Loading...
01-16-18 Planning Commission AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2018 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 7, 2017 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE BEAN (TBD) DAVIS (TBD) RIEDEL (TBD) MADDY (Jan) SYLVESTER (Feb) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CITY CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING PROCEDURES FOR ZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS 4. OTHER BUSINESS A) SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Robert Wright Location: 6110 Club Valley Road 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Council Meeting Report Update on projects approved Draft next meeting agenda 7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: Commissioner Bean 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for November 7, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 3, 2017 Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 31011 with Sylvester abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy 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. A. PUBLIC HEARING — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGNAGE Applicant: Shorewood Landing Senior Living Location: 6000 Chaska Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated that this evening the Planning Commission was going to consider an amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living Planned Unit Development (PUD) regarding signage. Director Darling explained that KTJ 285, LLC has requested an amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living PUD in order to add two additional wall signs. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Chaska Road and State Highway 7. With the exception of two homes to the southwest, all of the adjacent homes on the east side of Highway 7 are developed with single- family homes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 2 of 10 The applicant currently has two signs. There is a sign installed on the northwest side of the building facing Highway 7. There is a free standing sign installed on the berm adjacent to Chaska Road. Neither of the two existing signs are lit. The applicant is requesting the authorization to add two more signs. One would be located near the northeast corner of the building. The other would be located over the main entrance into the building. Both of the proposed wall signs would look similar; they would have individual letters and neither of them would be lit. The applicant believes the additional signage is needed to eliminate confusion for visitors to the site and they would reduce unnecessary turnarounds on Chaska Road. Staff finds the monument sign to be the most effective sign for wayfinding because it would be visible from both Highway 7 and Chaska Road. The signage on the northeast corner of the building would also help with wayfinding for eastbound traffic. The sign that would be above the main entry would not be visible until a vehicle is directly adjacent to the building. Staff believes the building itself serves as a sign for wayfinding because it is the only apartment building along Chaska Road. Darling noted that staff only recommends approval of the sign proposed for the northeast corner of the building. She also noted that the City received a letter from Mike and Cindy Marr, 6015 Chaska Road conveying their objections to any additional signs; that is now part of the public record. Shannon Rusk, 4521 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, and with Oppidan Investment Company, clarified that she thought the monument sign has ground lighting. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Ms. Rusk clarified that if a driver did not see the monument sign which faces Chaska Road because it was, for example, covered with snow and drives beyond it the only way for a driver to turn around is to pull onto a residential property driveway. Riedel asked if drivers coming from Highway 7 or going Southbound on Chaska Road would see the monument sign. Ms. Rusk stated drivers coming from Highway 7 would see the signage on the northwest side of the building. If a driver comes west on Highway 7 and turns west on to Chaska Road they may not see that monument sign if it was obstructed by snow. Riedel asked if the sign proposed for over the main entrance is more about advertising. Ms. Rusk stated she thought it is nice to have the address right above the entrance while noting there are other ways to indicate the address. She thought the most important sign to have is the one that would be up higher. Director Darling stated the address numerals could be put on the building regardless of whether or not there is a sign there. Chair Maddy asked Ms. Rusk if the proposed upper sign that would be on the northeast corner is the one that would be the most important. Ms. Rusk responded yes and clarified it would be for identification. Maddy asked if that is a common problem Oppidan encounters. Ms. Rusk stated they always have high signage and low signage to help direct guests coming to the facility and she thought it would be more important in this instance because the facility is in a residential area. Commissioner Riedel asked if there is still a speeding issue on Chaska Road for traffic coming from westbound Highway 7. Director Darling stated there are still some concerns about drivers speeding on Chaska Road and noted that the construction vehicles have been acting as a speed deterrent. Once the construction vehicles are gone she thought Council would discuss how to address those speeding issues in more detail. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. John Macualey, 6025 Chaska Road, stated that speeding along Chaska Road has not subsided. He noted that he has almost been hit three times in the past two weeks by drivers traveling at speeds of more than CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 3 of 10 30 miles per hours (mph). He then stated he does not think there is a need for the additional signage but it is clear the applicant thinks there is. Debbie Trent, 6045 Chaska Road, noted she has a 9 year old child and an 11 year old child. She stated she had seen her children almost be hit by a vehicle about five times while trying to ride their bikes along the side of the road. She then stated when walking to their mailbox the children have to walk on her right with her near the vehicles. She thought things were getting worse because there are fewer vehicles. She noted there is no way to bike or walk to the sidewalk in Chanhassen without going on the street. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. Commissioner Riedel asked if it is correct that the PUD is specific to the Oppidan (the Shorewood Landing Senior Living) Project. Director Darling confirmed that. Riedel noted the property had been zoned R -C prior to the project so prior to the PUD the R -C rules would have applied. He explained that the R -C zoning rules state that only two signs are permitted. If the property were still in an R -C zoning district then the applicant would have had to apply for a variance for the additional two signs. Riedel then asked Darling to comment on the basis for that variance. Darling stated the applicant can propose amendments, adjustments or flexibility with a PUD. Council can decide whether or not to approve what the applicant has requested depending on if it is the best interest of the traveling public and the City at large. For a variance application there are certain criteria that have to be met per State statute. For a PUD there is a custom zoning district so an amendment to the PUD is amending that entire custom zoning district. The amendment does have to be approved via an Ordinance and that would be done by Council. Riedel stated if the project was a commercial development done on an R -C property then only two signs would be permitted. He did not think the conditions for a variance would be met. Riedel asked Darling to comment on why the development was done as a PUD and not as an R -C, Residential - Commercial property. Director Darling explained the applicants had proposed a level of density that is usually not seen in an R -C zoning district. Riedel asked if it also had to do with, for example, setbacks. Darling stated she thought it was more to do with it being a taller structure than what would normally be found in a residential setting. Chair Maddy stated it was his recollection that it was more for the density; because it was going to be a senior living facility traffic was not going to be as significant as it would be for an apartment building. Chair Maddy stated from his perspective the question at hand is if the additional signage would help with the traffic or would it just be additional branding on the sides of the building. Commissioner Riedel stated staff does not believe the proposed signage above the main entrance would help with traffic. Riedel then stated he thought the motivation for the proposed sign on the northeast corner was reasonable. Chair Maddy and Commissioner Sylvester concurred. Commissioner Riedel recommended that a condition of approval should be that the proposed signage cannot be lit. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Shorewood Landing Senior Living Planned Unit Development to allow for a non - illuminated sign that would be located on the northeast corner of the facility and recommending denial of the request to put a sign above the main entrance into the facility. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:21P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 4 of 10 B. PUBLIC HEARING — NORQUAL ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE Applicant: Michael Schroeder (representing Jack and Gretchen Norqual) Location: 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. He noted the Planning Commission is going to consider a preliminary plat and lot width variance for Michael Schroeder, with Schroeder Management and on behalf of Jack and Gretchen Norqual, for the properties located at 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road. Director Darling explained the applicant has requested a preliminary plat to adjust the lot line between the 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road properties and a lot width variance for the 27968 Smithtown Road property. Adjusting the property line would allow the applicant to provide a separate driveway and watermain service to the house on the 27968 property. Currently the driveway and watermain service for the 27968 property crosses in front of the 27964 property before connecting to the Smithtown Road. That is done via easements. The northerly property (27964) would be Lot 1 and the 27968 property would be Lot 2. The existing houses would remain on the properties. The applicant's plan is to sell the 27968 property. With one exception both Lots would meet the lot width and lot area requirements. Because the newly configured Lot 2 would end up being narrower than allowed by ordinance the applicant is requesting a lot width variance. Both properties are zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential. The R -IA zoning district requires a 120 feet of frontage. Currently Lot 2 has no frontage and the applicants propose to create 50 feet of frontage. Darling noted that because the lot width variance would improve a nonconformity staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and lot width variance. Michael Schroeder, representing the he applicants, noted the applicants also own Outlot A. He explained the house on the 27968 property is served by a private well; it is connected to the City's sanitary sewer system. Currently, there is no way to bring City water line to the house without getting more easements across the 27964 property. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Mr. Schroeder stated there is a private easement for the current driveway to the 27968 property. Commissioner Riedel asked Director Darling how a private easement is different from a public easement. Darling explained that most of the easements talked about at the City level are public easements; the land rights have been retained for public purposes. Private easements are when the owner of one property gives the owner of another property land rights for a specific purpose. In this case it would have been for access rights. Director Darling noted that Outlot A had been subdivided as a private road rather than a public road to serve a number of houses. Mr. Schroeder stated the private easement exists and it would be vacated once the 27968 property has a private driveway with access to Smithtown Road. Commissioner Riedel stated based on the drawing it appears that the strip of land that would be added to the 27968 property would be about the width of the proposed driveway. He then stated that in general creating that type of gerrymandered lot is not in the long term interest of the City. He did not think that is how City lots should be designed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 5 of 10 Mr. Schroeder explained that the way the lot is situated there is a big span of trees with some of them being quite tall. The goal is to ensure nothing happens to them. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:29 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he did not think there was any way to meet the 120 foot width requirement for the 27968 property. He then stated that what has been proposed would reduce the nonconformity of the 27968 property. That would be the basis for approving the applicants' request. Chair Maddy noted the width of the 27968 property where the house is situated is about 150 feet. He thought what has been requested is reasonable. Commissioner Sylvester stated she also thought what the applicants have requested is reasonable. Commissioner Davis stated she was good with what has been proposed and noted there is nothing else that could be done with the situation. Riedel moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat to adjust the lot line between the 27964 and 27968 Smithtown Road properties and a lot width variance for the 27968 Smithtown Road property subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits prior to the installation of the new driveway and water service. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M. C. PUBLIC HEARING — SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: William and Melanie Keegan Location: 25830 Birch Bluff Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:31 P.M. He noted this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a side yard setback variance for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. Director Darling explained that William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, have requested a side yard variance to place an air conditioner within the 10 -foot side yard setback. Zoning Code Section 1201.03 specifies that air conditioning equipment may not be located less than 10 feet from the side property line. She noted that in 2016 the applicants received variances for the redevelopment of a nonconforming lot, a side yard setback, and impervious surface coverage. She explained that the applicants have provided the specifications for the new air conditioner (an 186B Evolution Single -Stage Air Conditioner) they have chosen. It runs at about 68 decibels which is at the lower end of the acceptable decibel range (55 to 80) for residential air conditioners. For comparison purposes, conversational speech is about 60 decibels and normal household appliances (e.g.; dishwashers, hairdryers, and vacuums) are 70 — 85 decibels. She noted the zoning regulations allow for variances if practical difficulties exist. She stated staff reviewed the request based on site specific circumstances. In this case staff would have normally directed the property owner to put the air conditioner on the lake -front side of the house in order to comply with the setback requirement setback. The applicants noted that their proposal would have their air conditioner very near their neighbor's air conditioner and generator. There would be limited windows in that area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 6 of 10 Chair Maddy asked if the neighbor's air conditioner and generator also encroach into their side yard setback. Director Darling confirmed that. Director Darling noted that in this circumstance staff recommends approval of the variance. William Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, stated he and his wife had gone through a variance process for their new home. They decreased the nonconformity of the new house; the old house used to be four feet from the property line and the new house will be 10 feet. Their proposed location for the new air conditioner seemed to be the best spot because their neighbor's air conditioner and generator is in that area. He noted their neighborhood does not want the new air conditioner to be located on the lake side because they sit on the lake side to enjoy the lake. He clarified they were not aware of the setback issue when they asked the City for the other variances in 2016. Commissioner Riedel asked if the house has 10 -foot side yard setbacks on each side of the new house. Mr. Keegan responded yes and noted the lot is only 60 feet wide. Riedel stated there are different types of air conditioners such as a mini -split system and noted he thought it would be unfair to require that given that the lot is so nonconforming. Mr. Keegan noted they chose a different air conditioner than they originally considered because it was quieter. Commissioner Davis stated the proposed air conditioner is quiet and noted there are several of them where she works. Those conditioners are located right below her office window. Director Darling stated the City had received two letters in support of the variance. One was from JR and Kristy Campuzano, 25860 Birch Bluff Road, and the other was from William Henney, 25920 Birch Bluff Road. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated that because the lot is quite nonconforming he thought that what the applicants have requested was reasonable. Chair Maddy stated he thought the Zoning Code protects a property owner from having their neighbor put their air conditioner right on the property line. Davis moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of a variance to allow air conditioning equipment to encroach up to a maximum of four feet into the side -yard for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. D. PUBLIC HEARING — FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Channing and Jessica Scott Location: 5915 Galpin Lake Road Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. He noted this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a front yard setback variance for 5915 Galpin Lake Road. Director Darling explained that Channing and Jessica Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, have requested a variance to build a second story addition on their home and attached garage. The existing garage encroaches 10 feet into the required 35 foot front -yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance indicates that a nonconforming single - family house can only be expanded if the expansion does not increase the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 7 of 10 nonconformity and if it complies with the height and setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. Adding a second story to a nonconforming structure expands the nonconformity. A second story would not increase the amount of impervious surface. The subject property is located near the intersection of Galpin Lake Road and State Highway 7. All of the adjacent properties are developed with single- family homes. The applicants' property is riparian to Galpin Lake and is within a Shoreland overlay district. The applicants have stated that the proposed addition over the garage would be a potential living space for their aging parents. Their plans include a second story addition over the entire footprint of their home. In addition to increasing the amount of living space the applicants also want to improve the aesthetics of their home from the street. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist on the property. In this case staff found that the variance was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance being the property would continue to be a residential property. With regard to practical difficulties, staff believes that what the applicants have proposed is a reasonable use of the property. They designed their proposed addition in a way that would improve the appearance of the entire structure. It would bring the garage into visual harmony with the rest of the building plan by having sweeping roof lines over the entire addition (over the home and the garage). The applicants did not create the practical difficulty for the property; the error resulted from the original construction in 1977. The proposed addition would not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. There are no neighbors to the north of the property. The homes along the road have a variety of front -yard setbacks. Darling noted that staff understands that this request has met some of the conditions required of a variance better than others. Therefore, she recommended that the Planning Commission review the request against the variance criteria and then forward a recommendation to Council. Commissioner Riedel asked how what is being proposed would increase the nonconformity. Director Darling explained that the increase comes from adding the additional living space above the garage and the garage already encroaches into the front -yard setback. Chair Maddy stated there are a number of houses in the City where the popup begins at the setback requirement. Charming Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, stated that he and his wife Jessica have been working on the design for their home for about 11 years. For the last year and a half they have had an architect involved. He noted they are not asking to expand the footprint of anything. He stated they did not know that they would have a problem with the proposed addition above the garage. He then stated that about one and one half years ago his father had triple by -pass surgery and then five months ago his father had a stroke. Jessica's father had fluid on his brain. They do not know when their parents will need to have care from them for which they will need additional living space. He explained that they had already been planning to change the garage roofline for consistency purposes and put in a mechanical room. They then decided to finish it off in the event they would need to have their parents live with them so they could provide care. Jessica Channing stated if they were to build the addition over the garage to only go up to the setback requirement then there would not be enough room for a bedroom or a parent's suite should that be needed. Her parents live in southern Minnesota so it would be convenient to have that space for them when they come to stay. The addition over their home would allow them to have bedrooms for each of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 8 of 10 their three children upstairs as well as their bedroom. From an aesthetic perspective the change of the roofline would add a lot to the home as well as provide them with the added space. Commissioner Riedel asked what the square footage of the parent's suite would be if it was cutoff at the setback line. Commissioner Davis stated she thought it would be about 140 square feet. Ms. Scott stated that would be a very small space for what they want to use it for. Commissioner Davis stated the parents would likely be incapacitated on the proposed second floor. She asked if the applicants plan on putting in an elevator. Mr. Scott responded they are not and noted that the space would also be used by the mothers should their fathers be in the hospital for some period of time. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:53 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he assumes some residents in the past were denied the opportunity to increase their nonconformity. He then stated he does not see the basis in the code or in precedent for allowing an increase in the nonconformity, while commenting that he may also want to do what the applicants are proposing sometime. The requested variance is not because of a nonconforming property or a surveying error. The surveying error impacts the existing structure. The garage went where it was not supposed to go. Commissioner Sylvester stated that the proposed addition over the garage would not impose on anyone. It would not create any difficulties anywhere. It does add value. Commissioner Riedel stated something being a good idea should not be the basis for a variance. There was no specific reason why this variance should be allowed. For a variance there has to be a clear practical difficulty. In this case the approval of the variance would be for doing something extra. Chair Maddy stated approving the variance could create a slippery slope. Commissioner Sylvester stated if the home met the 35 foot setback she assumes there would be no issue. She then stated that because a mistake was made in 1977 she asked if that would justify the need for the variance. Commissioner Riedel explained his interpretation of nonconformity. What is there is allowed to stay. But it should not be allowed to increase. Commissioner Sylvester noted the footprint would not change. Commissioner Riedel stated he could say the nonconformity would not be increased for the setback only metric. But if there is a precedent that adding living space increases the nonconformity, which he thought would be a reasonable interpretation, then that precedent counts. That means that some residents were denied their request presumably along that line. The precedent where property owners had to comply with the setback requirement which ultimately resulted in a less aesthetic look was compelling to him. Commissioner Davis asked if the City denied those property owners or did the property owners make those choices. She stated she has served on the Planning Commission for the last eight years and during that time allowances were made for building situations where, for example, the surveys had been wrong or where the setback was calculated from the face of the curb and not the right -of -way (ROW). Chair Maddy stated there had been a situation where the encroachment was increased because it had been measured from the center of the street. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 9 of 10 Maddy noted the fact that the applicants need that additional space cannot be factored into the recommendation. The approval of the variance is all about practical difficulties. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the consideration of this request for a variance is very subjective. Commissioner Davis states she thought the neighborhood the property is located in is a very unique situation. She noted she drives by the applicants' property when she drives home from work. She stated she thought that what is being proposed would be a wonderful improvement. Commissioner Riedel expressed concern that if Council approves this variance it would ultimately change the definition of nonconforming. Commissioner Sylvester asked if that is true. Riedel stated it is not fair to cherry pick cases. He then stated there needs to be something specific in this case beyond the fact that the original garage ended up encroaching into the setback to justify building the second story over the garage. He does not see that. Sylvester stated it would not create any difficulties and it would add value to the neighborhood and to the home. Riedel stated that argument could be made for every nonconforming property. Sylvester stated not necessarily. Director Darling stated each variance case should be considered on its own merits and without comparing variances across the board. The circumstances for properties are always different. There are never two that are identical and being identical is what would be needed in order to claim precedent. Commissioner Riedel stated he agreed with that from a legal sense. Riedel then stated the Commission and the Council should not make subjective decisions; subjectivity should be very limited. Commissioner Riedel stated if the Commission recommends approval of this request he suggested that the Commission recommend an amendment to the Zoning Code basically saying that if the footprint of a structure stays the same then the amount of nonconformity would not be increased. Chair Maddy and Commissioner Sylvester disagreed. Chair Maddy stated the reason that a variance is being requested in this case is because it is a unique situation. That variance request gives the City a chance to determine what, if any, negative impact there would be, for example, on other homes or on the neighborhood and to consider approval of the request accordingly. Commissioner Sylvester reiterated she does not think there is an issue with what has been proposed. Davis moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval the setback variance for Jessica and Channing Scott, 5915 Galpin Lake Road, to accommodate their proposed remodeling which includes a second story over the garage. Motion passed 311 with Riedel dissenting. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:05 P.M. Director Darling noted that all four of tonight's applications will be considered by Council on November 27, 2017. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Sylvester stated her term on the Planning Commission is for one year. She was appointed to fill the remainder of Councilmember Johnson's term after he was elected to serve on the City Council. She wondered when her term is up [it is up February 28, 2018]. She wants to serve out her term but she will not reapply because of obligations to her son. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2017 Page 10 of 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Liaison to Council Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council's October 23, 2017, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). In response to a comment from Commissioner Sylvester, Council Liaison Johnson reported on Council's action regarding the Starbucks proposal during its September 25 meeting. Director Darling elaborated on Johnson's report. There was ensuing discussion about that application. Update on Projects Approved Director Darling noted she had nothing to add to Council Liaison Johnson's report. Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated there are no development applications slated for the December 5, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. She noted she was hesitant to cancel that meeting. She stated she may try to draft another Code amendment for discussion during that meeting. Darling noted that the first Tuesday in January 2018 falls on January 2 the day after the January 1 holiday. She recommended the meeting be held on January 16 noting it is after the Martin Luther King weekend. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 7, 2017, at 9:16 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018 RE: City Code Text Amendments for Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Concerning Administration and Procedures for Applications FILE: 18.01 (Sections 1201.04, 1201.05, 1201.25, 1202.03 and 1202.09 of City Code) Staff proposes "housekeeping amendments" to modify the procedures for zoning and subdivision regulations to accomplish the following tasks: Reflect changing practices regarding mailing labels practices at Hennepin County Increase the distance mailed notices are sent for requests for rezoning, subdivision, and PUD applications Modify the time allowed between submission of applications and the date of the public hearing The proposed language is attached. Staff are also proposing changes to the fees to make sure that application review is self - sustaining and to cover the increased notification and recording costs associated with development applications. The City Council reviews fee increases. Staff also propose to correct two references in the subdivision regulations to the appropriate city code section where the fees for subdivision applications are codified. Mailing labels Many cities' code (including Shorewood's) requires mailing labels to be provided and certified by Hennepin County. Hennepin County has informed all their cities that they will no longer be certifying lists of property owners or providing mailing labels, but has created a service on their website to allow users the ability to create lists of property owners, maps of affected properties and mailing labels. Initially, staff had begun to require that applicants use the website to provide the information. What staff has found in the short time the data base has been available is that we are spending more time assisting and correcting problems with the labels than if we initially created the labels ourselves. Consequently, staff propose to amend the ordinance language to remove the requirement that applicants submit mailing labels and staff will use Hennepin and Carver County mailing label services. Page 2 Mailed notices At a recent City Council worksession, the Council asked staff to research whether the mailing distance is adequate for most applications. As a result of the discussion, the City Council decided to keep the mailing distances the same and review changes on a case by case basis. To be able to provide as much direction as possible for applicants and developers up front, staff proposes to increase the distance requirements for rezoning, subdivision and PUD applications and avoid a situation where the Council needs to redirect staff to widen the notice distance after an application is submitted. Setting the distance requirements ahead of time also prevents conflicts with the land use application review deadlines imposed by State Statute. Public hearing /meeting schedules The current ordinance requirements are very inflexible concerning the time between submission of application materials and the scheduling of public hearings. Staff has proposed allowing more flexibility in the language to permit staff to work with an applicant to improve their application to better meet code requirements prior to bringing the application before the Planning Commission and City Council as may be needed. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance Amendments Comparison of Cities notice requirements (from City Council worksession) CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO APPLICATION MATERIALS Section 1. Zoning Regulations Section 1201.04 is hereby amended as follows: 1201.04 ADMINISTRATION, AMENDMENTS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. Subd.1. Procedure. a. Application. Requests for amendments or conditional use permits, as provided within this chapter, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as provided for by City Council ordinance. This fee shall not be refunded. The application shall also be accompanied by five copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development or use and ., mailing list of property o o s l,.eatea ..ithi, 500 feet , fthe s„t,;o � property obtained frein and eeftified by 14ennepin County.. b. Staff review /technical assistance reports. Upon receipt of an application for an amendment or conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall, when deemed necessary, refer the request to appropriate staff to insure that informational requirements are complied with. When all informational requirements have been complied with, the request shall be considered officially submitted. Also, when deemed necessary, the Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports and /or provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the request to the Planning Commission and City Council. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, all applications for any site plan, conditional use permit, land use permit, variance, or for any other city approval required by this chapter, or to amend this chapter, shall be made in writing on a form provided by the city, if the city has a form, to the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator is authorized to reject in writing any incomplete application within 15 business days of receipt if the application is incomplete, stating the reasons or its rejection, including what information is missing. This rejection shall be sent by first -class mail to the applicant. Every application shall contain the legal description of the property and a statement of the specific permit or action being sought. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the city from requesting additional information from the applicant upon which to base a decision. (2) If a dispute arises over a specific fee imposed by the city, the amount of the fee must be deposited and held in escrow, and the person aggrieved by the fee may appeal to district court, as provided by M.S. § 462.361, as it may be amended from time to time. The application shall proceed as if the fee had been paid, pending a decision of the court. C. Public hearing. Upon official submission of the request, the Zoning Administrator shall set a public hearing on the request for a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting occurring at least ten working days from the date as a notice of the hearing is published in the official newspaper. The notice shall contain a legal property description and description of the request and shall be published no more than 30 days and no less than ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall also be mailed at least ten working days prior to the date of the hearing to all owners of land within 500 feet of the boundary of the property related to a conditional/interim use permit and 750 feet of the boundary of the property related to an amendment. Failure of a property owner to receive the notice shall not invalidate any proceedings as set forth within this chapter. Section 2. Zoning Regulations Section 1201.05 Subd. 3 is hereby amended as follows: 1201.05 ADMINISTRATION, VARIANCES AND APPEAL Subd.3. Variances. a. Criteria. In considering all requests for a variance and in taking subsequent action, the city staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, may approve a variance application upon finding that all of the following criteria, as applicable, are met: (1) The variance, and its resulting construction and use, is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter. (2) The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Chapter. Practical difficulties mean: (a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. (b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (c) The variance, if approved, would not alter the essential character of the locality. (3) The variance would not be based exclusively on economic considerations. (4) The variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. (5) The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. (6) The variance is the minimum variance necessary to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. b. Procedure. (1) Application. Requests for variances, as provided within this chapter, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as --e—ded f r established by City Code Section 1301.03 1 lion. The application shall also be accompanied by three copies of a survey signed by a land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota, and detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development or use and a mailing list, mailing labels and ., inap of all ,, , er-ty ow—nefssleeated within 500 feet of the s*eet pfopefty obtained frein Hennepin Coun-ty. Section 3. Zoning Regulations Section 1201.25 Subd. 6 is hereby amended as follows: Subd. 6. Procedure for processing a P. U.D. a. Application conference. Upon filing of an application for P.U.D., the applicant of the proposed P.U.D. is encouraged to arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his or her proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this chapter before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. b. General concept plan. (1) Purpose. The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing his or her basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The following elements of the proposed general concept plan represent the immediately significant elements for city review and comment: (a) Overall maximum P.U.D. density range; (b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways; (c) General location and extent of public and common open space; (d) General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development; (e) Staging and time schedule of development; (f) Other special criteria for development; (2) Schedule: (a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed development; (b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application, together with all supporting data and filing fee as established by City Couneil Fesel *ie„Code Section 1301.03; (c) Within 30 days aftef vefifieation by the staff that feguk a „la„ and suppeftin . data is adequate, tThe Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing; (d) The Zoning Administrator, upon verification of the application, shall instruct the City Administrator /Clerk to set a public hearing f feat a regular meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the hearing to all owners of land within 598750 feet of the boundary of the property in question; (e) Failure of a property owner to receive the notice shall not in validate any proceedings as set forth within this chapter; (f) The Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports where appropriate and provide a general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the City Council. Additionally, the request shall be referred to the Park Commission for their review and comment; (g) Upon consent of the City Council, the Planning Commission and city staff shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors, the information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this chapter; (h) The applicant or a representative thereof shall appear before the Planning Commission at the public hearing in order to answer questions concerning the proposed development; (i) Within 60 days of the public hearing, or the further time as may be agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall itself review the reports and plans and submit its written report and recommendations to the Council and applicant. The report shall contain the findings of the Planning Commission with respect to the general concept plan. If the planning commission fails to act within the time specified herein, it shall be deemed to have recommended the plan for approval; 0) The Zoning Administrator, upon receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, shall instruct the City Administrator /Clerk to set a public hearing before the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request and map detailing property location and be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the hearing to all owners of land within 598750 feet of the boundary of the property in question; (k) Council action: (i) Following the required publishing and notification procedure, the City Council shall hold a public hearing; (ii) The applicant or a representative thereof shall appear before the City Council in order to present the planned unit development and answer questions concerning the proposed project; (iii) The Council shall review the proposed development, any reports and recommendations of advisory commissions and city staff and testimony from the public hearing; (iv) In evaluating the request, the Council shall determine the relationship between the proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. Where any question exists as to city policy, the Council may, at any time, refer the project or any specific item within the project back to the Planning Commission for further study and with clarification as to the policy; (v) The City Council shall have the authority to request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or to retain expert testimony with the consent and at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors, the information to be declared necessary to establish performance conditions in relation to all pertinent sections of this chapter; (vi) The City Council may require revisions to or modifications of the general concept plan where deemed necessary. Any revision or modification shall be referred to the Planning Commission for informational purposes; (vii) Within 60 days of their receipt of the concept plan and any reports or recommendations from advisory commissions or city staff, the City Council shall grant approval, resubmit the plan to the Planning Commission for further consideration of specified items or deny approval of the concept plan; (3) Optional submission of development stage plan. In cases of single stage P.U.D.'s or where the applicant wishes to begin the first stage of a multiple stage P.U.D., immediately he or she may, at his or her option, initially submit development stage plans for the proposed P.U.D. In this case, the Planning Commission and Council shall consider the plans, grant or deny development stage plan approval in accordance with the provisions of Subd. 6c. (4) Effect of concept plan approval. Unless the applicant shall fail to meet time schedules for filing development stage and final plans or shall fail to proceed with development in accordance with the plans as approved or shall in any other manner fail to comply with any condition of this chapter or of any approval granted pursuant to it, a general concept plan which has been approved shall not be modified, revoked or otherwise impaired pending the application of development stage and final plans by any action of the city without the consent of the applicant. Problems arising or found to exist during the development or final plan stage of a project may provide cause for the city to require modification of the general concept plan. (5) Limitation of general concept plan approval. Unless a development stage plan covering at least ten dwelling units or the area designated in the general concept plan as the first stage of the P.U.D., whichever is greater, has been filed within six months from the date Council grants general concept plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file development stage and final plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and of an approved general concept plan, the approval may be revoked by Council action. In this case, the Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the general concept plan approval for that portion of the P.U.D. that has not received final approval and re- establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. Upon application by the applicant, the Council, at its discretion, may extend for additional periods not in excess of six months each, the filing deadline for any development stage plan, when for good cause shown, the extension is necessary. C. Development stage. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the development stage plan is to provide a specific and particular plan upon which the Planning Commission will base its recommendation to the Council and with which substantial compliance is necessary for the preparation of the final plan. (2) Submission of development stage. Upon approval of the general concept plan and within the time established in Subd. 6b(5) above, the applicant shall file with the Zoning Administrator a development stage plan consisting of the information and submissions required by subdivision 5b for the entire P.U.D. or for one or more stages thereof in accordance with a staging plan approved as part of the general concept plan. The Development Stage Plan shall refine, implement and be in substantial conformity with the approved General Concept Plan. (3) Review and action by city staff and Planning Commission. Immediately upon receipt of a completed Development Stage Plan, the Administrator shall refer the plan to the following city staff and /or official bodies for the indicated action: (a) The City Attorney for legal review of all documents; (b) The City Engineer for review of all engineering data and the City /Developer Agreement; (c) The City Building Official for review of all building plans; (d) The Zoning Administrator for review of all plans for compliance with the intent, purpose and requirements of this chapter and conformity with the General Concept Plan and Comprehensive Plan; (e) The City Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Council; (f) The Park Commission for review of public recreation and /or open space provisions; (g) When appropriate, as determined by the Zoning Administrator to other special review agencies such as the Watershed Districts, Soil Conservation Services, Highway Departments or other affected agencies. All staff or commissions designated in paragraphs (a) through (d) hereof shall submit their reports in writing to the Planning Commission and applicant at least five days prior to the date of the Planning Commission meeting at which the request is to be heard. (4) Schedule. (a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator and city staff to discuss specific development plans. (b) The applicant shall file the Development Stage application within six months after Concept Plan review, together with all supporting data and filing fee as established by City Couneil r° elut o„Code Section 1301.03. (c) Technical staff reports shall be prepared on the proposed development and distributed to the Planning Commission and the applicant at least five days prior to the date of the Planning Commission meeting at which the request is to be heard. (d) The applicant or a representative thereof shall appear before the Planning Commission in order to answer questions concerning the proposed development. (e) The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on the Development Stage Plan. (f) Council action: (i) The applicant or a representative thereof shall appear before the City Council in order to present the Development Stage Plan and answer questions concerning the Plan; (ii) The Council shall review the Development Stage Plan and any reports and recommendations of advisory commissions and city staff, (iii) The Council shall determine the relationship between the Development Stage Plan and the previously approved Concept Plan. (iv) Where deemed necessary, an additional public hearing may be required during the Development Stage of the P.U.D. The public hearing shall be held at the discretion of the City Council and shall comply with the procedures set forth in subdivisions 6b(2)(c) through 0) of this section. (v) The City Council may require revisions to or modifications of the Development Stage Plan where deemed necessary. Any revision or modification shall be referred to the Planning Commission for informational purposes. (vi) The Council shall approve or deny the Development Stage Plan. (vii) If approved, the Council shall instruct the City Attorney to draw up a P.U.D. agreement which stipulates the specific terms and conditions approved by the City Council and accepted by the applicant. This agreement shall be signed by the Mayor of the City of Shorewood, City Administrator /Clerk and the applicant within 30 days of Council approval of the Development Stage Plan. Where the Development Stage Plan is to be resubmitted or denied approval, the Council action shall be by written report setting forth the reasons for its action. In all cases, a certified copy of the document evidencing Council action shall be promptly delivered to the applicant by the Zoning Administrator. (5) Limitation on Development Stage Plan approval. Unless a Final Plan covering the area designated in the Development Stage Plan as the first stage of the P.U.D. has been filed within six months from the date Council grants Development Stage Plan approval, or in any case where the applicant fails to file Final Plans and to proceed with development in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and /or approved Development Stage Plan, the approval shall expire. Upon application by the applicant, the Council, at its discretion, may extend for not more than six months, the filing deadline for any Final Plan when, for good cause shown, the extension is necessary. In any case where Development Plan approval expires, the Council shall forthwith adopt a resolution repealing the General Concept Plan approval and the Development Stage Plan approval for that portion of the P.U.D. that has not received Final Plan approval and reestablishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. (6) Site improvements. At any time following the approval of a Development Stage Plan by the Council, the applicant may, pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the city, apply for, and the City Engineer may issue, grading permits for the area within the P.U.D. for which Development Stage Plan approval has been given. d. Final Plan. (1) Purpose. The Final Plan is to serve as a complete, thorough and permanent public record of the P.U.D. and the manner in which it is to be developed. It shall incorporate all prior approved plans and all approved modifications thereof resulting from the P.U.D. process. It shall serve in conjunction with other city ordinances as the land use regulation applicable to the P.U.D. The Final Plan is intended only to add detail to, and to put in final form, the information contained in the Development Stage Plan and shall conform to the Development Stage Plan in all respects. (2) Schedule. (a) Upon approval of the Development Stage Plan, and within the time established by Subd. 6.c.(5) above, the applicant shall file with the Zoning Administrator a Final Plan consisting of the information and submissions required by Subd. 5.c. of this section for the entire P.U.D. or for one or more stages. This plan will be reviewed and approved /denied by city staff, unless otherwise specified by the City Council. (b) Within 30 days of its approval, the applicant shall cause the Final Plan, or the portions thereof as are appropriate, to be recorded with the County Registrar of Titles. The applicant shall provide the city with a signed copy verifying county recording within 40 days of the date of approval. (3) Building and other permits. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, upon receiving notice from the Zoning Administrator that the approved Final Plan has been recorded and upon application of the applicant pursuant to the applicable ordinances of the city, all appropriate officials of the city may issue building and other permits to the applicant for development, construction and other work in the area encompassed by the approved Final Plan; provided, however, that no permit shall be issued unless the appropriate official is first satisfied that the requirements of all codes and ordinances which are applicable to the permit sought have been satisfied. (4) Limitations on Final Plan approval. Within one year after the approval of the Final Plan for P.U.D., or shorter time as may be established by the approved development schedule, construction shall commence in accordance with the approved plan. Failure to commence construction within the period shall, unless an extension shall have been granted as hereinafter provided, automatically render void the P.U.D. permit and all approvals of the P.U.D. plan and the area encompassed within the P.U.D. shall thereafter be subject to those provisions of the zoning ordinance and other ordinances applicable in the district in which it is located. In this case, the Council shall forthwith adopt an ordinance repealing the P.U.D. permit and all P.U.D. approvals and re- establishing the zoning and other ordinance provisions that would otherwise be applicable. (5) Inspection during development. (a) Compliance with overall plan. Following Final Plan approval of a P.U.D., or a stage thereof, the Zoning Administrator shall, at least annually until the completion of development, review all permits issued and construction undertaken and compare actual development with the approval development schedule. (b) Development not proceeding according to schedule. If the Zoning Administrator finds that development is not proceeding in accordance with the approved schedule, or that it fails in any other respect to comply with the P.U.D. plans as finally approved, he or she shall immediately notify the Council. Within 30 days of the notice, the Council shall either by ordinance revoke the P.U.D. permit and the land shall thereafter be governed by the regulations applicable in the district in which it is located or shall take the steps as it shall deem necessary to compel compliance with the Final Plans as approved or shall require the landowner or applicant to seek an amendment of the Final Plan. Section 4. Subdivision Regulations Section 1202.03 Subd. 2 is hereby amended as follows: 1202.03 PROCEDURES FOR FILING AND REVIEW. Subd. 2. Preliminary Plat. a. Filing. Five copies of the preliminary plat Hennepin County shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. The required filing fee as established by City Code Chapter 1301.03 Couneil fesel beef shall be paid and any necessary applications for variances from the provisions of this chapter shall be submitted with the required fee. The pfoposal must be submitted by the first Tuesday of any given menth in or-def to be plaeed on the Planning Commission agenda fef the fifst Tuesday of the following menth. The plan shall be considered as being officially submitted when all the information requirements have been complied with. b. Public hearing. Upon receipt of the subdivision application, the Zoning Administrator shall set a public hearing for public review of the preliminary plat. The hearing shall be established once adequate time has been allowed for staff and advisory body review of the plat. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall contain a legal property description, description of request detailing property location and be published in the official newspaper no more than 30 and no less than ten days prior to the hearing. Written notification of the hearing shall be mailed no more than 30 and no less than ten days prior to the hearing to all owners of land within 598750 feet of the boundary of the property in question. Section 5. Subdivision Regulations Section 1202.03 Subd. 2 a. 1. is hereby amended as follows: 1202.09 VARIANCES AND APPEALS. Subd. 1. Findings. The Planning Commission may recommend a variance from the minimum standards of this chapter, but not procedural provisions, when in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In recommending any variance, the Commission shall prescribe any conditions that it deem necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its recommendations, the Planning Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds: a. There are special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting the property that are not common to other properties in the city and that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable and minimum use of its land; b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated; C. That the variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme hardship limited to topography, soils or other physical factors of the land. d. After consideration of the Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council may grant variances, subject to a, b, and c, above. Subd. 2. Variance application procedures. a. Procedure. (1) Application. Appeals or requests for variances, as provided within this chapter, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator on an official application form. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by City Code Chapter 1301.03as provided f f by City Couneil elut o„ This fee shall not be refunded. The application shall also be accompanied by five copies of detailed written and graphic materials fully explaining the proposed change, development or use and a mailing list of pfope fty o ° s l,.,.atio,, within 500 Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this day of 2018. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk City Site Plan Variance Conditional Use Interim Use Rezoning Comp Plan Amendment Preliminary Plat Minor Subdivision Notice for hearing /meetings Comments on mailed notices Statute 0 0 350 350 350 0 0 0 10 days NA Shorewood 0 500 500 500 500 500 500 0 10 days NA Plymouth 200 200 500 500 750 750 750 NA 10 days Two notices, one upon receipt of app for comp plan, rez, PUD Chaska 350 400 400 NA 400 400 400 NA 10 days NA Chanhassen 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 10 days NA Minnetonka 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 10 days Both renters and owners are noticed. Excelsior 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 0 10 days NA Maple Grove 0 350 500 NA 500 500 500 500 10 days NA St. Louis Park NA 350 350 NA 350 500 500 0 10 days Two notices, one notifying of PC meeting and one for CC meeting Bloomington 500 200 500 500 500 500 500 0 10 days NA 0 350 350 NA 350 350 350 350 10 days 600 feet for PUDs 500 500 500 NA 500 500 500 500 10 days administrative lot splits have no notice CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Marie Darling DATE: January 16, 2018 RE: Robert and Joan Wright — Setback Variance LOCATION: 6110 Club Valley Road REVIEW DEADLINE: March 27, 2018 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1 C FILE NUMBER: 17.29 REQUEST The property owners, Robert and Joan Wright, request a variance in order to construct an addition to the attached garage at 29.7 feet from Yellowstone Trail where the zoning regulations would require 35 feet. The applicants would also construct an addition to the home. According to the homeowners, the home addition would require no variance request. iiL r , Notice of this application was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 2 BACKGROUND Context: The home was constructed in 1958 in the Club Terrace subdivision. The Club Terrace subdivision was approved in 1957. With the exception of open space /HOA parcels in the Minnetonka Country Club subdivision to the north, all the adjacent properties are developed with single - family homes. REQUEST The applicants indicate that the request is to allow them to add the additional garage area that they need to accommodate their family, and storage and maintenance of vehicles. Current Setback The applicants' plans indicate that the existing garage is currently 31.7 feet from the property line along Yellowstone Trail, which does not conform to the required 35 -foot setback. Consequently, the applicant would not be able to construct any westward expansion of the garage without a variance. Zoning Requirements Regulation Required Existing Proposed Conform? Impervious Surface Coverage 33 % (max.) 12.7% 16.2% Yes Accessory Building Area 1,200 sq. ft. (max.) 595 sq. ft. 1,198 sq. ft. Yes Rear Setbacks 40 ft. (min.) ±130 ft. ±114 ft. Yes VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. 2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a. Reasonable: A garage expansion is a reasonable use of the property. The applicants' narrative indicates that they are proposing the addition to give them the extra space while maintaining their original rambler appearance. However, staff note the term "reasonable" is open to interpretation. The applicants are proposing to increase the area of the garage to the maximum square footage allowed. See continued discussion under item 96. Page 3 b. Self - Created: The home was constructed prior to modern zoning requirements and was not created by the current property owners. C. Essential Character: The area is a neighborhood containing homes that were constructed over many decades and the setbacks on corner lots vary from 26.4 feet from the property line along Yellowstone Trail (at 6030 Riviera Lane) to over 100 feet (at 6030 Club Valley Road, across the street from the subject property). 3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. They are proposing to adapt the home to their family circumstances while minimizing the use of their back yard for storage buildings. 4. Impact on Area: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. 5. Impact to public welfare and other improvements. The applicants' proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. However, staff would recommend that any approval of a variance include a condition that the increase in storm water run -off for the property due to the addition to the home and garage be accommodated on -site either by a rain garden or infiltration basin and that appropriate information be submitted with the building permit application that the rain garden or infiltration basin would function as proposed. This would mean the addition would not be injurious to other land or improvements to other downstream properties. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty. Staff reviewed the application by studying the impact to the traveling public and those properties to the north with direct view of the garage addition. Specifically, we looked at what the impact would be if the garage addition were '/2 the size currently proposed. This would reduce the variance request by about one foot. The difference in the impact from what the applicant is requesting and if the garage addition were cut in half is negligible. Staff consequently finds that the request is the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. FINDINGS /RECOMMENDATION Staff note that the applicants have met some of the standards better than others. While staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the garage addition for Robert and Joan Wright at 6110 Club Valley Road, we acknowledge that the standards are open to interpretation and the Planning Commission could reasonably find the request is not reasonable or the minimum action necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance, staff would include the following as conditions of approval (to be met prior to issuance of a building permit): 1. The applicants must submit a survey for the entire property detailing the current and proposed dimensions of the existing home and the addition to all property lines. 2. The applications must submit plans to accommodate on -site storm -water infiltration for the increase in impervious surface coverage using either a rain garden or infiltration basin, Page 4 show the location of the basin on the survey, and submit all necessary documentation indicating that the feature would function as proposed. ATTACHMENTS Location map Applicants' narrative Applicants' exhibits, photos and graphics SAPlaming\Pla ing Files\Applications\2017 CURRENT CASES \Wright Varian TC memo.doc L L C r U) L -y„ Y CU c/) illet e 0 c� � C U N 0 0 250 500 1,000 Ri int Feet it Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. a Tr a Yellow L Subject d p CIO Property ° State Highway 7 ,� • We, Robert and Joan Wright would like to request a variance for our house on 6110 Club Valley Road. We have two young children in the Minnetonka school district. Joan is a school teacher and also helps out at St. Therese teaching CCD. Our home provides us with a convenient location for our work, schooling, and family activities. I am my own handyman and do many of the repairs on our home and automobiles. Joan is active in crafts and decorating. Our family is happy and comfortable in the neighborhood and we have no desire to move. Unfortunately, our home has a small footprint and does not have adequate space on the existing foundation without the requested variance to allow more living space and workshop. To help our home fit our family better we would like to add onto our existing house and garage. We have a corner lot so we have a setback of thirty -five feet on the North and east side of our house. This addition will not change the character of our home or make our home larger than most of the homes in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, our lot is uniquely situated to Yellowstone Road which is requiring us to request this variance. Yellowstone Road runs along the North side of our house. Unfortunately the road curves in towards our house slightly and does not allow us a straight setback line. We would like to utilize the property the best way possible. We have considered other designs but we feel that adding the garage straight back would be the most appealing to the eye and in character with our neighborhood. The variance for the garage should not affect the adjoining properties as it's only affecting the setback to the road. The other three setbacks will all meet the current setback guidelines. The addition of the garage will only be used for Joan's and my personal hobbies. Sincerely, RI-11 Rob and Joan Wright RECEIVED i NOV 9) Z01 I j rI° t E Rob and Joan Wright 6110 Club Valley Road 1. The variance and its resulting construction and use, is consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. The variance and associated construction of the garage and house are consistent with the neighborhood and are in harmony with the zoning regulations. The extended garage will enable me to put all of our cars in the garage and provide me with the room to work on my cars when needed. We have no intent of using our house or garage against the zoning regulations. 2. The applicant has established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this chapter. Practical difficulties mean: (a) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. The variance is necessary to allow me to extend my garage in keeping with the style of the neighborhood, but this change will bring me closer than currently allowed by this chapter. This is consistent with the neighborhood and reasonable residential use of our property. (b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. This variance is needed due to the placement of the house next to Yellowstone Trail. The road curves into our property which does not give us a straight setback line. (c) The variance, if approved, would not alter the essential character of the locality. In my opinion the addition of the garage and house will make the property fit in better within the neighborhood. We have one of the smaller homes on our. block. 3. The variance would not be based exclusively on economic considerations. We have considered many different options. The first would be an unattached garage. We do not like this idea as it would take up a large portion of our backyard where we like to play with our kids. We have looked at building a small addition that would fit within the setbacks but did not like the look of the jogged walls. 4. The variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. The requested variance would not affect the light or air to any of our neighbors and in no way would contribute to congestion, create a fire hazard or impact public safety. The variance will only affect the setback from Yellowstone Trail. The other three setbacks would all conform. S. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other lands or improvements in the neighborhood. The requested variance would allow me to extend our garage toward the back of our lot. This change is in no way detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other lands or improvements in the neighborhood. The variance would only allow me to extend my garage which is adjacent to Yellowstone Trail. To the best of my knowledge our house is the oldest house on our block. It is far overdue for a makeover. The approval of this variance will improve the neighborhood with a complete facelift on our house. 6. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. The requested variance is the minimum needed. I would prefer to have a larger garage but cannot due to 1200 square feet being the maximum. ril LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, BLOCK 4, CLUB TERRACE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PREPARED FOR: ROB WRIGHT 6110 CLUB VALLEY ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 1/2" PIPE "\1 1 5 UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT PER PLAT LEGEND: FOUND IRON PIPE (AS NOTED) O SET 1/2" REBAR y� W /CAP #44109 �c.� POWER POLE (WITH GUY ANCHOR) 12 COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL �H OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE pN BITUMINOUS SURFACE X20 ° Oy P�00 < al .26 n -486 ' S� L-_94- 12 R� w 24.52' i� -T- L � SETBFCK_ _35 PER ICL ENTi PROPOSED ( ADDITION T 48.5 ATTACHED GARAGE HOUSE #6110 29 / ::: f, , v 8 CERTIFICATIO 4 NOTES: I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct 1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. Surveyor under the laws of the state of EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT OF CLUB Minnesota. TERRACE SIGNED 2) P.I.D.:33- 117 -23 -43 -0010 Travis W. Van Neste, Minnesota Professional Surveyor #44109 Michigan Professional Surveyor #46695 3) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUMED. JOB # 2016055 ISSUED: 9 -26 -2016 4) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 9 -15 -2016 DRAWN BY: TWVN REV: 11 -20 -2017 SCALE: 1" = 20 FEET VAN NESTE SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES 85 WILDHURST ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 V PHONE (952) 686 -3055 TOLL —FREE FAX (866) 473 -0120 WWW_VANNFSTFC► IRVFVInIr` rnnA 6110 Club Valley Road Impervious Surface Calculations Existing House 1,426 sq. ft. Porch 216 sq. ft. Garage 495 sq. ft. Shed 100 sq. ft. Driveway 790.5 sq.ft. Sidewalk 181 sq. ft. Total 3,208.5 sq. ft. House 1900 sq ft. Porch 0 sq. ft. Garage 1098 sq. ft. Shed 100 sq. ft. Driveway 790.5 sq. ft. Sidewalk 181 sq. ft. Total 4,069.5 RECEIVE-D'' N 0 "v! 2 19 � Oli 17 Cj V or: if DECEIVED JAN 1 1 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD FOR PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION F7 PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION RECEIVED 'HUN, s....a� ... +. loll= i PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION PROP05ED REAR ELEVATION u BULLDiNG bREMODEIiRG:� loll= H11 Lill PROP05ED REAR ELEVATION u BULLDiNG bREMODEIiRG:� 1 I I 1 1 I 72'A' I 1 1 1 49fi 22' -G' JS'9RwGCYN[ YNOPEV.IYIIN[ I IC - I 0,5g FEE M t 1' 1 fb I I II 1 29•B�' 1 I I 1 I 9'+Or I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I O 1 1 1 I I I ASTER p GARAGE I t EDROOM u O `1 1098 Sq. k. j II O SN.VA CN, O 11 11 1 I 1 I 1 1 � ua ca 1 1 WW 1 1 I I I. 1 0 O I $ [n 9'•I I' II W 11 1 � 1 �i 3 11 II 1/2 Vrt0 BAmO 1 1 xewwr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E a_.r 1 1 a ----------------------------------- - - - - -' _ 1 I I 1 rsEa�c�ls Des 1 1 26•9• 3' -G' 201-3' 22'1 1 _ 1 1 MO* 1 1 1 1 1 1 672•?57.4646 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 'I' IJW M.21�4'JC - °'° WRIGHT REMODEL PRELIMINARY w. rt. a �Yrzrvmu3 a PLAN #171024