Loading...
091608 pl mnCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2008 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 Commissioner Gagne, Geng, Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett (arrived 7:05 P.M.); Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioner Gniffke APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 August 2008 Hutchins moved, Geng seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 5 August 2008 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 12 August 2008 Hutchins moved, Geng seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 12 August 2008 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. FOR PHASE II EXPANSION Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: Minnetonka Elementary School - 26410 and 26550 Smithtown Road 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 September 22, 2008, regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council; the City Council takes action on items. Director Nielsen stated in the spring of 2008 the City approved a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the Minnetonka School District for the Phase 1 expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School located at 26350 Smithtown Road. The Phase 1 expansion included adding two new classrooms on the southwest corner of the building and enclosing some of the existing entry courtyard area to accommodate various administrative functions At the time the Phase 1 C.U.P. was approved representatives for the School District indicated the expansion was Phase 1 of an overall plan to add additional classrooms and a new gymnasium on the site. The City noted that lack of adequate off-street parking remained an issue and a parking management plan would be required as a condition of its approval. Nielsen explained the School District purchased two properties immediately west of the existing parking lot at the end of June 2008. At that time it began preparing plans to use the lots for an expanded parking lot. The two lots added 1.8 acres of land to the Minnewashta School property, which now totals approximately 23.2 acres. The School District now requests approval of a new C.U.P. for the Phase 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 2 of 13 expansion of the School. Phase 2 would add six new classrooms on the west side of the building and a new gymnasium on the north side of the building. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained during the review of the Phase 1 plans two primary issues were cited -parking and drainage. The acquisition of the two lots should easily resolve the parking issue. The applicant proposes using an underground storm water storage system for the parking lot expansion. Earlier in the day the City Engineer indicated there is sufficient storage to accommodate two of the three storms that must be accommodated, and with minor changes the third storm could be accommodated. Nielsen then reviewed the parking lot plan, landscaping plan and lighting plan submitted by the applicant. Parking Lot Layout -Nielsen reviewed the proposed parking lot layout. He explained the proposed new parking lot will have five double rows of 17 parking spaces each plus a single row of 18 spaces on the east end of the new lot. To make the new layout work and to accommodate a proposed rain garden, 27 spaces from the existing parking lot would be eliminated. The net result is 161 additional spaces. Combined with 42 spaces in the newly completed front parking lot, the school property would have 203 spaces, not including the area used for bus loading. Nielsen then explained the parking space dimensions and driveway widths comply with the requirements of City's Zoning Code. The aisles are a little narrow but they do satisfy the Code requirement; ideally the aisles would be 24 feet wide and the proposed aisles are 23 feet wide. The proposed layout indicates the inclusion of landscape aisles, as required by the Code, and they should help people line-up correctly. An area of concern is the dead-end spaces proposed in the southeast corner of the new lot; they are proposed in order to save some large trees in that location. This problem can be resolved by adding a landscape island at the end of the double row of parking, connecting the drive aisle to the exit aisle. This would result in eight fewer spaces. Another alternative would be to reconfigure the southeast corner of the lot to create aback-up for the two end spaces. This would result in four fewer spaces. Nielsen went on to explain the new lot adds one 24-foot wide driveway, which lines up with the driveway for the residence on the south side of Smithtown Road. The two new parcels drop approximately 10 feet from south to north. Despite that, the grade of the new parking lot appears to be well within the five percent maximum set forth in the Zoning Code. Nielsen stated the proposed parking lot layout is a significant improvement over the existing parking situation at the School, and it should go a very long way toward eliminating the need for on-street parking. Landscaping Plan -Nielsen reviewed the proposed landscape plan. He explained starting with the south edge of the parking lot, the applicant's Landscape Architect proposes landscaped berms (per the direction of Staff) approximately three feet high with some type of deciduous trees (e.g. White Oak) lining the street and Dwarf Burning Bush on top of the berms. Burning Bush is deciduous vegetation which has a very dense stem structure that provides winter interest as well as a screening effect. Nielsen then explained the plan will be modified to propose a dense hedge of Black Hills Spruce centered within the setback area on the west end of the parking lot. Staff has recommended the landscape berm be extended around the corner somewhat past where the existing house is on the lot. The plans show that all of the evergreen trees on the site will be eight feet in height; the plan will be revised to propose a mix of six-foot-tall to twelve-foot-tall trees. Planting these trees twelve feet on center is appropriate because the intent is for the trees to grow close together. Staff has recommended the applicant consider reusing the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 3 of 13 stand of evergreens located in the northwest corner of the westerly lot; the trees appear to be in good condition and are larger than eight feet, but not so large that they can't be moved. Some of these trees could be planted adjacent to the existing house on the west end of the lot so there would be an extensive and tall buffer right away. He noted the owner of that property asked that the City consider having the applicant build a taller berm with a retaining wall; the City cannot require that because a retaining wall is not necessary. Nielsen went on to explain the north side of the parking lot abuts a wetland area. The plan shows Emerald Queen Maple trees and White Pines along that edge, between the parking lot and the wetland. The Landscape Architect plans to mix up the evergreen tree mix so there isn't a solid row of one type of tree. The plan labels a point as the edge of the wetland delineation, but does not show the entire edge. This needs to be added to the landscaping plan as well as the grading plan. The applicant must maintain the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) minimum 16.5-foot buffer from the wetland. For vegetation in that space that isn't disturbed, Staff has recommended existing vegetation in that space should be preserved in its current condition to the extent possible. The slope from the parking lot is currently shown at 3: 1, which is the maximum that should be allowed. Nielsen stated the east edge of the new parking lot includes a rain garden feature to filter storm water from an existing parking lot. The City Engineer has recommended curb cuts be placed into the proposed curbing for the edge of the proposed rain garden to allow storm water to flow into that rain garden. The applicant must submit a detailed plan for the rain garden; it is currently shown as a plan "by others". The landscape plan for the rain garden should provide for pedestrian crossing of the garden. Nielsen explained the parking lot islands will each have light posts for lighting the parking lot. The proposed landscaping of the islands is shown as Hydrangea. Because Hydrangea requires relatively damp soil in areas that will undoubtedly be hot and dry, the applicant will use something more appropriate for a hot and dry area and which are salt tolerant. Nielsen noted the Phase 1 C.U.P. required landscaping on the east end of the new front parking lot. The parking lot has been installed and it appears that this area has been over planted. The applicant should consider relocating some of the evergreen trees referenced above to this area. Lighting Plan -Nielsen stated the applicant has provided a photometric plan for lighting the new parking lot. He explained the plan proposes a "shoebox" type of fixture which provides a controlled downcast lighting pattern. The light fixtures are 28 feet tall and the lighting levels are shown at ,4 footcandles at the property lines, which complies with City Code requirements. The plan indicates lights will come on at dusk and go off at dawn, citing security purposes. Staff suggests a condition be included in the resolution approving the C.U.P. stating that parking lot lighting be turned off after 10:00 P.M. unless the applicant explains there is a need to extend that turnoff time to 10:30 P.M, because of activities at the School. Any need for security lighting near the building or entrances should be identified on the plans Nielsen again stated the City Engineer has indicated there is sufficient storage to accommodate two of the three storms that must be accommodated, and with minor changes the third storm could be accommodated. Therefore, Staff recommends the Phase 2 C.U.P. be granted based on the analysis of the case subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant must submit an overall master plan for the site, showing existing and proposed buildings, parking, recreational facilities, wetlands and ponding. (This condition is a carryover recommendation from the Phase 1 C.U.P.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 4 of 13 2. The southeast corner of the new lot must be reconfigured to eliminate the dead-end spaces. 3. The grade of the parking lot and access drives can not exceed five percent. 4. The landscape plan should be revised as follows: a. The Spruce trees on the west end of the parking lot should be centered within the setback area. The Landscape Architect had indicated it was a mistake that they were not centered on the plan submitted. b. Existing trees on the site should be reused wherever feasible. c. An earth berm along the west end of the parking lot should be constructed, particularly adjacent to the home to the west of the lot. d. The plans need to show the delineated wetland boundary. A minimum 16.5-foot natural buffer must be maintained abutting the wetland. e. Disturbed slopes can not exceed 3:1 £ Detailed landscaping for the rain garden and the east end of the front parking lot must be submitted. g. Some other landscape material, other than hydrangeas, should be shown in the landscape islands in the parking lot. 5. Parking lot lighting shall be controlled to turn off at a specified time; the suggested time is 10:00 P.M. All light fixtures shall be hooded as necessary to prevent glare onto adjoining residential properties. 