Loading...
PC-02-21-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:12 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for February 21, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 8, 2012 Arnst moved, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2012, as presented. Commissioner Arnst took a moment to recognize Christine Freeman, the Recorder who prepares the minutes, for the amazing job she does with capturing the conversations. Hutchins seconded. Motion passed 7/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT-YARD ENCROACHMENTS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a March 12, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that during November 2011 the Planning Commission considered a request for a front yard setback variance for a property located along Fatima Place. The applicants wanted to build a front porch that would encroach into the front yard setback area. Because the request did not meet the standards for granting a variance the Commission recommended Council deny it. The City Council considered this item during its November 28, 2011, meeting and denied the variance request. Nielsen then explained that the applicants raised some issues with regard to older homes and how entry features are treated. Those issues generated consensus among the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers that the Zoning Code (the Code) should be reviewed to determine what, if any, changes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 9 should be made in terms of allowable encroachments in the front yard setback area. The Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Code during its January 17, 2012, meeting. The Commission suggested adding a definition for a portico. It reads “Portico – A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building.” The Commission also suggested amending the Code to allow ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district. Nielsen went on to explain the amendment includes the following provisions for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to May 19, 1986. A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet provided: the length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and that the area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open. Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a draft amendment to Shorewood’s Zoning Code as it pertains to allowable front yard encroachments. A definition for portico was added to Section 1201.02 Definitions. Section 1201.03 General Provisions Subd. 3.c.(2) was replaced almost in its entirety to allow for ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into setbacks, and to allow for porticos on older homes. He also noted the variance request referenced earlier in this discussion would fit within this proposed amendment quite well. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Don Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, noted he and his wife had submitted the application for the front yard setback variance referenced earlier. He stated that per the discussion during the November 28, 2011, City Council meeting it is his understanding that this amendment would allow for them to build their proposed portico without a variance. Director Nielsen stated if Council approves this proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code a variance would not be required to construct the portico. Mr. Gloude asked if they would have to wait until the Ordinance is published before construction can move forward. Nielsen stated that technically yes, but often times Council is asked for permission to issue the building permit before the Ordinance is published in the official newspaper for the City. th Mr. Gloude clarified that Council did not deny their variance request during its November 28 meeting. He and his wife withdrew their application that evening after Council discussion per Council’s th recommendation and followed that up with a written withdrawal on December 13. He stated during that meeting they were told that certain fees would be returned because they withdrew their request and that has not happened. Chair Geng suggested Mr. Gloude follow-up with Director Nielsen on that. Nielsen stated he thought the escrow was to be returned. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Gloude for his patience. Geng stated he thought this is a better solution for the City. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the largest required side yard setback the City has is 20 feet and that is on lakeshore lots. Nielsen stated the typical residential side CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 9 yard setback is 10 feet on each side. In response to another question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the smallest rear yard setback is 35 feet. Hasek questioned why someone might need to have a ramp extend 30 feet into a rear yard setback. Hasek asked if anyone else finds that problematic. Director Nielsen recommended that the encroachment into the rear yard setback for ramps be changed so that setbacks of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendment pertaining to allowable front yard encroachment subject to changing it to require a rear setback of 20 feet be maintained. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 2. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) – FINAL DRAFT Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the fifth, and hopefully final, draft of an amendment to Shorewood’s Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. This draft includes the final two revisions recommended by the Planning Commission during its February 8, 2012, meeting. The Commission asked to see the final draft before it was sent to Council. Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) states “Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations.” He asked if having more than the allowable number of animals means at the time the ordinance is approved. Director Nielsen responded it does. Hutchins asked if it needs to say that. Hutchins expressed concern that a person could buy more than the allowable after the ordinance goes into effect. Nielsen stated the phrase “at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance” will be added to that provision. Commissioner Arnst asked for confirmation that no one will be grandfathered in; everyone will have to apply for a permit. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the final draft of an amendment to the Shorewood Municipal Code establishing rules for the keeping of farm and other animals subject to amending Section 704.09 Subd. 2.(i.) to read “ Any person having more than the allowable number of animals set forth in paragraphs g. and h., above, at the time of the adoption of this .” Motion passed 7/0. Ordinance shall not replace animals in excess of those limitations 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING – ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program is life- cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as “accessory apartments”. The City’s Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single-family residential zoning districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single-family homes. The proposed amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments would address both ends of the life-cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to single-family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept of accessory apartments in single-family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 4 of 9 Nielsen then explained that after reviewing many accessory apartment codes staff has assembled a list of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood’s zoning regulations. He reviewed a proposed definition for accessory apartment. It reads “A small apartment that meets the standards of Section _______ of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living.” He noted that four of the zoning districts are for single-family dwellings only, and three are single and two-family dwellings. He stated if the accessory apartments were to be considered dwelling units there would end up being two-family dwellings in single-family districts. Nielsen emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, must be subordinate to the principal use. He stated that at this time Staff recommends these be limited to an apartment within the existing single-family home. It should not be an accessory structure. A cautious approach to this is recommended. It represents a fairly drastic change by allowing more people into the various zoning districts. He explained some cities limit the square-footage size of the accessory apartments. Staff has chosen not to recommend that. There are very large homes in the City and someone may want to use an entire lower level of the home for such an accessory apartment. Staff suggests a percentage of the total square footage of the home instead. Nielsen stated Staff is suggesting that there be a public process and that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in single-family residential zoning districts (R-1 and R-2). A public hearing would be involved. Neighbors within 500 feet would be notified of the application and how a request does or does not comply with the zoning standards. Staff recommends that accessory apartment provisions be placed in the Section 1201.03 General Provisions of the Zoning Code because it applies to seven zoning districts. Nielsen reviewed a list of provisions that are intended to generate discussion. They are as follows. “Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (This allows most if not all of the lower level to be used for an accessory apartment.) (2) The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 5 of 9 (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (The intent of this is to try and ensure the house remains in character with the single-family neighborhood. It does not mean there cannot be a separate entry.) (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (The purpose is not to make homes drastically bigger just to accommodate accessory apartments.) (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single- family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. (Two spaces are currently required. It may be prudent to talk about some type of screening.) (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home. Chair Geng stated he thought the first draft is very good. Commissioner Hutchins stated he and Commissioner Arnst have concern that Standard c.(6) does not allow for a full-time live-in caregiver. Director Nielsen stated it should allow for that. Hutchins then stated with regard to Standard c.(3) he asked if someone had a sliding patio door if that could be retrofitted into an entrance for a lower level accessory apartment. Nielsen stated that is allowable. Commissioner Arnst suggested Standard c.(8) be changed so that the third parking space isn’t on the grass. Director Nielsen stated that needs to be addressed in another area of the General Provisions section. Commissioner Hasek stated that would apply to hard surface coverage. Chair Geng asked how a situation where the property is already at the maximum impervious surface allowed would be handled. Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 6 of 9 Nielsen stated they will have to give up hardcover somewhere. Nielsen stated that is where some allowance for permeable pavers could factor in. Director Nielsen stated for most of the City’s zoning districts the driveways tend to be longer. Therefore, there should be room for the third vehicle. Commissioner Hasek asked what the City’s shortest front yard setback is. Director Nielsen responded 30 feet in the City’s normal zoning districts. There are some planned unit developments (P.U.D.s) where the setback is 20 feet. Nielsen noted the front yard setback is not counted as part of the parking area except in P.U.D.s. The required parking spaces have to comply with setbacks. A vehicle can’t be parked within 15 feet of the street surface. Hasek then asked if the garage floor area is considered part of the total floor area. Director Nielsen responded typically not. Hasek stated Standards c.(1) and c.(2) regarding square feet of area don’t seem to work together mathematically. The 500 square feet requirement is more than the no more than 40 percent of the original total floor area for smaller homes. Nielsen stated he will revisit those two standards. Hasek gave an example of how Standard c.(6) may be too limiting. A married couple move into the husband’s parent’s home. The couple gets divorced and the husband moves out. The former daughter-in- law continues to live in that house. The City shouldn’t care about that. He questioned why blood should factor into this situation. Commissioner Davis noted that earlier during this discussion Commissioners Arnst and Hutchins noted that the Standard doesn’t allow for full-time caregivers. Director Nielsen stated Hasek isn’t necessarily talking about a caregiver; just a person who is no longer legally a family member. Nielsen noted there will always be exceptions to things. Hasek asked if the City allows overnight parking on the street. Director Nielsen responded the City does and that it depends on the time of year. Commissioner Hutchins stated he doesn’t understand what Commissioner Hasek’s concern is about the square footage stipulations in Standards c.(1) and c.(2). Commissioner Arnst stated based on the square footage stipulations in those two Standards it will not work for any house with less than 1,350 square feet of total floor area. Director Nielsen stated one of the two Standards has to be adjusted. Nielsen then stated the provisions should not eliminate some of the smaller homes in the City. Commissioner Arnst stated during her second meeting, she thinks, as a Planning Commissioner she brought this topic up. During that meeting Director Nielsen had stated the City didn’t want to look like Kenwood. She thanked Nielsen for his change of perspective on this and for the terrific progress made on moving this forward. She noted this is something she wanted to see move forward before she stopped being a Planning Commissioner. Nielsen stated the City has chosen to have a different character for the community than many other cities; it isn’t better or worse just different. Director Nielsen stated accessory apartments are probably the City’s best means of getting to affordable senior housing and affordable housing in general. He noted there are a lot of young families that can’t afford to live in the City. Director Nielsen asked the Commissioners what they thought the neighborhood reaction to accessory structures would be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Arnst stated in her neighborhood there are at least four homes where something like this is going on. And, there are at least four homes that have become rental properties. As long as people are quiet there is not a problem. She then stated residents in her neighborhood realize things are changing. Chair Geng stated the only issue he can foresee is parking; one being too many vehicles and/or run down vehicles. He and his wife had someone with a rundown car staying with them and some of his neighbors didn’t even like that car being parked in their driveway. Director Nielsen stated he will revise the draft amendment. He asked the Planning Commission if the life- cycle housing sub-topic of accessory apartments warrants its own public hearing rather than a public hearing for all Code changes related to life-cycle housing. Chair Geng and Commissioner Arnst stated they thought it warrants its own hearing. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. OLD BUSINESS None. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated during the March 6, 2012, Planning Commission meeting there will be a discussion about low maintenance landscaping and natural landscapes. That topic of conversation ties to the GreenStep Cities Program sustainability goals. The March 20, 2012, meeting will be devoted to talking about the Smithtown Crossing study. Sometime in April there will likely be a discussion about a request for an interim conditional use permit for a property. Commissioner Hutchins asked if the Commission will appoint a chair and vice-chair during its next meeting. Director Nielsen stated if there is a full complement of Commissioners there will be. th Administrator Heck stated Council will interview applicants on February 27 and Council will consider appointments during its regular meeting that same evening. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 13, 2012, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Hotvet stated Councilmembers continually hear from residents about the speeding issue. Director Nielsen noted the volume of vehicles on Yellowstone Trail is very substantial. He stated he doesn’t know how people can speed there. He then stated that all the things that should be done to traffic calming measures on Yellowstone Trail already exist there. Council Liaison Hotvet stated having a trail CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 8 of 9 along there should change the drivers’ behaviors. Nielsen stated the City proposed building a trail to get pedestrians off the street but property owners, including Commissioner Hasek, fought it. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it deserves a trail but it doesn’t make economic sense. Director Nielsen asked if cost is why most people don’t want a trail there. Hasek stated he thinks they don’t want a trail in their front yard. Hasek then stated he will gladly give the City part of his property for a trail. Nielsen asked how the property owners could argue both sides of this issue – it’s unsafe to walk but we don’t want a trail in front of our properties. Council Liaison Hotvet stated the City has to explain having a trail is a safe solution and it should change the behavior of drivers. Chair Geng stated perhaps the Planning Commission could have a public hearing about a potential trail along Yellowstone Trail. There could be an exchange of ideas with residents. Commissioner Hasek stated that although residents may not like the idea of having a trail in front of their property it is part of the larger system. It is part of an overall system that needs to be addressed. He then stated from his perspective the City will be stepping on property owners’ toes if a trail is constructed there and they won’t like it. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she hears Commissioner Hasek saying two different things. The property owners along Yellowstone Trail will not support a trail but the City needs to construct one. Hasek clarified he was just explaining what was happening. Hasek stated if a trail along Yellowstone Trail needs to happen in order for the road to be safe for “the community” he asked if Hotvet (as a Councilmember) would support building one. Hotvet said yes. Hasek stated probably if expense wasn’t a problem. He then stated the property owners would absolutely not be happy. He went on to state the current Councilmembers will lose every vote from residents living next to Yellowstone Trail if a trail is built. Council Liaison Hotvet noted she does not share Hasek’s perspective. She stated people always want to revert to saying it’s never going to work; it hasn’t worked in the past. She explained there are at least 20 residents who want a solution and the City can consistently say it has tried to get support for a trail. She stated there has been turnover in families. It is proven that property values go up because of walkability. She then stated people can choose to continue to have limited walkability in the City, noting she doesn’t support doing that. Director Nielsen stated the residents who live where the trail would go in front of their property are opposed. Council Liaison Hotvet asked where the leadership comes from to move forward with this. She stated if residents along Yellowstone Trail don’t want walkability then it’s probably time to move on to the next potential trail segment. Commissioner Hasek stated that building a trail will slow vehicle traffic is absolutely not true and it is not proven. There was continued ensuing discussion about trails. There were various comments made about the need for speed enforcement. Commissioner Hasek commented that when a police officer is parked along Yellowstone Trail to enforce the speed limit they are very visible. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 9 of 9 Administrator Heck stated the other day at 5:30 P.M. on his way to dinner he saw a patrol officer parked in a driveway monitoring traffic speeds and when he returned the officer had stopped a driver on Yellowstone Trail. He then stated in the three and one half years he has been employed by the City it is the first time he has ever observed a patrol officer running traffic in the City of Shorewood. The enforcement concern was reiterated. A couple of Commissioners commented that they perceived officers did not write tickets for speeding very often in the City. Commissioner Arnst stated she agreed with Council Liaison Hotvet that it was time to take the step. Director Nielsen noted that the issue of concern about being safe when going to get mail from a mailbox will not be solved by a trail because a person has to walk across the street. • SLUC No report was given. • Commissioner Garelick – Real Estate in the South Lake Area Commissioner Garelick stated he used to be on the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission and during his tenure he would give a report regularly on real estate in that City. He then stated in the City there is basically just houses. He went on to state the worst of the real estate slump is over. Foreclosures are the lowest they have been since 2007. He noted that Shorewood is not a good place to purchase a home if you are a first or second time home buyer. Garelick presented a tremendous amount of information on property values, selling prices and so forth for properties located in the City, the metropolitan area and the South Lake area. He noted there are 53 pieces of real estate for sale in the City at this time with drastically different property values. He extended the offer to share the printed information he has gathered with the Commissioners. He stated the inventory is dropping on foreclosures and short sales. That is good. He noted it is still a buyer’s market. He also noted the median price for properties in Shorewood are the fourth most expensive in the metropolitan area. He stated the City has to find a way to have younger people be able to have a way to be able to move into the City. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 21, 2012, at 8:39 P.M. Chair Geng again thanked Commissioner Arnst for her contributions. Motion passed 7/0 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder