Loading...
PC-05-05-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015 8:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Siakel Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for May 5, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 7, 2015 Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2015, as amended by changing the word “caliber” to “caliper” in two spots. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes (Friendly Residence) Location: 5590 Shore Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on May 26, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a rear yard setback variance for Nate Wissink (from Elevation Homes), on behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly, for the property located at 5590 Shore Road. Director Nielsen explained Nate Wissink (Elevation Homes) applied on behalf of Ian and Carol Friendly to build a new home on the property located at 5590 Shore Road. The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland, and contains 33,079 square feet of area. The applicant’s existing survey shows that the right-of-way (ROW) for Shore Road partially bisects the Friendly property, resulting in setback issues for the site. An illustration of current setbacks shows how drastically the existing ROW affects the buildability of the lot. As a result, the applicant has requested a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 2 of 10 vacation of the ROW in question. Due to how Shore Road comes up to the property, the applicant requests a setback variance that would treat the easterly property line as a side yard versus a rear yard. The applicant explained his rationale for the requests very well in his letter to the City. Illustrations of the proposed lot setbacks and location of the house show the result of the vacation and variance. The proposed house is two and a half stories (35 feet) tall with a main level footprint of 4029 square feet, which includes an attached three-car garage. He reviewed the elements considered as part of the analysis of the case. A. Right-of-Way Vacation – Shore Road currently dead ends inside of the Friendly property. The Friendlys purchased the two outlots to the west of their home and combined them with their main lot a few months ago. Those lots have very little value to the owners with the ROW where it is now. There is an advantage to the City in vacating the ROW in question. Currently the street is a dead end with no provision for turn-around. Over the years Public Works crews have pushed snow off onto the Friendly property and then have had to back around onto the property to the west. This is a very difficult maneuver due to the proximity of the street to the small wetland to the north. The Friendlys have agreed to trade back a better turn-around area on their property as part of the ROW vacation. The area is longer and wider and will be surfaced with a parking lot block that allows grass to grow in the cells of the block. Public Works has reviewed the plans and is in agreement with the solution that seems to be in everyone’s interest. B. Setback Variance – The applicant proposes to locate the new home 10 feet from the easterly property line instead of the 40 feet required for what is technically the rear yard of the subject property. The variance would allow the Friendlys to enjoy the same lot orientation and side yard setbacks as the properties on both sides of theirs. He then reviewed how the applicant’s request for a variance complies with the criteria for variances set forth in Section 1201.05 of the Zoning Code: 1. Much of the owners’ “practical difficulty” comes from the way Shore Road butts up against the west side of their lot. That, combined with the lakeshore setback on the south side of the lot, the wetland setback on the north side, and the sewer easement that bisects the property, all pose challenges for building on the subject property. 2. The variance allows the owners to enjoy the same lot/house orientation as the properties on either side of theirs. The combination of the two outlots with the Friendlys’ property, the removal of the old deck and shed on one of the outlots, and the reduction of impervious surface on the property all result in better conformity with Shorewood’s zoning regulations. 3. The conditions establishing practical difficulties in this case are not due to the actions of the applicant/owners. The Friendlys have done everything they can, including the purchase of the two outlots, to enhance the buildability of the site. The new plans bring the property into compliance with the current impervious surface restrictions by reducing it from 29 percent to 25 percent. 4. The practical difficulties are not economic in nature. The owners have spent extra money to acquire the outlots and to provide a turnaround at the end of Shore Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 3 of 10 5. The variance is considered to be the minimum necessary to build on the site, particularly given the desire to preserve the natural vegetation on the north side of the property while still providing the turnaround. Nielsen stated the Friendlys and their consultants should be commended for working with City staff from the very beginning of their project. That resulted in drastic improvements for all of the property involved and resolving a longstanding problem relative to snowplow service. Staff recommends approval of the street ROW vacation and the rear yard setback variance subject to the following conditions. 1. The owners will deed back easements over the turnaround area necessary for use and maintenance of the turnaround. 2. The owners will deed back easements as necessary for access and maintenance of the sewer line that currently extends through the property. 3. The applicant should provide an engineered design for the turnaround demonstrating that it can support the weight of snow removal equipment. 4. The owners shall have one year from the date the City Council approves the request to apply for a building permit. Nielsen noted that the Friendlys and Mr. Wissink were present. Nate Wissink, Elevation Homes, noted that currently 15.5 percent of the site is developable under the existing zoning parameters. That is in large part because of the ROW. The ROW goes into the property about 57 feet. And, there is a 40-foot rear yard setback requirement. There are in total six nonconforming aspects with the site today. He stated that he and others have worked with City staff over the last four to five months to develop a solution that is more consistent with other parcels in the Shore Road vicinity from an orientation standpoint. He noted the existing turnaround space is not paved. He expressed his appreciation to Director Nielsen and to Public Works personnel for their efforts in coming up with a reasonable design solution. He thanked the Planning Commissioners for their time in considering this application. Commissioner Maddy asked if the area for snow storage for the City is part of the new turnaround area. Director Nielsen responded no. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the Director of Public Works provided the dimensions for the new turnaround area and noted that getting that turnaround area will be extremely beneficial to the City. Commissioner Davis asked what the base will be under the pavers for the new turnaround area. Mr. Wissink explained it will be 12 inches of class 5 crushed limestone base over geo fabric with one inch sand bedding and then the turfstone pavers would go on top. It will satisfy the needs of a firetruck. He noted the pavers can be planted with grass or filled with sand. Commissioner Maddy asked if the pavers can handle the snowplow blade. Director Nielsen explained that the Director of Public Works stated the snowplow operator will raise the blade one inch. Commissioner Bean asked if people would access the lot on the east side of the Friendlys’ lot from Carrie Lane. Director Nielsen responded yes. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the shoreland setback requires a total of 30 feet of side yard setback with no one side less than 10 feet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 4 of 10 Bean stated the City is getting something in return for vacating the street ROW. He asked if the City is setting a precedent. Director Nielsen clarified the City does not usually look for anything in return and stated in many cases the City does not generally need it for ROW to travel on. Nielsen explained in this case the City has a sewer easement that somewhat coincides with the ROW. The City wants to maintain access to that. He noted the City cannot sell ROW. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:34 P.M. Barbara Ross, an attorney with the law firm of Best & Flanagan, 225 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, stated she is present to speak on behalf of the firm’s client Carol McCleary who owns the vacant lot on the east side of the Friendlys’ property and the developed property to the east of that. Ms. McCleary will be the one that will be submitting plans to develop the vacant lot as single-family residential. This variance application came as a surprise to her. She said she received a notice on May 2, 2015. She called the firm and asked someone to take a look at the facts, the application as submitted, the law that applies, and if appropriate give her some advice. The firm put a response together and because of the timeframe it was not able to submit it in advance of this Planning Commission meeting. She submitted the letter as part of the record. Attorney Ross summarized the letter, per her client’s request, of their concerns.  Ms. McCleary does not want to be a difficult neighbor.  She has no objection to the ROW vacation. It makes sense and it is a reasonable request. It is a win-win for the property owners and the City.  They have concern that the evidence that has been submitted and the staff report lump the street ROW vacation and the setback variance together. The variance is the subject of the public hearing. There is no discussion about if the variance is needed or if it meets the standard for a variance if the street ROW is vacated.  To be eligible for a variance the property owners need to establish practical difficulty; they cannot make reasonable use of the property without a variance. Once the street ROW is vacated there would be a substantial amount of land to the west of the proposed new house that could be used to build the house. No evidence has been submitted that demonstrates that the land to the west could not be used to build the house on. It is not clear from the application that the Friendlys need the variance.  The firm’s client’s concern is the proposed new house will be substantially larger than the existing house. The footprint would be much larger and it would be taller. The existing house is a single story. The larger house would be close to the property line.  The firm’s client is not asking the Planning Commission to recommend denying the variance entirely. The client believes a more reasonable approach would be to have a 25-foot setback from the rear of the property line rather than a 10-foot setback. If the proposed house would be that close to the property line it would affect the value of the client’s vacant lot which abuts the Friendlys’ property on the east.  In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission needs to make findings and one of the findings has to be if there is any impact on the value of neighboring properties. Attorney Ross stated she would be happy to respond to questions. She summarized their concern is that the application does not address if there is a legal basis for a variance once the street ROW is vacated. Commissioner Bean stated that in terms of the variance he thought the eastern lot line becomes the side yard. If that is the case, he asked what side yard setback is acceptable. Director Nielsen clarified that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 5 of 10 changing the orientation of the lot/house requires a variance. Bean then stated that through a variance the lot/house would be reoriented to be consistent with the other properties in the Shore Road vicinity. He asked how doing that reduces the value of Ms. McCleary’s undeveloped lot. Attorney Ross stated that doing what is proposed would end up putting a very large house very close to the property line. Ms. McCleary is concerned that will impact the value of her undeveloped lot when she wants to develop the parcel. She noted that the burden is on the Friendlys to show they have met the legal requirements for a variance. It is the firm’s and the client’s position that the Friendlys have not done that. The Friendlys would have sufficient area once the street ROW is vacated to build their proposed house within the current setbacks. Commissioner Bean asked Attorney Ross if their recommendation is to build the proposed house 10 feet farther to the west. Attorney Ross clarified 10 to 15 farther to the west. Attorney Ross stated they understand that the proposal is to reorient the property but that will impact the neighboring property. Director Nielsen stated his staff report does not say anything about the concern about the grade of the property coming up the driveway. To shorten it would make the grade of the driveway much steeper than it is. He noted that there needs to be an area for snow storage. Nielsen displayed the proposed building elevation drawings from the west, south and east. Nielsen stated that along the east side of the Friendlys’ property there is a fair amount of shrubbery and brush and staff has recommended that be maintained. The project must also comply with the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. Commissioner Johnson stated that looking at the building elevation from the east he asked what the height of the building above grade is. Director Nielsen noted that it can’t be any higher than 35 feet and what is being proposed is at or within that. Carol McCleary stated she owns three lots going east from the Friendlys’ property. The prime view from her undeveloped lot, the one abutting the Friendlys’ lot, is a sunset view. Building a 35 foot high house that close to the shoreline will negatively impact the sunset view. Director Nielsen noted that the existing house and terrace do not comply with the Christmas Lake setback. It is closer to the Lake than the proposed house would be, which would comply with the lakeshore setback requirement. He also noted that if the Friendlys wanted to remodel their existing house they could build a second story over a portion of their home. It would end up being somewhat like what is being proposed for the new house. Chair Geng asked Mr. Wissink if it would be possible to construct the proposed house any farther to the west. Mr. Wissink explained that at the edge of where the ROW currently bisects the property the elevation is at 937. The first floor elevation of the house is 947. The grade of the driveway should be less than 10 percent if possible. The current proposal is at maximum grade. To shift the house to the west would make it a challenge to go up the driveway. It would also make it a challenge to make the turnaround aspect work. Navigating the trees has to be taken into account. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 6 of 10 The Friendlys want their property to be treated like other properties in the vicinity with regard to orientation toward Christmas Lake. The property is at the end of a dead-end street; a situation the Friendlys did not create. That changes the way the City Code reads relative to that piece of property. However, it is no different with regard to its interface to the Lake nor the adjacent properties. Mr. Wissink stated the practical difficulty is unique to the Friendly property. What is being proposed is an attempt to be consistent with how the other properties in the vicinity are treated. He noted that the height of the proposed house on its eastern edge from grade to the rooftop is about 22 feet. He explained the average setback for the two adjacent properties is where the proposed house will be. He stated he thought that the vacant lot to the east of the Friendly property has a 75-foot setback. The property to the west has a different setback. Commissioner Bean stated the variance that is in discussion involves reorienting the lot. What is currently the rear yard would become the side yard. That new side yard would have a minimum setback of 10 feet. Ms. McCleary stated because she did not receive the notice for this public hearing until May 2 she has not had a lot of time to think about the application. Commissioner Bean stated if the Friendlys’ application is approved the new house will be further north than the existing house. Mr. Wissink stated it would move about 11 feet further back from the Lake. Ms. McCleary stated the new house would be 35 feet tall at that part. Chair Geng clarified that the southerly height of the new house would be no higher than 35 feet but the height on the northeast end of the house would be about 22 feet above grade. Commissioner Bean stated the vacant lot when developed would have more sight line to the Lake if the new house is built farther back from the Lake then it would if a second story were to be added to the existing house. Chair Geng asked Attorney Ross if there is an objection about inadequate notice. Attorney Ross stated she did not think so because the envelope the notice came in was post marked April 24, 2015. John Joyce, 5550 Shore Road, stated he thought what is being proposed looks good. He noted that currently that area is not served by the City water system. He stated because the City is going to maintain the sewer easement he assumes that would support any possible extension of watermain to the area. Director Nielsen explained the easement the City is keeping for sewer is a general drainage and utility easement and it would include municipal water. Tad Shaw, 5580 Shore Road, stated when driving to the Friendly property a person drives by his house just before reaching that property. He noted early on the Friendlys spoke to him and his wife about what they were proposing to do. He and his wife find their plans to be well thought out and well planned. He and his wife have no objection to what is being proposed. Chair Geng stated that Director Nielsen received an email dated May 5, 2015, from Michael J. Wille who is a realtor broker with The Wille Group Coldwell Banker Burnet, 3033 Excelsior Boulevard, Minneapolis. The email read as follows. “Thank you for sending the public hearing notice regarding 5590 Shore Road on Christmas Lake in Shorewood. Neither Leslie nor I will be able to attend the hearing this evening but we both give our CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 7 of 10 full support to the Friendlys’ project and believe it will beautify and improve the immediate area. We support the vacation of the Shore Road right-of-way which extends into the property and their request for a setback variance.” Director Nielsen noted that Mr. Wille owns a property within the 500 foot radius notice area. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:04 P.M. Commissioner Maddy expressed concern about what precedent could be set by this. He asked how the side yard of a property ended butting up against the rear yard of another property. Director Nielsen explained it is a definition in the Zoning Ordinance which defines what the front yard is. The rear yard will be opposite the front yard. For the Friendlys the side yard effectively becomes the Lake as does the north property line. It is the opposite of the other properties in the area because it is at the end of the road. Maddy asked how many other properties there are in the City with similar lot anomalies. Nielsen stated not many. There had been one property out on Shady or Enchanted Island where Lake Minnetonka had been the side yard. He cannot think of any others. Commissioner Davis cautioned against shortening the driveway as a result of moving the house to the left because of the increase in slope that would generate. Chair Geng concurred and stated a slope increase would result in loss of snow storage area and the proposed turnaround. Chair Geng told Ms. McCleary he appreciated her concern that part of the proposed new home could impede upon a potential view of a sunset depending on where a new house on the vacant lot would be built. But, because there is no house on the lot it is conjectural at this time. He stated there does not appear to be any controversy about the vacation of the street ROW; that makes good sense. He then stated that moving the proposed house to the west would increase the grade of the driveway and he does not think that is a practical alternative. He went on to state he thought the request to reorient the lot is reasonable. He noted he had been out to look at the area and believes that what is being proposed is in keeping with the houses along the shoreline. He also noted that he supports recommending the vacation of the street ROW and granting the requested variance. Commissioner Johnson asked what the age is of the existing house on the Friendly lot. He questioned if it was built before some of the current regulations were in place. Director Nielsen stated he thought the house was built in 1966 and was not sure when the lot was platted. Commissioner Maddy stated the Friendly lot is a combination of two lots; one of the lots had the rear yard as the lake and one had the side yard as the lake. Director Nielsen clarified it was a combination of three lots; two of the lots were outlots. Director Nielsen reiterated the hardcover will be brought into compliance by what is proposed. Commissioner Bean stated the proposed house will be moved further back from the Lake and that could improve a potential future sight line. He then stated that although he appreciates Ms. McCleary’s concern it is difficult for him to react to it when there is no existing house on the lot to the east of the Friendly property. He went to state that he thinks what is being proposed is of benefit to the Friendlys and the City. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the street right-of-way vacation. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 8 of 10 Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending granting the rear yard setback variance subject to staff’s recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng noted that Council will consider these matters during its May 26, 2015, meeting. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES Applicant: David Moe Location: 20920 Forest Drive Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a request for setback variances from David Moe, 20920 Forest Drive. Director Nielsen explained David Moe owns the property located at 20920 Forest Drive. Forest Drive is a dead end street and it stops part way down Mr. Moe’s property and from there on it is a paper street. The property is very substandard with respect to its width. The property is zoned R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential Shoreland, and contains 10,288 square feet of area. The width requirement for that zoning district is 75 feet. It is 50 feet wide along Rustic Way and 49 feet wide at the front building line. It tapers back to 37.5 feet at the rear of the site. The width problem is compounded on the south side of the lot where the setback is 30 feet for the side yard abutting the street. The north side setback is 10 feet. That leaves a buildable width of less than 10 feet. Mr. Moe has had difficulty marketing the property. Prospective buyers want assurances that they can build a new home on the site; those assurances can only come with the granting of setback variances. Therefore, Mr. Moe has designed a home for the site and applied for the necessary variances to construct a home on the lot. The survey and proposed site plan the applicant submitted show that the lot is unbuildable without some sort of variances from the current standards. The house plans submitted show the proposed house located only 10 feet 10 inches from the right-of-way (ROW) of Forest Drive; a 19-foot variance. The house is also located 6 feet from the northerly lot line; a 4-foot variance. That is the same as the setback for the existing home. The proposed house would contain 1023 square feet of floor area on each of two levels. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted that the applicant’s initial plans included one more variance and greater setback variances. He explained that after working with staff Mr. Moe redesigned his plans to eliminate the need for a front yard setback variance and a setback variance for a driveway serving the home. In addition, the depth of the house and garage were decreased in order to minimize the extent of the variances. He stated that in addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the existing house does not currently meet setbacks on the north and south sides of the lot. The building setbacks render the lot unbuildable. He explained variances are to be evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. He reviewed how the applicant’s request appears justified, at least in part, based on the following factors. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 9 of 10 1. The narrow width of the lot is aggravated by the fact that the lot is a corner lot with a 30-foot, side yard abutting the street requirement. Also, Forest Drive is a dead-end road with a ROW (60 feet) that exceeds the minimum 50-foot standard prescribed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code. As proposed, the house would be 20 – 30 feet from the paved surface of the street. 2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. Construction of a single-family residence is considered a reasonable use of property in the R-1D/S zoning district. 3. A two-car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood. Some cities go so far as to require at least a three-car garage. The City has in past cases recognized that the inability to have at least a two-car garage in Minnesota constitutes practical difficulty. 4. The applicant did not create his practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two-car garage. The house was built in 1938 and is quite substandard from a Building Code perspective. 5. The proposed garage is modestly sized for two cars and is not considered to be oversized. 6. Despite the relatively small lot size, the proposed home will only result in 17 percent hardcover on the site; 25 percent is allowed. Nielsen noted staff recommends the applicant’s request be granted as proposed. He also noted that the variances must be used within one year. If the applicant chooses to request an extension to that deadline the request must be made prior to the end of the year. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:22 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked Director Nielsen how the front yard and the side yard were determined. Nielsen explained on a corner lot the front lot line is the narrowest frontage on a public street and noted if the longer side was used it would result in less buildable area. Bean noted that the plat map that hangs on his wall shows that this lot was platted in 1906. He also noted that he is delighted to hear that a higher quality house may be built on the lot while preserving a more modest style housing stock. In response to a comment from Bean, Director Nielsen clarified that the variance goes with the property. Nielsen explained if a new owner wants to build a house with a different footprint they would have to go through the variance process again. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the setback variances for David Moe, 20902 Forest Drive. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng noted Council will consider this application during its May 26, 2015, meeting. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2015 Page 10 of 10 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS None 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a re-do of a minor subdivision application slated for the June 2, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC • Other 7. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 5, 2015, at 9:27 P.M. The motion was seconded. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder