Loading...
071707 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 17 July 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chair Gagne; Commissioners Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, and Ruoff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Chair Schmitt and Commissioner Meyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES 19 June 2007 • Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 19 June 2007 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – VARIANCES TO BLUFF SETBACK, HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS, AND LOT WIDTH Applicant: Michael and Susan Fannon Location: 5625 Christmas Lake Point Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a July 23, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Michael and Susan Fannon, 5625 Christmas Lake Point, proposed demolishing the existing house on their property and building a new house on the site. As proposed, the applicants’ plans necessitate a variance to the bluff setback requirement and the 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement of the City’s Zoning Code. Nielsen explained the subject property was located on Christmas Lake and was located in the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. The property contained 34,659 square feet of area, which was more than 50 percent larger than the minimum area required for the zoning district. It also was somewhat narrow, 65 feet wide (Code required a minimum of 70 feet wide) at the (private) street. The topography of the site rose from a 932 elevation at the lakeshore to a high point of 1006 feet on the south side of the lot; a difference of 74 feet. The existing house encroached into a 20-foot bluff setback. The new house would also encroach, but not to a lesser degree. The applicants had attempted to minimize site alteration to the extent possible. For the most part, the only new area to be graded would be for the new garage, which would be located outside of the bluff impact zone. Nielsen also explained the impervious surface on the existing site was 36.1 percent. The new plan proposed to reduce the amount of hardcover to 31.3 percent, plus introduce permeable pavers for the driveway and patio areas to come closer to the 25 percent maximum required in the City’s zoning CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 2 of 8 regulations. Much of the actual reduction would come from reducing the area of the driveway and the removal of several deck areas. Nielsen explained how the applicants’ proposal complied with the four specific criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code regarding substandard lots. 1. The subject property was in separate ownership from the two adjoining lots. 2. The lot area was more than the minimum required for the R-1C/S District. The lot area was, however, five feet less than the 70 percent required for buildable lots. The lot had previously been narrower. A neighborhood replat that was done in 1998 (to clean up property boundaries for four lots) widened the subject property but resulted in the applicant giving up approximately 10,700 square feet of area. The replat was approved by the City, commending the four residents for their cooperation. 3. The proposed house complied with the setback requirements of the R-1C/S zoning district. A circular patio area on the south side of the house encroached into the side yard setback and should be corrected to 20 feet from the property line; this correction would reduce hardcover slightly. The proposed hardcover exceeded the 25 percent maximum by 5.3 percent in spite of a 4.8 percent actual reduction in hardcover. For this the applicants had requested a variance. 4. The floor area of all structures on the property would not exceed the 30 percent ratio of structure to lot area. With regard to variance criteria, Nielsen stated this property was somewhat plagued by both configuration and topography, both of which were referenced in the criteria for the consideration of variances. The narrow configuration of the property necessitated an extraordinary driveway length, approximately 150 feet including the turn-around area. This would result in additional hardcover to access the buildable area of the lot. The only area of the property that did not have grade issues was the area the existing house was located on. The proposed plan would not adversely affect the bluff. The applicants proposed to remove three existing decks from the bluff and lakeshore setback areas. The removal of the decks would also reduce hardcover. Nielsen explained the applicants had proposed a permeable pavement system to further reduce impervious surface. This was similar to another application reviewed by the City in 2004. When Staff researched the previous application, it obtained information from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding permeable pavement systems in shoreland areas. Staff checked with the current hydrologist for the area to see if the DNR’s position has changed; it had not. The DNR encouraged the use of the new technology, but it did not recommend that it be substituted for green space. Nielsen stated the City Engineer and the City’s Engineering consultant had considerable skepticism as to how the systems would work long-term. The systems must be highly engineered, inspected during construction and ultimately monitored for maintenance. There were concerns regarding the enforcement of future maintenance agreements. Although Staff was reluctant to recommend that a permeable pavement system be credited for achieving the hardcover requirement, it did think the pavement system could be considered a mitigating factor. Nielsen stated there appeared to be areas where hardcover can be reduced further (e.g., correcting the patio area on the south side of the lot, reducing the driveway size somewhat, or reducing the building CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 3 of 8 size). Staff suggested that 30 percent would be a reasonable hardcover percentage to achieve; 30 percent was consistent with the old DNR hardcover requirements, and the resulting reduction in hardcover would amount to approximately 20 percent less than what existed today (an amount considered to be substantial). Nielsen stated the applicants’ plans would result in a relatively drastic improvement in zoning compliance in spite of the variances requested. The proposed design would blend into the site much better than the existing house, especially if earth-tone colors were implemented. If the City agreed that the application had merit, Staff recommended the approval be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. The permeable pavement system should be subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations for design, construction, inspection and long-term maintenance. 2. The resolution approving the application should include reference to maintaining earth- tone colors. 3. The applicants should further reduce hardcover so as not to exceed 30 percent. Engineer Landini made the following comments regarding a permeable pavement system. A system allowed some infiltration of surface water; there was a 1/4 – 3/8 inch gap between each paver block that was filled with crushed clean rock. A system would require annual maintenance to maintain permeability (i.e., to keep the gap free of debris). A system should be designed by a license engineer. The property in question warranted a structural investigation because of its topography and the location of the driveway. Landini explained some of the challenges for a permeable pavers included frost heave, frozen pore space, and clogging of pore space. The challenges could be minimized with adequate preparation and maintenance. Director Nielsen stated Michael Fannon was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Fannon stated if he had not given his neighbor 10,700 square-feet of area from his property (at no cost), he would not be before the Commission today. He commented that he had been a City resident for twenty years. He explained the existing house was built in the 1960’s and was not conducive for remodeling. Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. Rick Hendel, with Rick-Hendel Homes, stated his firm designed the proposed new house. He circulated pictures of the existing house, and surveys of the property before and after the land exchange had been done. He stated the applicants had not yet decided what the earth-tone colors would be; he did have samples if anyone wanted to see them. He noted the circular patio area on the south side of the house had already been moved, and the proposed house square footage had been reduced by 138 square feet. Harley Feldman, 5635 Christmas Lake Point, stated he was one of four property owners who worked collectively to accomplish the replat 1998 to clean up property boundaries for four properties. He stated those property owners, including the applicants, had consistently attempted to do what was best for the lake area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 4 of 8 Thomas Kelly, 5595 Christmas Lake Point, stated he thought the permeable pavement system proposed by the applicants would significantly reduce the storm water drainage from the applicants’ property on to his property. Currently the storm water from the applicants’ driveway drains on to his property. Mr. Fannon stated the storm water runoff issues were exacerbated by the runoff from the roofs of his existing sheds. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. In response to a question from Acting Chair Gagne, Engineer Landini explained that the height of a snow plow blade would have to be raised for plowing the proposed driveway. His experience with other permeable pavers (not the proposed blocks) had demonstrated success with the snow melting and seeping into the ground during the winter. In response to another question from Acting Chair Gagne, Director Nielsen stated enforcing the maintenance of a permeable pavement system could prove to be challenging at this time, and that was part of the reason Staff recommended credit not be given to hardcover for permeable pavers. If the DNR were to decide that some percent of hardcover credit be given for a permeable pavers, a binding development agreement would have to be developed requiring maintenance be done. A representative from Willow Creek Paving Stones stated the maintenance of the proposed system only required an annual sweeping of the driveway. Commissioner Gniffke questioned if the technology had improved in the last three years. Engineer Landini stated the technology had improved significantly over the last twenty years; he was not sure of what improvements had been made in the last three years. Mark Hauri, with Yardmasters Landscapes, Inc., stated permeable pavers were only one component of a permeable pavement system. He explained there was a one-inch depth of crushed aggregate installed under the pavers. There was also a sub-base of clear rock. When his firm installed clear rock it still had a 40 percent void ratio. For the proposed driveway he would suggest an 18 inch sub-base of the clear rock (drain rock). The soil underneath the system would dictate the absorption rate for storm water; therefore, he recommended a soil test be done in advance. He stated the proposed pavers set up very tight. The best way to snow plow over the pavers would be to put feet on the plow and raise it up slightly, and then to back-drag the snow. Director Nielsen stated the City had received a request from a property owner on Birch Bluff Road in 2004 in which the applicant had proposed to exceed the allowable hardcover and offset it with the use of permeable pavers or a similar type system. The request was denied. That property was different from the one being considered because it was a very substandard lot in area, the property was rectangular shaped, there was a short driveway on it, and it did not have topography issues. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated he did not know why the DNR changed its hardcover regulations to 25 percent from 30 percent. He stated the City had since adopted a hardcover requirement of 33 percent for non-shoreland properties. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Director Nielsen related the area’s hydrologist stated the DNR had not changed its policy to allow property owners to have more hardcover because they installed permeable pavers. The DNR wanted to ensure green space was maintained. In response to another question, Mr. Hendel stated a soil test had not been done on his property yet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 5 of 8 In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Fannon stated the existing home was built in 1962 or 1963, and an addition was put on in 1981 or 1982. He and his wife bought the property in 1987. The driveway had always been on the property. It had been constructed of asphalt at first, and then replaced with concrete twenty years ago. Mr. Hendel noted the proposed driveway would be reduced. In response to another question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Hauri stated the existing retaining wall was in excellent condition. Another wall of geo-grid was proposed to be added to the wall once the existing driveway was removed. Mr. Hauri stated the proposed driveway would be split in half. On the square portion of the driveway all storm water would flow through the drain rock; there would be a slight slope at one end of that portion. A couple of drain tiles would be installed on the right side of the house and into the back yard. At the left corner of the second half of the driveway (where the driveway meets the road) drain tile would also be installed. He stated boulder walls would be installed from that corner at least three feet back. The proposed driveway would be located slightly to the right of the existing driveway to help manage erosion. Commissioner Hutchins stated Mr. Hauri indicated there would be an 18 inch sub-base, but Engineer Landini recommended a 3 foot sub-base. The representative from Willow Creek Paving Stones stated his firm had just completed a project at the South Bridge Transit Project in Shakopee where buses would drive on the system. The sub-base that was installed there was 12 – 18 inches. He thought a 12 – 18 inch sub-base would be sufficient for a residential property. He stated if there was a 2.5 inch 24-hour rain event and there was an 8-inch sub-base installed, it would handle twice that amount of water because of the 40 percent void rate. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if the applicants would experience hardship if the proposed paver space between the garage and house was reduced. Mr. Fannon stated there was no street parking in his neighborhood; therefore, the driveway was designed to allow 6 – 8 parked cars. Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Approval of the Variances for Impervious Surface, Lot Width and Bluff Setback for Michael and Susan Fannon, 5625 Christmas Lake Point, subject to Staff recommendations. Commissioner Ruoff summarized the things the applicants had done to meet the City regulations the best they could. This situation was justifiably different than the 2004 request discussed earlier. Storm water drainage issues would be reduced, and the neighbors were in favor of the changes. The visual impact from the lakeside would be improved significantly. Motion passed 5/0. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Gregory and Lorraine Scott Location: 28100 Woodside Road Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 6 of 8 Director Nielsen stated this request for a conditional use permit for accessory space involved a nonconforming boathouse that Gregory and Lorraine Scott, who own the property at 28100 Woodside Road, would like to keep. Director Nielsen explained the history of the case. In 2003 the applicants added on to their existing garage with a modified floor plan which did not exceed 1200 square feet of floor area. By doing so, they avoided having to obtain a conditional use permit that may have necessitated alteration or removal of their existing “pagoda” boathouse near the lake. They partitioned off a portion of the garage, technically making a portion of it part of the house. Since then Shorewood had amended its zoning regulations, providing for the preservation of certain nonconforming structures that had historical, architectural, or cultural significance. The applicants believed their boathouse was consistent with the criteria for keeping such structures. Nielsen commented that the applicants’ “pagoda boathouse” was the catalyst for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt regulations favoring structures that had historical, architectural, or cultural significance. During the summer of 2006 the Planning Commission had discussed it would have been a loss to all if the applicants would have had to remove the boathouse. Nielsen reviewed the process that was followed to allow for nonconforming structures that have historical, architectural, or cultural significance. The City’s first step was to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, setting forth its intention to recognize and preserve special structures in the City. An amendment to the City’s Code was then adopted, providing conditions under which older, nonconforming structures would not have to be corrected to comply with current standards. Finally, criteria were adopted, patterned after National Park Service standards for historic designation, to guide City officials in the review of applications. Nielsen explained how the applicants’ proposal complied with the four specific criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4)(c) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 1. The applicants had provided good evidence that the boathouse was built at around the same time as the home on the property in 1920. An article in the Mpls. St. Paul magazine referenced 1910 and a real estate sales brochure from the 1930’s indicated that the boathouse qualified for the age component of the Code. 2. Although the structure has not been inspected by the building official as of this meeting, preliminary observation of the building in question suggested it was in very good condition. The applicants had taken great care to restore and maintain the structure. 3. The structure no doubt met five of the nine preservation criteria established by the City; it was only required to meet one of them. At a minimum the boathouse’s notoriety as a local Lake Minnetonka landmark should satisfy the criteria. 4. If the structure was found to have satisfied the criteria, a brief development agreement should be drafted, setting forth the applicants’ right to keep the boathouse and their responsibility to maintain it in good condition. Repairs or alterations to the structure should be consistent with its current style, character and materials. Nielsen stated he had provided the Commission with a copy of the draft minutes from an 18 June 2007 Nonconforming Accessory Structure Ad Hoc Committee meeting. The Committee discussed the applicants’ boathouse in great deal. It also discussed what should be included in the development CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 7 of 8 agreement. He highlighted the discussion. The Committee recommended the boathouse was consistent with the City’s amended Code and it should be allowed to remain in its current location, and a development agreement setting forth the conditions of approval should be recorded against the property with Hennepin County. Nielsen noted the development agreement would not require the applicant to keep the boathouse. Nielsen stated the applicants had done a good job demonstrating that the boathouse was consistent with the City’s intent and with its current Code requirements. Staff should be directed to draft a development agreement, pursuant to Item 4 above. The agreement should be recorded with Hennepin County. Mr. Scott stated the current colors of the boathouse were the same as the original colors. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gagne opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:01 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Scott stated the wall in the garage was not visible to their neighbors. He stated if the C.U.P. was approved, the wall would be moved to a different location in the garage. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Director Nielsen stated the development agreement would be legally binding. Future owners of the property would have to make modifications consistent with the current character of the building. Mr. Scott stated they had diligently worked to preserve the original character of the structures on their property. Geng moved, Ruoff seconded, Recommending – Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for Gregory and Lorraine Scott, 28100 Woodside Road; Approval to Designate the Nonconforming Boathouse an Accessory Structure for Preservation; and Staff be Directed to Draft a Document to be Recorded with Hennepin County Setting Forth the Conditions of Approval. Motion passed 5/0. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there would be four public hearings slated for the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for August 7, 2007. One was for a setback variance request, the second was a request for a C.U.P that would allow two houses on one property during the construction of the second house, the third was for a setback variance to resolve a zoning code violation, and the last was for an amendment to the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club’s C.U.P. 5. REPORTS Liaison to Council • CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 July 2007 Page 8 of 8 No report was given. SLUC • No report was given. Other • None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 17 July 2007 at 8:16 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder