Loading...
PC-02-03-15 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Labadie Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for February 3, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 20, 2015 Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Don and Loretta Mann Location: 25880 Birch Bluff Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non- binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on February 23, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff Road. Director Nielsen explained the Manns propose to build a new detached garage to the south of the existing house. Because the area of the new garage when combined with an existing attached garage on the property exceeds 1200 square feet (it will be 1399 square feet) a C.U.P. is required. The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 30,649 square feet in area. It is about one and one-half of what the R-1C District requires. The site is occupied by the owners’ CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 2 of 9 home and attached garage as well as a 14 foot by 16 foot shed. The applicants propose to remove the existing shed. The new garage contains 882 square feet. The City Code requires the floor area be calculated based on measurements on the inside of the exterior walls. The proposed garage will be 10 feet from the east side lot line approximately 116 feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) of Birch Bluff Road. A copy of the applicants’ request was included in the meeting packet. He displayed illustrative plans for the new garage. The existing home contains 3172 square feet of floor area not including the basement level. Nielsen reviewed how the applicants’ request complies with the four criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting this type of C.U.P. a. The total area of accessory buildings (1399 square feet), which includes the attached garage, does not exceed the floor area (3172 square feet – main floor) above grade of the existing home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1C/S zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with R-1C/S setback requirements. The proposed hardcover for the site will be 31.27 percent, down from the existing 32.4 percent. While this is greater than the maximum allowed in the “S”, Shoreland overlay district, the City’s policy in such cases is to allow improvements/additions where hardcover is actually being reduced. The driveway has been reconfigured to further reduce hardcover. This reduction, combined with the removal of the very nonconforming existing shed, brings the property closer to compliance with the Zoning Code. d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and roofing will match the house. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following. He noted the conditions are different from those listed in the staff report. 1. The existing shed should be removed by August 31, 2015. 2. For the driveway reconfiguration the applicant wants to grade and put down class 5 rock for the new driveway and let it settle for a year. That should be done by the middle of October 2015. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Mann if he attempted to reduce the impervious surface to less than 25 percent. Mr. Mann explained he will remove about 1,000 square feet of black top driveway. Most of the reconfigured driveway will be where the existing driveway is. The existing driveway is in relatively good condition and his plan is to put a 2-inch overlay on it. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. JR Campuzano, 25860 Birch Bluff Road, stated the Manns are great neighbors and Mr. Mann showed him what he was proposing to do. He then stated Mr. Mann has done good things with the architectural design of his house and proposed garage. He noted that he has asked Mr. Mann to soften the garage on side of the lot next to his house with landscaping. Mr. Mann has indicated he would do that. He also noted that he does not oppose the new garage. Mr. Mann stated it has been his intent to have some landscaping around the garage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 3 of 9 Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. Chair Geng noted that he appreciates the cooperation of the neighbors. Director Nielsen stated if the landscaping requirement is a condition of approval that should be documented and there should be some type of sketch of the landscaping provided. He noted that would not have to come back before the Planning Commission. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff Road, subject to the existing shed being removed by August 31, 2015; the reconfigured driveway being graded and class 5 rock driveway put down by the middle of October 2015; and, the applicant providing a sketch of the landscaping that will go next to the east side of the garage to the Planning Department before this is considered by Council. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES Applicant: Nick Bender Location: 5765 Eureka Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a setback variances for Nick Bender, 5765 Eureka Road. Director Nielsen explained Mr. Bender has requested setback variances to replace the existing garage on the south side of his house with a detached two-car garage on the north side of his house. The proposed garage will measure 22 feet by 26 feet. He also proposes to replace his existing deck with a new one on the south side of the house a little further back but it will still not be in compliance with the setback requirement. The new garage will be about 10 feet from the rear property line; 50 feet is required. It will be 60 feet from the front property line. Therefore, a 40-foot variance to the rear yard setback is required. That is similar to the variance that was granted to the property to the south. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 12,020 square feet of area. That is quite substandard for the R-1A District; the requirement is 40,000 square feet. Also, the lot is more than 53 feet shallower in depth than the R-1A District allows. In addition to the nonconformity of the existing lot, the house does not currently meet setbacks on the east side of the lot. The property survey shows that the building setbacks, even after taking advantage of an average front setback established by adjacent properties, renders the lot unbuildable. Just about anything he would want to do on his lot would require some type of variance. Variances are evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. He reviewed how the applicant’s request appears justified, at least in part, based on the factors listed below. 1. The substandard area of the subject lot is aggravated by its shallow depth. 2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 4 of 9 3. A two-car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood. Some cities require at least a two-car garage. 4. In past cases the City has recognized that the inability to have at least a two-car garage in Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty). 5. The applicants did not create their practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created prior to current requirements, and the property has never had a two-car garage. The existing garage is grossly substandard from a Building Code perspective. 6. The proposed garage is a modestly sized for two cars; it is not considered to be oversized. While the garage could technically be moved closer to the street, it would then interfere with the windows and entry to the home on its north side. The proposed location minimizes an overcrowded appearance along Eureka Road. The location of the new deck complies somewhat better than the old and relates much better with the side entry to the home. He noted that despite the very substandard lot size, the proposed improvements to the home will only result in 23.3 percent hardcover on the site; 33 percent is allowed. Nielsen also noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request be granted as proposed. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is present to give support to his neighbor Mr. Bender for doing an excellent job on his house. What he and the property owner to the south have done to their houses is appreciated by the neighborhood. He noted that he believes the neighborhood residents will appreciate what is being proposed. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M. Chair Geng stated he likes the location of the proposed garage. He then stated from his perspective granting of the requested variances is warranted and necessary. He believes it meets the practical difficulty criteria. Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the setback variances for Nick Bender, 5765 Eureka Road. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted this item will go before the City Council on February 23, 2015. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. 3. PREAPPLICATION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from January 20, 2015) Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club Property) Chair Geng noted that the Planning Commission discussed the pre-application for an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan for the proposed residential development of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property located at 24575 Smithtown Road during its January 6, 2015, meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 5 of 9 The applicant is Mattamy Homes. The topic was continued to its January 20, 2015, meeting but was not discussed. It was continued to this meeting. Director Nielsen explained that during the January 29, 2015, Council and staff retreat Planning Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., raised five questions regarding the MCC property and the property near there. The questions and Council’s responses are as follows. 1. Who should be the primary working group through the planning process for the MCC project? Stantec’s proposal recommended establishing a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) that would augment (but include in total) the Planning Commission. A position could be taken that Council wants and needs to be more hands on throughout the process and if so there could be joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops throughout the process. Or, the Planning Commission could be charged with the task. After discussion Council agreed that the Planning Commission would be the core group. The Committee would also include a to-be-determined number of residents and possibly business owners. Council has been asked to submit a list of names for consideration of participation. The first opportunity for the PAC to meet would be on February 17 with a fall back date of February 24. 2. Is the Council interested in exploring the possibility of any housing types other than single- family detached units, either on the golf course property or in the vicinity? Council’s consensus was yes. 3. Does Council support the exploration of possible ways to leverage the value associated with the golf course redevelopment to improve the quality and expedite the timing of redevelopment surrounding the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road Intersections? Council’s consensus was yes. Whether or not the golf course redevelopment and the adjacent redevelopment is combined into one over-arching redevelopment financing strategy, does the Council view the planning for the adjacent redevelopment strategy as something that should be carefully thought through before signing off on the final plans for the golf course redevelopment? Council’s consensus was yes. 4. Should the pros and cons of potential realignments of Country Club Road be explored? Council’s consensus was yes. 5. Should the pluses and minuses of park dedication (in land) on the golf course be fully explored? Should the potential sale and reuse of the existing park next to City Hall be explored? Council’s consensus was yes. He stated that based on Council having answered yes to all of those questions it may be premature to make a recommendation on the pre-application until the Planning Consultant and PAC have completed CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 6 of 9 the study and made its recommendation to Council. In a way, the study output becomes the pre- application. The existing pre-application should be considered in the context of the larger picture. He clarified that if there are specific concerns about the project they should be mentioned and captured in the record. He noted that the developer is concerned about the timing. Mr. Shardlow has indicated to the developer that this process need not hold up the construction process which is intended to be started in 2016. The developer does not intend to move any dirt in 2015. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen what he wants from the Planning Commission this evening. Director Nielsen stated the Commission can pass a motion reiterating what he just said. Director Nielsen explained the pre-application process does not render a vote. Issues are identified through that process and it provides the developer with direction. Based on Council having agreed to the Planning Consultant’s approach that basically becomes the pre-application for the project. He stated if there is anything specific about the project he suggested they get into the record and that they be conveyed to the Planning Consultant during PAC meetings. Commissioner Muehlberg asked who is spearheading the traffic study. Director Nielsen responded the Planning Consultant’s proposal includes a traffic study and that will be done early on in the process. Muehlberg then asked if thought has been given to including Hennepin County representatives in that study. Nielsen explained that if there are to be any improvements or changes made to the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection then Hennepin County has to be involved. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Planning Consultant indicated the traffic study would be done after there is some idea of what is going to be in that area. Director Nielsen stated the land uses have to be known before the traffic study is done. Director Nielsen clarified that the Planning Consultant is looking at his charge as primarily a land use study/question. But, that has to be supported by transportation solutions. He explained there are two collector streets – Smithtown Road on the north side of the MCC property and Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive on the west. Smithtown Road is designed and operated as a collector street. Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive are a substandard collector route. When the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection was reconstructed one goal was to try and minimize shortcutting traffic from County Road 19 down Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive to Highway 41. As part of this study an effort should be made to reduce shortcutting traffic to accommodate the new traffic that will be generated from the MCC redevelopment project. The new traffic could be as much as 1,000 trips a day. For the most part, that new traffic needs to be directed to the County Road 19 intersection. He has asked traffic engineers how far people have to go out of there way before a traffic route is no longer a shortcut. In response to a comment by Chair Geng, Director Nielsen explained that what the developer is proposing will require a planned unit development (PUD) which is a flexible zoning tool. The current R- 1A zoning allows the developer to build one single-family dwelling unit on a 40,000 square foot lot. There are some undesirable soils in spots on the MCC property and some spots that the developer would like to protect. He would like to take the number of units allowed and cluster them on the better ground. That would result in the houses being on lots smaller than 40,000 square feet but the density would CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 7 of 9 remain the same. The developer wants to build $800,000 to $1 million houses. The question is how the houses fit on the small lots and how will what property owners want (e.g., decks, patios and swimming pools) fit on those lots as well. What will the setbacks have to be to accommodate that? Commissioner Davis noted that the developer had expressed reservations about allowing the open space to be available to the public. Director Nielsen stated that is an issue. Commissioner Maddy stated the developer also indicated that it could possibly be made public land. Nielsen stated he thought the developer was uncertain if the open space should be public or private. Under a PUD it can go either way. He then stated the developer seems to be willing to have a trail loop around the property. But, if it is going to be a public trail the developer does not want the future property owners to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of that trail. Commissioner Maddy stated that based on how Council wants to move forward with having a broader assessment of the area rather than just the MCC property he thought the Comp Plan amendment should be considered more broadly for the area. Director Nielsen stated he will pass along to Council and the Planning Consultant that the Planning Commission has concern about whether the open space should be public or private, concern about lot sizes and how the houses will fit on them, and that the Commission agrees with taking a more global approach to the project. There was Planning Commission consensus that would be the appropriate message to convey to Council. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Patrick Johnson, 26350 Alexander Lane, suggested there also be people on the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) who are not stakeholders in the surrounding the area (i.e., they do not own property in the area surrounding the Minnetonka Country Club property) to provide outside expertise. They could be planners who do not live in Shorewood, urban planners or possibly a retired developer. Director Nielsen clarified that PAC members from outside of the MCC area will also be considered. Planning Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. was commissioned to do the study. Mr. Johnson noted he reviewed some of the information Stantec provided. He stated that based on having gone through something similar in the New York City/New Jersey area when one person is hired to drive a project/study they are often looked upon with some amount of skepticism. When other outside people with expertise who are removed from the project are included with volunteers it brings another level of credibility to the project. Council Liaison Labadie stated the intent is to have a broad group of residents from different age brackets and educational backgrounds; not just those who live or work in close proximity to the project. She then stated people can submit their names for consideration on the PAC. She noted that all residents have something to offer independent of the education and where they live. She clarified that a decision has not been made on how many people will be on the PAC or when the PAC will meet. Having the PAC meet immediately before the Planning Commission meetings has been proposed. She stated those individuals selected to be on the PAC need to be committed to participating; they cannot just come and go. Mr. Johnson asked someone to expound upon Council’s desire to look at uses other than single-family residential. Council Liaison Labadie stated that has not been discussed in great detail. At this time Council wants to keep all of its options open during the study stage. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 8 of 9 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen noted that Council will interview four applicants for the two Planning Commission seats that will be open as of March 1, 2015. Nielsen stated optimistically the kickoff meeting for the to-be-determined Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) will be on February 17, 2015. If that does not work because of the short notice the fall back date would be February 24. Council Liaison Labadie noted that members of the Council will not attend the PAC meetings per the Planning Consultant’s recommendation. Director Nielsen noted that at a minimum the PAC meetings will be audio recorded so members of Council can listen to them if they would like. Chair Geng asked when the results of the detailed demographics analysis for the City by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Minnesota Program Navigating the New Normal and paid for by the Housing Fund will be presented to Council and the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure that analysis is going to be done. Geng stated he thought that would be a good thing to have done. Commissioner Davis concurred. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Planning Commissioner Maddy reported on Council’s January 26, 2015, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen stated remodeling of the structure on the 5680 County Road 19 property has been started for the Plumbing / Heating business. • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he had heard that the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition session was not very good. He noted he will get the Commissioners information on the upcoming session. • Other Council Liaison Labadie stated she attended a two-day session for newly elected city officials’ on January 30 and 31. She thought about 500 people from all over the State attended. The first day she found to be “light and fluffy”. On day two there was a lot of discussion about open meeting laws. She is going to see if there is a way to get a clean copy of the material because she thought it would be valuable for the Planning Commissioners to have. She explained that anytime there is a quorum of members of a commission, council or any such body the meeting has to be noticed to the public. Although people can get together at social functions without it being noticed, if there is any discussion about city business it is technically an open meeting and the city and attendees can be looking at sanctions. A neighboring city has gotten into a lot of trouble because of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 3, 2015 Page 9 of 9 that. Shorewood is on the radar of a lot of cities because of the potential Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. She learned that all emails should come through City Clerk Panchyshyn, Planning Director Nielsen or Administrator Joynes. People should not “cc” back to the entire group. When the Commission does trail walks the walks are noticed. But, that can be a tricky situation when four Commissioners are riding in the same vehicle and talking about the trail. Commissioner Davis suggested the Commission review it in a meeting so the discussion becomes part of the public record. Director Nielsen stated that when residents ask a Commissioner or member of Council to come to a project site and talk about a project people should tell them that if they have something to say it should be said to all of the members of Council and the Commissions. That was the advice of the City Attorney during the Summit Woods planned unit development project. Council Liaison Labadie stated if there is a serial chain of communication that is also a violation of the open meeting law. If a developer wants to walk the site with members of Council or the Commission and if the developer shows up with coffee and donuts the refreshments should be declined because that is technically a gift. Labadie then stated that when the public meeting is closed the discussion about city business has to close. Director Nielsen stated there are Government Training Sessions available for Planning Commissioners to attend. 8. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 3, 2015, at 8:23 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder