Loading...
120407 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Meyer, and Ruoff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Councilmember Wellens Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF MINUTES 20 November 2007 ?? Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 20 November 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION) Applicant: Linda Beutel-Ilstrup Location: 5865/5875 Division Street Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a December 10, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that Linda Beutel-Ilstrup was the owner of two properties which were located at 5865 and 5875 Division Street. She and her husband Tom proposed to rearrange the lot line between the two lots; the intent was to enlarge the lot that their house was located on sits on and establish the applicants’ ownership of the driveway that served the two lots. The driveway also served the home to the north at 5845 Division Street. The properties were zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contained a total of 99,394 square feet of area (2.28 acres). Nielsen explained the properties in question were located at the end of Division Street, a substandard (33 feet wide) public street with no turn-around. The existing westerly lot had only 33 feet of frontage on the street, while the easterly lot was landlocked. According to Hennepin County tax records, the westerly parcel currently contained 58,792 square feet of area and the easterly parcel contained 40,602 square feet of area. Both parcels had existing houses on them. Although not shown on the survey, the applicants indicated that the rearranged westerly parcel would have 33,641 square feet of area, leaving the easterly parcel with 65,753 square feet of area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the R-1C zoning district required lots to be at least 20,000 square feet in area and 100 feet wide at the building line. Although both lots exceed the area requirement, neither of them complied with the width requirement. This was due in part to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 2 of 6 gerrymandered configuration of the proposed lot line, but more because of the lack of frontage that already existed. The easterly parcel (A) had been extended over to front on the dead-end of Division Street. The proposed westerly lot (B) would have its northwesterly corner touch the southwesterly corner of the street. Nielsen then explained that one of the problems with strange lot configurations was how to establish building setbacks. If the lot width variance and minor subdivision were approved it should include a drawing illustrating what building setbacks would be imposed on the lots. For example the front yard setback for Parcel B should be a line parallel with its northerly border, 35 feet back. The southerly lot line was the rear of the lot, and the east and west lot lines were sides. Staff strongly recommended that the northerly lot line of this lot be straightened to form a simple trapezoid. The front setback for Parcel A should be measured from a line drawn parallel with the rear lot line, where the lot achieves 100 feet in width. Its southeasterly lot line was the rear, with the remaining lot lines being sides. Nielsen reviewed a drawing illustrating these recommendations. Nielsen noted that the applicants’ surveyor mentioned existing driveway easements, but had chosen not to show them on the survey. The survey should be revised to show these easements, as well as a new driveway easement over Parcel A in favor of Parcel B (the reverse of what existed today). The applicants’ surveyor should provide legal descriptions for the new easement; the legal description should be incorporated into a driveway easement and maintenance agreement that would be recorded with the subdivision/combination. That type of agreement was required by City policy for the very reasons the applicants wished to control the driveway area. Nielsen stated that ordinarily the strange configurations proposed in the application would not be recommended. In this case, the applicants’ motives were understandable and the result was no worse than what existed there today, with one of the lots being landlocked. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision and lot width variance subject to the following: 1. The survey should be revised to show all existing easements and proposed lot areas. 2. The northerly lot line of Parcel B should be straightened. 3. The applicants’ surveyor should prepare a legal description for a new driveway easement on Parcel A, in favor of Parcel B. 4. The applicants’ attorney should prepare a driveway easement and maintenance agreement suitable for recording. 5. The applicants’ surveyor should provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements (10 feet around each of the lots). From these descriptions the applicants’ attorney should prepare easement deeds to the City. 6. The drawing illustrating setbacks for the lots should be incorporated into the resolution approving the subdivision/combination. 7. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney. 8. Since there is no new buildable lot being created, park dedication and local sanitary sewer access fees are not required. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 3 of 6 9. The applicants must submit the above-referenced items within 30 days, after which they will have 30 days to record the resolution with Hennepin County or the approval is void. Director Nielsen stated Linda Beutel-Ilstrup and her husband were present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Director Nielsen stated there were no hardcover issues as the lots were very large in area and the R-1/A/S zoning district had a 33 percent hardcover requirement. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained there was a common driveway that served two lots and the City required the applicant to submit a driveway easement and maintenance agreement. The City’s rationale for that was there often was disagreement among the owners about the maintenance of the driveway if it maintenance responsibilities were not clarified in advance. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the new lot was similar to a modified “flag” lot and the City didn’t generally approve flag lots; therefore, this was a unique situation. Meyer moved, Geng seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision and lot width variance for Linda Beutel-Ilstrup, 5865 and 5875 Division Street, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Applicant: Boulder Bridge Homeowner's Association Location: Outlot C – Boulder Bridge Trail Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Director Nielsen explained Boulder Bridge Farm was a residential development of 46 homes which was located on the west end of Shorewood (north of Smithtown Road and west of Howard’s Point Road). It was platted and developed in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s as a residential planned unit development (P.U.D.). The zoning parameters established for this P.U.D. were the same as the current R-1A/S, Single- Family Residential zoning district. Lots were required to be 40,000 square feet in area, with setbacks of 50 feet front, 10 feet side, 50 feet rear and 50 feet on side yards abutting streets. Boulder Bridge Farm included common areas including a multiple dock arrangement, beach area, tennis courts and a stable for the use of residents within the P.U.D. It also included a perimeter trail system around the easterly half of the development. Nielsen stated Pat Egan, a resident of Boulder Bridge, encountered problems with a proposed back yard pool and patio project, when he discovered that the rear yard setback for his lot had to be 50 feet. Nielsen noted that Mr. Egan’s house, similar to others in Boulder Bridge Farm, was set back further from the street than required to create a more spacious front yard. Mr. Egan discussed his options with Staff, including the possibility of variance or amendment to the Zoning Code. Staff ruled out a variance for lack of any hardship. Consequently, Mr. Egan convinced the Boulder Bridge Homeowner’s Association to apply for a text amendment reducing the rear yard setback requirement for certain lots within the P.U.D. Nielsen reviewed a site location map showing the affected lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 4 of 6 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the lots affected by the proposed amendment were located at the perimeter of the easterly half of the subdivision and they abutted the common trail system. The trail system was a minimum of 30 feet wide on its south and east legs and 40 feet wide on the north leg. The proposed amendment would reduce the required setback for the affected lots from 50 feet to 30 feet. He noted that the Zoning Code required that setbacks at the perimeter of P.U.D. must be the same as the underlying zoning district – in this case, the R-1A/S district required 50 feet. The proposed amendment, if approved, would still provide rear yard setbacks from the boundaries of the project of 60 feet on the south and east sides of the project and 70 feet along the north boundary; that would amount to setbacks 10-20 feet greater than lots surrounding Boulder Bridge Farm. Staff recommended the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a resolution amending the rear yard setback requirement for the subject lots in Boulder Bridge Farm, as requested by the Boulder Bridge Homeowner’s Association. Director Nielsen stated Pat Egan (a Boulder Bridge Farm home owner) and Tom Wartman (representing the Boulder Bridge Farm Board of Directors) were present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Steve Johnson, 5845 Howards Point Road, stated his house was directly across from Boulder Ridge Farm. He then stated it was his understanding the request for an amendment to the rear-year setback requirement for Boulder Bridge Farm was to allow for backyard patios and pools for certain lots. He stated one of the homeowners in the P.U.D. had recently installed a pool and he could hear noise from the filtration system and people using the pool all of the time. He expressed concern about the noise level that there would be if all ten subject lots were to install pools or patios. He asked if the pool filtration systems could be placed on the west side of the lots as opposed to the rear of the lots. His concern was about noise pollution. Mr. Wartman explained that the three lots in the P.U.D. abutting Howards Point Road were fully developed. He also explained that a large pond prohibited any further development of another property. He stated the opportunity existed for the subject lots along Smithtown Road to install pools or patios. With regard to Mr. Egan’s property where a spa had been installed, the equipment was enclosed. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated the City’s ordinance did not allow filtration equipment on the side of lots because it would be too close to houses. He then stated the City had nuisance laws. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated there was no hardcover issue. The larger portion of Boulder Bridge Farm was in the Shoreline District which had a 25 percent hardcover requirement, and the outlots had a 33 percent hardcover requirement. Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution amending the rear yard setback requirement for the subject lots in Boulder Bridge Farm P.U.D. as requested by the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 5 of 6 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicants: Michael McCarthy Location: 5770 Ridge Road Director Nielsen explained Mike McCarthy proposed to subdivide his property at 5770 Ridge Road into two lots. The subject property was zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained 6.94 acres of land. The parcel property was approximately 298 feet wide from its northerly boundary to its southerly lot line. It was occupied by a single-family dwelling with an attached garage on the west side of Ridge Road, which was a private street. The land was located between Christmas Lake and Silver Lake, it was relatively wooded and it dropped rather dramatically (with slopes as steep as 30-40 percent toward Silver Lake and as much as 50 percent toward Christmas Lake). The proposed westerly lot with the existing house on it would contain 110,768 square feet of area (2.54 acres), while the easterly lot would have 191,855 square feet (4.4 acres). The applicant had not provided hardcover calculations for the lot with the house on it, however, given the size of the lot, hardcover was not considered to be an issue. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that although both of the proposed lots met or exceeded the R-1A/S size requirements, the applicant was asked to demonstrate how the new lot would be buildable. Two issues were raised in the initial review of the proposed division: 1) the driveway grade; and 2) the bluff impact. The applicant’s survey showed slopes as steep as 30-40 percent on the Silver Lake side of the property, but they were near the lake and adjacent to the southerly lot line. Existing grades where the proposed building pad was shown were approximately 23 percent. Due to the width of the property, a driveway could be constructed within the City’s eight percent maximum grade requirement. The bluff line for the site appeared to be at the 950 elevation, well east of the proposed building pad. Nielsen then explained that the applicant’s survey included a tree inventory for the area that would be disturbed in construction of a new house on the easterly lot. Even though several large deciduous trees would likely be removed for construction, the lot was substantially wooded and site alteration was minimized by the applicant being able to take advantage of the average setback provision in the City Code. Based on the location of the houses to the north and south of the proposed lot, the front setback requirement was 37.5 feet instead of 65 feet (measured 15 feet from edge of private road and 50 feet from there). A detailed tree preservation and reforestation plan would be required as part of any building permit for the new lot. Nielsen stated the applicant’s survey showed a sanitary sewer elevation at 999.0 feet. Unless there was access to a sewer line on the downhill side of the lot, the new house would likely require a lift pump to reach the existing sewer on Ridge Road. Nielsen then stated Staff recommended the proposed division be approved, subject to the following: 1. The applicant’s surveyor must provide legal descriptions for ten-foot wide drainage and utility easements around each lot. Legal descriptions for the easements must be incorporated into deeds, prepared by the applicant’s attorney. 2. Future construction on the new lot should be conditioned upon the grading of the lot not to exceed 3:1 disturbed slopes. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division, the applicant must pay park dedication ($2000) and local sanitary sewer access charges ($1200) for the new lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 December 2007 Page 6 of 6 4. The applicant should provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion on the property for review by the City Attorney. Director Nielsen stated Mr. McCarthy was present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Meyer moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Mike McCarthy, 5770 Ridge Road, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6.0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the next Planning Commission study session was scheduled for January 15, 2008. 6. REPORTS Councilmember Wellens reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 26, 2007, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). SLUC • No report was given. Other • None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 4 December 2007 at 7:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder