Loading...
PC-09-20-11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 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 Garelick, Davis, Arnst, Hasek and Hutchins; Council Liaison Woodruff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Administrator Heck. Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Agenda of September 20, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 16, 2011 Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC MEETING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Chair Geng explained the public hearing process for the benefit of the audience members. Director Nielsen reported that the Shorewood City Council established an Ad Hoc Trail Committee, consisting of two Planning Commission members, two Park Commission members, two members of the City Council and two at-large residents for the purpose of reviewing the current Trail Concept Plan. He stated that they first looked at the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter relative to bicycle/pedestrian trails and determined that no changes were necessary to that Chapter. They then looked at the Trail Concept Plan (map) and updated it to reflect existing trails, but also proposed trails that were important. They prioritized the proposed trails based on health, safety, and connectivity to schools, parks, commercial activity centers, and transit routes. The trails were designated into four priority categories: Priority I (3-5 years); II (5-10 years); III (10-15 years; and IV (15+ years). The Committee’s recommended revisions to the Trail Concept Plan map are that the title “Trail Concept Plan” be changed to “Trail Plan”; a trail be added along Strawberry Lane and Eureka Road (north); the trail south of Highway 7 on Covington Road be deleted; the segment of trail on Manor Road, south of St. Albans Bay Road be deleted; and consider changing the legend on the map from “Possible Trail” to “Future Trail”. They also determined that the word “trail” should include all terms, such as pathways, sidewalks, trails, linear pedestrian ways, bike paths, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 2 of 8 Nielsen said the top priority trail will connect Smithtown Crossing to the LRT trail immediately north of it. He said the Three Rivers Park District has approved this proposed trail and money has been budgeted for its construction next year. The other Priority I trails are the west segment of Smithtown Road, and along both Galpin Lake Road and Mill Street. The Park Commission also reviewed the Trail Concept Plan and recommended extending the proposed trail on Strawberry Lane further south so it reaches Cathcart Park, and extending the proposed trail on Eureka Road east to Cresent Beach. As there was no one present wishing to comment on this item, Chair Geng opened and closed the public hearing at 7:16 P.M. Commissioner Garelick asked how the LRT Trail co-exists with the walking trails. Director Nielsen stated that the Hennepin County Light Rail Transit (LRT) corridor is primarily for trail purposes at present and the County has no plans for extending light rail out this far. Three Rivers has adopted it into their park planning. Commissioner Hasek noted that there are actually two rail lines that go into Hopkins and then split. One goes south and into Eden Prairie and the other through Minnetonka and he speculated that light rail would probably end up using the south route through Eden Prairie and Chaska if it ever extends this direction. Garelick asked how the $75,000 estimated cost per mile for trail construction compares with other cities' estimates. Nielsen said it is little high because of the necessity to retrofit and acquire right-of-way which increases costs. Commissioner Arnst asked if a trail fund still exists. Administrator Heck said it is proposed to re- establish a trail improvement fund rather than use general Park Funds. In further response to Arnst, he said that the funds would be used to contract the work from outside rather than in-house. Maintenance is done by the City, such as plowing. Arnst commented that the striped on-road trail on Smithtown Road was a compromise reached when a trail could not be built at the time Smithtown was reconstructed. The striping was done as 2 foot-4 foot shoulders. When the road was seal coated several years ago, the striping was changed to eliminate the shoulder on the north side, contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Heck said he would look into this to see how that transpired. Councilmember Woodruff ask why the trail proposed on Enchanted Island does not extend to Shady Island and the costs are not included in the Trail Capital Improvement Plan (C.I.P.). Administrator Heck said the priority rating has it out 15 years so it is not accounted for yet. Woodruff added that Minnetrista will need to be involved in the trail plan for a trail on the Island to make sense. Nielsen said it would most likely be an on-street trail. Commissioner Arnst noted that in 2000-2001 when the Park Commission did a trail walk on Enchanted Island, they agreed that a trail was not feasible, but at the time recommended that the brush be kept trimmed back to allow pedestrians to walk closer to the edge and an escape route if needed. Commissioner Davis said the grade is steep on Eureka Road so it's hard to imagine where a trail could be located along that road. Commissioner Hasek responded that the Trail Committee's focus was on where trails are necessary, not the details of their design at this point. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 3 of 8 Hasek pointed out that the Timber Lane trail segment needs to be added to the C.I.P. Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded to recommend adoption of the second draft of the Trail Implementation Report into the Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 6/0. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Director Nielsen explained that for the past few months staff has pursued a City code violation action against a property owner who deposited approximately seven shipping containers on his property, claiming that the structures were sheds and that his property was exempt from zoning regulations because it is a farm. The citation was based on the section of the code that limits the number and total area of accessory structures. The amendment proposed to correct the issue simply changes the word "or" to "nor" where it reads that no accessory building, etc. shall exceed three in number, nor 1200 square feet in area... The City Attorney has reviewed the draft language and agrees that it resolves the issue. Seeing no one present wishing to comment, Chair Geng opened and closed the public hearing at 8:42 P.M. Arnst moved, Davis, seconded to recommend approval of the amendment to the Zoning Code text regulating accessory buildings. Motion passed 6/0. 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT - VARIANCES Director Nielsen stated that recent changes to state statues relative to the granting of variances has prompted the City to make revisions to its Zoning Code text in order to bring it in line with the statutes. The revisions consist of replacing the term "undue hardship" with "practical difficulties", and updating the definition of "variance". Nielsen said that one of the benefits of the use of "practical difficulties" versus undue hardship is the potential to allow a variance that improves a property in terms of better conformity to the code standards, but where a hardship does not strictly exist. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the addition of "previous property owner" applies to other zoning applications, and if so perhaps needs to be given a definition. Nielsen said this really would only apply to variances, but he will review the subdivision code since it has a small section relative to variances. A staff report that was revised subsequent to the report delivered with the Planning Commission's packets was distributed at the meeting. Councilmember Woodruff expressed concern that the public did not have adequate opportunity to examine the revised staff report which contains revisions to the proposed code changes. The Commission's consensus was to continue the public hearing to address this issue. Chair Geng opened the public hearing at 7:59 P.M. and heard no one present wishing to comment at this time. Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, to continue the public hearing regarding the Zoning Code text amendment relative to variances to October 4, 2011. Motion passed 6/0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 4 of 8 4. DISCUSSION - SHADY HILLS TRAFFIC Director Nielsen reported that an additional speed count was done in the Shady Hills neighborhood without the presence of the speed buggy. There were only a couple of cables laying across the street, eliminating the concern that the speed buggy influences driver's behavior creating unrealistic results. He said the average speed remained unchanged from the previous study, and staff recommendations also remain unchanged in terms of the signage for the restricted turning movements. He said the raw data from the latest study was forwarded to the Commission, but a detailed analysis will still be done and available by the next meeting. The Commission's consensus was to await the detailed analysis before making a recommendation. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, to continue the public meeting regarding Shady Hills Traffic to October 4, 2011. Motion passed 6/0. 5. CITY CODE DISCUSSION - DOG REGULATIONS (Chapter 701) Director Nielsen reviewed his staff report stating that the City Council has recently been reviewing ordinances that require a license by the City for the purpose of determining if they are still valid or need updating. Due to a number of questions raised relating to Chapter 701 - Dog Regulations, that Chapter has been referred to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Nielsen stated that one of the questions was whether the City should continue to require dogs to be licensed. He noted that four of the other South Lake communities (Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood, and Deephaven) all require dog licenses. Nielsen said the current code allows up to two dogs, each requiring an annual license. For over two and up to four dogs, a kennel license is required. Under special conditions the code allows for more than four dogs and does not state a limit on the number of dogs and this is one of the areas that needs to be better defined. One consideration is to develop a multiple-dog license which would replace kennel license. Administrator Heck added that some of the rationale for requiring dog licenses are the revenue, it's an enforcement mechanism, and to be consistent with surrounding cities' requirements. Councilmember Woodruff said that the City Council has already decided to continue licensing dogs. The remaining issues that need to be addressed are the cost of licenses and multiple-dog license regulations. In regard to dog kennels regulated by the state, the code needs to be updated to reflect current state statutes. Commissioner Hutchins said it's difficult to encourage people to license their dogs by charging more or less fees. They will either do it or not. Nielsen said one thing that's never been done is to publicize the fine schedule, letting people know what the cost of violation is. Hutchins said he thought that may have more of an impact than anything else. Heck said that the City did have an incident regarding a potentially dangerous dog and it was discovered that there is nothing in the current City Code regulations that address this issue. State statutes provide a definition of a dangerous dog, but it is up to local jurisdictions as to how they want to deal with it. He said what is needed is language in the City Code that identifies potentially dangerous dogs and what the City requires if one is identified and reference the state statute for the dangerous dog classification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Arnst asked if the City can decide how many dogs are allowed with a kennel license, or if the state statutes override the number allowed. Nielsen clarified that what the state deems a kennel is actually for boarding and breeding of dogs and other similar activity. The Code needs to be updated using the term multiple-dog license to regulate households with more than two dogs, but the maximum number of dogs allowed needs to be determined. Chair Geng asked how many complaints the City has received about dogs. Heck said he has received three complaints, although they may have been more about the neighbors themselves rather than the dogs. He said the police department has data about calls made about dogs, but he doesn't have the impression there is a huge problem. Arnst commented that the manner in which the police respond to complaints makes it obvious who made the complaint which is discouraging to people needing to make a complaint. Geng said he agrees with Hutchins in thinking a large fine or penalty is the most effective way to get compliance with the regulations. Hutchins said he would rather see people rewarded for compliance, such as a no-charge license, or valid for three years. But when dog owners do not comply and break the law they pay a heavy fine. Commissioner Davis said there is a big difference between having a few large dogs versus a few small dogs. She said she is more concerned about the quality of care a dog is being provided and that they are healthy, but unfortunately that is not something the City would be able to regulate. Administrator Heck summarized the points of the Commission's discussion stating the City should continue licensing dogs but possibly extend it to a three-year validity period to coincide with rabies vaccine schedules; consider eliminating the license fee; address dangerous dog regulation; as far as the number of dogs allowed per household, start with four dogs; delete any reference to kennel license; and review penalty fees to consider increasing them. Commissioner Hasek asked the Commission if they felt the City should continue to license dogs and the response was mixed. Heck reiterated that the Council had already determined that the City will continue licensing. Commissioner Arnst said one of the benefits of requiring a license is the opportunity to provide the owner with a copy of the regulations, including the penalty fee schedule. Commissioner Hutchins noted that if there is to be no license fee, perhaps it's more a registration than a licensing process. Councilmember Woodruff said in a former City Council discussion, a reason for requiring the license was to ensure dogs were vaccinated against rabies. He added that public education letting residents know that licenses can be obtained via the website would help. Regulations against barking, running at large, etc. are covered by the Code whether a dog is licensed or not. 6. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION - DYNAMIC SIGNS Over the past several meetings the Commission has been discussing a number of issues associated with dynamic signs. Director Nielsen provided draft language for a Zoning Code text amendment based on those discussions for the purpose of review. The proposed amendment covers the various features that electronic signs are capable of such as transition, timing, brightness, size, location, setbacks, malfunction, etc. Nielsen said that the draft PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 6 of 8 ordinance language was drawn heavily from the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie due to the experience those cities have had regarding electronic signage. Nielsen stated that the dynamic signs will be limited to commercial zoning districts as a permitted use, and as a conditional use in the R-C, Residential-Commercial, and the residential districts for schools, churches, and the Community Center. The duration between message transition on the signs is proposed to be ten minutes. The signs are to be prohibited from having any graphical motion or flashing of any type. Dynamic signs will be allowed only on free standing signs in the permitted districts, and the dynamic display may occupy no more than 25% of the actual copy and graphic area. Nielsen noted that the amendment does not result in any greater allowable sign area than is permitted currently. Dynamic signs may not be located closer than 100 feet from a residential zoning district and if located within 500 feet of single and two-family homes, they must be programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Commissioner Garelick asked if, in the case of a malfunctioning sign, it is able to be controlled remotely, or on-site. Nielsen said the proposed code is not specific about that, nor are other cities’ ordinances. Mike Cronin was present representing Holiday Gas and stated that typically in the case of a malfunction there is an on-site circuit for the sign that the property manager can turn off. Commissioner Arnst asked if staff has a capability of measuring the nits (a measure of energy) on a sign. Nielsen said the City has a light meter that measures foot-candles, but he will need to find out how to convert that to nits. Commissioner Hutchins said he would rather see a Purpose section in the proposed code rather than a Findings statement as that is more the standard. He also asked how the proposed standards set for the signs compare with other neighboring communities. Nielsen said the brightness and transition timing are about the same as other cities, however the allowable area of 25% is a little lower compared to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie because they have more commercial character than Shorewood does. Commissioner Hasek asked where the proposed display-freeze times of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. came from. Nielsen said it is consistent with the Waterford Shopping Center. Commissioner Arnst said that at a previous meeting there was discussion about minimum lot frontage requirements for properties to qualify having a dynamic sign and she doesn’t see that in the proposed code. Nielsen said he saw that type of requirement in some ordinances, and minimum separation restrictions in others. He said if it is felt that these restrictions should be added in that can be considered. Councilmember Woodruff commented that the time and temperature change allowance of three seconds seemed too frequent. Nielsen agreed and suggested a one minute frequency would be more reasonable. The Commission debated the difference between electronic signs versus dynamic electronic signs and whether certain features such as static LED are actually dynamic and should be subject to the proposed regulations. There was discussion over whether the beginning of the code should start with a Findings or a Purpose. Nielsen said the Findings can be boiled down to be a Purpose. There was consensus that the code have a Purpose rather than Findings. Mr. Cronin reviewed the propose code and presented his opinions about each section. Director Nielsen said that a final draft will be brought back for review prior to a public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 7 of 8 7. COMMUNITY SURVEY DISCUSSION Director Nielsen stated that a five-page survey will be mailed to 1200 randomly chosen households containing questions about City operations. Select questions from the survey relating to planning topics were provided for review by the Planning Commission. Commissioners voiced concern over not having the entire survey for review, finding it difficult to have an objective opinion by looking at selective questions which is out of context with the whole picture. Administrator Heck explained the general purpose of the survey, stating that it was designed by a professional consultant. He said the reason only the pertinent questions were distributed was for focus. However, he said he will email the survey in its entirety to the Planning Commission and they can reply with any feedback prior to next Monday’s City Council meeting when it will be discussed. 8. SMITHTOWN CROSSING – DISCUSS 4 OCTOBER OPEN HOUSE Director Nielsen said the open house format will include a series of stations with display boards where people will be walked through the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study report. A meeting notice will be mailed to residents within 1000 feet of the Smithtown Crossing boundaries. 9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. 10. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Hasek announced that the no-right turn restriction at Cub Food/Lake Linden Drive has now been removed and the curb reconstructed. Director Nielsen said that the LRT trail signs are in place.  Three Rivers Park LRT Signage  Deer Hunting Program Expansion 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The October 4, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will be preceded by the Smithtown Crossing Open House. The regular meeting agenda is scheduled to include a minor subdivision application; Dynamic Signs final draft code; continuation of the Public Hearing regarding the code amendment relative to variances; and continuation of the Shady Hills traffic analysis. 13. REPORTS Liaison to Council Councilmember Woodruff reported on items considered and actions taken by the City Council at their PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 September 2011 Page 8 of 8 work session and regular meeting of September 12, 2011. SLUC None. Trail Committee Commissioner Hasek said this item may be removed from the Agenda as the Trail Committee has completed its mission. 14. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, to Adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting of September 20, 2011 at 10:13 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Patti Helgesen, Recorder