Loading...
080508 pl mnCITY OF SH®REdVOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 5 AUGUST 2008 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL cxAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Ruoff (arrived at 7:04 P.M.), and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1 July 2008 Gagne moved, Gniflke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1 July 2008 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Ruoff arrived at 7:04 P.M. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -PRELIMINARY PLAT - PETRON REARRANGEMENT Applicant: Karen Petron Location: 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive 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 an August 25, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Karen Petron owns the properties at 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive. She wants to convey a portion of the easterly parcel to her son, John, so that he can build a new home on the property. In order to do so she would demolish the home on the easterly lot and rearrange the property line between the two parcels, creating a new building site for her son's home. Because the property has been subdivided once already, the rearrangement requires a formal platting procedure. She has requested preliminary plat approval for the rearrangement. As part of her request, she asks that the portion of Sunset Lane abutting her property on the north and a portion of Orchard Lane abutting her property on the south be vacated. Nielsen explained the subject properties contain a total of 5.4 acres of land, including the proposed right- of-way vacations. Upon completion, the new westerly lot will contain 169,354 square feet and the new easterly lot will contain 65,723 square feet of area. The properties are zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential, which requires lots to be at least 20,000 square feet. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the City's past and current policy for subdividing property is to allow the original homestead to be divided off without requiring the property to be fully developed. Any subsequent division requires formal development of the site, including the CI'T'Y ®F' SCI®a3EV+'®OD PI.AI~TIlTING C®IA~IVIISSI®1!~ 1~EE'I'II~G 5 August 2008 Page 2 of 8 improvements associated with subdivision (e.g. streets, utilities and drainage facilities).The proposed rearrangement does not result in any new lots or additional homes; it simply reconfigures the existing lots. Nielsen explained the City's Zoning Code requires when properties capable of additional development are subdivided, the applicant must provide a resubdivision sketch demonstrating how the remainder of the property can be developed in the future. It is not necessary to develop the property as illustrated in the sketch; this sketch will be incorporated into a development agreement as a guide for when the property ultimately develops. The applicant's resubdivision sketch shows the newly configured lot would be substantially larger than 20,000 square feet, due to the existence of a small wetland and the likely location of a storm water drainage basin on the east side of the site. It illustrates how the actual proposed house will fit on the property in conformance with R-1C district standards. The remaining future lots also appear to conform to R-1C standards; they would all have a minimum of 20,000 square feet of area and at least 100 feet of width. The sketch shows how Orchard Lane could be constructed in the future. It complies with the minimum right-of--way width and cul-de-sac diameter requirements prescribed by the Subdivision Code. The applicant shows drainage and utility easements for all lots, including the ones that will be required as part of this proposal. The two wetland basins and the future storm water retention area will be protected by drainage, utility and conservation easements. Nielsen stated the City had considered the possibility of vacating Sunset Lane (a platted, but undeveloped right-of--way) before. The City chose not to do so until a decision was made by the owner of the property in question, in case Sunset Lane would become the access to the property. Given the terrain of the area, the use of Orchard Lane would necessitate the least amount of site alteration. This decision now being considered would allow Sunset Lane to be vacated. Although the applicant is only concerned with the portion of right-of--way abutting her property, the City should now consider vacating the entire length of the right-of--way. At least one property owner to the west of the applicant's is interested in seeing this happen. He noted some portions of Sunset Lane had been vacated before. He explained when a property is vacated it goes back to the property it originally came from; one half of Sunset Lane would go to the subject property and the other half would go to the property to the north of it. He stated the sketch also shows a portion of Orchard Lane being vacated, a good share of which is wetland area. At Staff's direction, the applicant's surveyor has configured the right-of--way to accommodate the potential resubdivision of the property to the south of the applicant's. He noted the street right-of--way vacations and the vacation of existing drainage and utility easements (new ones will be required as part of the final plat) will require a separate public hearing to be conducted by the City Council. Nielsen stated although it is not addressed in the Staff report, it is likely another detention pond would have to be created to accommodate the drainage from the street and the new lots if the property were to be further developed. Therefore, Staff is recommending an additional drainage and utility easement be dedicated to the City as a condition of this approval. If all of the easement is not needed when the property is developed, the property owner can request a vacation of the excess easement. Another condition of approval that must be added is to correct the 2:1 slope on the south side of the cul-de-sac on the resubdivision sketch; the maximum allowed is a 3:1 slope. Also, the catch basin on the south part of the property does not have an outlet; it would likely be extended to the new wetland pond that would have to be created. Nielsen stated assuming the City Council is agreeable to vacating portions of Sunset Lane and Orchard Lane, Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. This approval is contingent upon the applicant entering into a development agreement as part of the final plat process, stipulating that any future development of the property will include the installation of all site improvements, including street, utilities and storm water drainage facilities. The additional conditions of approval just identified must also CITE' ®F SH®REW®®D PLANNING C®MMISSI®N MEE'T'ING 5 August 2008 Page 3 of 8 be addressed. No new lots are being created at this time; therefore, local sanitary sewer access charges and park dedication fees are not required. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. Jean Wagy, 4870 Regents Walk, stated she wanted some assurance that future development of the property would not create drainage issues. She also requested the beautiful old trees be preserved where possible when the property is redeveloped. Director Nielsen stated when the remainder of the development is proposed a public hearing would be held. A tree preservation and reforestation plan would be required for approval of the final plat. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated the need for a formal easement and maintenance agreement for the common driveway property between the two reconfigured lots was not addressed in the Staff report. In response to another question, the development agreement will address the timing of the demolition of the existing house on the proposed easterly property. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, an individual with the applicant clarified there are no plans to further develop the property at this time. The applicant's son John stated the property has been in the family for four generations. The resubdivision sketch was required by City Code. Gagne moved, Vilett seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Karen Petron, 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive, subject to the Staff recommendations identified in the Staff report and those identified during this Public Hearing. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen stated it would be wise to include the need for a formal easement and maintenance agreement in the motion. With out objection from the seconder, the maker of the motion amended the motion to include the need for a formal easement and maintenance agreement for the common driveway property between the two reconfigured lots. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -SETBACK VARIANCE FOR DRIVEWAY Applicant: Robert Thomson Location: 5050 Suburban Drive Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. Director Nielsen noted the applicant was not able to be in attendance this evening. Although the case will be heard and public comment will be taken this evening, he recommends the Planning Commission consider continuing this item to the September 16, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen stated Robert Thomson owns the property at 5050 Suburban Drive. The driveway serving Mr. Thomson's house also serves the house at 5060 Suburban Drive, and it straddles the property CITY ®F III®RE~V®OD PLAI~PtING C®MMISSI®l~T IVIEE'I'ING 5 August 2008 Page 4 of 8 line between the two lots. Mr. Thomson proposes to build a driveway entirely on his own lot. Because his property exists as a "flag lot" with only 16 feet of width abutting. Suburban Drive, he is unable to do so without a variance to the five foot setback requirement for driveways. His request is for two-foot variances on each side of the driveway in order to construct a 10-foot wide driveway centered within the 16-foot wide portion of the lot. This would require the property owner at 5060 to construct their own driveway. Nielsen explained Mr. Thomson's property is located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 30,864 square feet of area. Mr. Thomson has been attempting to market his property and prospective buyers are uneasy over the lack of a formal easement and maintenance agreement for the driveway. Mr. Thomson had related that he has been unsuccessful in coming to terms with the owners of the 5060 Suburban Drive property regarding such an agreement. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen reviewed how the applicant's request for a setback variance complies with the conditions/criteria set forth in Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City's Zoning Code. While there are other "flag lots" in Shorewood, there are relatively few and the City has prohibited this type of design for a number of years. The narrow configuration of the property satisfies the uniqueness test. Narrowness is specifically mentioned in the Code. It is not possible for the applicant to construct a driveway on his own property without a variance. The variance is not economic in nature. Individual driveways are commonly enjoyed by most properties in Shorewood. The required setbacks deprive the applicant of this right. 4. The circumstances were not created by the applicant. Granting the variance does not confer a special privilege on the applicant that is not enjoyed by other property owners. 6. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed driveway. Staff recommends that the driveway should be required to be 12 feet in width in order to facilitate two cars entering and exiting the property. Nielsen stated ideally the owners of the 5050 and 5060 Suburban Drive properties could have come to terms on an easement and maintenance agreement for a common driveway. There is no way to force that to happen. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the following two conditions: 1) the driveway should be constructed 12 feet wide, centered on the applicant's property; and 2) the portion of the driveway abutting the property at 5040 Suburban Drive should be paved to control dust. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:27 P.M. Michelle and Denis Tierney, 5060 Suburban Drive, both stated they are opposed to granting the variance. CITE' ®F ~HOREW®®I) PLAI~I~I1~G C®M11~IISSI®I~T ME~'TIl®TG 5 August 2008 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Tierney routed pictures of the existing common driveway. Mr. Tierney explained when the house on the property located at 5060 Suburban Drive was constructed in the 1950s the then owner of that property sold an eight-foot strip of land to the then owner of the property located at 5050 Suburban Drive so the two property owners could construct a common driveway. That driveway has been shared for about 58 years. The action was done on a "handshake"; no formal easement was ever prepared. He noted that they had tried to reach agreement on a formal easement with the last three owners of the 5050 Suburban Drive property, but to no avail. He stated they had repeatedly proposed to Mr. Thomson that they would be willing to sign a formal easement with new owners of his property and would share the cost to pave the driveway with the new owners. Mr. Tierney explained if Mr. Thomson were granted his variance request to construct the driveway they would end up with essentially eight feet of driveway. The existing driveway slopes into their lot. They would have to bring in a great deal of fill to bring their property up to a level where they could construct a driveway of their own. The impact of granting Mr, Thomson's variance request would place a significant financial burden on them. Storm water flows from the street and the properties to the north through a pipe under the existing driveway onto glow-lying area of their property. The water then flows off their property through a drain pipe that empties into a pond on St. Alban's Bay Road. A large pond is generated after a heavy rain which drains relatively quickly. If they had to bring in a significant amount of fill and construct a driveway, the drainage situation would be greatly affected. From an environmental perspective they would prefer not to have two driveways parallel to each other. He noted through the last three 5050 property owners, they have provided maintenance of the driveway (including rocking and snow removal) at their expense. Commissioner Geng asked Mr. and Mrs. Tierney why they could not enter into an easement agreement with Mr. Thomson. Ms. Tierney stated it was their understanding, via Mr. Thomson, that the prospective buyer wanted his own private driveway; the buyer would make the driveway shorter and would not allow any trucks to go up the driveway. She then stated from January through July 2008 they had repeatedly told Mr. Thomson they would be willing to share an easement and to split the cost to pave the driveway. Mr. Tierney commented he thought Mr. Thomson may have financial difficulties and could possibly be facing foreclosure; Mr. Thomson may not have the financial wherewithal to share in the cost of getting a formal easement prepared. Ms. Tierney commented she thought the realtors were telling Mr. Thomson a reason his house was not selling was because of the lack of a formal easement. She noted that the low- lying area of the property at times has had enough storm water in it to float a canoe. Jay Williamson, 5040 Suburban Drive, stated the Tierneys have a legitimate concern. He thought even if the Tierneys brought in enough fill to raise the level of property so they could construct a driveway, it would likely sink in the future. They would have to hire an engineer to assess the situation. From his vantage point it seemed unrealistic to place that financial burden on the Tierneys. He noted that he had not made the request to pave the portion of the proposed driveway that would abut his property. He has a rock wall that runs the length of that and there are shrubs along that wall. He explained the rock wall, installed by the former owner of his property, runs the length of his lot. When the owner of the property located at 5050 Suburban Drive recently had a survey done, the survey indicated that property line goes over a 20-foot section of his wall. The line also goes over a very large tree on his property which he has spent a great deal of money trying to save after a storm. He stated if the variance is granted to allow the driveway to be built closer to the lot line where the rock wall is, he would have concern that a new owner could force him to remove some of the rock wall and some trees. He would have to incur excavation costs to have that done. If the variance is approved, he requested the variance have a stipulation that states he would not have to take a portion of the rock wall out. C:IT~' ®F SHOREW®®I9 PZ,A1~I®TIl\TG C®1dI14'IISSI®N MPE'I'INCB 5 August 2008 Page 6 of 8 Ken Koppes, 5080 Suburban Drive, stated he agrees there is a water problem. If a driveway is built on Mr. Thomson's property with only atwo-foot easement and if the Tierneys also build a driveway parallel to it, he questioned where the snow would be moved to. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M. Commissioner Vilett stated the low-lying "bowl shaped" area on the Tierneys property was fairly deep. Commissioner Gagne stated he has observed a great deal of storm water in that area in the past. Commissioner Gagne suggested Mr. Thomson consider placing the necessary funds from the future sale of his property in escrow to pay for one-half of the cost to have a formal easement prepared. From his vantage point, he did not think it would be prudent to build two parallel driveways when one would be suffice. He suggested the property owners resolve this issue between themselves. Director Nielsen stated that would be a reasonable solution. Both the applicant and the Tierneys have stated the other party is not willing to do pursue a formal easement and maintenance agreement. He stated the item before the Planning Commission this evening was a variance request. Chair Schmitt stated the variance request appears to conform to the City's Zoning Code with regard to variances. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to consider the variance request. It should be of no concern to the Commissioners which property owner is at fault for not reaching agreement. Director Nielsen stated continuing this meeting to the 16 September 2008 Planning Commission meeting allows the property owners time to try and resolve this issue. Commissioner Geng stated he was not sure the variance request satisfied the variance criteria of not being economic in nature. If building the driveway would help with the sale of Mr. Thomson's property it could be viewed as economic in nature. He questioned if there wasn't an element of economic benefit for all variances. Director Nielsen stated the provision in the Code that talks about economic benefit states the hardship is not economic in nature. He noted a property owner has a basic right to sell their property. Chair Schmitt encouraged the Tierneys and Mr. Thomson to come to agreement regarding a formal easement and maintenance agreement. If not, the Planning Commission will have to recommend approval or denial of the variance at the continuance of this public hearing. He suggested Staff strongly encourage the property owners to make a very concerted effort to resolve this between them. Geng moved, Gagne seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a request for a setback variance for Robert Thomson, 5050 Suburban Drive, to the September 16, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Schmitt commented that he did not like continuing a public hearing because the applicant could not be present. He then stated the public does not have to repeat their concerns expressed this evening on September 16t~'. They can provide new additional comments. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, the Tierneys stated they have owned their property since 1980 and Mr. Thomson has owned his property for five years. CITY OF SEIOREW®OI) PLANNING C®MMISSION MEETING 5 August 2008 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Gagne expressed concern that if the Tierneys constructed a new driveway on their property they could have flooding problems. Commissioner Hutchins commented that during his tenure on the Planning Commission this is the first time a variance is being considered which would result in an economic detriment to an abutting property. Director Nielsen questioned who decided the owner of the 5060 Suburban property was not obligated to construct their own driveway; access to one's property is that individual's responsibility. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. STUDY SESSION 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Facilities Director Nielsen stated this item is postponed to the September 16, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. He then stated if the Planning Commission wanted to entertain a brief discussion about the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan at the 12 August 2008 Planning Commission special meeting he was willing to do that. There was consensus to do that. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a conditional use permit for the use of the City-owned house, located at 5795 Country Club Road which is in a residential district, for commercial purposes (i.e., by City staff during the City Hall renovation project) slated for the 12 August 2008 Planning Commission special meeting and the study session portion of the meeting will be devoted to a short discussion on the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted he would provide dinner for the Commissioners prior to that meeting. 6. REPORTS Commissioner Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 28, 2008, City Council regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Turgeon elaborated on the report. SLUC No report was given. Other None. CITY ®F SHORE~VVO®I9 PLANNING C®MMISSI®N MEETING 5 August 2008 Page 8 of 8 7. ADJOURNMENT Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 5 August 2008 at 8:03 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder