Loading...
PC-02-05-13 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 6:59 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Hutchins, and Garelick; Council Liaison Hotvet (arrived at 7:02 P.M.); and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng explained that Commissioner Garelick is going to depart the meeting after the discussion about the minor subdivision because he is not feeling well. Therefore, he proposed dropping Items 2 – 7 on the agenda because there will be only three Commissioner present. Geng moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for February 5, 2013, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 4, 2012 Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 4, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.  January 15, 2013 Davis moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Craig Mertz, Representing George Danser Location: 5840 Christmas Lake Road Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission has received background information on the proposal submitted by Craig Mertz, on behalf of his clients George Danser and Jean Cary, to subdivide the property located at 5840 Christmas Lake Road. He reviewed the process that will be followed this evening. Director Nielsen noted that this subdivision was initially reviewed in 2005 when the property was owned by Mr. Danser’s mother. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Nielsen explained that the subject property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains 171,800 square feet of area. As proposed the subdivision would result in one lot (Parcel B) containing 46,700 square feet of area and a larger lot (Parcel A) containing 120,040 square feet. Even though a wetland occupies a good share of the front of Parcel A, there is good buildable area on the back (west) of it. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the R-1A/S zoning district requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet in area, 120 feet wide at the building line, and at least 120 feet deep. Both lots will comply with the setbacks of the R-1A/S district. Despite the existing wetland, the new lot has ample buildable area at the west end of the property. Because of the wetland and the applicants desire to minimize altering the wetland the applicants are proposing a driveway easement that would extend along the southerly boundary of Parcel B from Christmas Lake Road to the back of Parcel B. Since Parcel B does not have enough width to have two driveways, the two lots must share a common driveway along the easement. Nielsen reviewed the issues that need to be addressed in this request: 1. Christmas Lake Road is substandard in width (33 feet versus the 50 feet required). The survey submitted by the applicant does provide 17 additional feet of right-of-way (ROW) along the easterly edge of the property. The applicant’s surveyor has provided a legal description for the ROW and Mr. Mertz should incorporate the description into a deed to the City. 2. The survey references a compromise lot line on the south border of the subject property. The applicant is working with the owner of the property to the south to come up with an agreed upon border. The applicant must provide evidence that this boundary line issue has been resolved. An up to date title opinion must be provided for review by the City Attorney. 3. The applicant’s surveyor should provide legal descriptions for the wetland area and the required 35-foot buffer area. Mr. Mertz should incorporate the legal descriptions into drainage and conservation easement deeds to the City. The conservation easement has to extend over the wetland and buffer. The buffer must be staked with wetland monuments. Proposed staking should be shown on the survey. 4. The applicant’s surveyor should provide legal descriptions for the drainage and utility easements (10 feet around each of the lots). The survey does show the easements around each of the lots. From these descriptions Mr. Mertz should prepare easement deeds to the City. 5. The driveway easement across Parcel B, in favor of Parcel A, is a little too narrow. Due to the distance from the street to the buildable portion of Parcel A, one of two things has to happen. Either a fire access road has to be provided to the house that will be built on Parcel A or that house will have to be served with a fire sprinkler system. If the fire access road option is chosen the easement access road will have to be widened to 30 feet wide. That width is needed to accommodate a 20-foot wide fire access road width and 5 feet on each side of it for snow storage. If the sprinkler system option is chosen, the driveway easement will have to be widened to 22 feet. That width is needed to accommodate a 12-foot wide driveway with 5 feet on each side of it for snow storage. The portion of the driveway surface to be shared by the two lots (at least 50 feet) should be at least 16 feet wide to allow two cars to pass one another. This portion of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2013 Page 3 of 5 easement should be 26 feet wide. This is the applicant’s preferred option. The applicant’s attorney should also provide an easement and maintenance agreement for the shared portion of the driveway. 6. The applicant’s surveyor has shown some minimal grading for the driveway leading to Parcel A. A grading plan for the new driveway should include whatever fill may be necessary in the southerly tip of the wetland. Although it is assumed that the amount of fill necessary to accommodate the driveway will be minimal, it will require review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. It would fall under the de minimis rule which allows a certain amount of fill. 7. The two parcels on the east side of the road (Parcels C and D) must be legally combined with Parcels A and B if the applicant proposes to have a dock for each lot. The combination of Parcels C and D with Parcels A and B, respectively, is subject to approval by Hennepin County. 8. It may be necessary for the applicant to obtain consent for the conservation easement that coincides with the existing driveway easement from the adjoining property owner. This issue has been referred to the City Attorney for his recommendation. 9. The existing nonconforming guest house and the abandoned home must be removed from the site. If this will not be resolved prior to recording a resolution for the division/combination, a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one-half times the amount of the work must be provided by the applicant. The applicant must provide bids for this work in order to determine the amount of the letter of credit. 10. The proposed subdivision does not require the removal of any trees. Any tree removal necessary for the construction of a house on the new lot can be addressed with the building permit for that lot. 11. Prior to release of the resolution approving the subdivision the applicant must pay a park dedication fee ($5000) and a local sanitary sewer connection charge ($1200) for the new lot. Credit is given for the lot with the existing home on it. 12. Once the applicant has received the Council resolution approving the subdivision, he must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days or the approval is void. Nielsen stated that if the Planning Commission is willing to recommend approval of the minor subdivision, subject to the conditions above, Staff suggests the issues associated with this application be resolved within 60 days and prior to the application being scheduled for Council review. Mr. Mertz explained he is an attorney for the applicants (Jean Cary and George Danser who are residents of the State of North Carolina). The subject property used to be Mr. Danser’s mother’s property. Ms. Cary and Mr. Danser intend to retire to the State of Minnesota. They ultimately plan on erecting a small, quality, sustainable dwelling on Parcel B. At some point Parcel A will be sold. He stated that everything in the Planning Report is acceptable. He noted that the family intends to install a fire sprinkler system rather than put in a fire access road. By doing that the applicant believes there will be less cutting and filling and less impact on trees. He explained there is an effort underway to “regularize” the south boundary line of the subject property with the owners of the property to the south (Mr. and Ms. Huoso). He and the applicant believe that regularization will happen. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2013 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Garelick stated that he is pleased to hear that the applicant intends to be part of the green movement. Mr. Danser stated the sustainability issue is close to his and Ms. Cary’s (his wife) hearts. He explained that he and Ms. Cary met after both of them had been living in homes in North Carolina back in the 1980s that had solar capabilities. Ms. Cary built a passive solar home. After they got married everything they do is with an eye toward sustainability. He noted his grandmother had purchased the subject property in 1942. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained that if the amount of fill needed for the driveway over a portion of the wetland is more than what is allowed under the de minimis rule the applicant may have to do some mitigation. That would be done by creating additional wetland area that would be the equivalent of double the amount of fill put it. Hutchins stated in the northeast corner there is a little bridge that goes across to Christmas Lake. He asked if there is a culvert under there where the wetland drains into the Lake. Nielsen stated there is a drainage system. Hutchins asked if the proposed fire sprinkler system has to use city water or if it can use an alternate source of water. Nielsen responded a well can be used for that, noting municipal water is not available in that area. Hutchins went on to ask if there are certain requirements for that (e.g. water pressure). Nielsen explained a standard well seems to cover it. Commissioner Davis asked if they would have to have a generator in case power had been lost. Nielsen explained a sprinkler system is supposed to have an uninterruptable source of power. Yet, the minute the fire department arrives it cuts the source of power to avoid a firefighter getting electrocuted. Director Nielsen explained the purpose of a sprinkler system in this instance is more about saving people than the property. The sprinkler would be going until the fire department arrives and takes over for the sprinkler. Commissioner Davis stated there is a lot of research about putting sprinkler systems in homes. Director Nielsen stated the rule that requires homes 150 feet from the street to be sprinkled is not that old. He noted some cities have not adopted that rule. Commissioner Garelick asked Mr. Danser what his grandmother paid for the home in 1942. Mr. Danser responded $7,000. Mr. Danser explained his grandmother was lambasted by her siblings for taking such a big risk in going that far out in the country. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for George Danser and Jean Cary for the property located at 5840 Christmas Lake Road subject to the twelve conditions set forth in the Staff report dated January 31, 2013. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that the conditions have to be worked out within 60 days. Once that is complete the request will go before the City Council. The discussion moved to Item 8 on the agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2013 Page 5 of 5 2. DISCUSSION  Trail Implementation Process  Zoning Code – General Provisions  Noise Ordinance 3. 2013 WORK PROGRAM 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT This was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda. Commissioner Hutchins stated this is his final Planning Commission meeting. He then stated it has been his personal and professional honor and privilege to serve on the Commission for the last six years. He noted that if he was not going to relocate away from the community he would have certainly applied for reappointment to the Commission because he enjoyed serving on the Commission. He stated that he has served with committed residents on the Commission during his tenure. He expressed his appreciation of Director Nielsen’s efforts to inform and educate the Commissioners as well as to help them make better decisions. He thanked other City staff members who have been so helpful to the Commissioners during his six-year tenure. He also thanked Council for being so supportive of the Commission. He stated the collegial effort between the City Council, the Planning Commission and the staff has been tremendous. It really helped the Commission to make some impacts over the six years. Impacts he is very proud of. He thanked the current Commissioners as well as past Commissioners he has served with. Chair Geng thanked Commissioner Hutchins on behalf of the Planning Commission for all of his hard work and for his tremendous and thoughtful contributions. He stated the Commission wishes him the very best. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 2013, at 7:32 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder