Loading...
PC-01-05-10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 5 JANUARY 2010 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett, Gagne, and Hasek; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Arnst APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 1, 2009 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2009 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FEES ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING APPLICATIONS Director Nielsen explained that the City’s fee schedule is reviewed on an annual basis and revised as appropriate. Last year, for example, the Park Dedication fee was increased at the recommendation of the Park Commission. Recently, the processing of a Zoning application made it evident that the current fee for a Zoning Code Text or Map Amendment appears to be too low relative to the expenses incurred on behalf of such requests. In the case of this particular application, much of the expense was due to the City Attorney’s time necessary for the application. Nielsen stated that staff’s proposal is to leave the current flat fee of $600 as is, but to add on a $1000 escrow. This way, if the City’s expenses for processing a request exceed the flat fee, the escrow can be used to cover the remainder. Any unused escrow is refundable. Furthermore, the application form that is signed by the applicant contains an acknowledgement and agreement to pay all statements received from the City pertaining to additional application expenses. Commissioner Hasek questioned how Shorewood would handle the situation that occurred between the City of Excelsior and a developer who was disputing responsibility for expenses involved in a potential proposal. Director Nielsen explained that Shorewood’s practice is to get an estimate of costs, and require an escrow based on that estimate. The Planning Department is responsible for tracking the on-going expenses, and acquire additional funds as needed from the applicant. Council Liaison Turgeon pointed out that in the Excelsior case, the City had no formal application from the developer for the project. She didn’t believe Shorewood would go forward with a project without an application in place. Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 January 2010 Page 2 of 5 Nielsen concurred and said even though people would sometimes like to go before the Commission informally, such as under Matters from the Floor, the Commission would not have enough information to make any type of decision without the data that is collected as part of the application process. Seeing no one present to be heard, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Hutchins moved, Vilett seconded, recommending that the fee for Zoning Amendments be adjusted by adding a $1000 escrow to the existing $600 flat fee. Motion passed 6/0. 2. DISCUSSION OF 2010 WORK PROGRAM/MEETING SCHEDULES Director Nielsen provided a rough draft hand-out that lays out the tasks that were presented in the preliminary Work Program memo. The tasks were listed in priority order and given a rough time-frame. He stated he plans to produce a more refined chart with some definite details and timelines assigned to the tasks. He stated that, for instance, one of the items is a study of Life-Cycle Housing. He noted that that discussion will hinge somewhat on what comes out of the Planning Inventory discussion which will include demographic and housing information that will be useful in making decisions about the Life- Cycle Housing issues. Nielsen reviewed the items of study coming up in the next few months. In January, besides the In-House Training Program, there will be the annual variance discussion (on tonight’s agenda). For February, staff will prepare an Intro to the Comp Plan for the Commission’s review, start the Planning Inventory discussion, deer-management issues, and begin review of the Co. Rd. 19/Smithtown Crossing area redevelopment – which could include life-cycle housing. In March there will be a Public Hearing regarding Zoning Permits, and discussion regarding nonconformities in April. Meeting schedules were discussed as some dates are affected by holidays and other events. The next thnd meeting will be January 19. In February, due to the Precinct Caucus on the 2, the Commission agreed th to meet on February 16 for that month. th For months affected by holidays, such as July 4, Memorial and Labor Days, the Regular meetings on the first Tuesday of the affected month will be held the second Tuesday of that month instead, but only as necessary depending on the receipt of any applications. Study Sessions, which are held on the third Tuesday of the month will remain as is, except for June (since it has five Tuesdays this year), the June nd Study Session will be June 22. ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION – VARIANCES 3. Director Nielsen stated that variances are discussed on a regular annual basis because it seems to be what Planning Commissioners, and Council members struggle with the most. Plus the applicants tend to feel passionately that they deserve some type of exception – which is what a variance really is, an exception to a law. Nielsen said that one of the things to watch out for in variance requests is setting precedence. Variances granted that are not warranted, that don’t meet the hardship criteria can effectively result in amending the Zoning Code. If variances that are granted are unique from one another, as they should be, this may not present a problem with precedence. But a number of variances approved for the same thing can set a pattern of precedence – and that must be watched carefully. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 January 2010 Page 3 of 5 The first step in a variance application is to meet with staff to discuss the merits of the case and its feasibility. If the request does not appear to be based on hardship, as required by Code, the applicant is informed of this. Nielsen estimated that probably only one out every four or more applicants decide to go forward with their application after learning about the criteria. Therefore, variances that actually come before the Commission are being requested by people who feel very strongly about their plans, or have a case where a variance is actually warranted. Commissioner Vilett asked if the typical variance request is due to financial reasons. Nielsen responded that many of them can be, but more often than not it’s aesthetics, more so than financial considerations. Nielsen stated that not all situations are even applicable for a variance. “Use” variances are actually illegal in Minnesota. A use variance is where someone would like to create something that is not a permitted or conditional use in their zoning district. For example, if someone wanted to convert their single-family home into a two-family dwelling in a Single-Family Zoning District, this is a use of the land not permitted, and a variance may not even be applied for. In this case, the alternative would be a Code Text Amendment, or rezoning request. The hardship criterion in Shorewood’s Zoning Code is based on State Statute and contains three elements. The applicant must demonstrate undue hardship due to 1) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use; 2) the plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and was not created by the owner (past or present); and 3) the variance should not alter the essential character of the locality. Nielsen stated that all three conditions must be met, not just one or two of them. Nielsen noted that Shorewood has granted variances quite sparingly, and those that have been approved met all of the hardship requirements. He cited various cases that were not justified for one reason or another, including one applicant who sued the City over denial of his variance request. That case was ruled in favor of the City. Nielsen said one of the first questions to ask when considering a variance is “can it be done without a variance?” For instance, if an addition to a building can be designed in such a way to achieve the additional space without putting it in the setback, then there is no hardship and a variance isn’t warranted. Nielsen stated another consideration that is a struggle to deal with is determining if a property has been put to reasonable use. A good example is swimming pools. Would granting a variance to allow room for a swimming pool be making reasonable use of the property, and is it a hardship not to have one? There was discussion about the criteria that refers to the “owner” creating the circumstances causing hardship. Nielsen noted that the Code needs to be clarified so that it is clear that it means any owner at any point in time who created the conditions as they exist on a property today. Nielsen said that sometimes an applicant for a variance will provide letters and petitions from their neighbors supporting their request. This is when the Planning Commission and Council needs to look not just at an immediate neighborhood, but at the City as a whole when it comes to granting variances that may alter the character of the locality Vilett questioned if there should be separate zoning regulations for older properties that do not conform to current standards. Nielsen replied that in the mid-eighties the Zoning Code was updated in an attempt to appropriately zone the majority of parcels within a zoning boundary in order to minimize the number of nonconformities. Also around that time, the Code was relaxed for nonconforming structures so that they could be expanded as long as the addition is located within the buildable area of the lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 January 2010 Page 4 of 5 Nielsen stated that alternatives to variances include amending the Code, and Conditional Use Permits – which he said is a good tool as an alternative. 4.IN-HOUSE TRAINING Nielsen said that John Shardlow, with Government Training Services (GTS) will present the training th program on Saturday, January 30. The morning sessions will include “Basics of Planning & Zoning”, and “Your Role as Planning Commission Member”. The afternoon session will be “Beyond the Basics of Planning & Zoning”. Nielsen said if there are any topics the Commission would like addressed he can ask Mr. Shardlow to keep them in mind. Nielsen said other Cities will be invited to attend. The program will be held at the SouthShore Community Center with registration at 8:00 A.M. The program will run from 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. with a one-half hour break for lunch, which will be provided. Approximately 50 – 75 people are anticipated to attend. Commissioner Hasek said he would like to learn more about how sustainability fits into planning and zoning practices. He said he would also like to know how Robert’s Rules of Order applies to a Planning Commission. Commissioner Hutchins noted that the session “Redefining the Development Process” would be valuable in relation to the Co. Rd. 19 redevelopment area study, in dealing with the marinas, and for identifying other key issues that LGUs need to be aware of. Nielsen agreed and said he would pass that on to Mr. Shardlow. He noted that even though Mr. Shardlow doesn’t normally present that program, perhaps he could touch on some of its key points. Geng suggested there be an informal Q & A at the end of the program. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA th Director Nielsen stated the January 19 meeting will include information regarding the Smithtown Crossing area redevelopment; discussion about deer management; and more detail for the 2010 Work Program. 7. REPORTS  Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne said that he attended the last Council meeting, but there was nothing relative to the Planning Commission to report on.  SLUC th Commissioner Vilett said she will attend the next SLUC program on January 27 entitled “New Year/New Economy”. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 January 2010 Page 5 of 5 Director Nielsen informed the Commission that due to budgetary constraints, there may be a point where the City’s ability to cover the cost of the SLUC meetings will be very limited.  Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commissiom Meeting of January 5, 2010 at 8:36 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Patti Helgesen, Recorder