City Council Agenda Item #10_ Meeting of May 18, Resolution approving a conditional use permit for an accessory structure at 1721 Oakland Road

Transcription

1 City Council Agenda Item #10_ Meeting of May 18, 2015 Brief Description Recommendation Resolution approving a conditional use permit for an accessory structure at Adopt the resolution approving the request Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a 45-foot x 50-foot accessory structure at 1721 Oakland Road. The subject property is just over 50,000 square feet in size and is accessed via a shared driveway extension from a private road. The accessory structure would be architecturally consistent with the existing home. The garage would be screened from adjacent property owners by existing topography and proposed landscaping. Planning Commission Review The planning commission considered the request on May 7, The staff report from that meeting is attached and various plans and documents describing the proposed project may be found on pages A1-A7. Unapproved meeting minutes may be found on pages A12-A13. At that meeting, a public hearing was opened to take comment. Area residents expressed concern regarding the maintenance and protection of the existing private drive. Additional comments were received related to the screening of the proposed structure and the safety of children in the neighborhood. Following the public hearing, the commission asked questions and discussed the proposal and generally commented: Tree mitigation requirements. The commission asked staff to elaborate on the tree mitigation requirements. Staff responded that as proposed no tree mitigation is required for two primary reasons: (1) the existing home has been constructed for more than two years; and (2) the trees being removed are located in the footprint of the proposed garage. The applicant added that the property owner is proposing additional landscaping to provide additional screening to adjacent properties. Private drive maintenance. The commission asked staff to comment on the city and residents responsibility in the maintenance of the private drive. Staff responded that the residents and the subject property owner would be responsible for protection and maintenance of the private drive. Safety of the children. The commission asked staff to respond to an area resident s concern regarding measures to keep children from climbing on the roof of the proposed structure. Staff responded that at the time of a building permit, staff would review the proposal to ensure compliance with any building code

2 Meeting of May 18, 2015 Page 2 Subject: Conditional Use Permit, requirements. The commission added that additional safety precautions could be obtained through grade changes. On a 6-0 vote, the commission recommended that the city council approve the conditional use permit. Since Planning Commission Hearing There have been no changes to the proposal or additional information received since the planning commission s meeting on this item. Staff Recommendation Recommend the city council adopt the resolution on pages A8 A11, approving the request. Through: Originator: Geralyn Barone, City Manager Julie Wischnack, AICP, Community Development Director Loren Gordon, AICP, City Planner Ashley Cauley, Planning Technician

3 MINNETONKA PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 2015 Brief Description A conditional use permit for a 2,200 square foot accessory structure at Recommendation Recommend the city council adopt the resolution approving the request. Project No a Property Applicant Proposal The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is proposing to construct a 2,200 square foot detached garage. As proposed, the detached garage would be used to store the property owner s extensive wine and classic car collection. (See narrative and plans on pages A1-A7.) Proposal requirements: This proposal requires: Conditional Use Permit: Accessory structures exceeding 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are conditionally permitted uses within residential districts. Approving Body The planning commission makes a recommendation to the city council, which has the final authority to approve or deny the request. (City Code ) Staff Analysis Staff finds that the applicant s proposal is reasonable: 1. The proposal would meet the general and specific conditional use permit standards for an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 2. By ordinance, one detached garage is permitted as an accessory structure on residential properties. 3. The property is a lot-behind-lot and has access via a driveway off of a private road. As such, the proposed

4 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 2 Subject: CUP, Staff Recommendation garage would not be visible from adjacent public roadways. 4. The proposed garage would be cut into an existing knoll. As such, the structure would be screened from surrounding properties through existing topography and proposed landscaping. Recommend that the city council adopt the resolution on pages A8-A11. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for an accessory structure with a gross floor area of 2,200 square feet. Originator: Ashley Cauley, Planning Technician Through: Loren Gordon, AICP, City Planner

5 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 3 Subject: CUP, Supporting Information Surrounding Land Uses Planning Site features All surrounding properties are improved with single family residential homes, zoned R-1 and guided for low density residential Guide Plan designation: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 The subject property has a property area of 53,614 square feet. The property is improved with a two-story home with an attached garage. According to city assessing records, the existing home has approximately 4,000 square feet of living area. Currently, no accessory structures exist on the property. The property owner has landscaped a significant amount of the property. In addition to plantings, the landscaping includes several large stone retaining walls and sculptures. (See survey and grading plans on page A3.) The highest point on the property is a knoll located in the northwest corner of the property. The property generally slopes downwards in all directions from the knoll. The property south of the knoll slopes towards a Manage 1 wetland complex. The proposed garage would comply with wetland and floodplain setback requirements. Proposal The proposed garage would be 2,200 square feet in size and would be used to store the property owner s collections of automobiles, motorcycles and wine. The proposed garage would be cut into the existing knoll. By doing so, the proposed garage would be primarily screened from adjacent properties by existing topography. Per the applicant, additional screening would be provided by proposed landscaping. To accommodate the proposed garage, 984 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the property. Based on the amount of disturbance, stormwater management would be required at the time of construction. This has been included as a condition of approval. By ordinance, building height is measured in one of two ways. The method of measuring building height is dependent on the amount of grade change within a five foot horizontal

6 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 4 Subject: CUP, measurement from the structure s wall. The methods of measuring building height are as follows: 1. The midpoint of the highest roof peak to the highest grade. This method is used when the change in grade is not more than 10 feet above the lowest grade; or 2. The midpoint of the highest roof peak to an elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade. This method is used when the grade change exceeds 10 feet. As the grade change does not exceed ten feet, the measurement is taken from the mid-point to the highest grade. As proposed, the building height is four feet. CUP Standards The proposal would meet the general conditional use permit standards as outlined in City Code Subd.2: 1. The use is consistent with the intent of this ordinance; 2. The use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; 3. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; and 4. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare. The proposal would meet the general conditional use permit standards as outlined in City Code Subd 3(f): 1. Side and rear setbacks equal to the height of the structure or 15 feet, whichever is greater; Finding: The proposed garage would be setback 53 feet from the north property line and 22 feet from the east property line. 2. No additional curb cuts to be permitted; Finding: The applicant is not proposing any additional curb cuts. Access to the property is via a shared driveway extension from Oakland Road, a private drive. 3. Not to be used for commercial activities;

7 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 5 Subject: CUP, Finding: The applicant is proposing to use the space to store his collections. Nonetheless, a condition of approval has been included to prohibit the use of the garage for commercial use. 4. Structure to be architecturally consistent with the principal structure; Finding: The applicant is proposing the garage have architectural features similar to the existing home. 5. Landscaping to be required to buffer views when the structure is highly visible from adjoining properties; Finding: A majority of the proposed garage s screening will be provided by existing topography. The applicant is proposing landscaping to provide additional screening. 6. Site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section of this ordinance. Finding: The proposed garage would meet the site and building plan standards outlined in City Code Subd. 5 as noted below. SBP Standards The proposal would comply with all site and building standards as outlined in City Code Subd Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan and water resources management plan; Finding: Staff from the city s community development, engineering, finance, fire and public works department have reviewed the proposal and found that it is consistent with the city s comprehensive guide plan and water resource management plan. 2. Consistency with this ordinance; Finding: The proposal meets all ordinance standards. 3. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas;

8 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 6 Subject: CUP, Finding: When selecting the most appropriate location for the detached garage, the applicant considered the wetland complex to the south and opportunities to naturally screen the proposed garage from adjacent properties. 4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The applicant is proposing the detached garage be architecturally consistent with the existing home on the property. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to cut the garage into the knoll to allow for screening to adjacent properties. Additional landscaping is proposed for additional screening. 5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; b) the amount and location of open space and landscaping; c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d) vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The property is a lot-behind-lot and is accessed via a shared driveway extension off of a private road. Internal to the property, the applicant is proposing access to the garage via an extension of the existing driveway. Additional landscaping is proposed to provide additional screening. 5. Promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of

9 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 7 Subject: CUP, glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; and Finding: The applicant is proposing additional landscaping for screening. The proposed grading is sensitive to the wetland complex to the south. 6. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: Screening is provided to the adjacent property through existing topography and proposed landscaping. The proposed structure would not be visible from a public roadway. Natural Resources Motion Options Best management practices must be followed during the course of site preparation and construction activities. This would include installation and maintenance of a temporary rock driveway, erosion control, and tree protection fencing. As a condition of approval the applicant must submit a construction management plan detailing these management practices. The planning commission has the following motion options: 1. Concur with staff s recommendation. In this case, a motion should be made recommending the city council approve the proposal based on the findings outlined in the staff-drafted resolution. 2. Disagree with staff s recommendation. In this case, a motion should be made recommending the city council deny the request. The motion should include findings for denial. 3. Table the request. In this case, a motion should be made to table the item. The motion should include a statement as to why the request is being tabled with direction to staff, the applicant or both.

10 Meeting of May 7, 2015 Page 8 Subject: CUP, Pyramid of Discretion This proposal Neighborhood Comments The city sent notices to 40 area property owners and received no comments to date. Deadline for August 1, 2015 Decision

11 INTERSTATE 494 ESSEX RD PLATWOOD RD EB I394 TO NB I494 OAKWAYS RD NB I494 TO WB I394 EB I394 TO SB I494 INTERSTATE 394 SB I494 TO EB I394 NB I494 TO EB I394 LAUREL RD WHITE BIRCH RD INTERSTATE 394 WAYZATA BLVD WB I394 TO NB I494 RIDGEDALE DR FAIRFIELD RD S JEFFRY WAY TUDOR RD Subject Property INTERSTATE 494 WOOD LN LARKIN DR ESSEX PL INDIAN RD W EMERALD RDG MEETING ST OAKLAND RD COUNCIL CIR Location Map Project: Zachman, Arnold Address: 1721 Oakland Rd ( a) ± A1 This map is for illustrative purposes only.

12 ?/ u HiMnetonKa I i ' ' Where quality is our nature Conditional Use Permit nil'/? n i ' ' 'j ^ (MJO^ Property Address PROPERTY INFORMATION /?a\ C H K M Parcel ID Number Q3-;/9 - ^ -orv^\ OWNER INFORMATION Owner Name Owner Address Owner Phone Owner Applicant Name Applicant Annlinant Address ArlHrfaee Applicant Phone Applicant 1 CUI)> ^ 9 -PV Cc^/c>-.i - T O ^. '^APPLICANT INFORMATION ^ ff-m / *^ V IMA) :5r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST jxta e. "4-Q CjC^CUS. Q*^ /j OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the owner of the above described property and I agree certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special APR TO this application, I igaions due to the city by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other city approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. (If the owner is a corporation or partner-ship, a resolution authorizing this action on behalf of the board or partnership must be attached.) ^7. ZOr S" Signature Date APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be proe^^ed in my name, and La^he party whom the city should contact about this application. I have comple^^ y^pue^te^fj^tji^quirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and informatic and correct. tmure A2 Date

13 Proposed garage Proposed retaining walls Proposed retaining walls Existing driveway A3

14 A4

15 A5

16 A6

17 A7

18 Resolution No Resolution approving a conditional use permit for a 2,200 square foot detached garage at Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01, on behalf of the property owner, has requested a conditional use permit for a 2,200 square foot detached garage. (Project a) The property is located at. It is legally described as: Lot 3, Block 1, Oakland Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1.03 On May 7, 2015, the planning commission held a hearing on the proposal. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information to the planning commission. The planning commission considered all of the comments received and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into this resolution. The commission recommended that the city council approve the permit. Section 2. General Standards City Code Subd. 2 outlines the following general standards that must be met for granting a conditional use permit: 1. The use is consistent with the intent of this ordinance; 2. The use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan; 3. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; A8

19 Resolution No Page 2 and 4. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare. Section 3. Specific Standards City Code Subd. 3(f) outlines the following specific standards that must be met for granting a conditional use permit for detached garages in excess of 1,000 square feet: 1. Side and rear setbacks equal to the height of the structure or 15 feet, whichever is greater; 2. No additional curb cuts to be permitted; 3. Not to be used for commercial activities; 4. Structure to be architecturally consistent with the principal structure; 5. Landscaping to be required to buffer views when the structure is highly visible from adjoining properties; and 6. Site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section of this ordinance. Section 4. Findings The proposal meets the general conditional use permit standards outlined in City Code Subd The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards outlined in City Code Subd. 3(f). 1. The proposed garage would be setback 53 feet from the north property line and 22 feet from the east property line. 2. No additional curb cuts are proposed. 3. The applicant is not proposing to use the space for commercial activities. The property owner is proposing to use the detached structure to store his collections. A9

20 Resolution No Page 3 4. The applicant is proposing the garage have architectural features similar to the existing home. 5. A majority of the proposed garage would be screened by existing topography. The applicant is proposing landscaping to provide additional screening. 6. The proposed garage would meet the site and building plan standards as outlined in City Code Section Subd. 5. and as outlined in the associated staff report. Section 5. City Council Action The above-described conditional use permit is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to staff approval, the property must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans: Survey dated April 28, 2015 Building plan and elevations March 5, Prior to issuance of a building permit: a) This resolution must be recorded with Hennepin County. b) Submit for staff review a stormwater management plan. This plan must provide for one-inch of infiltration off of all new impervious surface on the property. c) The applicant must confirm the location of the existing utility lines. The structure cannot be located over the utility lines. 3. No additional curb cuts are permitted on the property. 4. The accessory structure may not be used for commercial proposes. 5. The accessory structure cannot be converted into living space. 6. The city council may reasonably add or revise conditions to address any future unforeseen problems. A10

21 Resolution No Page 4 7. Any change to the approved use that results in a significant increase in traffic or a significant change in character would require a revised conditional use permit. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on May 18, Terry Schneider, Mayor Attest: David E. Maeda, City Clerk Action on this resolution: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on May 18, David E. Maeda, City Clerk A11

22 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015 Page 3 A. Conditional use permit for a 2,200-square-foot accessory structure at. Chair Kirk introduced the proposal and called for the staff report. Cauley reported. She recommended approval of the application based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report., applicant, stated that Cauley did a thorough job explaining the proposal. The exterior would be stucco with steel siding. The garage would be set into the hill. Calvert asked how many trees would be removed. Mr. Zachman answered two of the three large trees. The owner wants to keep as much vegetation as possible. The public hearing was opened. Katie Damberg, 1717 Oakland Road, asked what would be done to protect the private road and how many phases the proposal would have. Mathew Rain, Hill Ridge Drive, asked if there would be landscaping added to the back of the garage and the side opposite of the driveway. Susan Kaufman, Hill Ridge Drive, asked what would be done to prevent children from climbing on the roof. Kids play in the woods. No additional testimony was submitted and the hearing was closed. Mr. Zachman explained that there would be one-inch plywood added for the trucks to drive out. If there would be damage, the property owner would take care of it. The trucking should take a week and the garage should be done within two months. He could get together with the surrounding property owners to discuss adding screening on the northeast corner. A fence may be added to deter kids. The east side of the roof would not be accessible without a ladder. Mr. Zachman stated that the property owner has fixed damage done to a road in the past. In answer to Chair Kirk s question, Colleran explained that the proposal meets tree protection ordinance requirements. Trees are allowed to be removed within the building pad and its 20-foot perimeter. There would be 18 to 20 trees removed. There is no mitigation required. A12

23 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015 Page 4 Cauley stated that the plans for the roof would be reviewed during the building permit process to make sure it would meet state code requirements. Chair Kirk noted that the grade could be lowered to make it more difficult for a child to climb onto the roof. Gordon suggested that the condition of the road could be documented by residents prior to construction. Odland moved, second by Magney, to recommend that the city council adopt the resolution on pages A8-A11 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for an accessory structure with a gross floor area of 2,200 square feet. Odland, Rettew, Calvert, Knight, Magney, and Kirk voted yes. O Connell was absent. Motion carried. This item is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the city council at its meeting May 18, B. Conditional use permit with lot area variance for a 12-resident licensed residential care facility at 2401 Minnetonka Boulevard. Chair Kirk introduced the proposal and called for the staff report. Thomas reported. She recommended approval of the application based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Magney asked how close future development would be from the site. Thomas estimated that there would be 400 feet from the site to the proposed senior cooperative building. She did notify the senior cooperative representatives regarding the proposal. They did not provide any feedback. Rettew asked if there are other 12-resident residential care facilities in Minnetonka. Thomas answered that there are 3 other residential care facilities in the city. She believed one has 11 residents, another has 15 residents, and another has 10 residents. Rettew asked if they meet the lot area requirement. Thomas recalled that they do. Rettew asked if there is a requirement for the building size per resident. Thomas answered that the application would meet the requirement for 300 square feet of building space per resident. A13