6. The two newly acquired parcels must be legally combined with the rest of the school property. Nielsen stated Mike Condon, the Supervisor for Buildings and Grounds for the Minnetonka School District, and Cliff Buhman, with INSPEC (the consulting engineering firm representing the Minnetonka School District) were present this evening to answer any questions there may be. Mr. Condon stated Director Nielsen did a great job working with the School District. He then stated the District was making a concerted effort to be the best neighbor that it could. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. David Oppe~aard, 5570 Marsh Point Drive, stated his property abuts the wetland area. He had spoken to a few of his neighbors who also were interested in the type and amount of landscaping proposed. He stated currently from his back yard he cannot see any of the School property. He questioned what will happen when the grade on the north side of the proposed parking lot is increased. He commented he has parked on the roadway next to the School and there have been people who park near his home. He questioned if he and his neighbors will be able to see the new lights and parking lot when they are in their yards in the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 5 of 13 evening. He asked if a few fast growing or more mature trees could be planted right away to provide a buffer. Director Nielsen explained the north end of the parking lot will be raised about four feet and the proposed mixture of tree plantings should provide an adequate buffer from the parking lot. Chair Schmitt stated there appears to be a 6-foot drop from the surface of the parking lot to the surface of the wetland. When the trees are planted on the slope there should be a good buffer. Mr. Oppegaard stated he and his neighbors want the parking lot lights to be turned off as early as possible in the evening so their back yards are not lighted in the evening. Mr. Condon stated the School District's Facility Use Policy states when a facility is rented out for an event or activity the last program must end at 10;00 P.M. He suggested people be given 30 minutes to vacate the property. Mr. Oppegaard stated he thought the proposed berm would be a nice addition, and he appreciated the applicant was proposing to invest a significant amount of money in landscaping. David Parkhurst, 26600 Smithtown Road, stated his property was located next to the proposed new parking lot. He stated raising the back side of the parking lot will make it more visible from his property because his property will be lower than the lot. Director Nielsen acknowledged there will be an elevation change, but Staff has proposed the applicant have a landscape berm along that edge; the berm will be higher than the parking lot. Elizabeth Lindgren, 26525 Smithtown Road, stated her property was located on the south side of the parking lot. She questioned how far the light will travel from the parking lot lights, and commented that she was pleased there would be hooded lighting. Mr. Condon explained at the property line there will be .4 footcandles; Ms. Lindgren will see a light when she looks out the window of her home but it will not be a glaring light. Director Nielsen repeated an analogy he had heard about .4 footcandles; the light at the property line would be similar to the light from a full moon. He explained there is additional distance between the School property line and Ms. Lindgren's property and there is also landscaping along the property line. Mr. Buhman noted the new driveway will be shifted approximately ten feet to the west because of a light pole. Ms. Lindgren questioned if the new parking lot will be used during the day for daily school activities or will it primarily be used for event parking; if it will be used for school parking will the traffic prohibit her from exiting her driveway. Director Nielsen stated during school days the front parking lot is normally used to near capacity and at times parking overflows to other areas. He thought people may use some of the new parking lot close to the school during school hours. He explained Staff and the School District representatives will have to review the alignment of the proposed driveway's new location with residents' driveways. Generally it is best if driveways across from each other line up; when they are offset slightly- conflictpoints are created when people use the driveways. Ms. Lindgren stated she was pleasantly surprised at how well the Phase 1 construction went from all aspects. She commented if the proposed parking lot will be an improvement for the neighborhood she was all for it. Chair Schmitt read a letter from Paul and April Fitzgibbons, 26405 Smithtown Road, (which is on file) regarding the proposed parking lot. Their requests are summarized as follows. The grading, storm drain CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 6 of 13 placement, and logical/ecological flow of runoff water should be carefully considered to ensure the parking lot does not cause flooding of neighboring properties and home basements. The entrances onto Smithtown Road from the School property should not line up across from residential driveways. The applicant should preserve as many of the existing trees and shrubs as possible to provide a screen and a more natural setting for the School; if preservation is not feasible, there should be new plantings along one or both sides of the road. The parking lot lighting should be dimmed after a certain hour, and/or light poles along the roadside should be limited. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Commissioner Ruoff stated people will likely continue to use the existing entrance to the drop-off area for daily school activities; it was unlikely they would use the proposed new driveway. Mr. Condon stated the new drop-off area created as part of Phase 1 has significantly improved traffic flow off of Smithtown Road, and he assumed it would continue to work the same way. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated there will be painted lines between parking spaces. In response to another question, Nielsen explained Staff recommends parking lot lights be turned off over night. Mr. Condon had earlier stated events must end by 10:00 P.M. and the lights should remain on for an additional 30 minutes for safety reasons. Tn response to another question, Mr. Condon stated during basketball season all of the School District's gyms are booked until 10:00 P.M. four nights out of the week. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Mr. Condon explained he had met with an Excelsior Fire District Fire Inspector and was informed a 26-foot-wide fire access road could have parking on one side of the lane and a 32-foot-wide fire access road could have parking on both sides. The road to the rear playground area is 28 feet wide and there could technically be parking on one side; to date the School District has not chosen to allow parking on either side. Commissioner Gagne stated based on past experience people will still park on that road. Mr. Condon stated that road is posted "Fire Lane - No Parking" and it will not be striped as parking. Commissioner Gagne stated when the Southshore Center was built there had been a policy to turn out the outdoor lights on the building and parking lot over night. The City and Police Department later recommended the lights be left on all night long. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained the drainage plan is an underground storage system and water flows to the system via a number of pipes underneath the parking lot surface. Mr. Buhman explained there would be 37 chambers that would store the storm water; one chamber settles the dirt out of the water. The outlet is into the wetland. The system is in effect an underground pond. Mr. Buhman stated a maintenance agreement for the system is required by the MCWD. Chair Schmitt stated a recormnendation from the Phase 1 C.U.P. was to have the applicant submit an overall master plan; this has not been done yet. Therefore, he recommends that the applicant submit all plans required for Phase 2 before construction can begin. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, some of the lights at Badger Field are similar to the proposed lights for the proposed parking lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Condon stated when the project is complete the area known as the student play area will again be used for that purpose. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 7 of 13 Geng moved, Commissioner Gagne seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for the Minnetonka School District for the Phase 2 expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School, 26410 and 26450 Smithtown Road subject to Staff recommendations including a modification to allow the turn-off time for the parking lot lighting to be 10:30 P.M., and subject to modifying the drainage plan to accommodate the third type of storm as required by the City's Zoning Code and posting the fire access lane "Fire Lane - No Parking" on one side of the road. Motion passed 6/0. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Condon stated the School District hoped to begin construction by mid-October. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING -DRIVEWAY SETBACK VARIANCE (continued from 5 August 2008) Applicant: Robert Thomson Location: 5050 Suburban Drive Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M., noting this was continued from August 5, 2008. Director Nielsen stated this item was continued from August 5, 2008, because Robert Thomson, 5050 Suburban Drive, (the applicant) was not able to attend the Public Hearing. On August 5, 2008, the Planning Commission did open the public hearing and took public testimony. During that public hearing the Commission strongly encouraged Mr. Thomson to work out some type of agreement regarding the existing shared driveway with Denis and Michelle Tierney, 5060 Suburban Drive. The driveway straddles the property line between the two properties. Nielsen distributed an email the City received from Mr. Thomson dated September 14, 2008, and as well as some additional background information he had submitted. Robert Thomson 5050 Suburban Drive, stated he has shared a driveway with the Tierneys for a very long time. There has never been an easement for the use of the driveway or a maintenance agreement for the driveway. Although the shared driveway works fine today, it will make a sale of his property more complicated if/when he decides to sell and especially if the new owners wanted to build a house in a new location. He questioned if he would have to continue providing access to the 5060 Suburban Drive property if the house on that property were replaced with a new house built in a new location. Mr. Thomson then stated he thought it would simplify things if he and the Tierneys each constructed a driveway located entirely on their own properties. He explained because his property is only 15 - 16 feet wide where it abuts Suburban Drive, he is unable to build a driveway without a variance to the five-foot setback requirement for driveways. Therefore, he has requested a setback variance on each side of the driveway in order to construct a 10-foot wide driveway centered within the 15 - 16-foot-wide portion of his lot. Mr, Thomson went on to state the Tierneys want to sign an easement and maintenance agreement for the shared driveway and continue sharing the driveway, which he believes would be entirely to the Tierneys benefit and cause problems for him. The problems are decreased privacy permanently, decreased value permanently, increased hardcover permanently on his property for the Tierneys benefit, and the likely headache of having to negotiate over future desired changes or enforcing an unmet maintenance agreement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Thomson questioned if he had the option to construct a private driveway on his property at some point in time. Tn response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained more of the shared driveway is on Mr. Thomson's property than is on the Tierneys' property. He stated Staff has suggested to Mr. Thomson that a proposed new driveway be constructed to be 12 feet wide. He explained if the Tierneys were to build their own driveway on the north side of their property they would have to bring in a great deal of fill to level their property enough. Chair Schmitt summarized his recollection from the August St'' discussion. The Planning Commission tried to determine if Mr. Thomson had enough of a hardship to warrant a variance. The Commission clearly understood there would be an adverse impact on the Tierneys of having to construct their own private driveway if Mr. Thomson constructed a private driveway; but, that is more of a legal issue than an issue for the Planning Commission. The Commission considered what would happen if the current or future property owners were to construct a new house in a different location. The Commission strongly suggested the property owners reach some type of agreement because the Commission preferred not to have to recommend this variance be granted and it preferred, not to have two long driveways right next to each other. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Chair Schmitt stated it appears that Mr. Thomson and the Tierneys were not able to come to any agreement on the shared driveway issue. From his vantage point, it seems Mr. Thomson's request for setback variances to allow him to construct a private driveway located entirely on his property seems to be the most reasonable thing to do. He asked the Tierneys why they didn't think that was the correct solution. Denis Tierney, 5060 Suburban Drive, stated he and his wife would like to continue with the existing shared driveway and they are willing to share the cost to have a formal easement prepared and to share the cost to blacktop the driveway. He stated he and his wife would view having to construct their own driveway as a hardship. Ms. Tierney stated they would have to bring in a tremendous amount of fill to level out the north end of their property so they could construct a driveway, and the additional fill would necessitate taking down a number of trees. She is not sure what the impact of that additional fill would have on drainage in the bowl-shaped area of their property. Mr. Tierney stated the bowl-shaped area fills up with storm water after a heavy rain. In response to a comment from Chair Schmitt, Mr. Tierney stated they did not have a legal right to use the portion of the shared driveway located on Mr. Thomson's property. Chair Schmitt questioned why Mr. Thomson did not want to continue with the existing arrangement, and to share the cost to have an easement prepared and to have the existing driveway blacktopped. The Tierneys' proposal appeared to be reasonable. Mr. Thomson stated he had been told that in the 1950s there was a potential buyer for the 5050 Suburban Drive property who was unwilling to purchase the property unless the width of the property abutting Suburban Drive was increased from eight feet to sixteen feet. The then owner of the 5050 property purchased eight feet from the 5060 property owner to satisfy the buyer's request. He explained the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 9 of 13 existing property line is not in the middle of the existing driveway. He stated his first preference was to not to have an easement and to be able to construct his own driveway entirely on his property. He had concern with the land the driveway was on. He explained that from his vantage point the majority of the driveway was on his property. Therefore, granting the easement and splitting the costs was much more of a benefit to the Tierneys than to him. Commissioner Gagne questioned what would happen if the City took no action on this request. Commissioner Hutchins stated if Mr. Thomson is not granted a setback variance he has limitations with what he can do to construct a driveway on his property; he could construct a driveway on his property within code if he wanted to. Director Nielsen clarified Mr. Thomson can't construct a driveway and satisfy the City's setback requirement for driveways. Chair Schmitt stated if the City granted a variance to enable Mr. Thomson to construct his own driveway that solved Mr. Thomson's problem, but it would create a hardship for the Tierneys. Director Nielsen stated the Tierneys have a large lot to construct a driveway on, and most property owners have their own driveways. Chair Schmitt stated he understood Mr. Thomson's land issue, but that issue exists today. Ms. Tierney stated for the last five months she and her husband have expressed their willingness to share the costs of having the easement prepared and the driveway blacktopped. Mr. Thomson again stated he would prefer to have his own driveway. If he is not granted a variance he would attempt to come to some type of agreement with the Tierneys, although he thought it would be difficult. He also thought having an easement would make it more difficult to make any changes to the driveway in the future. He stated he sympathized with the Tierneys about the difficulty and cost for them to construct a driveway. From his vantage point the Tierneys were not willing to negotiate anything other than what they had proposed. Chair Schmitt stated if Mr. Thomson and the Tierneys cannot reach an agreement then the Planning Commission will be forced to make a recommendation on the variance request. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. Commissioner Vilett stated if the property owners cannot reach agreement on their own, maybe they should each obtain legal representation to help mediate reaching an agreement. Based on her professional experience she thought having a legal long-term easement would be the best solution for both of the property values. She commented it is not uncommon for property owners to share a driveway. She noted she understood Mr. Thomson's land right issue. Chair Schmitt noted the Planning Commission has been asked to consider a driveway setback variance for Mr. Thomson. He commented the Commission understands it would be beneficial for the property owners to reach some type of agreement. Mr. Thomson stated even if the variance were granted, that does not prohibit him and the Tierneys from working something else out. He noted a recent survey he had done indicates his property line goes over a 20-foot section of retaining wall on the 5040 Suburban property as well as over a very large tree on that property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 10 of 13 Chair Schmitt noted there were a number of title and survey issues that must be resolved. He stated the Planning Commission has to establish a hardship in order to recommend granting a variance. Director Nielsen explained the hardship is the applicant cannot construct a driveway to access his property without a variance because of the narrow width of his property where it abuts Suburban Drive. Chair Schmitt reviewed how the how the applicant's request for a setback variance complied with the conditions/criteria set forth in City's Zoning Code. - The narrow configuration of the property, which is a flag lot, satisfies the uniqueness test. 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. - 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. - 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. Chair Schmitt stated because Staff recommends the driveway be constructed to be 12 feet in width, the setback variance will have to be increased on each side of the driveway. Commissioner Gagne questioned if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the variance request or if it should again ask the property owners to reach some other type of agreement. Chair Schmitt stated the Planning Commission has to make some recommendation on the variance request. Commissioner Geng stated the variance criteria specified in the City's Zoning Code are not exclusive. He explained during the August 5`~' public hearing Commissioner Hutchins had stated granting this variance so Mr. Thomson could construct his own driveway would cause a hardship for the Tierneys because they would then have to construct their own driveway. Creating a hardship for an adjacent property owner is not mentioned in the Code. He questioned if the Planning Commission could even consider that hardship when evaluating this request. Chair Schmitt noted the Planning Commission has to evaluate the variance request based on the Code. He stated the Commission would like to consider the potential hardship on the Tierneys, but the Code doesn't allow for that. In response to a comment from Ms. Tierney, Chair Schmitt stated constructing a driveway entirely on Mr. Thomson's property will not exacerbate any drainage problems on the Tierneys property; what would happen if the Tierneys constructed a driveway entirely on their property is a different issue. Commissioner Hutchins stated one of the variance criterion is that a variance cannot be granted based on economic conditions alone. He questioned if that applied to only the subject property or the overall impact of the variance including the impact on adjacent properties. Chair Schmitt stated his interpretation of that criterion is meant to assess if the applicant was requesting the variance for financial reasons. Director Nielsen stated an example of that situation would be if an applicant requested a driveway setback variance because it would be cheaper to do it that way; that would not justify a hardship. Hutchins stated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 11 of 13 the Code does not address the impact on the adjacent properties and the use of the properties. Nielsen stated there is another provision in the Code which relates to adversely affecting the character of the area. Chair Schmitt questioned if the Code included a provision for adversely affecting the value of another property, to which Nielsen stated the Code does not specifically say that. Nielsen then stated constructing a driveway slightly north on to Mr. Thomson's property will barely be negligible; constructing a second driveway on the south side of Mr. Thomson's driveway would be noticeable. Commissioner Ruoff stated if Mr. Thomson constructed a new driveway on his property for his use only, then the Tierneys would have to construct a driveway on their property and that could have a negative impact on drainage in the area. Director Nielsen stated a new driveway for Tierneys would have to be constructed such that it did not adversely affect drainage. Commissioner Gagne stated if the variance request is approved, the Tierneys will have to bring in a substantial amount of fill to their property to level it out their property on the north end enough to construct a driveway. That concerned him. Chair Schmitt stated the Planning Commission has a variance request to consider and it must evaluate it against the provisions in the Code. It cannot evaluate the request based on what the Tierneys will have to do. Commissioner Vilett stated she thought the variance complied with the variance criteria identified in the Code, although she doesn't agree with the request. Commissioner Geng stated he concurred, but he did not like to have to recommend granting a variance that will create such a hardship for the Tierneys. Chair Schmitt also stated he concurred, and Mr. Thomson did have land rights. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the Planning Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council. The Council will have to take the action on the request. He then stated Mr. Thomson could withdraw his request and make another attempt to reach an agreement with the Tierneys and he could reapply at a later date if necessary. Commissioner Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of a driveway setback variance for Robert Thomson, 5050 Suburban Drive. Motion passed 6/0 with all of the Planning Commissioners present voting in favor. Chair Schmitt stated the variance satisfied all of the criteria for granting a variance as specified in the City's Zoning Code; therefore, the Planning Commission had no choice but to recommend the variance be granted. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8;27 P.M. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Mike Seifert Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive Director Nielsen Mike Seifert purchased the property located at 6085 Lake Linden Drive. He proposes subdividing the lot into two building sites. He explained the property is zoned R-1C, Single Family Residential and it contains 63,210 square feet of area. It is occupied by two outbuildings that were left after a fire destroyed the house that previously existed there a couple of years ago. The proposed northerly lot would be 42,295 square feet in area and the proposed southerly lot would be 20,915 square feet in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 12 of 13 area. The property sits high in the middle dropping off somewhat dramatically to the north and more gradually to the south. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained both of the proposed lots would comply with the requirements of the R-lC zoning district. The northerly lot would be considerably larger in size in order to create a building pad that respects the steeper slope on the north side of the lot. It also accommodates the turnaround for a common driveway that will extend northward through the southerly lot. Although a driveway is shown on the northerly lot, due to its grade it is considered only as an auxiliary access to a lower level garage space. The shared driveway would require an easement and maintenance agreement, which will be recorded with the resolution approving the subdivision. Also, the driveway as shown is only 10 feet wide. A condition of approval should be the shared driveway must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with the common portion of the shared driveway no less than 16 feet wide. Due to the location of the northerly building pad, the driveway may have to increase to 20 feet wide with a Fire Code turnaround, unless the applicant proposes to install a sprinkler system in the home. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of the minor division subject to the conditions as noted in the staff report. In response to a question from Director Nielsen, Mr. Seifert stated the proposed subdivision drawing reflects the actual proposed houses to be constructed on the proposed lots. Director Nielsen suggested a detailed maintenance agreement and easement for the proposed shared should be added as a condition of approval. Geng moved, Commissioner Gagne seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert, 6058 Lake Linden Drive, subject to Staff recommendations and the applicant submitting an easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway. Motion passed 6/0. 4. STUDY SESSION: Comp Plan -Community Facilities This item was continued to the October 7, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there was a request to place an additional cellular antenna (a dish) on the SE Area Water Tower slated for the 7 October 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. The study session portion of the meeting would be devoted to continued discussion of the Transportation Chapter and the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as well as Planning District 6. Nielsen noted that the residents near Planning District 6 will be notified of meeting. He also noted the City had received a high level plan from the property owners north of County Road 19 regarding a possible use for that property if it were to be redeveloped. He stated the property owners would like the Planning Commission to include language in the Comp Plan that would allow more than residential uses CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 September 2008 Page 13 of 13 if the properties were redeveloped. The revised Comp Plan states in the event the Shorewood Yacht Club and Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company cease to exist, reuse of the properties should be directed to residential, at similar densities as the surrounding area. He thought that unless a permanent agreement or solution can be reached with the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority to allow these sites long-term permission to cross over the LRT trail, the properties would have to be redeveloped residential. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 25, 2008, City Council regular meeting and Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 8, 2008, City Council regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). SLUC No report was given. Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 16 September 2008 at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder