Loading...
PC-11-15-11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 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 Arnst, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Councilmember Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for November 15, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  November 1, 2011 Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a December 12, 2011, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained for the last two years the Planning Commission has been working on the project known as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). The study area encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money were invested to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a “civic campus” including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center, the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park,. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that whole thing the City acquired in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the area. He explained what the boundaries of the area are. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 2 of 9 disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City’s current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. Nielsen explained the study area contains a total of 23.46 acres not including the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains about 3 to 4 acres that could be redeveloped. The residential parcel located on the north side of County Road 19 could potentially be subject to redevelopment. Nielsen then explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the study area, noting that he will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: Study area west boundary – it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain  somewhat flexible in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area; Land uses – considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the study area;  Buffering and land use transitions;  Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and  within Gideon Glen; Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road;  Internal circulation – vehicular and pedestrian;  Possibility of contaminated soils;  Phasing the redevelopment;  Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis;  Future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area;  Land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road;  Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and,  Drainage.  The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 – 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development concept was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer’s standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 3 of 9 A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City’s vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer would get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The American Legion owns approximately one half of the land in the northwest quadrant study area. The remaining parcels are individually owned. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. That property, and other parcels when purchased, could be sold to a developer at cost to demonstrate the City’s commitment to the project. It could also provide leverage for the City to have more input on the type, quality and design of the project. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. Unfortunately, the City received few comment sheets about the Study back. The comments received were consistent with what was voiced during the open house. There was concern expressed about density and building height. People did like the idea of a unified, coordinated development. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study report. It was displayed at the open house. The concept plan was highlighted. Nielsen noted this public hearing was noticed in the newspaper. Individual notices were not sent out to residents in or near the redevelopment area because it is an overall Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated he now thinks there may be some value in doing that. The public hearing could be continued to the Planning Commission’s December 6, 2011, meeting and those residents could be notified. When residents were notified of the open house a 1,000 foot buffer of the area was used. That could be used again for this public hearing. Commissioner Garelick stated Director Nielsen referenced the potential redevelopment of the golf course property. He asked what the vision is for that area. Nielsen explained this Study report doesn’t address that other than that it is a planning issue. Nielsen then explained a few years ago the City asked the property owner what his plans were for that property. The property owner didn’t have much to say about his future plans. There has not been any formal discussion about the property. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Director Nielsen noted that during the Planning Commission’s November 1, 2011, meeting the Commission recommended the vision statement be made into a list of guiding principles explaining how the City would prefer the area to be redeveloped. Chair Geng commented it is a matter of formatting. Commissioner Davis stated she thought it would be easier to read. Commissioner Arnst concurred with that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Hasek stated he has mixed thoughts about continuing the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst stated from her vantage point it would indicate transparency to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Davis stated residents will likely be busier in December because of the upcoming holiday season. Director Nielsen noted the December 6, 2011, meeting agenda will have a number of items that need to be wrapped up. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission wants to consider having a second meeting in December. th Commissioner Hutchins stated if the public hearing is continued to December 6 he asked when it will be placed on a City Council meeting agenda. Director Nielsen responded that will depend on the outcome of the Commission meeting. Commissioner Hutchins then stated if continuing the public hearing doesn’t create a lot of delay and it creates additional transparency and opportunity for residents to provide feedback he supports continuing it. Chair Geng stated he supports giving the residents another opportunity to comment on the Study report. He then stated he thought it important for the residents to know there is no development plan. He went on to state he thought it would be worthwhile to notify the neighboring property owners and the owners of the properties in the study area of the public hearing. Commissioner Arnst recommended the public hearing notices to the residents clarify that there is no specific site plan. Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that if residents know there isn’t a specific site plan they may not come to the public hearing. He preferred they would come. Director Nielsen stated the residents that would be noticed already know there is no specific site plan, and that would be clarified on the notice. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission had previously indicated it wanted a set of guiding principles developed and used at the public hearing. Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, continuing the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study to the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude Location: 4675 Fatima Place Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. (which was continued from November 1, 2011). This is to consider a front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place. Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t have any thing to add from what he discussed during the November 1, 2011, public hearing. He explained the Planning Commission chose to continue the hearing in order to give the Commissioners an opportunity to go and look at this property and other properties in the neighborhood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 5 of 9 Mr. Gloude stated he did not have anything new to say. He noted he had observed that Commissioner Arnst came to the neighborhood. He explained with their proposed plan the only variance being asked for is for the roofline encroachment into the setback area so the front entry way could be protected from rain, snow and ice for safety and handicap access reasons. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. Commissioner Davis expressed her concern about potentially penalizing a property owner from purchasing a house in an area that was developed prior to the current setback requirements being put in place. It isn’t a huge porch; it is a stoop with an overhang. She stated the City should encourage property owners to better their homes and to make them handicap accessible. She then stated she would like the Planning Commission to figure out how to let the applicants make the improvements they are proposing. What they are proposing is very nice. She noted there are many houses in the City that have been built close to a street. She stated she understands the City can’t allow everyone to do anything they want with their property. The applicants are not proposing to build a large porch; they are proposing a porch. Commissioner Hasek explained there 107 lots in that R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. There are approximately 25 lots in that neighborhood that are located close to the roadway. They are either located at the 30-foot setback or partially within the setback area. There are 40 – 50 brand new houses in the area. He doesn’t know if the new houses replaced houses that were razed which had been located at the setback or within the setback area. Hasek then stated if the Planning Commission is going to recommend approving this variance then the Planning Commission should decide if it wants to allow similar requests in all zoning districts. He believes there will be a lot of other property owners in the City who will have similar requests to put a porch on the front of the house. He commented that the move in housing today is to build a porch on the front of a house. He stated in most cases cities are reducing front yard setback requirements from 30 – 35 feet to 15 – 25 feet. Usually ordinances allow porches to be built on the front of a house. Hasek noted he doesn’t have a problem with allowing the porch/stoop to be built. But, he doesn’t believe it should require a variance. He suggested the Planning Commission work on an ordinance amendment over the next few months that would allow this and similar porches to be constructed. He stated the applicants could pour the footings for the posts now. He noted all of the improvements are not scheduled to be completed for about six months. That gives the Commission and Council time to consider an amendment. Commissioner Arnst asked Director Nielsen why the front entry is side-load as opposed to front-load. Nielsen explained it could be front-load. Mr. Gloude stated he and his wife were told it had to be side- load and that is one of the reasons they proceeded they way they did. It would have extended the steps even further toward the street. Director Nielsen stated there was some miscommunication, and he noted that, provided steps are not wider than four feet, they can extend into the setback area. Ms. Gloude wrote down during one of her conversations with a planning representative that the entry needed to be side-load. The side-load allowed them to build the concrete stoop area which to them is a safer entry for handicap access. Arnst clarified they could have a front-load entry. Arnst then asked if the square footage or the roof over it defines a porch. Director Nielsen explained it’s the roof. He then explained the stoop is allowed. Nielsen stated the acceptance of this is probably because it’s a very open feature; it’s a stoop with columns on and a roof over it. If that were an existing structure today the City would allow that, as a nonconforming structure, to be walled in. He stated if the ordinance is amended he suggested it require the structure remain open and that there be limitations on size. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 6 of 9 Arnst stated from her perspective the definition of porch is subjective. She then stated it would be good to have something that works for the applicants because she doesn’t think their request is unreasonable. She wants the City to provide other property owners in similar situations the opportunity to do something similar. She then stated she didn’t think an amendment should apply to a specific district because there are similar properties throughout the City. Maybe it could be property specific. Director Nielsen suggested it be treated similar to the entry that is allowed for older homes. Commissioner Hasek stated that it’s his understanding that a stoop is an uncovered porch. Director Nielsen stated that is correct, clarifying it has to be at ground floor level. Hasek asked what it would be called if someone had a deck and they wanted to install some posts and a roof over it. Nielsen responded that would be called a porch. Hasek stated he is not sure this should apply to only older homes. Hasek then stated maybe open, roofed stoops should be allowed on the front of houses. Chair Geng expressed concern about granting this variance because it could set a precedent for requesting similar variance requests. Variance requests cost a lot of time and money to consider. He stated that given the number of residential properties in the City with houses located close to the street he suggests amending the ordinance to allow for what the applicants are proposing. During the November 1, 2011, public hearing the Planning Commission discussed putting an ordinance amendment discussion on its 2012 work program. Reasonable use can be made of the property without granting a variance. He noted that the house was probably built before the current setback restrictions were in place. He stated granting this variance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Commission take a good hard look at amending the ordinance, but he doesn’t want to prejudge that decision. He stated he doesn’t think all the variance criteria have been met. Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, recommending the front yard setback variance request for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, be denied. Commissioner Davis asked if the Planning Commission is going to deny the variance but encourage the applicants to put in footings for the porch and then consider amending the ordinance. Commissioner Hasek stated the Commission is not encouraging the applicants to put in footings, but they can do so at their own risk. Also, the Commission does have a desire to discuss whether or not it thinks the ordinance should be amended to address this situation across the City in 2012. Chair Geng clarified the only thing the motion does is recommend the request be denied. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested a second motion be considered regarding putting an ordinance amendment discussion on the 2012 work program. Commissioner Garelick stated there has to be continuity and conformity of what is allowed. Motion passed 4/2 with Arnst and Davis dissenting. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, placing an item on the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program and schedule it as early in 2012 as possible to address issues like this as they relate to front yard setback restrictions for residential districts in the City. Without objection from the maker, the seconder amended the motion to say for the first Planning Commission meeting held in January 2012. Chair Geng questioned if the Planning Commission will have the necessary information at that time to make an informed recommendation. Director Nielsen stated there will be draft information to have a discussion with. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 7 of 9 Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M. 3. GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION Director Nielsen stated this item will be discussed during the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. He noted the GreenStep Cities Program best practices have been on other meeting agendas, but there has never been time to discuss them. He explained Staff assigned responsibility for the best practices to the staff member or Commission it thought should address the best practices. [The meeting packet contains a copy of document prepared by Staff which lists each GreenStep Cities best practices, identifies if the City will pursue it, what action items the City will accomplish for those it pursues, who is responsible for the action items, the estimated completion date and the current status.] The action items the Planning Commission will be responsible for will be included in the Commission’s 2012 work program. Commissioner Hasek asked if the document could have grid lines on it to make it easier to read. He stated the major heading on page 1 stated “5 Building & Lighting Best Practices – must complete BP 1 and at least one more.” He asked what that means. Administrator Heck explained it means there are 5 Building & Lighting best practices (BPs) and the City has to do BP1 and one of the other 4 BPs in that category. Hasek asked that the formatting be consistent throughout the document. Hasek explained that he counted 5 BPs that are required, 6 that have been completed and 7 more that will be done. Administrator Heck explained there are 12 BPs that are required plus the City must identify two more optional BPs it will implement. The number of action items the City has to complete for each BP varies. The report identifies which action items the City will accomplish. Heck noted he downloaded the spreadsheet form off of the GreenStep Cities website. Hasek stated the Private Buildings BP is classified as optional and he asked if it was one of the optional BPs. Heck responded it is at this time. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the Conservation Design BP includes an action item to develop and fund a conservations easement program. It shows it’s been completed by the Planning Commission. He is not aware of anything the City has done in that regard. Director Nielsen explained it should say it was completed by the Land Conservation and Environment Committee. Commissioner Arnst noted it was done in 1998. Woodruff asked if there is funding for that. Nielsen explained there was at that time; it has since been pulled. Woodruff stated from his vantage point he did not think that can be called complete even though it may have once been complete. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Ad Hoc Trail Committee is still in existence. Director Nielsen responded it has not formally been disbanded. Nielsen questioned if there should be a wrap-up meeting of the Committee. Nielsen explained the capital improvements portion of the Trail Plan Implementation Report (the Report) still needs to be done. The Committee could discuss that during the wrap-up meeting. Hasek explained the reason he asked about the Committee is BP 12 Mobility Options action item 1 (promote walking, biking and transit …) and item 2 (launch a safe routes to school program) state they are in process by the Committee. Nielsen noted those could be updated because the Committee has completed that work. Nielsen also noted the Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council have had the opportunity to comment on the Report. Commissioner Arnst asked what the Planning Commission is supposed to do with this document. Chair Geng asked what the next steps are. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 8 of 9 Director Nielsen reiterated that the action items in the report assigned to the Planning Commission will be added to the Commission’s 2012 work program. The Commission can offer input about whether or not the action items are appropriately assigned. Commissioner Hasek suggested the Planning Commission go through the assignments this evening. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the action items assigned to the Planning Commission to complete are circled in the document. He suggested the Commission consider if there are other action items it would like to have responsibility for completing and if the ones that have already been assigned to the Commission are appropriate. Chair Geng recommended the Planning Commissioners come prepared to make suggestions about action items that should be added or removed from the Commission’s list of responsibilities during its December th 6 meeting. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Arnst stated that yesterday she asked Director Nielsen for a report on the City’s 2011 Deer Management Program. She asked Nielsen to provide a report. Nielsen explained as of the end of the third weekend of the 2011 harvesting effort 27 deer had been harvested. There were 8 harvested the third weekend. Nielsen noted the most that had been harvested other years had been 26 and that included 11 that had been harvested on the golf club property on a special hunt sanctioned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the City. Harvesting will be done at least one more weekend this year. Commissioner Hutchins stated it was his recollection the 2011 aerial deer survey count was about 158. The survey was done this past February. Director Nielsen clarified it was 145. Hutchins asked what the expected population increase is. Nielsen responded he doesn’t know. Nielsen explained the 2010 survey count revealed 106 deer on the day of the flyover. It was easier to count the deer in 2011 because of the exceptional snow cover. Chair Geng asked if there is a particular reason a hunt was not conducted on the golf course this year. Director Nielsen stated the property owner did not apply this year. Nielsen explained the property owner did not apply for harvesting after the effort was suspended one year. Director Nielsen noted the City has received one complaint about feeding of deer. It’s being investigated. Commissioner Arnst stated there are trail stubs between March Point and the Minnewashta Elementary School, and off of Grant Lorenz and Arbor Creek. She asked if they are City-owned trails. Director Nielsen responded they are; they were put in when those neighborhoods were developed. Arnst asked if they are on the Trail Map. Nielsen responded they are. Nielsen stated he has been told that the School has fenced part of the trail off and he needs to go and confirm that. Arnst stated she was on that trail today and it is open. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 15, 2011 Page 9 of 9 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is an after-the-fact conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards slated for the December 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. There will be an informative item about cell tower antenna capacity. The top of the South East Water Tower is filled to capacity. The revised animal ordinance will be on the agenda. There will be discussion about senior housing. There is continuation of the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. There will be continued discussion of the GreenStep Cities best practices. The topic of message therapy licensing will be back on the agenda. Nielsen noted the agenda will be very full. Commissioner Arnst stated the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC) has a luncheon program this coming Thursday called Communities for Life and it’s about 50-plus housing. She thought it sounded very interesting. She has the invitation at home and she will forward it to Director Nielsen for distribution to the Commission. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 14, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other Commissioner Garelick noted an article was published in the Star Tribune Newspaper about fees municipalities charge. 9. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 2011, at 8:26 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder