Loading...
PC-05-02-17 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Hornby Also Present: Chuck Rickart, a traffic engineer with WSB & Associates Absent: None Chair Maddy 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for May 2, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 4, 2017 Bean moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from April 4, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from April 4, 2017. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 2 of 21 Director Nielsen explained the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed when this item was discussed on April 4. New information has been made available since then. If the Commission wants to reopen the Public Testimony he suggested the comments be limited to comments about the new information. Chair Maddy stated he plans on reopening the Public Testimony. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s March 7 and April 4 meetings the Commission held a Public Hearing on a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. During the first Hearing the Commission heard public testimony from people. The majority of the comments were about the existing traffic situation and the affect the proposed coffee shop would have on traffic. Issues were raised about the site plan by staff. The applicant has submitted revised plans that address the majority of the issues raised by staff. For example, staff had suggested adding additional landscaping. The revised plans reflect that. The applicant worked through drainage issues with the City Engineer and adjusted the site plan accordingly. What remains is the traffic issue which was the most significant issue raised. The Commission had asked the applicant to do a traffic study. The applicant hired Spack Consulting to conduct the study. The City’s Traffic Engineer, Chuck Rickart with WSB & Associates, reviewed and commented on that study. Spack consultants submitted a technical memorandum which responded to Mr. Rickart’s comments. Nielsen asked the Spack consultants to review their responses. Vern Swing, the Traffic Engineering Manager with Spack Consulting, reviewed their responses to each of Mr. Rickart’s comments. Following is a summary of the questions and responses. The proposed site traffic assumes 89% pass-by trips. What assumptions were used about 1. the direction of the traffic flow for the analysis? Mr. Swing stated Spack took a conservative approach. It assumed traffic passing the area on Trunk Highway 7 would divert to Starbucks and then return back on its path on Highway 7. The proposed Starbucks will be successful if it can draw from those people on the frontage road on their way to the Minnetonka High School in the morning. Or, come back to Starbucks after having dropped their children off at School. There was a question as to whether or not a 10-year forecast should be considered. 2. Mr. Swing stated Spack looked at the traffic volumes on Highway 7 and the frontage road and the land in the area that is yet to be developed or to be redeveloped. On Highway 7 they assessed the traffic volumes over the last 12 years. There has been no growth. In fact it has been coming down slightly according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) counts. It is possible the traffic volume could go up but likely not enough to impact how the proposed site would function. Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Swing if Spack studied the growth patterns in traffic for the High School. He stated anecdotally it seems there has been an increase in the traffic to the School perhaps due to open enrollment or to more students driving themselves to school. That increase in traffic specifically could be problematic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 3 of 21 Mr. Swing explained they did look at that. They also looked at enrollment numbers and class sizes. That ebbs and flows to some extent. The ability to open enroll also ebbs and flows to some extent. He noted the numbers were higher in 2007/2008. Over a span of time the numbers were fairly stagnant. The School has limitations on the number of students there can be in each classroom and caps enrollment off to some extent. As the economy improves and there is more affluence students may have more cars. He does not think a gross change would be very much. The land use is quite set. Commissioner Riedel asked if historical data was looked at. He asked how long there have been problems at the intersection. Mr. Swing stated the Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road intersection is problematic and it is due to the two traffic peaks associated with the School. MnDOT does have a project scheduled to be let this fall that would allow for a right turn lane coming up to Highway 7. That will help with traffic there. It would be helpful if the signal timing could be changed for that short peak when traffic is destined to the School or from the School. Unfortunately, it is MnDOT’s route and it prefers mobility. Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Swing if Spack asked the School about its parking situation. Mr. Swing stated they just looked at student numbers. Bean noted the School has regularly been expanding parking for years. There was an expansion this past year. More students are driving to school. Dave Watson, with Watson Development, stated according to the 2016 annual report for the Minnetonka Schools they are at capacity now at 10,460 students. Once the Schools are at capacity open enrollment closes down. If enrollment goes below capacity then open enrollment opens back up. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Level of Service (LOS), delays and queue’s should be reported for all intersections. 3. Mr. Swing stated Spack has followed up and provided that information in its response memo. It has been included in the original information in the appendix but it may have been more difficult to sort through. Commissioner Riedel stated he found the following part of the response memo troubling. “When roadways are over capacity traffic engineering models break down and do not achieve an accurate representation of what is happening in the field.” To him that suggests with all of the specialty in engineering calculations the recommendation may not reflect what reality would be. Mr. Swing stated the models are quite good up to the point when capacity has been exceeded by 10 percent. At that point the models have difficulty in accurately portraying what is going on. At Spack the consultants film everything that they look at. When they look at the existing condition they see the queue that builds up and the parking that occurs on Delton Avenue. They looked specifically at the peak times and do their analysis based on the peak times. If there is a situation that looks as if it is not being portrayed as the way it was observed the consultants will, if necessary, calibrate the model so it reflects what was observed. If they know it is breaking down but only for a short period of time often times there is nothing that can be done about that; at least something that is cost effective. Chair Maddy stated when a road gets to that point he asked if that is synonymous with giving it an “F” LOS. Mr. Swing stated a LOS “F” means the amount of capacity was exceeded that was theoretically available on the road. For intersections it is based on amount of delay the driver has to experience. Once the delay has reached 60 – 80 seconds it is in the LOS “F” and if a driver had another way to go they would do that rather than be stuck in traffic. LOS “F” is severe congestion. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 4 of 21 There was a question about the validity of 104 outbound left turns in the morning creating 4. only a four vehicle queue. Mr. Swing stated that goes back to comment 1 and Spack’s conservative approach of using the worst possible case where everyone would be turning left rather than coming out and taking a right and going on to School, for example. For the analysis the vehicles were all sent up to the frontage road, Delton Avenue rather than Vine Hill Road. In reality, if a driver could not get out on Delton Avenue they would go over to Vine Hill Road and go up that way where there is an all- way stop. He noted that 104 vehicles in one hour is not a lot of traffic. That would amount to slightly more than 8 vehicles per minute. Mr. Richart asked if a right turn lane or a left turn lane on to Broms Boulevard (a frontage 5. road) would be beneficial. Mr. Swing stated that often times for large retail sites that would be quite beneficial. In this situation because the queue extends back and around the corner turn lanes may not be of benefit. He noted Spack shares its information with the national organization the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There is also a website where it shares all of the information it gathers. He explained that Spack is finding that the queues that typically occur at coffee shops th during peak times are on average 11 vehicles in length. The 85 percentile that the proposed coffee shop would be designed for is 13 vehicles in length. If the assumption was that vehicles were going to stack out into the right turn lane to get onto the site the vehicles that want to pull on to the site and into a parking space would be prevented from doing that because they would be entering from the right turn lane. After pondering that for quite some time it seemed to them that a right turn lane would not be an appropriate use in this case. He thought the left turn volume if it was coming to the site would likely turn at the all-way stop and come in through one of the other driveways. He does not think the drivers would take the turn off of Delton Avenue to come onto the site. Commissioner Bean stated he understood Mr. Swing to be saying that if a driver was traveling east on Delton Avenue, and in lieu of the right turn lane, and if the driver saw that it was congested the driver would go up to the all-way stop and enter the site off of Vine Hill Road. Mr. Swing clarified if a driver was driving eastbound on Delton Avenue he thought they would pull on to the site from Delton Avenue if possible. If a right turn lane was cut in and if it was plugged up with vehicles heading to the drive-thru lane drivers would not be able to get into the parking lot. Commissioner Riedel stated he understands the Spack analysis to be conveying that the expected queue length would be within the capacity of the drive-thru and that waiting time onsite would not be the issue. He then stated his concern, which may be shared by some of the residents, is how traffic on the site would be impacted not people trying to get to Starbucks. Mr. Swing explained on the site itself if the queue exceeds the 85% capacity it may be possible that another car could stack onsite and potentially block another vehicle from getting in if someone was exiting at the same time. If someone was not exiting at the same time it would be possible to get around the vehicle. In their estimation there is sufficient room to choose to get into the queue to get to the drive- up window or to drive up and park and go inside. There is enough room and enough time, at very slow driving speeds, to make that decision and do it in a way that would not be detrimental to pedestrians that are walking out and to other vehicles that are traversing the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 5 of 21 Going out from there once a driver gets on to Delton Avenue the vehicles that are being added (that were included in the report) are vehicles that are currently on Highway 7. That is a very conservative way to consider it. If a person was driving east in the morning and if they wanted to get coffee it would be unlikely they would stop at the proposed Starbucks because of how long it would take to do that. There are a number of other places along Highway 7 to stop and get coffee. The Starbucks would most likely be drawing from the traffic already making that trip. Spack added approximately 62 of the 104 trips taking them out of the through traffic on Highway 7. They made them right turns coming down on to Delton Avenue and then onto the site. They added another 20 vehicles that were headed westbound on Highway 7 and had them come left and do that. They sent all of them back out on that path. Using that assumption in the review of what was going on they projected the overall change in operations and the overall change in queuing that took place would be minimal at best. It was difficult to tell the difference between one and the other. Commissioner Riedel stated there is already congestion during peak hours. He asked if the impact of adding the dynamic of drivers pulling in and out of the proposed site would be negligible. Mr. Swing explained that would make a negligible change because there is the all-way stop there. Drivers are already stopping in that particular spot. The drivers taking a right turn coming onto the site would be traveling at 5 – 10 miles per hour (mph) at most. Riedel stated every vehicle that pulls in and out of the site introduces an additional gap albeit small. It would very slightly exacerbate an already bad situation. Mr. Swing reiterated the impact would be negligible. Commissioner Bean stated if he was trying to leave the proposed site on to Delton Avenue it would necessitate there being a gap for him to get in so he can drive to the stop sign and stop again. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated Spack must have assumed that he would not have to wait for a few minutes for another driver to be nice. Mr. Swing stated when traffic is congested drivers have a lot more patience for allowing that to occur. Bean indicated he was not sure students would do that. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Mr. Richart asked Spack to comment on the possible addition of a northbound lane at the 6. Highway 7 signal. Mr. Swing explained that MnDOT has a project that will be adding that. That will be beneficial all day long. Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Swing has details of what that would be like. He stated that essentially there is a right turn lane there now. He then asked if MnDOT is going to materially change the right turn lane and make it longer and take some of the curve into consideration. Engineer Hornby explained that MnDOT is only going to widen the existing pavement so they can get an official lane in there to make that right turn. It will not be longer but it will be a wider dedicated east bound lane. He said he does not understand how that would change northbound Vine Hill Road at all. Mr. Swing stated it would add capacity. From the existing condition vehicles probably do queue up two abreast. He thought there would be an acceleration area with the new lane so vehicles could start to make that turn when the opportunity is there and get moving a little quicker a little faster. Mr. Swing stated it would be a small zone and maybe it would address one more vehicle. Mr. Richart commented that the potential for traffic queues of the drive-thru may require 7. the addition of an eastbound right turn lane on to the site. Mr. Richart thought a condition of the C.U.P. should be that a turn lane be added if the condition occurs. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 6 of 21 Mr. Swing stated this comment is similar to the discussion there has just been about the queuing on site and the benefits or not of having a right turn lane out on the street. Chair Maddy stated he thought Spack’s conclusion was it is unlikely a lot of people would add to a line of 13 vehicles if it exists. Mr. Swing confirmed that and stated if they did and if they blocked the right turn lane they would block people from going on to the site as a parking customer. Chair Maddy asked if the length of the queue would be visible as they were coming on to the site. Mr. Swing stated that would depend on how robust the landscaping is. Commissioner Bean stated the sample data for comment 7 came from Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Roseville, St Louis Park, Minnesota as well as Kansas City, Kansas. Mr. Swing explained that Starbucks asked Spack consultants to go to Kansas City to look at 12 sites they had down there. There was queue statistic for Minnesota and then for Minnesota and Kansas combined. Mr. Swing noted he was not around when the Kansas City sites were evaluated. Commissioner Riedel stated he buys the argument that during the periods when the intersection is severely congested cars pulling in and out from the site may not change the situation very much. He asked what about during the shoulder periods when it is transitioning from being severely congested to less severely congested. Then cars pulling in and out can slow traffic down. Mr. Swing stated that can happen and reiterated it would be slightly over one car per minute. That is a very small number when compared to a very large number of high school students arriving. Because drivers are already planning on stopping at the all-way stop there is the advantage of safety when pulling around the corner and going on to the site. Commissioner Bean stated Mr. Swing refers to the all-way stop at Delton Avenue and Vine Hill Road as being some type of mitigator when in fact during the peak timeframe the traffic is queued all of the way back through the intersection and back on the eastbound Highway 7 shoulder. Mr. Swing clarified that Commissioner Riedel was asking about when the peak times were lessening when the queue was no longer on Highway 7 but on Delton Avenue. The queue is not quite as long on Delton Avenue. Adding a vehicle into that or taking a vehicle out of that would have a fairly negligible impact on the overall flow of traffic because it is all stopped already. Commissioner Bean stated he understands Mr. Swing to be saying it is already a mess and adding 10 more vehicles does not make it any more of a mess. Mr. Swing confirmed it is a mess during the half hour period when everyone is arriving. It is slow and congested. Bean asked if Spack’s measurement was of 30 minutes. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated his measurement is from 7:30 A.M. to 8:15 A.M. Mr. Swing stated based on their recordings and Mr. Watson’s recordings it is just under one half hour. Chair Maddy asked if the traffic study numbers were averages for a five day school week. Mr. Swing stated they were basically averages for the peak period for that period of time. He noted the cameras were put out on Monday and taken down on Friday. Commissioner Bean stated that is not his experience and he goes through there twice a week early morning. At that time he is heading south on Vine Hill Road to try and get to County Road 62. It is a lot th more than 30 minutes based on what he observes. He then stated he can go to the 80 percentile of peak and there is still a mess. Mr. Swing stated the numbers did drop off fairly quickly after school starts. Chair Maddy asked if the data could be interpreted as the peak time is when traffic is backing up all the way back to Highway 7. Mr. Swing stated the peak time includes that time. Peak starts slightly before traffic backs up to Highway 7, then it backs out of Highway 7 and within that peak hour it dissipates from that and the traffic is on Vine Hill Road. Maddy stated he interprets that to mean one half hour of really bad congestion and after that it is just pretty bad. Commissioner Bean concurred. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 7 of 21 Mr. Richart stated he did review the Spack traffic study report and developed the list of comments/questions that were just reviewed. He noted that he agrees that the area is congested; it is an issue today. He commented that he does not know how much a left turn lane would benefit the site. He thought the right turn lane could possibly be a benefit to the site. He noted whether or not the right turn lane could fit in there is a separate issue. He stated there are some options that could be looked into that may make the circulation work better should there be an issue with drivers baking up on the site. In response to a comment from Chair Maddy, Engineer Hornby stated he does not think there would be enough room to get around vehicles if they were stacking up on Delton Avenue. One of the reasons for the recommendation for a right turn lane as a condition for this C.U.P. was it would also be there for a future use of the site. Commissioner Riedel stated if there is any stacking up of traffic and if traffic is moving faster than a stand still there is a possibility that could be a hazard for drivers coming around the turn. Engineer Hornby stated the point was the City does not want vehicles stacking out. If the right turn lane was a condition of approval it might be able to mitigate that during peak times. Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Richart if he agrees with the assessment that stacking should not be a problem according to the business model. He stated if stacking is not an issue he asked if Mr. Richart agrees with the assessment (which he finds somewhat surprising) that traffic in and out of the drive-thru would not exacerbate the existing traffic problems significantly. Mr. Richart stated drivers would be able to get into the site. Getting out may be different. He explained the way the plans are laid out vehicles would not block the drive-thru; parking spaces may get blocked. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Paul Stelmachers, 5210 Shady Lane, noted he has lived in Shorewood for about 10 years. He stated Commissioner Riedel asked if the coffee shop would make the traffic situation worse. The traffic study indicates it would be adding trips to the area. If new trips are going to be added to the area it is going to be worse; how much worse is the not known. He then stated he called Minnetonka High School to ask about school enrollment. When Mr. Watson said the enrollment was 10,460 he thought he meant for the School District. The current enrollment at the High School is about 3,120 and its capacity is 3,400. The School is actively seeking enrollment because it receives federal dollars. School representatives basically told him they want to reach 3,400 students. The High School has 1,060 parking spaces currently. The School has bought 20 properties in order to add spaces. The School is continuously adding to that. Commissioner Bean stated approximately 30 percent of the student population currently parks at the School. And, 30 percent of the potential 280 more students equates to 84 additional drivers. Mr. Stelmachers stated the properties the School is buying are along Delton Avenue. He noted of the 1,060 parking spots he counted on Google Maps some of them may be used by staff and not students. Mr. Swing noted the High School has a coffee shop in it. Mr. Stelmachers stated the LOS grade “F” for the intersection is the poorest the grade can be. There is no lower grade yet the traffic gets worse. He then stated Mr. Swing stated their estimates may be conservative so the traffic will get worse. Chair Maddy clarified the conservative estimates were on the pessimistic side. He asked if the City has the ability to adjust the timing of the signal light on Highway 7. Engineer Hornby clarified that is a MnDOT function. He stated MnDOT will look at situational opportunities to make adjustments that will help its facility. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 8 of 21 Mr. Stelmachers noted that he was opposed to what is being proposed. He also noted he spoke with someone who told him the cameras were only there for one day. He stated he thought the Executive Summary showed the data was for a 24 hour period and not a 7 day period. He asked if the complete traffic report from Spack was on the City’s website. Someone from the audience stated the cameras went up on a Monday and they were taken down on a Friday. Wednesday was not counted in the data because it was only a half day of school. David Sime, 5363 Ashcroft Road, Minnetonka, commented he came to the Public Hearing with a list of questions because when he looked at the draft of the initial report he questioned if the report addressed peoples concerns. He was a little unsatisfied. He noted that he is a physicist and he understands the value of formulating the use of standard tables. He is also a neighbor and a human being so he understands the limitations to heavily relying on formalisms to represent what is actually happening. He expressed concern some of the report seems to disappear into that and he thought it left those living in the neighborhood high and dry. During the LOS discussions there was also discussion about delay times and delays of less than 55 seconds being considered okay. He thought what was particularly important about the intersection is that any times greater than 12 seconds are irrelevant ultimately because every operation for people coming south of Highway 7 is quantized into 8 to 12 and sometimes 15 second chunks which occur every 4 minutes. If he faces a 36 second delay that is three sets of 12 second traffic light operations. The traffic light period is approximately 4 minutes. That means a 12 minute delay. Conversations about delays being less than 55 seconds lose their meaning, albeit they are formally correct, for people on the ground unless the quantization introduced by the traffic light is considered. Commissioner Riedel stated if a person is delayed by 55 seconds they will only wait at the light once and not three times. Chair Maddy stated they would have 2 minutes to clear the intersection before the next green light. Mr. Sime stated if he does not get in the first 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. If he is not in the second 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. Commissioner Bean stated if a driver is going northbound or southbound on Vine Hill Road and the light turns green it is green for Vine Hill Road for about 15 seconds. Then there is another 4 minute cycle before it turns green again. He explained that at 5:30 P.M. this evening he was going northbound on Vine Hill Road. When he took a left on Delton Avenue the traffic was already queued through the curve past public storage to where the Starbucks would be and it took him three lights (about 12 minutes) to get across Highway 7. Mr. Sime stated there is already a traffic mess at the intersection and it should not be made worse. He expressed concern about the assumptions used in the report. He thought it difficult to believe that traffic is static when there are large developments in the City of Minnetrista taking place. That traffic was not traveling on Highway 7 10 years ago. He then stated in the short term he is less concerned about enrollment in the High School than he is about the change and use of the facility. It has gone from being a high school to being an entertainment complex. There is a dome, a theater, 8 baseball parks, and there is an ice arena coming. Those things may all be good for the school community but they compromise the conventional model of an 8 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. school day for the basis of traffic evaluation. He went on to state there is continued discussion about MnDOT ignoring the community through negligence or inaction. He asked what the community can do to get MnDOT’s attention about the intersection. If the City takes the lead he thought the community would follow. Mr. Sime thanked people for their time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 9 of 21 nd Stacy Kline, 185 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, stated she did not know this item was going to be on the agenda this evening so she has only heard what has been presented earlier in the meeting. She noted she has been underwhelmed with the graphic because it does not help her visualize a lot of the discussion there has been. The graphic is cut off on the right side where the problematic intersection is. Commissioner Bean apologized for that and noted this is the third time this application has been discussed. Ms. Kline stated because she is a parent she can resonate with the High School having more than a start of school and end of school traffic pattern. She noted she has a daughter that is in Junior High School now and she does not drive. She drives her daughter to activities at the High School. She explained that she avoids the intersection when she drives to the School. She purposely goes past the High School to County Road 101 and comes in the back to the School. She experiences teenage drivers coming to and from the facility. She cautioned against assuming a best case mature mindset at that intersection. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated no one has addressed people living in the area being discussed. There will be increased noise and litter from all of the coffee cups. She noted she picks up litter in the neighborhood now. She thought the people who live in the area have been totally neglected with regard to the inconvenience to their lives. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated to him this issue is about more than granting a C.U.P. for drive-up window for a Starbucks coffee shop. The issue is much larger than that. There needs to be a much larger discussion about what can be done about the intersection. Commissioner Bean concurred with Commissioner Riedel. He stated other jurisdictions need to be involved in the discussion; the City of Deephaven to the north, Hennepin County, and MnDOT. He explained during the initial Public Hearing on this application there was discussion about completely realigning the Vine Hill Road intersection to create queuing space. But, that would require the purchase of properties, both commercial and residential, to be able to have a straight cross intersection. The lack of land is the reason there is the convoluted, curved, back queuing situation. He asked if MnDOT should be engaged first in the discussion. Director Nielsen explained MnDOT is aware of the issues with the intersection. MnDOT has a minor improvement scheduled with the right turn lane; that will result in there being three distinct lanes at the intersection on that side. He and Engineer Hornby discussed that at one time there had been a right turn- off lane on Highway 7; that was eventually closed off. It would be nice to have that back albeit it is very unlikely. MnDOT spent a lot of time and effort closing off little accesses like that. He thought the issue with the intersection is as much of a local issue as anything. It is not MnDOT’s fault that the High School is where it is. Commissioner Bean stated MnDOT would have to take the lead on making material changes to the intersection. Director Nielsen concurred. Commissioner Riedel asked if there could be a discussion with the School to change the flow of traffic to the School by directing all of the traffic to County Road 101. Director Nielsen stated he thought that would be a good starting point. He explained the School has made changes over the years. He thought the number of buses going through the intersection has been reduced. He thought they come around the back way now. He suggested asking the School District why it lets so CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 10 of 21 many students drive to School. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Nielsen stated staff can talk to both MnDOT and the School District. Chair Maddy asked that the conversation return to the proposal at hand. Commissioner Sylvester asked how what is being proposed is good for the City. There is already a traffic problem in at that intersection. She agreed with Mr. Stelmacher that any increase in traffic will only exacerbate the problem regardless of what a traffic study determines. She questioned the appropriateness of making the problem worse. She then asked how it aligns with the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. She stated per the Plan Shorewood is intended to be a bedroom community, a neighborhood and a happy place to live. A fair number of residents have expressed valid concerns about increased traffic, trash, and noise. No one has mentioned the speaker at drive-thru that residents who live nearby are going to hear. She would not want to hear that all the time. She then stated with those two questions in her mind she is not convinced that what is being proposed makes sense. Commissioner Riedel noted he agreed with everything Commissioner Sylvester just said and what the residents have said. But, the property is zoned commercial and the owner of the property is entitled to make use of it. The only reason for this Public Hearing is the C.U.P. application for the drive-thru window. Yet if the impact on traffic would be negligibly small then he thought the owner would have the right to make use of that commercial property. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Comp Plan has the subject properties zoned commercial. But, the added burden of a drive-thru window is not in the Comp Plan and that is why there is a Public Hearing on this. She clarified that she would have no problem with there being a use there that does not add the same degree of burden. She thought a drive-thru would add a different burden then another business would. Commissioner Davis noted the developer has stated that without the drive-thru window the coffee shop itself would not be financially feasible. Commissioner Sylvester stated the last time this was discussed the developer indicated a fast food casual sit down establishment could work. Commissioner Davis noted she would be against anything that would torment the neighborhood further. Commissioner Riedel stated if the drive-thru versus no drive-thru makes the difference that suggests there would be additional traffic. Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Court and Susan Queen nd Location: 27180 West 62 Street Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He explained the Planning Commission is now going to consider a front yard setback nd variance for Court and Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 11 of 21 nd Director Nielsen explained Court and Susan Queen own the property at 27180 West 62 Street. The property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential, zoning district. They propose to construct a new entry portico on the front of their existing home. Their home is quite nonconforming with respect to the required front setback for the R-1A zoning district zoning. The proposed entry portico necessitates a variance to the R-1A, front setback requirement The applicants’ property contains nearly three acres. Much of the rear portion of the property appears to be wetland. The proposed portico would encroach another six feet into the required 50-foot front setback, thereby requiring a variance of 25 feet. Plans for the proposed entry were included in the meeting packet. The staff report addresses nonconformities in general and variances. The Zoning Code restricts nonconforming structures. He highlighted Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.a. which sets forth provisions regulating nonconformities. “It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity.” Provisions relative to nonconforming single-family residential structures were relaxed in the 1980s to allow improvement of nonconforming homes. Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.i. states, in part, “.. that lawful nonconforming, single-family residential units may be expanded, provided that the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located.” The applicants’ home is situated 31 feet from the front property line – 19 feet closer to the street than allowed. Previous additions to the home have been allowed at the rear of the home based on this provision. The proposed addition to the front would increase the nonconformity by an additional six feet. A Code amendment was approved a few years back that provided for the upgrading of older homes. It applies to conforming structures that were built up to the front setbacks in various districts where applicants wish to have a covered entry versus just a stoop. That code amendment allowed a portico to extend 4 feet into the required setback. There is a maximum width provision relative to the length of the home. Although the applicants’ home is not a conforming structure, staff suggests that the same principle could apply. With regard to variances, he explained that consideration of variances must include a determination that the ordinance creates “practical difficulties” (formerly “undue hardship”) that prevent the property owner from making reasonable use of their property. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. Following is how the applicants’ request complies with all of those. a. The Zoning Code is reasonable in requiring minimum setback requirements and in regulating/limiting nonconformities. The applicants’ desire to have a safe, covered entry to their home can also be considered reasonable. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. Drainage and soil conditions that have deteriorated their current front entry were not created by them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 12 of 21 c. Homes on either side of the subject property appear to comply with R-1A setback requirements. The existing vegetation on the applicants’ property and property to the east have a screening effect on the subject property, somewhat mitigating the proximity of the structure to the street. The Code states that “the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied ….to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district”. The provision that allows porticos to encroach into front yards provides some guidance. The applicants’ plan is consistent with the length limitation. The existing house is 73 feet long and the portico is 20 feet long – 27 percent of the total length. The proposed portico would encroach another six feet into the required front setback. Staff recommends that portico encroachment be reduced to the four feet allowed by the Code. Commissioner Riedel asked if the portico meets the requirement that it would be open. Director Nielsen stated it does meet those elements of that Code amendment. He noted they are allowed to have a guardrail if necessary. Riedel then asked if the applicant had proposed a portico that encroached only four feet into the setback he asked if the applicant would even need a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) Nielsen clarified the applicants do not need a C.U.P. They need a variance because they are increasing the nonconformity. nd Court Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, applicant, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their time on considering their requested variance. Mr. Court explained they have owned their property for more than 26 years. During that time they made two significant additions to their home. In both cases they made a concerted effort to stay within the setback requirements. They completely gutted their home and restored all of the original wood. They restored the land as well. All of the invasive vegetation was taken out and the area was replanted with hard woods. They consider both their home, which was built around 1910, and their land to be historical. They love their home. The property had been a 38 acre raspberry farm. The dry road was the house’s original driveway. Their last step in refining their home is to put an appropriate front entry on their “gem”. They want to do it in a way that is historically accurate. They understand from Director Nielsen that they have a setback issue. Therefore, they have tried to make their front entry as modest as possible while making it usable. nd Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, applicant, explained that since they have owned their home their front door has been inoperable to a large extent both summer and winter. That is due to the cement steps rising and falling. Their front door is jammed shut. The screen door gapes on both the top and the bottom. There is no overhang for protection. The screen door has been replaced four times and the front door once. The screen door lasts for about one season before it starts to malfunction. They do not open their front door for air in the summertime. They use their side door exclusively. When packages are delivered to their front door they often do not find them for quite some time. She noted the front entry faces south. She stated in addition to wanting something that will look nice they want something that will work well. They want to be able to open the door to greet people without them having to step off of the landing. She thought having only a four foot depth would require that. She explained with an overhang for protection, the steps and a six foot landing she thought they would be able to operate their front door, they could leave the front door open for a breeze, and they could have a welcoming and usable front entrance. She stated their intent has always been to rehab their home and not to replace things and that is what they have done. They are requesting to have the front entry match the beauty of their home. Mike Sharratt, the applicants’ architect, noted he is a 26 year resident of Shorewood and he has lived at 5590 Woodside Lane the entire time. He stated he thought the Queens did good job of explaining their quandary. He then stated if a variance requires proof of practical difficulties the Queens have them. A variance is necessary because the road was put on the old private driveway which usually on a farmstead comes close to the house. He noted he does not know when the 50 foot setback was established. Was it when the road was constructed? If that is true then it was clear the house was nonconforming at that time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 13 of 21 Therein lies a practical difficulty of having protection at their front door. The location of where the road was constructed is also part of the practical difficulty. Mr. Sharratt stated the reason the Queens are proposing what they are is primarily for functional purposes. They wanted a covered front entry where they could open the door and have a breeze flow in through the screen door and an entry that did not require people to step off the porch and onto the steps. They also wanted to have a chair there so they could greet people as they approached their home and to be able to sit in the sun but out of the rain on the south side of the house. Although they do not have a front entry closet, they did not make that a priority. All of their guests currently enter their house through the back door and into their kitchen. Mr. Sharratt noted their goal was to do something very humble. Something that is very much in character with the house. He stated they do not know if the farm house ever had a front porch. But, if it did it is likely it would have been 8 – 10 feet because that is what most farm houses had. The Queens are only asking for a 6-foot depth. They only learned from Director Nielsen the previous week that a 4-foot depth is permitted per the Zoning Code. He then stated he does not think that a 4-foot depth is enough. The columns out there are 10 inches and if that is subtracted from the 4 feet that leaves 38 inches. That is not enough room to have a chair and walk around it let alone have people stand on the porch in front of the door and open the door to let them in. Mr. Sharratt stated he and the Queens believe there are practical difficulty reasons for why the depth should be 6 feet and not 4 feet. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the applicants and their architect did a good job of framing the discussion of the usage of the front entrance as a practical difficulty. He asked if all other alternatives have been considered including moving the main entrance to a different location. He asked if that would be possible. Mr. Sharratt explained the house is very small; it is a four room house when you walk into it. The entry is in the middle. The living room space is to the right. The dining space is to the left with the kitchen behind it where the back door is. There is a fireplace room on the back side in the other corner. Entering through a side entry would not be historical. It would not be the way the house was intended to be. He does not think there is any flexibility with such a very small house to have a side entry; and, it would cost a tremendous amount to make the necessary changes to accommodate that. He noted they did discuss that option. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. Jeff Wassenaar, 6100 Cathcart Drive, noted he and his wife Joyce have lived in their house for 14 years and they lived around the corner two blocks from there for nine years before that. He then noted they support what the Queens are proposing. He explained that they had put an extension on their front porch facing east because of the morning sun warping their door. Having a porch with a 6 foot depth would help the Queens with their problem. The Queens’ property is located near the end of a dead end. There is very limited traffic there. They support the Queens attempt to preserve their historic house. Joyce Wassenaar, 6100 Cathcart Drive, stated they are the people who enter through the kitchen. She has never been through the front door. She noted they have no concerns about the addition the Queens are proposing. The Queens home is a rare gem in their neighborhood. Historic properties are treasured; they are very rare. She thought it would be somewhat rare to grant a variance similar to what the Queens are requesting. She noted that what resonates with her is the destruction of the Queens front entry door. She stated she has observed the Queens struggle with their front door. She then stated the pictures of the tiny stoop do not do it justice. The tiny stoop is falling away from the house. And, the sun beats down on it. It CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 14 of 21 is cracked and the paint is affected on a regular basis. They made improvements to their own home to try and mitigate the same thing the Queens are proposing to do. She noted they have a generous porch. She stated having a porch that has a depth of 4 feet would make opening a screen door challenging because it would cause people wanting to come in to possibly step into the weather elements. She would not want a porch with a depth of 4 feet; she would want it be a minimum of 6 feet. She noted the Queens have done an incredible job of rehabilitating their home. nd Stacy Kline, 185 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, noted she lives directly across the street from the Queens. She stated she has personally witnessed the fact that the Queens’ front door is not very usable or welcoming or functioning. It was that way five years ago. She then stated the way the Queens have worked with the City over the years demonstrates their good faith in trying to be as conforming as they could be with their property while staying true to the historical aspects of their house. Their improvements were also positive for the neighborhood. She noted she thought what the Queens propose nd warrants approval. She stated West 62 street is not highly traveled. There are only 3 – 4 properties beyond the Queens. She then stated she does not think a 6-foot-deep portico would be encroaching toward her property or create concerns about visibility when driving on the roadway. She noted she thought what is being proposed is well thought out and she supports it. Commissioner Riedel clarified they would not encroach 2 feet inside of the required setback. It would encroach 25 feet inside. It would be far from conforming. Ms. Kline stated she understood that the house should be 50 back from the road. But that was not the case since the setback was established. She thought the Queens were put in somewhat of a double jeopardy situation that they did not ask for. She clarified she was going off of the four foot allowance for houses that conform. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:48 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated that because the Queens’ property is historic she thought it deserves greater leeway. She then stated she has been involved in remodeling a number of houses and some of them were gutted. Generally speaking a front door is 36 inches wide. The screen opens out and that would leave one foot on a four foot stoop. The applicants need the 6 feet. She noted that she grew up in an old home with a front door similar to the Queens that was shut all of the time. Everyone who came to her home came through the kitchen. It is not the applicants fault. Commissioner Sylvester noted she lives next door to the Queens’ property. She is very familiar with the house, the property and the road. Everything the Queens have said is accurate. She stated she thought it is a unique road, it is a unique neighborhood, and it is an amazing house. She thought what is being proposed would add value to the Queens house. It would not encroach upon the road unduly. She also thought it is important to take the historical relevance into consideration. Commissioner Riedel stated he agrees with everything that has been said. He thought everything about the proposal is eminently reasonable. Yet, the Planning Commission should be quite cautious when it comes to granting variances. Approving this variance request would set a precedent. It would increase the nonconformance of a nonconforming property. He thought the entire argument has to rest on the practical difficulties. Any aesthetic including the argument that the house is very historical and what is being proposed would add to it is not sufficient to consider granting a variance. The Architect and the applicants all spoke well about the fact that there is a practical difficulty with the existing stoop. He noted he would recommend a portico with a depth of only four feet. He explained there is a provision in the Code for conforming residences to have an open portico that extends 4 feet. Although his heart says yes to the fact that it makes sense it would set a precedent that the City would be granting an increase in nonconformity. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 15 of 21 Chair Maddy asked if the precedent would be set for all houses or just historic farmsteads. Commissioner Bean stated the City has no architectural standards ordinance to help justify that. Maddy noted he finds it difficult to put a 4-foot portico on a farmhouse because that would not have been done 100 years ago. Commissioner Riedel stated he agrees with Commissioner Davis’s comment that a 36 inch door with a 4- foot-deep portico does not provide enough space to step around the door. Commissioner Bean stated there is also the 10 inches for the posts. Director Nielsen noted the portico is 20 feet wide. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission did spend a lot of time on that Ordinance that provides for that. Those types of things were taken into consideration. Four feet meets code. He noted if someone is standing in front of the door and the door is opened that person would be swept off of the portico. Commissioner Bean stated that because of the configuration of the windows and the door it is logically the only place to put the two posts. The posts could not be moved to make more swing room because the posts would be right in front of the windows. Commissioner Riedel asked if the posts would limit the ability for the door to swing all the way open. Bean stated that would reduce it to 38 inches and there is a 36 inch door. Commissioner Riedel stated variance is absolutely dictated for the functional use of the Queens’ property. The nonconformity of their property is quite severe. He then stated the long-term of objectives of the City and the Planning Commission are to reduce nonconformity. The Queens’ house is already way too close to the road and the variance would bring it closer yet. Commissioner Bean stated even if that was put aside it comes back to the City’s standard being a 4-foot portico if all that is being done is a front entrance. He asked Director Nielsen about the history of 4 feet versus 6 feet. Director Nielsen stated it was written so people could have a covered entry when they were standing at the door and they could be out of the rain. Bean asked if 4 feet was deemed to be adequate. Nielsen stated 3 – 4 years ago it was. Commissioner Davis asked if this was done for a house on the other side on a skinny lot. Director Nielsen noted that was on Lakeway Terrace. That is what triggered the ordinance amendment. Davis noted that was an extremely small lot; it was very narrow. Director Nielsen noted the amendment was worded as a portico, not a porch. It was to provide for a covered entry. Commissioner Sylvester asked how long the house had been there before the setback requirements were put into effect. Director Nielsen stated the codes went into effect in 1956 and the house was built in 1910. There were no standards in 1910. Sylvester noted the applicants did not choose to be nonconforming. Nielsen stated it is a nonconforming structure by its nature. He noted the Queens get to make more use of their property than those with a conforming structure in the same district. That is one of the failures of the criteria for a variance; it cannot convey a privilege to one person and not another in the same district. Director Nielsen reiterated the depth of the porch meets code. People can stand off to the side before entering the house. Chair Maddy stated aside from the short text in the accessory structure Code are there any more historic preservation protections that the City offers homeowners? Director Nielsen explained there are provisions for historic accessory structures and there is a list of criteria for what is historic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 16 of 21 In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Commissioner Riedel stated the Code states if nonconformity was reduced it cannot be reclaimed at some later date. If there had been a porch at some time and it was taken down that does not make the argument that a new porch should be allowed. Commissioner Bean asked if the City has granted a variance to expand a portico. Director Nielsen stated no and noted the Code is not that old. Bean stated the plat shows that the bituminous surface in front of the Queens house is 15.5 feet wide. That means the street is substandard. He asked if the City would ever want to widen the street. Director Nielsen noted the City has no plans to do that at this time, but as streets are reconstructed that would be done to at least 20 feet wide. Bean explained that when the roadway is reconstructed the setback noncompliance will be exacerbated by at least another 2 feet. Chair Maddy stated he was trying to find a way to recommend approval of the variance but he does not want to undermine the Zoning Code. Commissioner Riedel stated to allow the Queens 6 feet while others were limited to 4 feet seems unfair to the others. Riedel moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the setback variance for Court and nd Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 street, subject to reducing the depth of the portico to four feet instead of six. Commissioner Davis asked if Council could decide to allow the portico to have a 6 foot depth. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Sylvester abstaining. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M. Commissioner Davis asked when Council will consider this item. Director Nielsen stated the applicant would like that to happen on May 8. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Erin and Michael Neilon Location: 5795 Club Lane Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Erin and Michael Neilon, 5795 Club Lane. Director Nielsen explained Erin and Michael Neilon have purchased the property located at 5795 Club Lane. They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home. The new home will have an attached garage. They would also like to keep an existing garage located on the north side of the property. The combined area of the two garages will exceed 1200 square feet by 58 square feet. That necessitates a C.U.P. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 42,837 square feet of area. The new garage would contain 748 square feet. The existing garage contains 510 square feet. That brings the total amount of accessory space to 1258 square feet. The existing garage is 11 feet from the side (north) lot line and approximately 85 feet from the right-of-way (ROW) of Club Lane. The existing house is nonconforming with the front yard setback. The new house would comply with the 35 foot setback requirement for that zoning district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 17 of 21 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code. a. The total area of accessory buildings (1258 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (3190 square feet) above grade of the proposed home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1C zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with R-1C setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will only be 13.4 percent; much less that what is allowable. Since the new garage will face north and the existing garage faces west, the nearest property owner will only see a triple garage façade from their property. Consequently, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. d. The applicants propose to re-side and re-roof the existing garage to match the new home and garage. Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case staff recommends granting the C.U.P. as proposed. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:09 P.M. Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Erin and Michael Neilon, 5795 Club Lane. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:11 P.M. 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY Applicant: Mike Seifert Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive Director Nielsen explained Mike Seifert owns the property located at 6085 Lake Linden Drive. The City The applicant chose not to approved it for a subdivision two other times; in 2008 and again in 2014. record the division at that time and is now reapplying. The staff reports for 2008 and 2014 remain unchanged with the exception that the park dedication was increased to $6,500 from $5,000. Nielsen reviewed the conditions of approval from 2008 and 2014. 1.The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. 2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3.Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 18 of 21 4.Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Staff again recommends approval subject to those four conditions plus a condition that the shared driveway must be no less than 16 feet wide if the northerly home includes a sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not. The applicant must provide a driveway easement and maintenance agreement for the portion of the driveway to be shared. Commissioner Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert, 6058 Lake Linden Drive, subject to Staff recommendations, to the shared driveway being no less than 16 feet wide if the northerly home includes a sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not and the applicant submitting an easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway. Motion passed 5/0. 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Warren Anderson Location: 25000 Yellowstone Trail Director Nielsen explained Warren Anderson and Mary Penly own the property located at 25000 Yellowstone Trail. They propose to subdivide their lot into two building sites. Their property is zoned R- 1A, Single-Family Residential, and contains 125,262 square feet of area. It is occupied by the applicants’ home and two outbuildings. The property has frontage on Yellowstone Trail and it is also bordered on its east side by Sam’s Way – a platted, but undeveloped, public right-of-way (ROW) that serves another home to the east. The property is quite wooded and rises approximately 24 feet from east to west. The westerly, vacant parcel will contain 40,000 square feet of area and the easterly lot will have 85,262 square feet. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R-1A District. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor division subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicants’ surveyor must provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. From those legal descriptions, the applicants’ attorney must draft deeds conveying the easements to the City. 2. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the existing home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time a building permit is applied for. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the conditions above. Davis moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Warren Anderson and Mary Penly, 25000 Yellowstone Trail, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 19 of 21 6. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Jay Venero Location: 5985 Seamans Drive Director Nielsen explained Jay Venero owns the property at 5985 Seamans Drive. He proposes to split off the rear 117 feet of his property and sell it to Mattamy Homes for inclusion into its Minnetonka Country Club plat of the second phase. That idea was discussed during the consideration of the preliminary plat. The subject property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 75,370 square feet of area. It is occupied by Mr. Venero’s gardens which are the subject of a previous conditional use permit (C.U.P.) which allowed limited commercial sales from the property. Upon completion of the transaction, the developer will remove the existing garage/greenhouse located on that rear portion of the site and combine that property with the MCC project. The westerly portion of the property is occupied by Mr. Venero’s home and a detached accessory building. The new parcel will contain approximately 45,540 square feet of area. It will be included into the second phase of the MCC project. The remaining westerly parcel meets or exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1A zoning district. He reviewed the conditions of approval. 1. The public right-of-way (ROW) for Seamans Drive is substandard in terms of width. The applicant must provide a deed for the additional 16.5 feet of ROW. 2. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of the westerly lot. Easements for the easterly parcel will be acquired as part of the final plat for the MCC second phase. 3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. Since the minor subdivision does not create any new lots, there are no additional fees for park dedication or local sanitary sewer access. These have been accounted for in the MCC project. 5. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the conditions above. Director Nielsen explained staff met with representatives from Mattamy Homes shortly after the news broke about Mattamy pulling out of Minnesota. The arrangement Mattamy made in selling the property is that Mattamy would complete the development portion of the site and then sell the lots to the builders. Gonyea Homes already bought some of the lots in the first phase. CalAtlantic is going to buy the rest of the first phase lots. Mattamy’s decision to pull out has expedited the development of the site for the second phase. The City will see the second phase plat this year. Mr. Venero noted Mr. Theis has a list of what has been discussed. He stated his major concern with everything is he does not want to lose the spruce trees along the street. Some of them are more than 100 years old. They are the second owner of the house that is there. The utility easements will encroach on some of the landscaping. He understands he cannot do anything about that because they are selling part of their lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 20 of 21 Director Nielsen stated there is no reason to believe that utilities will go through there. There are some drainage issues in the area. He is not sure if the side easements would address any of them. But, he will not guarantee they will be used. If the roadway were updated the trees would be taken into account. Commissioner Riedel stated the City also appreciates beautiful old trees. Brian Theis, with Mattamy Homes, stated Mattamy has entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Venero to purchase the back 120 feet of his property. He thought Mr. Venero has done an excellent job landscaping his property. A lot of that landscaping goes up to the property line. He noted that he would like to work with staff and decide how to write in some protections into the easement documents. Should construction occur within the easements a concerted effort will be made to preserve trees and existing landscaping. In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen stated the applicant’s attorney prepares the easement documents and if they want to insert language staff can show that to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Chair Maddy asked if after the construction permits are pulled the trees would be protected by the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. Director Nielsen responded to the extent possible but there are times when trees have to be taken down. Nielsen explained that because the road is so far to the east the chances are if the road was going to be updated it would go to the west. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there a conditional use permit and setback variance for a property along Birch Bluff Road slated for the June 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. The new Planning Director will handle that. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Sensible Lane Use Coalition (SLUC) session about Super Bowl LII was very interesting. Commissioner Sylvester concurred. Davis stated the speaker spoke about the anticipated number of people that would come to the area for the Super Bowl and about short-term rentals. There was ensuing discussion about what people heard at the session. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 21 of 21 • Other Commissioner Davis noted she is scheduled to be the Liaison to Council for June but she cannot be there in the beginning of June. She asked if someone would trade with her. Commissioner Bean stated he can be the Liaison to Council for June. Davis stated she would be the Liaison for August in place of Bean. Chair Maddy noted he will be gone from June1 – 9. Commissioner Davis asked Director Nielsen to address the email he sent out. Director Nielsen explained he sent out an email announcing the upcoming government training sessions. He recommends people attend them. The two he suggested attending are The Basics of Planning and Zoning and then Beyond the Basics. The City pays the cost for Commissioners to attend. 11. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 2017, at 9:42 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder