Loading...
pc-agenda-07-10-2023         REGULAR MEETING AGENDA  Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections. Some members of the Commission may attend virtually.  Members of the public may attend virtually by following instructions below.     Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, streaming via Webex, or by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001,  entering access code 2462 457 9825, and password 1234 from phones and video systems.      1. Call to Order & Land Acknowledgement    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  June 12, 2023, Regular Meeting    4. Informal Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit   Address: 1840 Major  Applicant: Jessica Roe  Request: To allow for the continued use of an existing boathouse/shed within the shoreland setback  area    – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2462 457 9825    5. Council Liaison Report  6. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings  7. Adjournment  July 10, 2023 – 6:30 pm  Council Chambers  Hybrid Meeting  REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DRAFT This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in-person and remote options for attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call-in line. 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Brookins. Roll Call Commissioners present: A. Brookins, M. McCormick, M. Ruby, C. Segelbaum Commissioners absent: Staff present: Jason Zimmerman – Planning Manager, Myles Campbell – Planner Council Liaison: Denise La Mere-Anderson 2. Land Acknowledgement 3. Approval of Agenda MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the agenda of June 12, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 4. Approval of Minutes May 8, 2023, Regular Meeting MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the minutes of May 8, 2023. MOTION CARRIED May 22, 2023, Regular Meeting MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to approve the minutes of May 22, 2023. MOTION CARRIED 5. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment Address: 208 Meander Road Applicant: City of Golden Valley June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm Council Chambers Hybrid City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 2 Myles Campbell, Planner, started with a summary of the request from the City. The City is seeking the rezoning of an existing vacant parcel of land in order to redevelop the property into a single - family lot as part of its Homeownership Program for Equity (HOPE). The lot was originally platted in 1939 and was intended for a single-family home development. The lot has been zoned differently since then, is an irregular shape, and to the rear is a railroad right of way. In 2022 Council identified this and two other properties for the first round of HOPE. Staff would like to rezone this lot from its existing Institutional - Parks and Natural Areas (I-P) to Single-Family Residential (R-1). Rezoning Analysis Zoning Code gives broad latitude to Planning Commission and Council to determin e if a zoning map amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code, adjacent uses, and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff compared the two zoning districts and elaborated on discussions held with Parks and Rec that this lot was not part of the park system nor was it intended to be. Most homes in the surrounding area are single-family homes and even though there is a railroad nearby, there are many homes on both sides of the tracks. As part of the Land Use Plan for the City, this parcel was gu ided for future use as “Low Density Residential” and as such rezoning the property would bring the current and planned land uses into better conformance. HOPE was created in part due to the recognition in the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan that the City lacked quality affordable housing options and given the Twin Cities Metro-wide gap in homeownership between white and BIPOC households. Staff continued on to explain how this request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comp plan. Staff Findings • City would benefit from utilizing the property for affordable single -family home as part of HOPE. • The proposed zoning of R-1 returns the parcel to a residential use similar to when it was originally platted. • The proposed zoning would match the guided land use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as well as that of surrounding properties. • Utilizing the site for affordable housing is in line with a number of goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Plan. • The parcel is not planned to be utilized as parkland in the City’s long-term plans and has no other role in providing governmental services. Recommended Action Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning for 208 Meander Road from Institutional - Parks and Natural Areas (I-P) to Single-Family Residential (R-1). Commissioner Ruby asked if a new build would impact the electrical lines and staff stated it’s unlikely as the easement is 10ft wide and the home can’t be built in an easement. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 3 Commissioner Segelbaum noted the request and the intention to build a HOPE property, then clarified the recommendation is on the rezoning regardless of what’s built. Staff affirmed this and added that the City owns the lot and would need to approve anything built on it and the HOPE build is the intention. The conversation continued around buildability, setbacks, and rezoning. Chair Brookins opened the public hearing at 6:40. Chair Brookins noted there were no Golden Valley Speaks comments left prior to the meeting and that staff did not receive comments otherwise in advance. Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first. Melissa Caulfield 4720 Circle Downs There was a point on the presentation where staff said the City will benefit from this project and I’d like clarification on that. Additionally, a comment was made about “working around the railroad tracks” and the area being undesirable and working around that, I’d like to know how that happens. Linda Gieser 5924 Glenwood When I moved here 20 years ago, I did so because of the greenspace. 13 houses were built in this neighborhood since I moved in, there’s little greenspace aside from yards. I don’t under stand selling this lot and if it was a part of my own property, is it big enough to sell to a builder. It seems like the building envelope is tricky to meet. I understand affordable housing, I was a single mom and struggled for the first 40 years of my life. I understand not being able to afford someplace that is nice but it’s possible if you work hard. I don’t object to helping others, but I think putting them on that plot of land, one that doesn’t seem desirable to build a house, doesn’t help them or the neighborhood. I’m also wondering why the newsletter of the month said they were breaking ground in July if this hasn’t been approved yet. Mark Westby 204 Meander Road I live next door to this property, on the south side. I think the current zoning does a lign with the intended use for this property. The Golden Valley speaks presentation noted that Parks and Rec said this area acted more as an “open space” and there are several other open spaces and nature areas in the City that share the I-P zoning code. It would be inappropriate to compare these properties to the intended R-1 zoning code, it’s absurd to say they can’t fit a golf course on the property so it shouldn’t be designated I-P. These open spaces are an integral part to our City’s 2040 comp plan, it emphasizes Golden Valley’s commitment to preserving parks and nature areas. Goal 5 of the Land Use Chapter focuses on environmental protection and aims to preserve and enhance land that supports existing trees and plants. The implementation action plan further highlights the prioritization of natural resources enhancement and protection through the use of inventory of remnant parcels. The project HOPE documentation states that the preparation on meander would require the removal of a substantial number of trees and shrubs. Moreover, the two lots north of 208 Meander, used to be a part of the same natural space and they have been renovated and rezoned within the last 10 years. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 4 The City has already decimated the natural spaces in our area. Suggesting that the Parks Department lacks plans to create a park justifies this development is disingenuous. They haven’t maintained that property in 50 years, I maintain the property right now and the owners of my property before me maintained it. They maintained that lot since 1963 when the house was built and even had a shed on 208 Meander that was placed in 1963 and it stayed in place until December 2021 when we bought the house. You cannot build a house on this lot right now. The August 10, 2022 meeting minutes from th e HRA work session, Cherie Shoquist noted this site would require significant variances to be developed. So why should we rezone if this property can’t fulfill its intended use. Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak. There were no remote callers. Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 6:27pm. Staff responded to the comments and reminded everyone the homes in the HOPE program are targeted for folks who make 60-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Staff went on to stat that specifically is a household making between 75k/year to 95k/year and the goal of this program is for folks to gain housing who have been otherwise priced out. Golden Valley home prices have increased and this year houses eclipsed 400k for the average cost of a single-family home in Golden Valley. This price point is unattainable for many members of the community. Yes, the home will be placed near the rail road tracks and there’s no way around that. Staff discussed the easement, ROW, and there’s about 50-60ft from the railroad. Additionally, this isn’t the only home in the City adjacent to the railroad ROW, and if the City had other properties available they would present those options. The July newsletter was likely referring to 1605 Douglas Drive as it did not have any entitlements to get through first and Habitat for Humanity has targeted a July state date. Tree mitigation was mentioned and there are a number of mature trees on the south side of the lot and it’s also the most buildable area on the lot. There are a number of trees that could potentially be removed or damaged during redevelopment and we would require the City’s tree mitigation standards to be put in place. A prospective developer also mentioned adding trees along the ROW to create a natural buffer. The goal is not to clear cut this lot and not replace trees. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, noted an email that was forwarded from someone who spoke regarding pollution related to being near highways and high traffic areas. He supposed the implication is that living in these high traffic areas may not be especially healthy. Commissioner Ruby supports HOPE, affordable housing, and his concerns about this particular lot may not be a factor for this particular recommendation. He asked staff if that was part of the discussion and he added if it was appropriate to request building plans to assist in a recommendatio n to Council. Segelbaum added that there have been situations in the past where a builder offers plans and there have been other situations where the group is to determine if the lot is buildable and where it’s buildable. If another committee stated it would need variances, we don’t know if that’s true. Chair Brookins noted that the lots in this neighborhood are different sizes and don’t fit the City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 5 current standard. It seems that most of the houses in the area would require variances if they were built today. There’s also no way to know if this lot will require a variance. The discussion went on to review the height requirements, building envelope, and how potential variances could factor in. Staff noted that if the Commission couldn’t make a recommendation, tabling would be the next reasonable choice as there’s no way to add a condition to a zoning map amendment. Commissioners requested a map to see the buildable area. Staff added that during subdivisions that part of the presentation includes buildable areas; during rezoning requests it’s less typical. In this situation it could be done since staff knows the setbacks, and easements. MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, moved to table this item until later in the agenda so staff can draw up a buildable area to complete the presentation. MOTION CARRIED 6. Informal Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment and Future Land Use Plan Amendment Address: 4707 Circle Downs Applicant: City of Golden Valley Myles Campbell, Planner, summarized the three pieces to this request: The City is seeking three related entitlements in order to redevelop a vacant portion of ROW into a single-family lot as part of its Homeownership Program for Equity (HOPE): 1. Amend the Future Land Use Map to guide it Low Density Residential 2. Amend the Zoning Map to zone the property to Single-Family Residential (R-1) 3. Review and approve the Preliminary Plat that would create parcel boundaries through subdivision Staff provided a background of the area, MnDOT acquisition, easements, and the topography. Proposal • City Council identified this and two other properties for the first round of HOPE in late spring of 2022, the program targets City-controlled sites to develop homes affordable to households making 60-80% AMI • After entitlements are finalized, site would be transferred to Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation to be developed as a single-family home • Redevelopment would require new utility connections to City facilities located in existing ROW • Tree protection and replacement standards would apply for the redevel opment • Given the existing stormwater infrastructure on-site and a desire to mitigate highway impacts, staff expects the home would be located closer to the northeast portion of the lot Staff Findings on Zoning and Land Use • The proposed single-family classification is consistent with surrounding neighborhood City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 6 • The proposed use would help to achieve a number of goals from the Comprehensive Plan • The parcel is no longer needed by MnDOT for highway purposes, and has no anticipated use within city park or public works governmental services • Utilizing the land for affordable homeownership as part of HOPE would benefit the City’s variety of housing opportunity Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, guiding 4707 Circle Down to Low Density Residential. Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, zoning 4707 Circle Down to Single-Family Residential (R-1). Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate corrections form City Engineering Staff 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat. Commissioner Ruby asked staff about stormwater drain and staff responded the drain would remain, and the buildable area is still a large triangle, not impeding the easement. Staff went on to explain city easements, private easements, and the homeowner’s property lines. Commissioner Segelbaum noted the lot’s wooded area, and staff expanded on the tree ordinance . Chair Brookins asked about the removal of City ROW at the rear of the property and staff responded that it was to increase the lot size and remove ROW parcel fragments. Chair Brookins opened the public forum at 7:32pm. Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first. Melissa Caulfield 4720 Circle Downs I’ve lived across the street from this property for 30 years and that field hasn’t been touched in that whole time. It’s disingenuous for the City to say selling this property prevents them from having to care for it because they never have. I believe the City got this property back from DOT 5-6 years ago and nothing has ever happened. The area along the south wall is a deer passageway so I’m not sure what will happen to that if it all becomes private property. It feels like the City is identifying any green space that isn’t a park and placing something on it. Just because something is a DOT remnant, doesn’t mean it should be developed. All the vegetation you saw prevents noise and air pollution for us and it’s not just trees. The urban report said that the effectiveness of noise barriers is up for debate but are more effective when constructed alongside mature vegetation. Those of us in the neighborhood know that when a tree comes down, our noise goes up and when that happens, our property value goes down. The same report says that property values go down 4-10% the closer they are to a freeway and I think this is hurting current owners by doing anything in that space. You can City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 7 talk about not disrupting the part next to the sound wall but anything in the area will be an impact. According to the Urban Institute there should not be new construction that close to a highway for reasons of health and home values. Their expertly sourced paper states that with every 1000ft closer to a highway you are, there’s an 8% increase in stroke mortality and a 5% increase in heart attack, from pollution and noise. You’re talking about a vulnerable population, families of color, that you want to put in that house, who are already at increased risk for cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. Of course, a family wants to take advantage of a discounted house, but at what risk to their own health. My next-door neighbor put her house on the market last week because her realtor told her the noise will go up and her property value will go down and she should get out while she can. She lives in a 1.7 million historic home, she’s been there for 7 years, and it’s now for sale because of the work of the City. I don’t think that’s the intended effect of this. Have you visited these properties? On Meander, only a few need to be visited. If you don’t live there you don’t understand the nuance of noise. Arguments that say this isn’t the first house by a freeway wall or railroad track are hard to accept because we’ve learned a lot more about noise pollution in the last 30 years. Again, you’re talking about a vulnerable population, families of color, and putting them in places that will impact their health. I think Golden Valley can do better than that. I asked someone why we’re doing this program on these properties and the said because it’s the cheapest. Do we always only take the cheapest vendor bids? Do we buy the cheapest equipment and vehicles for the police department? I’m all for diversifying Golden Valley. If a neighbor of mine sold their house and moved, maybe there’s another program the City can participate in where they can buy that house and use if for this purpose. I think the City has taken a short -sighted approach to these properties and not using them well. Mary Winter 609 Ottawa I object to this because of what it’s going to do to my property value. The previous speaker is my neighbor and I agree with everything they said. I want to know how many of you live next to “affordable housing”. That’s all. Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak. There were no remote commenters. Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 7:39pm. Commissioner Ruby asked for clarification on the request and it’s a whole recommendation, there isn’t an ability to negotiate an aspect of the recommendation. The subdivision is happening. Staff responded that the requirements for a subdivision were laid out in the memo and unless the Commission found they were not met, there isn’t a negotiation. Commissioner Segelbaum added that voting on the subdivision doesn’t occur until the rezoning is approved. Segelbaum reminded everyone that the Commissioners are volunteers and residents of Golden Valley, most of whom have lived in the City for a long time. He added that he understands impacts to a neighborhood and this body’s job is to protect the interests of those coming before them and those that are not. That consideration is weighed with the City’s interest and they are to find the balance. Segelbaum continued that he doesn’t have concern about this property other than it is green space City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 8 that folks have gotten used to; he understands it’s easy to assume things will remain the sa me indefinitely. Ultimately it is the City’s choice to do what they’d like with their property and it’s the job of this body to determine if that use is reasonable based on the factors before them. When the factors are applied, this meets the standards. Chair Brookins echoed these statements. The lot is significant, it’s buildable, there are protections in place for tree mitigation, the buildable area barely has a tree in it. Segelbaum added it’s in their best interest to maintain trees. The discussion continued on specifics of tree mitigation. MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to recommend approval of the requested amendment to the Zoning Map, zoning 4707 Circle Down to Single-Family Residential (R-1). MOTION CARRIED MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend approval of the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Map, guiding 4707 Circle Down to Low Density Residential. MOTION CARRIED MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall modify the final plat to accommodate corrections form City Engineering Staff 2. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the final plat MOTION CARRIED 7. Informal Public Hearing – Minor Subdivision of 7324 Harold and Associated Subdivision Variance Address: 5317 Glenwood Applicant: Lake West Development Myles Campbell, Planner, noted this item includes two approvals, a subdivision and a subdivision variance. Staff noted the property’s location in the City and reviewed its current zoning. The current home was built in 1926, on the east side of the lot, and is lower when compared to the topography of surrounding areas. This slope adds to stormwater and runoff challenges. The proposal is to subdivide and create two R-1 lots, the existing home would stay but be remodeled to increase livability. A new home would be built on the other portion and subject to current zoning standards. Both lots would exceed the area requirements for new R-1 parcels, but both fall slightly short of the required 80’ in width, necessitating the subdivision variance . Staff reviewed existing and proposed drainage patterns as well as lot size details. Staff discussed the public meeting that was held in May and reviewed some of the comments. Staff noted the subdivision requirements, other staff that was involved in the review, and the Fire Department did not have concerns. City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 9 Staff continued to review the subdivision standards, the conditions, and noted that the Council and Commission may also consider surrounding uses, resulting population density of the subdivision/consolidation, and traffic impacts. Recommendation Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of a variance of 6.56 feet off the required 160 feet to a width of 153.44 feet for the lot’s width before subdivision. If the variance is approved, then based on the findings above staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision at 5317 Glenwood Ave, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $5,415 shall be paid before release of the Final Plat. If the variance is not approved, the lot width requirement cannot be met and therefore staff recommends denial of the minor subdivision with a finding that the proposal does not meet the Minimum Dimension Requirements of the Subdivision Code. Chair Brookins opened the public forum at 8:02pm. Chair Brookins invited in person commenters to speak first. There were no in person commenters. Chair Brookins invited remote callers to speak. There were no remote commenters. Chair Brookins closed the public comment portion at 8:03pm. Commissioner Ruby noted he appreciates the ability to maintain the current home, he added he’s concerned about how approving this request may open to more requests of this nature. Ruby asserted he’s in favor of this request. Commissioner Segelbaum noted much of the same and added the approval should specify the circumstances that lead to approval. Chair Brookins said much of the same and added the benefits that will come to all the neighbors by the improved drainage. MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum, to recommend approval of a variance of 6.56 feet off the required 160 feet to a width of 153.44 feet for the lot’s width before subdivision. MOTION CARRIED MOTION made by Commissioner Ruby, seconded by Commissioner McCormick, to recommend approval of the minor subdivision at 5317 Glenwood Ave, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City Attorney will determine if a title review is necessary prior to approval of the Final Plat. 2. A park dedication fee of $5,415 shall be paid before release of the F inal Plat. MOTION CARRIED City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 10 Commissioners returned to the previously tabled item, 208 Meander Road. Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager, displayed an image he created to clarify the building envelope for 208 Meander Road. Staff discussed the setbacks, the building envelope, and superimposed other homes in the area that roughly fir within the building envelope for comparison and clarity. Before this item goes before City Council, the image and measurements could be refined. Chair Brookins noted that the road is offset from the ROW and that the ROW is larger than average. He asked if BZA takes those things into account when reviewing variances. Staff asserted they do take it into account and that Meander was likely reconstructed and there is additional boulevard space. This particular ROW is around 20ft and the average in Golden Valley is 10 -15ft. Commissioner Segelbaum said the building envelope is present but it feels like a stretch since the depth is narrower. He added that until he sees the detailed envelope, he’s not sure how he can recommend approval. Commissioner Ruby said the neighborhood is R-1 and if a house can fit there, it makes sense. The struggle is the building envelope looks like a hallway and it’s hard to see this development without a lot of variances. The conversation continued around the homes in the neighborhood, variances, and current regulations. Staff added that if this item were moved on to Council, there would be more information on the exact envelope, a conversation with a developer could occur to understand what style of house would meet the envelope requirements without a variance, or there would be an understanding of what variances would necessitate a build. The conversation continued around staff’s general recommendation and how the HOPE program factor’s in to the decision, and that this lot is appropriate to receive an R-1 designation. MOTION made by Commissioner Segelbaum, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to recommend denial of the amendment to the Zoning Map, changing the zoning for 208 Meander Road from Institutional - Parks and Natural Areas (I-P) to Single-Family Residential (R-1). Commissioner Segelbaum added his denial is based on his uncertainty around how realistic it is to place a home in the building envelope. Commissioner Ruby echoed that statement, and added that this decision isn’t based on negativity towards the HOPE project or similar opportunities in Golden Valley. MOTION CARRIED – End of Televised Portion of Meeting – 8. Council Liaison Report Council Member La Mere-Anderson let the Commission know that the off-street parking updates had been approved by the City Council and that former Planning Commissioner Ginis has been sworn in as a Council Member. She noted that June was proclaimed as Pride Month and that Juneteenth City of Golden Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting June 12, 2023 – 6:30 pm 11 was now a city holiday. The Douglas Drive / Highway 55 project had its groundbreaking and interviews for new Commissioners were scheduled for July. 9. Other Business None. 10. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:37 pm. ________________________________ ________________________________ Secretary, Mary McCormick Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant   1      Date:  July 10, 2023  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Lia Siro, Community Development Intern  Myles Campbell, Planner  Subject:    Informal Public Hearing – 1840 Major Drive, Conditional Use Permit 176 to allow       for the continued use of a boathouse within the Shoreland Overlay District      Property address: 1840 Major Drive  Applicants: Jessica Roe    Property owners: same as applicant  Zoning District: R‐1 with Shoreland Overlay  Lot size: 27,988 sq.ft.   Current use: Single‐family home    Proposed use: Single‐family home  Future land use: Low Density Residential  Adjacent uses: Single‐family residential (north, west, south); Sweeney Lake (east)      2018 aerial photo (Hennepin County)      2    Summary  The property owner at 1840 Major Drive is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for their  property in order to preserve an existing accessory structure built by a previous owner within  the Shoreland Overlay District. The property owner recently received approval for a deck  remodel at the Board of Zoning Appeals in June, a condition of which was to either remove the  existing shed/boathouse or bring it into code compliance by applying for a CUP. The Minnesota  Department of Natural Resources (DNR) designates Sweeney Lake as a Recreational  Development Lake, requiring a building setback of 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark  (OHWM). Boathouses are allowed within this setback through the issuance of a CUP.    Existing Conditions  The subject property, which sits on the western shore of Sweeney Lake, contains an existing  shed that sits 5 feet off the north side property line, and approximately 40 feet back from the  OHWM and Sweeney Lake. Due to the home’s location and lot layout, the majority of the  property’s rear yard falls within the shoreland setback. This is in part due to the home’s age, as  it was built in 1967, prior to state adoption of the Shoreland Management Act. The lot as a  whole is 27,988 sq.ft. Although most of this falls within the lake itself.     As noted above, this shed has been in place for more than a decade based on staff’s analysis of  aerial imagery. It along with some of the other improvements made in the rear yard were  constructed by a previous owner. Despite this, the shed itself is in decent condition, and  notably was built above freeboard elevation (2 feet over the floodplain elevation along the  lake). The shed has been used for equipment storage and this is the planned use for it if  maintained through the CUP.     Proposed Use  The applicant is proposing to retain the existing shed that resides on the northeast corner of  the lot along the Sweeny Lake Shore line in order to continue storing lake items as well as lawn  supplies. The shed would not increase in height or size, although the CUP approval would allow  it to be replaced in the future to the same dimensions if in need of repair. Any expansion or  modification to the shed would likely trigger an amendment of the CUP.    Along with this CUP and the deck improvements planned for this summer, the applicant has  also hired a certified ecologist to help replace the turf grasses along the shoreline with native  vegetation that will better serve the lake’s surface water quality and visual aesthetic. Full  details on plantings are provided in the attached bid materials. Also worth noting is that the  ecologist would also be handling maintenance check ins over the next 2 years to ensure plant  health and viability.     Zoning Considerations  As noted in Section 113‐149 (b) of the City Code, the State Legislature has delegated responsibility  to the City “to regulate the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of public waters  and for purposes of preserving and enhancing the quality of surface waters, preserving the  economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and providing for the wise utilization of  3    waters and related land resources.” Within the Shoreland Overlay District, boathouses are listed  as uses that shall be allowed if “certain conditions are met which eliminate or minimize the  incompatibility of the conditional use with other permitted uses of the district.”    The regulations of the district require that boathouses not be used for habitation and that they  do not contain sanitary facilities. Neither of these restrictions are in conflict with the proposed  use.     In addition to the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District, the side yard setback for an  accessory structure in the Single‐Family (R‐1) Residential Zoning District is five feet from the  property line. The location of the proposed boathouse meets this setback.    As a conditional use, the City has “a reasonable degree of discretion to determine the suitability  of certain uses with characteristics which may be appropriate within a given zoning district but  which might have an unusual impact upon surrounding properties.” In considering such a use  the Planning Commission should take into consideration whether the use satisfies 11 factors of  evaluation, as described below, and if any conditions or restrictions are needed in order to  mitigate the external impacts of a particular use. Conditions on the proposed use must be tied  to one or more of these factors, and be reasonably appropriate to offset the proposed use. If in  the view of Planning Commission, these factors are met, the body should recommend approval  of the permit.     Evaluation  The findings and recommendations for a Conditional Use Permit are based upon any or all of the  following factors (which need not be weighed equally):  Factor Finding  1. Demonstrated Need for Proposed Use Standard met.  The existing shed would retain its  current and long‐standing use as storage for lake  items and lawn supplies. Given the home’s  proximity to the lake, there is no other location  for an external storage structure that would be  outside the shoreland setback.   2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Standard met. The proposed use is not  inconsistent with the Low Density Residential  designation in the Comprehensive Plan.   3. Effect upon Property Values Standard met. There are no anticipated impacts  from the existing shed.  4. Effect on Traffic Flow and Congestion Standard met. There are no anticipated impacts  on traffic flow or congestion.  4    5. Effect of Increases in Population and Density Standard met. Due to the nature of the proposed  use, there are no anticipated increases in  population or density.  6. Compliance with the City’s Mixed‐Income  Housing Policy  Not applicable.  7. Increase in Noise Levels Standard conditionally met. The proposed use is  not anticipated to generate excessive noise due to  restrictions on utilizing boathouses and sheds for  living space.  8. Generation of Odors, Dust, Smoke, Gas, or  Vibration  Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated  to generate excessive odors, dust, smoke, gas, or  vibrations.  9. Any Increase in Pests or Vermin Standard met. The proposed use is not anticipated  to attract pests.  10. Visual Appearance Standard conditionally met. The existing shed is  not in disrepair and meets the R‐1 requirements  for detached accessory structures. As a condition  of approval however, the applicant is improving  the shoreline through restoration of native  vegetation that would improve views of the  property from Sweeney Lake.  11. Other Effects upon the General Public Health,  Safety, and Welfare  Standard conditionally met. Proposed shoreline  restoration will have a positive impact improving  surface water quality    The Engineering Division has reviewed the application and had no significant comments on the  CUP. Environmental Staff also reviewed and were supportive, noting that the structure was  above freeboard elevation and therefore not overly susceptible to flood damage. They noted  that the plan to restore the shoreline was of a high quality and that this work would require a  storm water management permit.     Recommended Action  Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 176  allowing the continued use of an existing boathouse/shed within the Shoreland Overlay District  at 1840 Major Drive. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is subject to the following  conditions:    5    1. Applicant shall follow through with proposed shoreland restoration as described in the  provided bid sheet  2. Shed shall continue to be used solely for equipment storage  3. This approval is subject to all other state, federal, and local ordinances, regulations, or laws  with authority over this development.    Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of  the CUP. Consistent with State statute, a certified copy of the CUP must be recorded with  Hennepin County.    Attachments  Site Survey (1 page)  Photos of existing shed (2 pages)  Landscaping plan (8 pages)  Plant List (1 page)      Majo r D r i v e S w e e n y L a k e# 42379LICENSE NO.Thomas M. BloomDATES1APRIL 19, 2023Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345Phone (952) 474-796417917 Highway 7Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEPROPOSED SURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40200230379 JRDRAWING NUMBERDATE DRAFTED:DATE SURVEYED:MARCH 28, 2023APRIL 19, 2023LEGENDSHEET SIZE17 X 22SCALE - 1" = 20'LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 8, Block 3, HEATHBROOK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legaldescription listed above. The scope of our services does notinclude determining what you own, which is a legal matter.Please check the legal description with your records or consultwith competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that itis correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, thatyou wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements wedeem necessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers toestablish the corners of the property.4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a currenttitle commitment. There may be existing easements or otherencumbrances that would be revealed by a current titlecommitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to showany easements or encumbrances other than the ones shownhereon.5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions tothe property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of thebuilding.6.It should be noted that this survey was done under snow and iceconditions and that all improvements may or may not have beenshown correctly. While we did our best to locate allimprovements under the snow and ice, we can't be sure that allimprovements were shown. Please look over the survey to besure everything you need shown is shown correctly.7.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition,we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, yourarchitect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location ofthe improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verifythat they match your plans before construction begins. Also,we are not as familiar with local codes and minimumrequirements as the local building and zoning officials in thiscommunity are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, orany other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposedimprovements and obtain their approvals before beginningconstruction or planning improvements to the property.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.JESSICA ROE1840 MAJOR DRIVE NORTHGOLDEN VALLEY, MNEXISTING HARDCOVERHOUSE (INCL. CANT.) 2,294 SQ. FT.CONCRETE 272 SQ. FT.BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 1,015 SQ. FT.DECKS 335 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH 229 SQ. FT.SHED 99 SQ. FT.PAVERS 49 SQ. FT.WALLS 323 SQ. FT.TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 4,616 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 14,866 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 31.1%PROPOSED HARDCOVERHOUSE (INCL. CANT.) 2,294 SQ. FT.CONCRETE 241 SQ. FT.BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 1,015 SQ. FT.DECKS 332 SQ. FT.DECKS STAIRS 55 SQ. FT.REAR PORCH 229 SQ. FT.SHED 99 SQ. FT.PAVERS 49 SQ. FT.WALLS 239 SQ. FT.TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,553 Sq. Ft.AREA OF LOT TO OHW 14,866 Sq. Ft.PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 30.6% Restoration Proposal for: Jessica Roe 1840 Major Drive N. Golden Valley, MN Proposal Date: May 12, 2023 Prepared by: Bill Bartodziej M.S., Senior Restoration Ecologist Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. 612.730.1542 bill.b@naturalshore.com May 12, 2023 Dear Jessica: Thank you again for giving Natural Shore Technologies the oppor tunity to bid on your project. Below is a Project Summary which outlines our restoration methods and cost breakdown. We would like to emphasize that we tailor our restoration approach to fit your site characteristics and specific objectives. We look forward to developing a partnership with you to produce an exceptional restoration that exceeds your e xpectations. We would enjoy the chance to answer any questions that you have regarding this restoration proposal. We take great pride in our reputation and attention to customer satisfaction. After you have read through and are comfortable with the proposed plan and specified cost, please sign the contract that is provided. A down payment and a signed contract are required to book your project. Best regards, Bill Bartodziej, M.S. Senior Restoration Ecologist Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. Project Summary 1. Project site: shoreland – 80’ south edge of property line, 200 SF – corner – shore edge restoration. 2. Site assessment and plan development include: detailed site preparation methods, plant selection, and a project timeline and work schedule for our staff. Because most of projects involve the establishment of natural buf fers, site drawings and planting plans are not necessary. We have found that over time, native plants will seek out the optimal micro-habitats and flourish. However, project plan drawings can certainly be provide at an additional cost upon client request. 3. Delineate and verify total restoration project area. 4. Kill selected turf and invasive weeds with an herbicide appropriate for upland or aquatic use. A licensed herbicide applicator from Natural Shore Technologies will apply the treatment. 5. Cut and remove any weedy plant material from planting area. 6. Apply a 2-3” layer of shredded hardwood mulch in areas that will be planted. 7. Plant selections will provide flowering throughout the growing season, with at least 15 native plant species included in the plan. Lay out plants into plant zones per plan specifications and install at approximately 1.5’ centers. 8. Mulch will be moved aside, plant containers installed, and a light mulch layer will be returned around the base of the plants to hold moisture. We will use 90 – 3-4” containers for your planting. 9. 20 - #2 native shrubs will be installed along the southern property line and 2 - #25 trees (perhaps maple) will be planted on the corners of the property near the water. 10. Site monitoring will be conducted and appropriate maintenance will be provided through October, 2024. Installation note: Prior to installation, please let us know of any underground utility lines, sprinkler lines, or other obstacles in the restoration area. It is the owner responsibility to clearly mark lines, and NST will not be held liable for any damages. Project Cost This bid includes project design and management, all materials, labor, and a two year maintenance plan. This is a comprehensive bid estimate and valid for thirty days. We require a 50% down payment to schedule your project. Cost Breakdown Site Design, Project Management, Mobilization $1,780.00 Site preparation, herb. trts, clearing, mulch install $540.00 Mulch - shredded hardwood $304.00 20 - #2 shrubs, 90 Plants - 3" and 4" - containers @ 1.5' spacing $3,228.00 Maintenance Plan - 3 visits - 2023 $492.00 Maintenance Plan - 5 visits - 2024 $820.00 TOTAL = $7,164.00 Site maintenance Site maintenance includes at least 5 visits per year during the growing season to monitor and conduct activities that will ensure proper restoration establishment. We use the most appropriate, up -to-date maintenance techniques such as targeted herbicide application, hand pulling, mowing, and spot weed whipping to effectively contro l invasive weeds. Our lead maintenance supervisor has a B.S. in Biology and 10 years of field experience. Watering – We will thoroughly water your site immediately after plant installation. Any necessary watering after installation is the responsibility of the owner. (Generally, normal rainfall during the growing season is adequate for native plant establishment.) *Note we do offer long-term maintenance contracts. Over 90% of our clients use that service. Staff Qualifications Our company has over 50 years of combined ecological restoration experience. We are a local company that focuses on quality ecological restoration in the Metro area. Our clients vary from private estates on Lake Minnetonka, to large corporate headquarters in Eden Prairie. We also work with many city and county governments and watershed management organizations. We are fully insured. Our specialty is lakeshore and wetland restoration. We have restored many miles of lakeshore in Minnesota, more than any other company. Please see our portfolio for examples of our restoration projects that include; shorelines, wetlands, prairies, savannas, and rain gardens. Please see our project photo book at: http://www.blurb.com/books/6034090-natural-shore-technologies-inc-photobook Natural Shore Technologies Plant Material We have commercial and retail greenhouses in Maple Plain. Our plants are Minnesota native perennials that will flourish year after year. Utilizing our own plant material in our projects assure quality control. Our wetland and prairie plants are guaranteed to establish during the first growing season. Perennial plants put most of their energy int o establishing root systems so please keep in mind that the first year of growth will be mainly underground. You will see some flowering the first year, but significantly more flowering during the second year of establishment. Information about our retail native plant greenhouses located in Maple Plain is also available at: www.naturalshore.com Using Ecology to Restore Land and Water Guarantee We stand by our native plant material and our ecological restoration services. Native plants that we install are guaranteed to establish during the first growing season. Any plant material that does not make it through the first growing season will be replaced at no charge to the client. On projects that we install and manage, we will guarantee successful establishment of your ecological restoration within three full growing seasons. This proposal provides a plan for accomplishing the restoration of the project site. If successful establishment does not occur within three growing seasons, all necessary steps will be taken to e nsure the eventual success of the project, at no additional charge. For purposes of this guarantee, successful establishment is defined as follows: That the presence of at least 80% of the original seeded or planted species can be found on the site, and that the overall density of vegetation is comprised of no less than 80% native species. The only exceptions to this guarantee have to do with plant death due to acts of God (floods or drought) the actions of others (vandalism), or animal herbivory (e.g., g eese, muskrats). Watering by the owner during dry periods is necessary, and the lack of adequate watering in this circumstance may nullify this guarantee. If these extreme circumstances do happen to occur, we will work with the client at a reduced rate t o make all necessary repairs. Our goal will always be to create successful, long-term partnerships with our clients. Our guarantee is the best in the business, and provides you with a clear understanding that we are here to fully support your ecologica l restoration endeavor. Contract • A down payment of $3,582.00 is required to schedule your project. • The remainder of the project cost is due at project completion. Any unpaid amount beyond the 30 day period after billing will incur a 3% monthly finance charge. • Please note that this proposal is valid for 30 days from the date on this Contract. If you would like to proceed with the above outlined project, please sign the contract below. Client name:____________________________________________________ Contract Value: $7,164.00 Signed: ________________________________________________________ Date _________________________ Contractor: Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. Signed: Contract Date: Contract Date for 30 Day term William M. Bartodziej, M.S. Senior Restoration Ecologist, Natural Shore Technologies Please return a signed copy of this contract and a check to: Natural Shore Technologies, Inc. 6275 Pagenkopf Rd. Maple Plain, MN 55359 Using Ecology to Restore Land and Water Benefits of our quality restoration work. Common Name Scientific Name Abb. Height (ft) Color Bloom Time Sun ExposureWET MEADOW Grasses, Sedges, RushesCanada Blue JointCalamagrostis canadensis3 to 6 Tan-Green July - AugustS PSBebb’s SedgeCarex bebbii 2 to 3 Green May - June S PSTussock SedgeCarex stricta 2 to 3 Green May - JulyS PSFox SedgeCarex vulpinoidea 1.5 to 2.5 Green May - June S PSForbsSweet flagAcorus calamus2 Green May - JulySSwamp MilkweedAsclepias incarnata3 to 4 LavenderJune - AugustS PSTurtleheadChelone glabra2 to 3 White August - OctoberS SHBlue Flag IrisIris versicolor2 to 3 Blue June - JulyS PSMeadow Blazing StarLiatris ligulistylis 2 to 3.5 Purple June - JulyS PSCardinal FlowerLobelia cardinalis 3 to 4 Red June - OctoberS PSPRAIRIE Grasses, SedgesSide Oats GramaBouteloua curtipendula 1.5 to 2.5 Red-green July - SeptemberS PSLittle BluestemSchizachyrium scoparium 1.5 to 3 Amber July - SeptemberS PSPrairie DropseedSporobolus heterolepis 1.5 to 3 Green August - OctoberS PSForbsButterfly MilkweedAsclepias tuberosa1 to 2 Orange June - September S PSLance-leaved TickseedCoreopsis lanceolata2 to 3 Yellow June-AugustSPale purple coneflowerEchinacea pallida2 to 4 LavenderJune-JulyS PSGrey-headed ConeflowerRatibida pinnata5.0 Yellow July-SeptemberS PSAromatic asterSymphyotrichum oblongifolium2 Puprle August-November S PS