!N LmLa SMOpulm MaN =I N W A SaIJIUEA !ena I w a g y lnogbnojyl OIL MaN C' I ^ 43e9 W \ m ul- ti0/looidialsM rp alelnsul - f aftJOIS ana �aMO I l p 1001d JSl I lanai JaMOI to uo!1!PPV CL m I :alea W + y } , - -'Il r t -•i' �' . WR '• ;tad �.. i- N 'x' N = O 3 m n O v� 7 S n C 7 r-r U7 O O O Ln m tv n W O 0 N Sy C O v iz m m 0 3 O r+ O I 1 I ' I M I 4 +w i" [-* I F*-] f 'f I ! 0 9 I N I 11 b tip -' J �N T�1 � �fI N f � r r - m m 3 Q 2 O 3 m 7n, Z O n O v� '-r n s= 7 Ir O O N (D r-r s n 1 I ' I M I 4 +w i" [-* I F*-] f 'f I ! 0 9 I N I 11 b tip -' J �N T�1 � �fI N f � r 30Vd Noap p91an91!;u130 QU!JSlx8 buisoloua sapnloui pus asnoH 7� 6uilsix3 o{ lsnb3 �osglagvogipPV QM uoil12nal3 (4InoS);uoi ID C� U]O _. _.__..._... rm-0 rD O a I � H m o k y W n 9 w Ln cZOOr o N n "' w w w w cc 3 v y - - -- 0 3 y Z a y ZQ� vt ip 7 Ul (D W W 3 IW- rD3 (D fD r r. 3 a 1 5l'6Z'L 9L'OE'9 :a�sa n i n J j. 3 E)dd uoijepuno; olui paddsinn s;IgS 6uil00d -Isod 6wlsix3 .i Ougjas bugsix3 of Isnb3 �mgjaS uoiIippy WAA uoPna13 (3saM) ap!S 3LasnoH :3 r D� CO Cn0 m r- m -a y r^p n O a' M o k y W n W LA �ZaOr- o N n "' W = w W LA N C 3 CD CD O 7 CD 3 a y as m Z�ti vi to 7 M - D a m S L'6Z'L :a;sp n J O G CC �O v 0 Q� U tb 'd U N 0 U N .y a� O U a> s O .-4 a� c0 ct 0 U N a~ O O t(j U � cow o,0 U O O~ O 0 b � N O O M �V) tn 3Qv� Utr) 0 i O U 3 0 O W4 zo � U N Q Q ... U L1� P, ro c v U O � � co C� � � '� �O T c� O � •� rA zs O C r Q. V ' o d an o L7 � . o o C o zo z N x � s � a M s O O N y O MM y cn Cd w U bB OFFO a a 4i ^G v1 U 4 d CIO 3' o Z Q) 7:� U � , > H U1 P1 4O-i Q M C z P4 O G CC �O v 0 Q� U tb 'd U N 0 U N .y a� O U a> s O .-4 a� c0 ct 0 U N a~ O O t(j U � cow o,0 U O O~ O 0 b � N O O M �V) tn 3Qv� Utr) 0 i O U 3 0 O W4 zo � U N Q Q ... U L1� P,