Loading...
05-02-17 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 2 MAY 2017 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE RIEDEL (Sep) ______ MADDY (Jul) ______ SYLVESTER (May) ______ BEAN (Aug) ______ DAVIS (Jun) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 April 2017  1. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from 4 April 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT-YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Court and Susan Queen nd Location: 27180 West 62 Street 3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Erin and Michael Neilon Location: 5795 Club Lane 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Applicant: Mike Seifert Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Warren Anderson Location: 25000 Yellowstone Trail 6. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Jay Venero Location: 5985 Seamans Drive Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2 May 2017 Page 2 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 8. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Maddy, Bean, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for April 4, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 7, 2017 Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from March 7, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from March 7, 2017. 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 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 stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive- thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. Director Nielsen apologized for sending out the report for this item late. The applicant submitted the material later than staff would have liked. The staff report was sent out earlier that morning. He explained the staff report talked about a number of things discussed during the March 7, 2017, public hearing. He reviewed the items discussed in the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 8 1. During the March 7 Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked the applicant to have a traffic study done. It was to take into account the intersection, the site, and what affect the proposed use would have on the traffic issues in the area. The applicant submitted the results of the study to the City the previous week, but not in time for the City’s consultant to review it and comment on it. Primarily because of that staff is recommending the Public Hearing again be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting which is scheduled for May 2, 2017. The report is about 100 pages long and he did send it to the Commissioners under separate cover. The report contains an executive summary which summarizes most of the highly technical report. The City will have its Engineer review and comment on the report. 2. A more detailed landscape plan was submitted. Most of what is proposed is decorative landscaping. There is no need to screen the site from Highway 7 or the intersection. The original staff report recommended putting in some landscaping on the easterly entrance to / exit from the site to provide screening of the parking lot from residents on that side of the street. That is not shown on the new plan. Staff continues to believe that something should be done to create a screen between the parking and those residents. A row of maple trees is proposed along the front of the site. There is a backdrop of Black Hills Spruce and various decorative landscaping around the building. 3. Site lighting still has not been addressed. It was mentioned during the March 7 Hearing. 4. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted. It includes a small infiltration pond at the easterly entrance to the site, which may be why no landscaping has been provided there. The City Engineer has noted that no drainage calculations have been provided. Whether or not additional ponding would be needed on the site would be dependent on whether or not the applicant intends to add additional hardcover to what already exists. The applicant had told him that his engineers have done those calculations and that the amount of hardcover would be less than what is currently there. Therefore, no additional ponding would be needed. Staff needs to review those calculations. The plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. He reiterated that staff recommends this be continued to the May 2 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that as follow-up to continuing the application, the applicant was sent a letter advising him that the application would take more than 60 days and up to 120 days to process. If the City does not take action within 120 days it would automatically be approved if the applicant was not notified of the 120 days. Chair Maddy asked if the infiltration pond site is part of the drainage expansion that could possibly be needed. If the amount of hardcover is not increased could that be replaced with landscaping? Director Nielsen clarified he did not know the answer to that question. Director Nielsen explained that in the past the City has always asked for landscape berms for screening. Because of the desire to keep stormwater on the site to control drainage developers have gone to creating depressions which the water would flow into and then into the ground where soils allow that. He does not know if that is necessary for what is being proposed. It is possible things could be modified so a little of both infiltration and landscaping could be done. The worst case there could end up being a section of fence along there to screen the cars. Commissioner Davis stated that area is not very deep and that she thought it could be nicely landscaped easily. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Chair Maddy asked if a copy of the traffic study can be found on the City’s website. Director Nielsen stated the ability to link to the study remotely is down at this time; it has been that way since March 31. The technology consultants are trying to resolve the problem. Director Nielsen stated if anyone wants a copy of the traffic study or any other part of the staff report he asked them to provide the City with their email address on the sign in sheet. Commissioner Riedel stated the study makes the assumption that there would not be an increase in traffic and he questioned that. He did not find there to be any justification for that assumption. Commissioner Davis stated it was also refuted by Starbucks during the March 7 Hearing. Riedel stated the statement that caught his attention was “The overall amount of traffic and the congestion that occurs because of the school is not likely to increase over time.” He thought that statement is questionable. Director Nielsen stated he thought the applicant may believe that they would be drawing from traffic already in the area; that would be somewhat logical. He then stated from his perspective if a driver traveling on Highway 7 decided they would stop at the coffee shop the next morning he does not think they would ever do that again because of the volume of traffic. Commissioner Sylvester asked if the data included in the Study report was aligned with data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Director Nielsen stated one of the recommendations included in the executive summary was to create another northbound lane at the intersection. Currently there are north, left and right turn lanes. MnDOT has considered doing that before this proposed project came before the City. Commissioner Bean clarified that currently at that intersection there is a dedicated left turn lane and there is a center-right lane; a driver could go northbound on Vine Hill Road or they could turn right and go eastbound on Highway 7. Bean stated there is only about a three-car queue space in the right turning space. Traffic is already backed up along the curve and past the Public Storage facility long before there is a chance to turn right. Bean noted that he has a number of questions about the study. He asked if there was anyone who could answer his technical questions. Director Nielsen encouraged Bean to ask his questions so the traffic engineer could address them. Bean stated the City has no control over the right-turn lane. Nielsen confirmed that and noted the City cooperates and coordinates with MnDOT. He clarified it is MnDOT’s right-of-way (ROW). He commented he was not sure why the City would object to what MnDOT is proposing. Chair Maddy asked Commissioner Bean if he was asking if approval of this application could be contingent on MnDOT adding a lane. Bean stated possibly contingent on reconfiguring the curve. Director Nielsen stated the City is aware that MnDOT wants to do something and commented that usually it comes down to MnDOT being willing to do what a city wants provided that the city pays for it. Commissioner Bean stated the study report indicates that area of Highway 7 has a posted speed of 50 miles-per-hour (mph). That posted speed has been increased to 55 mph. Bean then stated the report indicates there are 24-hour videos of the intersection. He asked how many cycles there are of them and how many of them were actually viewed. Commissioner Davis asked what CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 8 days the recordings were done on. Director Nielsen stated staff will get that information. Someone from the audience stated the intersection was video recorded on a Monday and a Tuesday and not during spring break. Bean went on to state the report refers to Vine Hill Road E and Vine Hill Road W yet Vine Hill Road does not run east and west. Someone in the audience clarified that is the Vine Hill intersection and encouraged people to think of them as west of the site and east of the site. Bean noted that he will send his questions to staff and copy the other members of the Commission. Director Nielsen asked that they be sent to him and he will forward them on to the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Riedel stated there is a brief section in the report on non-site traffic forecasting. It pertains to any increase in traffic not related to the Starbucks facility; the assumption was there would not be any. He questioned that assumption. He would like an explanation for that analysis. He has read that traffic at the Minnetonka High School is increasing. Director Nielsen stated it could be based on the size of the School parking lot. However, there are a lot of parents of open enrollment students who drive the students to school. That volume could potentially increase. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Study report states the land-use is expected to produce approximately one-half the morning trips when compared to the alternative development which would be a coffee shop and fast food combination. She asked if that means that if the drive-thru is not approved there is an alternate plan. Dave Watson, the applicant with Watson Vinehill, LLC, stated the probable alternative would be to develop a non-drive-thru coffee shop along with some form of drive-thru fast food or a fast casual restaurant. In response to a comment from Commissioner Sylvester, Mr. Watson stated if the drive-thru portion of the proposal was not approved he would not just have a small coffee shop built. Chair Maddy stated if the applicant did not have a drive-up window he asked if a C.U.P. would not be required. Director Nielsen explained that for this application the drive-up window is what required the Public Hearing. If it was just a permitted use in that C -1, General Commercial district it would still have to go through a site plan review. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated it would take 20 years before newly planted maple and spruce trees look half way decent. They are slow growing trees, particularly spruce. There will also be a great deal of salt spread along the roadways in the winter and she does not think the spruce trees will tolerate the salt. Director Nielsen explained the spruce trees are a backdrop to the building; they are not in front by the road. If spruce trees are taken care of correctly they can grow about one foot a year. The minimum size the applicant is supposed to plant is about six feet. He reiterated that for the most part it is decorative landscaping and not required screening. Near Vine Hill Road those trees should be an effective screen. Six-foot trees start to block out cars effectively. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Ms. DeSanto stated six foot spruce trees would block very much. She then stated maple trees won’t have leaves very long. Director Nielsen stated maple trees do not screen anything, noting that is not the intent of the maple trees. Paul Stelmacher, 5210 Shady Lane, Shorewood, stated that MnDOT has already graded that intersection as “F”. He questioned the value of entertaining another traffic study done by a consultant who could be somewhat biased in favor of the firm that hired him. He also questioned why something would be added that would exacerbate the current situation and not make it safer. Until that intersection is improved he cautioned against doing anything that would make the traffic at the intersection worse. Susan Hambor, 5146 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, noted her property is located right across Vine Hill Road south. They also own the property located at 5147 Valley View Road and the log house at the corner of Delton Avenue and Valley View Road. She thought it was senseless that people were considering having a coffee shop there with a drive-thru. She noted there are two times during the day when they cannot get off of Valley View Road. They are at a dead stop at those times. She had to always leave for work one hour early so she could get out of her neighborhood. She anticipates that same thing would happen for the proposed drive-thru. She stated they have a hard time renting their rental units to anyone who has children because of existing traffic to and from the High School. She noted the traffic at the High School did increase because the size of the parking lot was increased last summer and more permits were given outs. People coming from the School “scream” through her neighborhood especially during the afternoon on a beautiful day. The residents in her neighborhood have wanted their road blocked off. She anticipates that if the proposed project moves forward drivers will be stuck in the parking lot of the site. She agreed that people would not go to the drive-thru more than once because of traffic. Thomas Millen, 5117 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, stated his property is located directly across from the proposed project site and therefore would be greatly impacted. He asked why the application is being considered further because it has already been recognized that traffic in that area is a significant problem. He also questioned the need for a traffic study because it has already proved to be an issue. He suggested locating the proposed drive-thru coffee shop a quarter of a mile to the east where there is an existing shopping center. He thought it was counter intuitive to put it in the proposed location. His children are not allowed to play in their front yard for safety reasons. He noted that drivers frequently use his driveway as a turnaround. He stated that there would still be a traffic issue even if there was not a drive-thru coffee shop. Chair Maddy stated the reason for having another traffic study done is primarily because of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all property owners have to be treated the same. The Planning Commission cannot prejudge the application until it goes through the public hearing process even though there is a busy intersection in the area. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Riedel moved, Bean seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 to the Planning Commission’s May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy continued the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 6 of 8 2. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Joel and Lori Schuenke Location: 4485 Enchanted Point Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Joel and Lori Schuenke, 4485 Enchanted Point. Director Nielsen explained that Joel and Lori Schuenke own the property located at 4485 Enchanted Point. They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home with both attached and detached garages. The floor area of the two garages exceeds 1200 square feet of floor area, requiring a C.U.P. The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential Shoreland and contains approximately 80,841 square feet of area. The proposed home will contain 5295 square feet of floor area between two floors. The attached garage will contain 983 square feet and the detached garage will have 991 square feet for a total of 1974 square feet of accessory space. With regard to the analysis of the case, he explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1974 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5295 square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- 1C/S zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed home complies with the setback requirements for the R-1C/S zoning district. The proposed detached garage, however, is 12.7 feet from the easterly side of the lot. In order to maintain a total side yard setback of 30 feet with no one side less than 10 feet, the detached garage must be moved at least 5.8 feet to the west. Proposed impervious surface would be 12.6 percent, about one half of the 25 percent allowed. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping are not considered to be issues in this request. The applicants’ tree preservation and reforestation plan requires 15 replacement trees. d. The materials and design of the new garage would be consistent with the character of the existing house and garage. Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case staff recommends granting the C.U.P. as proposed. Director Nielsen explained that for corner lots, which the subject property is, the Ordinance states that the narrowest width on a public street is the front of the lot. For this property the lake side is the rear of the property. There was ensuing discussion about side yard setbacks. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Joel and Lori Schuenke, 4485 Enchanted Point, subject to moving the detached garage at least 5.8 feet to the west. Motion passed 5/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its April 24 meeting. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS  Update Schedule for Liaison to Council Council Liaisons were selected as follows: April 2017 Commissioner Bean May 2017 Commissioner Sylvester June 2017 Commissioner Davis July 2017 Chair Maddy August 2017 Commissioner Bean September 2017 Commissioner Riedel 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the continuation of the Public Hearing for the conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 slated for the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. There are also a setback variance request, a redo of a minor subdivision, a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet, and a minor subdivision slated for that meeting. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Sundberg stated the local Partners in Energy Program with Xcel Energy is having its first meeting tomorrow. The meeting is scheduled to be four hours long. She noted the new City Clerk starts on April 10; she has a great deal of experience. She also noted Council will interview a candidate for the Planning Director position on April 10. • SLUC Commissioner Davis noted the next Sensible Lane Use Coalition (SLUC) session is about Super Bowl LII. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Director Nielsen stated when the short-term housing rental ordinance was approved there was some discussion about possibly making exceptions for the Super Bowl. Commissioner Davis stated she would like to attend that session. In response to a question from Commissioner Sylvester, Director Nielsen explained what SLUC’s purpose is and who participates at sessions. Commissioner Sylvester stated she would also like to attend. • Other 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2017, at 7:55 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder MEMORANDUM CITY OF HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityball &i.shorewood.ran.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 April 2017 RE: Queen, Court and Susan - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (17.09) BACKGROUND Court and Susan Queen own the property at 27180 West 62"d Street (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to construct a new entry portico on the front of the existing home, the location of which is shown on Exhibit B, attached. As can be seen on that exhibit, the home is quite nonconforming with respect to the required front setback for the R -1A, Single - Family Residential, zoning district in which it is located. The applicants have struggled for years with a very substandard entry stoop which, between soil and drainage conditions, has experienced structural deterioration. In addition, the small, round configuration of the existing stoop is considered somewhat hazardous relative to current Building Code standards. The proposed entry portico necessitates a variance to the R -lA, front setback requirement. The property in question contains nearly three acres, of which much of the rear portion of the property appears to be wetland. Despite the.size of the parcel, the home (which was originally built in 1910) is located very near the front property line — approximately 31 feet. The proposed portico would encroach, another six feet into the required 50 -foot front setback, a variance of 25 feet. Plans for the proposed entry are shown in Exhibits D and F. The applicants' request letter is included as Exhibit G. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Several sections of the Zoning Code are pertinent to the applicant's request. Following are highlights of those provisions and how the applicants' request complies: A. Nonconformities. The Zoning Code addresses nonconforming structures, which are defined as follows: "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. Any structure which, on the effective date of this chapter, does not, even though lawfully established, conform to the applicable conditions if the structure were to be erected under the guidance of this, chapter. Also any structure located on a nonconforming lot." Memorandum Re: Queen Setback Variance 26 April 2017 Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. sets forth provisions regulating nonconformities, the purpose of which is found in Subd. La.: "a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." While the Code is quite specific that nonconforming structures should not be extended or expanded, provisions relative to nonconforming single- family residential structures, have been somewhat relaxed to allow improvement of nonconforming homes: Section 1201.03 Subd. Li. states, in part: "i. Lawful nonconforming, single - family residential units may be expanded, provided: (1) That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located;" The Queen home is situated 31 feet from the front property line —19 feet closer to the street than allowed. Previous additions to the home have been allowed at the rear of the home based on this provision. The proposed addition to the front, however, increases the nonconformity by an additional six feet. The Code was further relaxed a few years ago, providing for the upgrading of older homes: Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.b.(2) provides: " For a "detached, single - family, two - family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19, 1986: (a) A one- story, enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one - story, open portico may extend into, the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed 50 % of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and -2- Memorandum Re: Queen Setback Variance 26 April 2017 (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60% open." While the applicants' plans extend 25 feet into the required setback rather than four feet, the underlying principle of the provision may be useful in considering their variance request. B. Variance. Consideration of variances must include a determination that the ordinance creates "practical difficulties" (formerly "undue hardship ") that prevent the property owner from using his/her property in a reasonable manner. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a. The Zoning Code is reasonable in,requiring minimum setback requirements and in regulating /limiting nonconformities. Having said that, the applicants' desire to have a safe, covered entry to their home can also be considered reasonable. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. Drainage and soil conditions that have deteriorated their current front entry were not created by them. C. Homes on either side of the subject property appear to comply with R -1A setback requirements. It is worth noting that existing vegetation on the applicants' property and property to the east have a screening effect on the subject property, somewhat mitigating the proximity of the structure to the street. The Code goes on to state that "the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied ....to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district ". In this regard the provision that allows porticos to encroach into front yards provides some guidance. The applicants' plan is consistent with the length limitation. The existing house is 73 feet long and the portico is 20 feet long — 27 percent of the total length. With respect to the depth of the portico, it is recommended that the plan be reduced to the four feet allowed by the Code. RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding, it is recommended that a variance be considered favorably, subject to reducing the depth of the portico to four feet instead of six. This is consistent with not granting a privilege to the applicant that is not available to others. It is also consistent with the requirement that the variance be minimized to the extent necessary. Cc: Greg Lerud Tim Keane Cort and Susan Queen Mike Sharratt -3- queen variance V FA 0 a 0 00 cc m ,4 O H m `A o ) C5 0 0 0 J 0 +J ., 44 1-1 U U 4) 'p o -:z 0 14 H Cd r 4 m � it RL 14 >-- . 0 Cd ,~ 0 Cd o U 9 d 0 �s0, d .. 4 J O 44 a 0 W H 0 m cis +J W H O a m a $, O [L D•. � m n� H b m a A _ _ m N 6. m �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs a J° 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q [L m � m n� H b m r A 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q 0 0 ti r _ BI►o�►�c�5 Aga. to 3� N BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU x �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs O +3 - ti o0. �4-)� !r m m m 4J OD k C4 F. 10 xcar+� m 0: O 3 x m m O m rl OS O r1 rl N :.z = a r•+v�v�a 1� SLUI d` s r �I N cLA Aa IJ®Rttk L t►.� �S��Z SQ 44 t 14 a� • v� aq � Q O ((_- WX _Z= '0 ._... ��4i FC. 3ZtT�1l`l� R,Z3 m - ME++� — QLP, v LD �191 _4 �y e .' ? r .F Oe Q W OR c� 3 _ BI►o�►�c�5 Aga. to 3� N BIT, 4, QOUC, NVU LU (P �oo►T�o�1 f A POWs 455 a ►,u��aoU.s SuaFacE - O U�ud�t:.s FouNp oeGF. iPO� 01' �Per INIONWAF-ttT Su�J ,r -"o eASr-_VA" (;4 RFeoRD .Irr 'Ptm , (io Q-,� 1~X t�T t�1G �F SC.R,1'PT 10►.� ;• .. . The West 1 /10 of the South 1 /2•of'the Southwest 1 /4.of.the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also the East 'I/3 of the West 3/20 of the South. 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section-32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minn., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, Minn. r � Ali •ili�.j 9 r r a � c a o �u x K: 0 N L u—u LLI O Q UIIII II z LI � o FS I Exhibit B PROPERTYSURVEY 6 2 N D S T R E E T E. WALK PROPERTY LINE QUEEN FRESCENCE -PORCH ADDITION GONG. 6TOOP des ny Al compa . -. 01- 2-1-11 -, Exhibit C SITE PLAN — EXISTING FRONT YARD ui (j) FfROF-05EID NEW FRONT PORCH FLAN �2 SCALE- 1/0" OR 1/4"= I.-011 mmlnm� o 1 2 4 N. WALK f=ROF='EfRT'T' LINE 6 2 N D S T R E E T QUEEN RESDENCE 01-2' Cl 6's'"l FA company 2] Exhibit D SITE PLAN — PROPOSED PORTICO - - - - - -� ------ - - - - -- *EXIST. BASEMENT FDTN. ASSUMED -------------------- - - - - -- -- ------------------------------------ �i EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION A3 SCALE: 1/8" OR 1/4 "= 1' -0" h;mo OUEEN R S I ED NC de�sl -PORCH 4DpITION mp y rr FA . 01-26 -17 Exhibit E EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION *EXIST. BASEi" LENT FDTN. I I STEP FT'G� DOWN TO ASSUMED i i EXISTING FDTN. ----- - - - - -- � - - - -- ---------------- ------ LJ----- - - - - -- --- _------- J- 1 - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - rj--� EXISTING; FRQNT (STREETSIDE) ELEVATION SGALE- 1 18" OR 1/4 " =1 1' -0" sM"Mm I ." 0 1 2 4 1 OUPN RESIDENCE desl F—A4 01-26-11 Exhibit F PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Request for Variance: Owners Court and Susan Queen 27180 West 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Applicant Sharratt Design and Co. LLC 4642 nd Street, Suite #100 Excelsior, MN 55331 Location Property located at 27180 West 62nd Street, Shorewood, MN. A single family original farmstead home and lot, which will remain as a single family home site. Legal Description: The West 1/10 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian; also East 1/3 of the West 3/20 of the South % of the Southwest % of the Southwest % of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. The same being part of lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN., except that part, if any, lying within the East 3.34 acres of Lot 4, Minnewashta Acres, Hennepin County, MN. Subjects from Shorewood Zoning Ordinance Section 1201.05 Subdivision 1b This variance proposal respects all zoning and building ordinances with the exception of the 50' front yard setback. This reasonable need for variance is due to circumstances generated by the municipality allowed road improvements simultaneously combined with a new 50' front yard setback requirement for multiple lot subdivision in the past, which immediately made this home 19' non - conforming by definition. Circumstances of Site: The unique site circumstances of this site arise due to the non - conforming nature of the home placement on the lot relative to the establishment of the road placement and an accompanying front yard setback immediately causing the non - conformity to a pre- existing home. These circumstances arose long after the home was already in place. When the homestead area was subdivided and the placement of the city road on the parcel provided for the lots across the Exhibit G APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER street from the existing home to be mandated to be in compliance with the 50' setback requirements. However, this caused the existing property to become immediately non- conforming from that point in time. Proposal Implications: This proposal will actually provide the homeowner a functional covered safe entry to their front door with a building code compliant stair /access to the front door by eliminating the existing stoop which has become deteriorated and dysfunctional over many years. In addition, this proposal will improve the overall aesthetic value of the neighborhood as it is in keeping with the traditional design theme of the home while improving the front fagade to enhance the street side visual of the home's exterior to the neighborhood. The neighboring homes, which are generally much newer and larger than the existing property, are in no way adversely affected by this proposed necessary exterior enhancement. This variance would improve the esthetic nature of the neighborhood. This fact is supported by the homeowner's acquisition of signatures of support from the surrounding homeowners. (See attached) Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2a (1) This variance in no way will impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, due to the large distances between adjacent homes. (See attached aerial photo) (2) This variance will not increase congestion on the public street, as the property remains a single family home. Nor will it block any vehicular visibility of any kind. (3) This variance will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, and in fact, improves public safety by constructing a building code compliant usable and protective access to the front door. (4) This variance will not diminish or impair established property values or be contrary to the intent of all zoning and building ordinances or the city comprehensive plan; rather, these improvements will likely improve this home's and other's property value. This variance does meet simple judgments of reasonability, the intent of the zoning ordinances, and will meet or exceed building code requirements. Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2b The special conditions and circumstances of this variance are by no means a result of the actions of the homeowner or previous homeowners. The creation of the existing non - conformity was and is completely out of the control of all previous and present homeowners of this original farmstead home and its location as related to the subsequent land and road improvements. This non - conforming condition makes any improvement to the property for usability and safety in violation. Section 1201.05 Subdivision 2 c Application for variance is justified because the circumstances which arose to cause the setback non - conformity were created long after construction of the original farmstead home and will allow use of the front porch area and is the minimum variance to allow reasonable protected access to the home's front door. Should Staff or Planning Commission or Council members have any further questions or need additional information, we encourage anyone to contact us at your convenience. Court and Susan Queen 27180 West 62nd Street Shorewood, MN 55331 Mike Sharratt Sharratt Design & Co 464 2nd Street, Suite 100 Excelsior, MN 55331 952 - 470 -9750 We, the property owners and neighbors of Court and Susan Queen of 27180 West 62nd Street, Excelsior, MN, have reviewed and support their variance application for a covered front covered porch for their home: Name: k I ` Signature: Address: i qC; inl PC4- 1014 4 � Jr- ; rf; p— Name: Signah Addres Name; ��-- Signature: Address: 61 3-,5-331 Name: Signah Addres Name: Signah: Addres Name: Signatu Addres; Name: SignatL Addres Name: Signah Addres Name: Signatc Addres Name: Signah Addres Name: '/ Signature: r Address: -_s: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: _ Signature: Address: Name: Signature: _ Address: �rLh�� �-v^ �- 4 4,�q- / "'Y, _533_ From: Adam Cornell <acorne11826 @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:38 AM To: Planning Subject: Support of Neighbors variance request Attention Bradley Nielsen - My name is Adam Cornell and I am the adjacent neighbor to the west of the Queen's house. The Queen's have applied for a front -yard setback variance to add a porch to the front of their house (27180 West 62nd Street). Being one of the neighbor's who would be most significantly impacted (my wife and I would be able to see the porch from our lot and we would drive past it multiple times everyday), I felt it important to inform you of my support for the variance. Please share my support as required to the rest of the individuals in the decision making process. I am unable to make a personal appearance on May 2nd, so I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any additional questions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Adam Cornell 27200 West 62nd St. Shorewood, MN 55331 952- 210 -5638 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 April 2017 RE: Neilon, Erin and Michael - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (17.12) BACKGROUND Erin and Michael Neilon have purchased the property at 5795 Club Lane (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home, as shown on Exhibit B. Although the new home will have an attached garage, they would also like to keep an existing garage located on the north side of the property. The combined area of the two garages will exceed 1200 square feet in total floor area, necessitating a conditional use permit. The property is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential and contains 42,837 square feet in area. The new garage contains 748 square feet. The existing garage contains 510 square feet which brings the total amount of accessory space on the site to 1258 square feet. The existing garage is 11 feet from the side (north) lot line and approximately 85 feet from the right -of -way of Club Lane. Plans for the new home and attached garage are included in Exhibits C through G, attached. The proposed home contains 3190 square feet of floor area in two levels above grade. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2:d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1258 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (3190 square feet) above grade of the proposed home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R- 1C zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). Memorandum Re: Neilon CUP 28 April 2017 c. The proposed garage complies with R -1C setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will be only 13.4 percent. Since the new garage will face north and the existing garage faces west, the nearest property owner will only see a triple garage fayade from their property. Consequently, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. d. The applicants propose to re -side and re -roof the existing garage to match the new home and garage. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recornmended that the applicants' request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject only to the standard warning that such structures are for residential use only, and that any type of home occupation conducted within an accessory building must obtain a separate permit. cc: Greg Lerud Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Erin and Michael Neilon -2- U � O 1 p o S J i i� c o� CD LL o �_ o Q. ° O ° o o V) IL s co p 0 0 la = C7 Lill 0 a qnl:D o a� 0 L � v � a leas l a mfuc S p o --------- - - - - -- Haan E] J S Exhibit A 'A(c, crrrIP t nr n mrnXT iv vc�iivl� Neilon CUP 4 46.20 N01 °17'02 "W/ co m I - G VOO N� snoNiwnlie 9 n10 3,JUl.ons Qb,•4 -bi Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY •erysey� 'I'll "'I'll I I I way 116111 a 111011111111111'111111 -- s6ulr.'-p/sugd asayl asn io'ylpaw 'aanpaidw laingplslp'Aeldssp al III aw6e pue u�auay 146pAdm anIsnpxa s; au['sawoH nesneAl az�u6m1 pue a6pal—j- - A's6uln'e,p /sued.1111 p Adm a 6upd— Ag •erysey� saw1H --A1 .1 asualil paliwd a yap- peplllid 1e pue 1y6p Ado1 an1snpxa s; w[ —H off n.-Al yap- pJ.d 1e s5—.p/sued —ILL /}unoo uldaUUaH aqua adr36mpunpeyl6HluyaPOU suold Ipuy !££SS NW'pooMaaoy$ woo sawoynosnoMgpuosuoy 1101 9nI� S6LS YBtz'b66'zs6 M0110H I!on� wopno 8t£SS Nw'o tspy0 UOl!aN £97tagnsanted�DOal!yMS"L oyso43 sawoN nosnoM nesne o 30 u o? 'zmoGO " 55 z o�Iiw � °aa� o ma ao-3o§ h mo w'N <o soo Sy awo � m w ciao o w 4 G C L °w °G'� o u o iI "W8 o 0- w r� u .¢w° ru (n Z `� 8� >� 5io5 FIi oG w 3„ zF.� a wyao t0 Z O o -�= 58.7 z uuJ�a o NoS f6 .�j�~O� H �� F ~O w s F zoa oz E £a - €6�W ¢ -3 :1 �ozwi og£ 651 €a > J LU a0 og�6 z u Saw x W Z H W oz wzad < �f S C, z Z g Q ° 6m ,uw u o< z ¢o zz F, Q Q d J <�woa z�� u $�uf3z W n 0O I- 0 W Z� D Z.i' OJ f o G ° °�� = W z z O O o O g ,HH tmWm3?m 0118 Vl mOo1-OJtL} , <oom of a ° z° L !- f �- bow`;moQa?w�? Sob zaaz�euwm 5 wo. �o Gum. W �/ > Z O Z r- > W w U U O m gwa�wm °$ f �tL -• mru;G zox,xa�^ i om <,o lza. a0 § : O U4' O J J O WOO Q U W W LL. LL to D' LL U wtirz3a��o.. uG o KO¢6QO=O Q wainzmmm�� U x w- r°w� ZGGGj s U w �£G>O YOY rKQ = Ulm ¢Kd a5 £ '"r d ow xF ow Oowz'noo¢kuh° J a'nodx..6uz� u�lh oo t-1 szrao ws�zgwaQ °a�i �sa� �w£ 000�oz�� J ¢ �wCuGowNO3�� O ri N ra N M V to �c n 00 a, ri ri ri aaaaaaaaaaaa W o3in ° ==z wu a m aau�i3 w °u z�'°n w u�o� °w'�pOW�� °�� ociz GW- �3 mo H 'M °M Uf m oov z �-Hw Bozo 0o 5G� W 3Quzow= �o Z 0wa w� EwOrwz � Y w oz �Q u o u> u o °I znHH G. oz�z ��q zm"z a gw->'c'S mz ww dp�o Sgzio�o W- �w w5'd£w3° 3 °p ouxi�a� o3wow z�N��iLLo ¢�11 af�� 33" m zas0 ..m3f� > o mumi v,m osuum3 i3o �m3� » > =uaoutm z O f w > aF u ° u o G 0 o w wam w� o re5 W w a p� w w 03 o a d' J m3 ¢vo - o °zF of -S wN a oa= z u�sm ��$�OO =o"�oaGGGG-�3%xJS CO o m 000 ° ¢o �ruxQ_: a 000000u5wZf�LLz ���L�zc °zyiGGGGrr3 2Z..t;3 zo °� oz w a. z q wo u�M< Czm �oz=Wi �' ?<M 3w3zo� foaEU °f1£�8wmf fuzes]°- -CZ..i pt- � ¢'�mmm5zz�1�uu.0 °u °uwG6Gq°3 °aaa_'zfa�oz >z�G66GOG� O(7U �UU ala ll££OO£ fz 00� K✓� •'_£ u °p�0000 °mk am�aa�d��oo °auCo° ° a` 2mu0uuuuuuuuut -ioc�ossffasfz�z000ao_aa�� 11 z 00! o a ��G a o ¢ 8, o8a o? 'zmoGO " 55 z o�Iiw � °aa� o ma ao-3o§ h mo w'N <o soo Sy awo ° �� w' w ciao o w 4 G C L °w °G'� o u o iI "W8 o 0- w r� u �i-o zo w�8 �m " o r-0 O°o w o 0 F o z 3 a z mo sNOO!om z °w� E'er w f3 w w 3„ zF.� a wyao uoi 3zo. -. oCC amm w BYO o NoS f6 .�j�~O� H �� F ~O ao. w >-1 rh!Ro W.: 7z m. -�7 ¢ -3 :1 �ozwi og£ 651 €a OnOHS 8 z Zm °��G�a3i3Ssz w 3 ¢Lao— O 9t�H of °Gwd _m i °? 5 oQmx ' Fam GgolzS a G,m�3 S C, of a � 5 m�° oz z�.. w �33mo¢oz ��o� °zoGOo 8m5- oo��w� zz G <W z <8 �oz . z° oCa° ° w °LLB az °azagFwe a. ulu"rsow ¢=w� �,zw °3 oN'"wmoo0� oho N o z.eGwu�a?uu, o am ° ° °Q'a G°q�u oo '^ •� z� €0 -o ¢ _w boo °01131 wuiun�'n Nmo�oxzL7QO °zorxF m�a 3.�o w m _ �w CC h UB of a ° z° L 3owwuwoFW w o� °z °s 011100 0� _`. wo. �o Gum. z wc o W 8`8 -9 -Oo i om <,o lza. a0 § : O U4' >�uSB 34 J °QOowm °. �n2 o KO¢6QO=O Q wainzmmm�� U x w- r°w� ZGGGj s U w �£G>O YOY rKQ = Ulm ¢Kd a5 £ '"r d ow xF ow Oowz'noo¢kuh° II� (AK w °Z z3 oRz J ¢ �wCuGowNO3�� €oo¢=a�3 =rN °rwG3V7� G z Syr mG G�mwmwz °z 0' oo° N i ^"i z�'°n w u�o� °w'�pOW�� °�� ociz GW- �3 mo H 'M °M Uf m oov z �-Hw Bozo 0o 5G� W 3Quzow= �o Z 0wa w� EwOrwz °=a wG °u�oz o�w �£zp°z,o� ouoo u3 ° ou,�•• °ao5Fl.w�w5� W'�zwwxo sfz zoo �z.aapi o on zaxoioo�oG] o� ll.Iaai- or=rl�um¢Fru ¢omu ¢maom om 1„1 Exhibit C PROPOSED HOUSE - PERSPECTIVES m o Exhibit C PROPOSED HOUSE - PERSPECTIVES r-77 sawoH nesnehl Aq awoy a fiuls a )o uopruasuoo ap uo) ueq»aglo s6ulmeup /sueld asap asn uo 'Allpow'aanpwdw 'aingplslp'Aeldslp of dou aw6e pue ulauay 146p A03 anisnpxa s; oul' —H nesneAA 9zlu6ww pue a6pajuougae - A's6upaeup /sueld asagl )o Adoa a 6upd— Ag 'egseyo sawoH nesneM of asuaall pallwp a -pun paplAwd we pue lg6p Adoa anlsul— s,'oul —a H nesnehl /spun palaalwd we s6u uup /sueld asagL /4unoo uldauuaH aanapadvflo �lnpeyjoulw1apay woo•sewoynosno n�puosuoy % suold Inu!j IEESS NW 'pooMaJoyS - _ ouL)l gnlo 96LS V91CV66'M6 g. M opoH !!onrj wo }snD U011M cqt L eps GAP(] o00 G1! 4M 5"L orsoy0 sawoH nosnoM vn X X O o - II II d W vn N X 0 0 II II V of Exhibit D PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS — FRONT/REAR m x Q 0 vn N X 0 0 II II V of Exhibit D PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS — FRONT/REAR •ersey� sawoH nesne�A Aq awoy al6uls a )o uoparu7sum ay7 u uey7 uay7o sfiul—up /sueld asay7 asn u.'Appow 'wnp.d.'a7nqu7zlp'Aeldslp o71- aai6e pue ulauay 145p Ad. anlsnpxa s; au['sawoH nesnv A nu6ma pue a6paleiouyae noA 'sfiul�e�p /sueld asay7 7o Adoa a buptlane AB 'egsey� sawoH nesneM of asuaall pa71wa a uap- paplAoud ae pue 746p Adoa anlsnpxa s; au7 sawoH ne—AX iapun a p 7>a7ad ae s6uln,e�p /sueld asay1 A4unoo uldeuuaH w1usnowmmm 9,10#803 Offll/n0 Pill AUVAI/apou suold jould 16693 NW 'poornaJoyS woo•sawoynosnom @ puosuoy aup'j qnlo 96L9 h9LzW6'6S6 8!£SS NW 'n�soy� MopoH pone wolsno > U0119N E9Gj a}!nS anuO InO a1!yM Sb6l O> SNO SGWOH nnsnD vn X X N.i v v 00 11 II d co ..tire v� X X N .y u v 00 II II V W Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - SIDES � m w CD W M a N 3 a o v� X X N .y u v 00 II II V W Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - SIDES •er,sey7 sawoH nesneM Aq awoy al6uis a �o uoparu� sum aW uo� ueya uay�o 0.,— p/sueld a uq asn Ipow '— p.dw'ajnggj'jP'Ae�ds�p o1 jou aw6e pug uiaaay ay6uAdm -pnpxa s,,-j'sawoH ne—Ak azlu6mw pue afipa�rzou „ne noA 's6u�n�e�p /sued asayj )o Adm a 6upd— Ae 'eHSey� sawoH nesneM.1 .sued pa11wll a uapun papjnoud we pue %y6pAdaz - 1snpxa s; auj sawoH nesneA\ uapun pai »jaid we s6u�n-p /sued asayL yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN (}uno� uidauuGH aanapadx36wp�anpay >Bu�u /apay suold Inu!H LEESS NW 'PooMaIoyS woo sawoynosno n o)puosuoy � MolloH ilnno wo}sno auol qnjo 96L3 481Z'666'ZS6 M39 NW'oIsoU LU U011aN £9bl allnS anu0 800 a}iyM SbV I nesne ��59AE �it o�soU sawoH nosnoM yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN � m LU ��59AE �it 1t V ak 0 36�Sy {off ;i �l4i yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN ��59AE �it 1t V ak fy� 36�Sy {off ;i �l4i a a i�S %g o r L LL u $!19! JAE %� H S Y v E n I P I I 9 3a o. o Y 4 yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN •er,sey� sawoH nesneAl Aq away a�6u�s a )o uoryaru�suo� ay) uo) uey»ay�o s6u�n�ejp /sued —s asn uo'/g pow'aanpwdw'a7nqu)s,p'Aeldslp oa qou aw6e pue ulaiay ay6p Adoa aysnpxa s, au['sawoH n—m M az�u6... pue a6pa�niouHae noA 's6uin�e�p /sued asaip [o Adm a 6updane Ag •eysey� sawoH nesneAN o[ asuaaq pajjwij a u,pun papl�oud wu pue jgbp Adoa ani5np- s,•au[ sawoH -s-Al uapun paiJ.d — s6e.eip/ sued asa41 54 f13�II Id ? fI ol'IIA ffk t °4llg liftf f3�( # �itil � ° € - � O O O } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN /quno� uldauuaH a a aualiadx36u••rp/mp ow 6ulfwapay $UD DUI O OOMa10 U U10�'S2WOynbSnDM�PUOSUDy � �^' m0110H I!on?D wo}sno s auDl qnp 96L9 4 Z•p66'ZS6 " " U01IaN c cg6te!nsanua�00e{14MS"[ 0�sND SO W OH n Id ? fI ol'IIA ffk t °4llg liftf f3�( # �itil � ° € - � O O O } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN CITY OF HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.dshorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 October 2014, Updated 28 April 2017 RE: Seifert, Mike — Minor Subdivision, FILE NO. 405(08.12) In September of 2008 the City approved a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert (see attached memorandum, dated 10 September 2008). The applicant chose not to record the division at that time and is now reapplying. This one is quite simple — nothing has changed since the earlier approval.. Approval is recommended with. the same stipulations as listed in the previous report, plus a condition that the shared driveway must be no less than 16 feet wide if the,northerly home includes a sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not. Finally, the applicant must provide a driveway easement and maintenance agreement for the portion of the driveway to be shared. 2017 Update: For reasons unknown to us, the above- referenced minor subdivision was again not recorded after it was approved a second time. Mike, Mike......Mike! What has changed from the second approval is the park dedication fee. It has increased to $6500. Subject to the recommendations in the 10 September 2008 report, plus the new park, fee, approval is once again recommended. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Tim Keane Mike Seifert Memorandum Re: Seifert -Minor Subdivision 10 September 2008 recorded with the resolution approving the subdivision. Also, the driveway is shown as being only 10 feet in width. A condition of approval should include a minimum of 12 feet with the common portion of the shared driveway no less than 16 feet. Due to the location of the northerly building pad, the driveway may have to increase to 20 feet with a Fire Code turnaround unless the applicant proposes to install a sprinkler system in the � home. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. f 2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the, resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. j 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Mike Seifert E i i i i 5- ° Cl! z< ° it ° U -A 4 Ip W al �6 S >y a v� T 3y Z N Fri- Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Seifert - minor subdivision O L- 00 0 0 N AC I X 0 I L X Qx x \v x X x a N a rl X jx� Exhibit B x EXISTING CONDITIONS �� i i i o N O N m n > .a C c � F 0 W �� N O C6 O M 11 N 11 JQ� 0 v� OQ) j� yz 7 71 &A� �Q� C:�. 7 N o� O� 14'A N „d " / \ 0 p • ,w� N � G �'d U H O ti N q w o c o b s q o w o 8� 0 a _ „ 3 p w aN� Q7 q U O d q -v 0 0 <G o M add o o a N a`iN p P, N O O N4 C7 TWTkk V w a �� �w•� a g �3�w.� k� t�b to -v 0 0 w mot• V n z 0 M W Exhibit C PROPOSED DIVISION Q q <G o M add U a�sa O N4 C7 TWTkk V w mot• V n z 0 M W Exhibit C PROPOSED DIVISION Q q 125 250 500 Feet Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION VACATING PART OF WHITE STREET WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of part of the public right -of -way for White Street in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior /Shorewood edition of the SLTN'SAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 281h day of June, 2007 and the 5th day of July, 2007, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 30th day of June 2007 and the 7th day of July, 2007; and WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 9th day of July, 2007, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the portion of White Street, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vacated street be legally combined with the following property: "That part of Lot 6, Linden Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of a line running from a point in the northerly line of Lot 6 a distance 22 feet east from the northwesterly corner thereof to a point in the southerly line of Lot 6 a distance of 22 feet east from the southwesterly corner thereof." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 9th day of July 2007. ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator /Clerk Christine Liz6e, Mayor Legal Description of Public Right -of -Way to be Vacated: That part of White Street, as dedicated in Linden Park, that lies westerly of the west line of Linden Hills and easterly of a straight line between the southwest corner of Outlot "A ", Linden Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and a point on the north line of Lot 6, Linden Park, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 as measured along the north line thereof. Exhibit A y ifi i r CITY OF FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND Brad Nielsen 27 April 2017 Anderson - Penly Minor Subdivision 405 (17.11) Warren Anderson and Mary Penly are the owners of property located at 25000 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to subdivide the lot into two building sites as shown on Exhibit B. The property is zoned R -1A, Single - Family Residential, contains 125,262 square feet of area and is occupied by the applicants' home and two outbuildings. The property has frontage on Yellowstone Trail and is also bordered on its east side by Sam's Way - a platted, but undeveloped, public right -of -way that serves another home to the east. The property is quite wooded and rises approximately 24 feet from east to west. The westerly, vacant parcel will contain 40,000 square feet of area and the easterly lot will have 85,262 square feet. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Both lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R -1A District. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicants' surveyor must provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. From those legal descriptions, the applicants' attorney must draft deeds conveying the easements to the City. 2. The applicants must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. Memorandum Re: Anderson -Penly Minor Subd. 27 April 2017 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the existing home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time a building permit is applied for. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Warren Anderson and Mary Penly -2- 1NO poo�a�O�4S p� o. U W dp�Sla � L U L c� E MISS uipJPH 0 0 z eta N >1 cu � J 41A) Mal/ 4101L M 4- .0� \� 0-01 ry o/ Pa qnl-CcAAjLAn, Q pal 2 Z U O. O o U N O, c � � o m Q z<o 0 0 0 m .* 0 -s \ 4 JAM -Q 10 a� c� cl) .. nFT Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Anderson minor subdivision Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY of S 837000 -"� NORTH ig -- _ - __95.35 90. 1 _- -__ - -- -- ---------------- m' Ig __Stone Steps H yyx 4 Tq s 20.3 a . t0 f s ` . 20.J • 2 1 a , a a Pokto poi m v of v1 z i - -- - - - --- 3t. x ` op - -- yStone Poth-r � � } 0 2 7 3/ p� to 2 qp �• Cavered Dock , i ' 1 f , p� 1� Stone Steps _ 1 \ I vo INA1 , • P vices ` . • . 'Our S of "14. Such / e741'00;' w fore >mit any i or � 1.269566/ 4 6 e5 of dot s e � oom� 22' y�1do . SeLL,„y(II '23 Bell° mo9i fio Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952 -960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 April 2017 RE: Venero, Jay - Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (17.14) BACKGROUND Jay Venero owns the property at 5985 Seamans Drive (see Site Vocation map — Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to split off the rear 117 feet of his property, as shown on Exhibit B, and sell it to Mattamy Homes for inclusion into its Minnetonka Country Club plat. The subject property is zoned R -1A, Single - Family Residential and contains 75,370 square feet of area. It is occupied by Mr. Venero's gardens which are the subject of a previous conditional use permit, allowing limited cormnercial sales from the property. Upon completion of the transaction,'Mattamy will remove the existing garage /greenhouse located on that portion of the site and combine the property with the MCC project. It is worth noting that this was proposed at the time the MCC project was initially approved, subject to approval of a minor subdivision: The westerly portion of the property is occupied by Mr. Venero's home and a detached accessory building. The resulting parcel will contain approximately 45,540 square feet of area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION As mentioned, the easterly parcel will be included into the second phase of the MCC project. The remaining westerly parcel, meets or exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for the R -IA zoning district. It is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The public right -of -way for Seamans Drive is substandard in terms of width. The survey on Exhibit B shows 16.5 feet of additional right -of -way to be dedicated to the City. The applicant must provide a deed for the additional right -of -way. Memorandum Re: Venero Minor Subdivision 28 April 2017 2. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of the westerly lot. Easements for the easterly parcel will be acquired as part of the final plat for the MCC second phase.plat. 3. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. Since the minor subdivision does not create any new lots, there are no additional fees for park dedication or local sanitary sewer access. These have been accounted for in the MCC project. 5. Since the division itself does not result' in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Lary Brown Tim Keane Brian Theis Jay Venero -2- SHOREWOOD, MI1` NES0TA VICINITY MAP -IM. 0 I NOT TO SCALE SHEET INDEX 1. COVER 2 -3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT INDEX 5 -6. PRELIMINARY PLAT 7 -9. PRELIMINARY SITE & UTILITY PLAN 10. GRADING INDEX 11 -15. PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 16 -18. DETAILS T1 —T6. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN N 00 200 4 BENCHMARKS 1. SPIKE IN POWER POLE ±190 FT. EAST OF SAMS WAY ON NORTH SIDE OF YELLOWSTONE TRAIL ELEVATION: 964.73 (NAVD 88) 2. RAILROAD SPIKE IN POKER POLE AT THE NORTHIIEST QUADRANT OF YELL0IYSTONE TRAIL AND CLUB VALLEY ROAD. ELEVATIOPI: 976.86 (NAND 66) CALL BEFORE YOU M Know what's below. Call before you dig. (� Carlson 3890 Pheasant 1 Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100 I hereby certify that this y plan, me or under my Print Name: Marl K sto D avm: ]30 1.1/21/16 Revtse ayout perowner MAT gAMY HOMES environmental Blalne,hlN 56014 or report was prepared by me or under my MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB EXillblt A • englneertng Phone: (763)489 -7900 dlredsup— IslonandthatIamaduty S9natum: /L Designed: B1K 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 McCain 'survey(n9 Fax: ( 763) 489 -7959 thensedPmfessianalEnMnnerunder Shorewood, Minnesota SITE LOCATION wWYLWdsenmcealn,9 the lawsoftheStateofMlnnesota Date: 10!30/15 ttvnsaF:25063 Dale: 10/30/15 Edina, MN 55439 _ to e�m= :wot- somsut- mr,�au,��n. -w e,mwar.- n�'n= r.�..,wi� d.ae..g enero minor subTivision ALTA /NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY , 0S' II // PART OF LOTS 70 AND 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I I I North Line of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S ^ `/ SUBOINSION N0. 133 F, �o _ Z2� >_ n �o CJ ¢R MATTAMY HOMES. LLC VICINITY DAP i d 0 10 20 40 ( SCALE IN FEET ) (NO SCALE) I I I N SmitM1to n Rd. of L City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, MN Sectfon 33, Township 117, Range 23 PA'?M OE5GW/PACiV.- (Per Schedule A of Ttle Commitment N.. 17- 03Of46ZC, with a commitment date of March 7th, 2017 at 7.30 AIA., prepared by DCA Ube as fssuing agents far Chicago Title Insuronce Campony) Lot 70, EXCEPT the North 2 acres thereof, Auditor's 5ubdVsfon Number One Hundred Thirty- Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO: The South IJ feat of the North 2 -sa of Lot 70, Auditors 5ubdMsicn Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Henncpfn C -ty, W oesota. EXCEPT,' That part of Lot 70, Auditor's Subdh /clan Number Cho hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin County, Affnnesoto which Iles southerly of a line drain from a pat an the west Ifne of said Lot 70 dfstant J3.10 feet earth measured along the west line of Lots 70 and 71 In said audn-'e subdMel" from the s thnest toner of Lot 16, 'Afeekers Ovtlote to Excdscr' to a paint on the east Ifne of said Lot 70 dfstant 47.80 feet north, measured along the east One of said Lots 70 & 7f from the southeast comer of sold Lot 16. Abstract Property. And The floth 228.21 /set of the South 276.01 feet of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, a ,,cured along and at rfght angles to the most Westerly Its said Lot 50, Auditor's Subdhfsfon No. f33, Hmncpfn County, Minnesota m T ens Property, Being rsp',tered as 11 s,4dencsd by Certf Rcate of Title No. 1420593. Abstract of Who is not contained h Ne. GENERAL NOBS' 1) The 8Nd vok for ihts sunny nos completed on AprJ 3rd, 2017. 2) Bearings shown hereon are based on the Nor th line of the South fJ ft. of the North 2 acres of Lot 70, AU0ITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133, which is assumed to bear N68°3755'Ye.. 3) Surveyed property address - Unassfgned. 4) Per FEM Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 2705JC0313F pith an affedim date of November 4th, 2016, surveyed property Is focated 7 Zone X. areas det -hhed to be outsfds 0.2£ annual ch- fioodplafn. 5) Its current zoning cl-t Cotfon was prodded by the Insurer. 6) 5urveyed property contains 180,256 sq. ft. (11.84 acres). 7) Per Schedvfe B, Sectfor Two Exceptions of the vbove listed This Commitment: Item 2 - Variance recorded as Document fro. 5794013 (Abstract). (x ) Ile. 3 - Conditional Use Permit recorded as Document No. 6757274 (Abstract). ( sJ Its. 4 - Condit /anal Use Permit recorded as Document No. 6813761 (Abstract). (.11) Item 5 - Ord, of Court setting Judicial Landmarks recorded as Document No. 977567 (Temens).( xJ STATEIWE14T OF POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS 1� 1) Power pde and overhead dectn'c t(nes Ire easterly of R7ght -of -way Ifne. C ?ffRCARCVC To:Mattamy Homes, LLC; day A. Vemam. DCA T Is as fssuing agents for Chicago Title Insurance Company. This is to certify that this mopp o plat and the survey on NMch R N based ware made In accordance with the 2016 tAinimum Standard Detail Requiremsn is Por ALrA/NSPS Land Titre Surveys, join tfy establfJred and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and indud.a Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(a)1 7(a), 6, and 13 of Table A thereof. The field nark nos completed on April 3rd, 2017. Data of Plat or Map: Ap O 10th, 2017 Signed: Cadson A1c Coin, Inc. By D RAFT Thomas R. Balluff, L.S. Minnesota License No. 40361 B ,RTY SURVEY Q Fmca Iles tA4 R ` t 140 r_65 R Naa n «Walt of I.vcyerty 1'ne _ _____ -M I LEGEND 00 �z ...165x. 326.72 -+ „ II _\�� `/ i • - Denotes Found fron Monument a+ - Denotes Overhead Electric e S88 °42'08' W Denotes Sanitary Manhole -- > - - ->- - Denotes Sanitary Sewer �0 3 ON /NER: . a - D eno es M a'I ox Denotes Stor Sewer JONATHAN & KATHERINE HIOpNS Pl0:33I1723330003 V 7 - +j• p Denotes Catch B asI n - Denotes Existing Fence as noted nV r lv LOT TO r \"rL JIV�I ° Denotes Electric Meter Denotes _ o^ O - Denotes Telephone Box - Gravel Surface E X C E P _ --- .- s-- T 1 0 aD I e of Lot 50, AUDTORS ' SUBDIVISION N0. 133 Denotes Utility Pale Denotes Concrete Surface "` ® - Denotes Hand Hd a _- - Denotes B(tun O - Denotes Miscellaneous Manhole �-� Southwest Comer Lot Southeast Comer of Lot 16, - ------ - - - - -- Exhi ;,' of I °NEEKERS WTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR- C ' ERS °MEEKERS CUTLOTS TO EXCELSI0�4" ' I O avc - Denotes love Pfpe PRC B ,RTY SURVEY