Loading...
PC-08-02-16 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Johnson, and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Siakel Absent: Commissioner Riedel APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for August 2, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 19, 2016 Bean moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK Applicant: Rachel and Derek Dahlen Location: 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is composed 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. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot fence in a front setback for Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive. Director Nielsen explained Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, have requested a C.U.P. to construct a six-foot high, alternating board on board (shadowbox) fence across part of the front of their property. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 22,739 square feet of area. Although their home orients to Shorewood Oaks Drive, the front of the lot is technically State Highway 7 (for corner lots, the narrowest frontage on the street is the front). Highway 7 is an arterial street. The proposed fence would be located across the Highway 7 portion of the applicants’ property. It would be approximately 120 feet long and located 12 to 15 feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) of Highway 7. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Ordinarily a fence located within the front or side yard setback abutting a street is limited to four feet in height. The Zoning Code was amended several years ago for properties abutting arterial streets to allow fences up to six feet high. He displayed a sample illustration of a fence and noted it was different than what the applicant submitted. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted Section 1203 Subd. 2.f. of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting a C.U.P. for allowing fences six feet high in the front setback. He reviewed how the applicants’ fence would comply with the criteria. 1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the front property line. This is intended to provide space for landscaping. The proposed fence would be approximately 12 – 15 feet back from ROW of Highway 7. 2. Landscaping in this case is provided entirely by existing vegetation. Existing trees and understory brush will be maintained to soften the view of the fence as viewed from the roadway. 3. The location of the fence takes into account traffic visibility. An ample sight triangle exists at the intersection of Shorewood Oaks Drive and Highway 7. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicants’ request for a C.U.P. be approved. The resolution approving the C.U.P. should state that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the landscaping on the south side of the fence is maintained. Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, stated he and his wife want to put up a fence primarily for safety reasons. He confirmed there is a fair amount of brush between where the fence would be located and the road. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for a six- foot-high fence in the front setback for Rachel and Derek Dahlen, 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive, subject to the resolution approving the C.U.P. stating that the C.U.P. is valid as long as the landscaping on the south side of the fence is maintained and to there being 3.5 inch spacing between the boards. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its August 22, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: William and Melanie Keegan Location: 25830 Birch Bluff Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider variances for Willian and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Director Nielsen explained William and Melanie Keegan own the property at 25830 Birch Bluff Road. The property is currently occupied by a single-family home with an attached garage and a small shed. The property has 20,995 square feet of area; a standard area for the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district it is located in. The lot is only 60 feet wide making it nonconforming. The Keegans propose to demolish the existing home on the lot and replace it with a new one that complies better with zoning requirements. Their proposal requires three variances: 1) new construction on a substandard lot; 2) a 10-foot variance to the side yard setback requirement; and 3) impervious surface in excess of 25 percent. The current home is nonconforming with respect to side yard setbacks and the amount of impervious surface. The house is only 4.7 feet from the west lot line and 14 feet from the east lot line. The required side yard setback is a total of 30 feet with no one side being less than 10. With respect to impervious surface, the Code allows a maximum hardcover of 25 percent; the property is currently at 34.4 percent. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen noted Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code prescribes criteria for building on a substandard lot of record (a lot that existed prior to current zoning requirements and does not meet area or width requirements). He reviewed the criteria and how the Keegans’ lot complies. 1. The lot must be in separate ownership from adjoining properties. The Keegans do not own the lots on either side of theirs. 2. The lot must meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. This requires a lot to be 70 feet wide and 14,000 square feet of area in the R- 1C zoning district. The subject property is 10 feet short of the 70-foot width requirement. It does, however, comply with the minimum area requirement. 3. The proposed buildings must comply with the setbacks of the zoning district. The existing home is only 4.7 feet from the west property line. The proposed home will be 10 feet from both side lot lines, requiring a variance of 10 feet. Front and lake setbacks comply with the R-1C/S requirements. 4. The floor area of structures cannot exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot. Total hardcover cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot. Floor plans for the proposed home contain 4247 square feet of floor area – 22 percent of the lot area. Proposed total hardcover (impervious surface) is 30 percent, versus the current coverage of 34.4 percent. He then noted Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. The existing home could be enlarged by adding additional space above the existing footprint of the home. This does not improve the property with respect to better conformance with the Zoning Code. He reviewed how the applicants’ request conforms to the criteria for variances: 1. Despite the substandard width of the lot, the applicants have designed the new home to improve the property with respect to side yard setbacks and reduction of hardcover. 2. The applicants’ “practical difficulties” are not economic in nature, nor is it the result of their actions. The lot and the existing home and garage existed prior to current zoning standards. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 4 of 7 3. Granting the variance does not confer any special privilege on the applicant that would be denied to other properties. Similar consideration would be given to any owner who is willing to increase the conformity of a substandard property to the extent proposed by this applicant. 4. The proposed home does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. Houses on either side of the applicants’ have similar side yard setbacks. The applicants’ letter suggests that the new home would be placed at essentially the average setback created by the two adjoining properties. That is not reflected in the proposed site plan but it is highly recommended. Moving the new structure back to the average setback line preserves the views of properties on both sides of the subject property and should result in slightly less impervious surface since it shortens the length of the driveway. Earlier in the day the applicant did ask to be able to extend the new home a little bit forward of the average. Currently the average would be 14 feet. The applicant asked that be pulled back to 10 feet instead of the 14 feet. A graphic was distributed showing how the houses on the adjoining properties are situated. The houses on the properties on either side of the applicants are wider than those of the proposed new home. The applicant did provide letters from the owners of the adjoining properties which indicated they agreed with the house as it is shown (without pulling it back a little). The plans for the new home include front and rear porches. As of now there are no plans for a deck or patio. The area saved by moving the structure back could be allowed to be used for such ground level features in the future, provided the total amount of hardcover on the site does not exceed 30 percent. 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The proposed house and garage are very much in scale with the size of the existing lot. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the lot width variance, the hardcover variance, and the side yard setback variance. Bill Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him the opportunity to speak. He stated Director Nielsen did a good job of describing the project. He noted they have lived in their home for about four years and they had always intended to either remodel the house or rebuild it. He explained he had reviewed plans with his neighbors. Mr. Keegan offered to entertain questions from the Commissioners. Chair Davis stated it was nice to have someone propose building a normal size house. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. Commissioner Bean stated what is being proposed is not atypical for what was done with platting long before Shorewood became a City. Some interesting lots were created. He thought the applicants have proposed a reasonable approach to building on a lot of that shape. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Chair Davis asked Director Nielsen if he recommended pulling the west front corner of the house back to the average setback. Director Nielsen responded not quite. Mr. Keegan explained his neighbor to the west has his home 20 feet closer to the lake than his house is. The neighbor to the east has his home 15 feet farther back. Two properties to the east of his the house is 20 feet closer to the lake than his. What he had proposed was to build the main part of the new house where the old one is but add a porch on the front of it extending 14 feet closer to the lake. After discussing things with Director Nielsen they agreed on moving it only 10 feet closer to the lake from the existing structure. Commissioner Johnson stated the applicant submitted three letters of support. He asked Mr. Keegan to point out where those individuals lived. Mr. Keegan stated to two letters came from the owners of the two properties to the west of his and the third from the owner of the property to the east. Commissioner Maddy asked if they had supported the plans for the new structure being 14 foot closer to the lake. Mr. Keegan confirmed that. Chair Davis stated if it were her she would not want to move the house at all. Bean moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of variance for new construction on a substandard lot, a 10-foot variance to the side yard setback requirement, and an impervious surface variance for William and Melanie Keegan, 25830 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the applicants submitting a revised site plan which moves the new structure back ten feet from the north end of the house to the west. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its August 22, meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL (continued from July 19, 2016) Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated the applicant has asked that this continued hearing again be continued to the Planning Commission’s September meeting and explained that each time it is continued the 60-day clock is stopped. Nielsen suggested the hearing be continued one more time. Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has for a number of years chosen not to meet the day after a Monday holiday. Labor Day this year falls on Monday September 5 and the first Tuesday of the month is September 6. He asked if the Commission wants to meet on September 6 or move its meeting to September 20 which is the third Tuesday of the month. Commissioner Bean stated he could meet either day. Commissioner Johnson stated his schedule toward the later part of September is going to be more hectic because of his responsibilities with the Ryder Cup event. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 6 of 7 Commissioner Bean asked if the date has to be moved to September 20. Director Nielsen stated it could be moved to a different date Davis moved, Maddy seconded, moving the Planning Commission meeting from September 6 to September 20. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen stated he will send the applicant a 120-day notice and inform the applicant that the Planning Commission wants to make a recommendation on this request during its September 20 meeting. Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from July 19, 2016 Bean moved, Davis seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a request to rezone the property located at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C-1, General Commercial to the Planning Commission’s September 20, 2016, meeting. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS There was some discussion about the property that has been having short-term renters disrupting the neighborhood. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the continued public hearing from tonight regarding rezoning slated for the September 20, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. There will also be the continuation of the Public Hearing on an amendment to the City Code regarding short-term rental. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Siakel stated she had not attended the July 25, 2016, Council meeting and therefore cannot report on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s July 25, 2016, meeting (those items are detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Siakel then stated filing for office is open from August 6 through August 22. She noted the terms for Councilmembers Sundberg and Woodruff and Mayor Zerby are up at the end of 2016. This is the first time the mayor will be for a four-year term. Siakel explained the City did advertise for the city administrator position. The time for taking applications has closed. The Personnel Committee reviewed the resumes received and selected a few candidates that appear to be a good fit for the City to interview. Director Nielsen stated there was a lengthy discussion about the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension during Council’s July 25 meeting and how long it is taking to get the sidewalk completed (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 2, 2016 Page 7 of 7 There was ensuring discussion about burying power lines with projects. • SLUC • Other 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Bean seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 2, 2016, at 8:45 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder