Loading...
07-02-13 Planning Comm Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 2 JULY 2013 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4 June 2013 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE CHARBONNET (May) GARELICK (Aug) LABADIE (Sep) MADDY (Jul) MUEHLBERG (Jun) DAVIS (Mar) GENG (Apr) 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Jeff and Jennifer Ische Location: 25365 Smithtown Road 2 3 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REGULATIONS SITE PLAN REVIEW ICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS Is A lican * 1es Steinwand Loc 5680 County Road 19 4. DISCUSSION Noise Ordinance (Revised Draft) Life -Cycle Housing Sale of City -Owned Property: 5795 Country Club Road 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2 July 2013 Page 2 REPORTS Liaison to Council SLUC Other ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick (arrived at 7:17 P.M.), Labadie, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for June 4, 2013, as presented. Motion passed _510. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 7, 2013 Davis moved, Labadie seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE CLEANING AND BICYCLE REPAIR SERVICE Applicant: James Steinwand Location: 5680 County Road 19 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He noted that the Planning Commission is an advisory body only. The City Council has the ultimate say. He stated James Steinwand is requesting a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for an automobile cleaning and bicycle repair service operation at 5680 County Road 19. He noted Mr. Steinwand is present. Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Steinwand is the oN -,ner of My Car Guy, LLC. He operates that business at 24470 SmithtoN -,n Road; two parcels doN -,n from the 5680 County Road 19 property. He proposes to lease the 5680 County Road 19 property from the American Legion to expand his business to include auto detailing and bicycle repair on the subject location. The American Legion operates between the 24470 SmithtoN -,n Road property and the 5680 County Road 19 property. The site is occupied by an old gas station building that has been vacant for a number of years. It is zoned C -1, General Commercial and contains 13,414 square feet of area. The existing building measures 28 feet by 44.5 feet and contains 1246 square feet of floor area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 2 of 17 Land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property are: north — retail store zoned C -1; east — County Road 19, then commercial strip mall in Tonka Bav zoned commercial; south — SmithtoN -,n Road then golf course zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential; and, Nvest — American Legion Club zoned C -1. The parking lot has been somewhat torn up by the removal of the old gas tanks. The building itself complies Nvith setback requirements for the C -1 district. The parking lot is substandard because it encroaches on Nvhat is technicalIv the front of the lot and to a small degree on the side abutting County Road 19. The applicant proposes using the existing pavement and patching it Nvhere necessary. Five parking spaces Neill be added on the southwest corner and two on the east side of the property. Nielsen noted that this property is part of the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study area (Study area). When the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Study Nvas done it Nvas noted that redevelopment of some parcels in the area may be proposed that is not consistent Nvith the Studv. But, if Nvhat is proposed is consistent Nvith the zoning it Nvould be evaluated based on current zoning standards. That is Nvhat Nvas done in the staff report dated May 30, 2013, for the former gas station property. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the applicant's proposal falls into the category of "auto repair — minor" which requires a C.U.P. pursuant to Section 1201.22 Subd. 4.d of the Shorewood Zoning Code. This particular C.U.P. lists 15 conditions that must be satisfied in order to obtain a permit. He highlighted those for consideration. 1. The applicant does not propose to physically alter the building, Nvith the exception of the two overhead doors to be added on the east side, facing County Road 19. 2. The applicant has not submitted any kind of landscape plan so it is not knoN -,n Nvhat treatment Nvill be given to areas not covered by building and parking. The applicant's plans are extremely rudimentary and do not address how the parking lot resurfacing Nvill be drained. A drainage plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer or landscape architect should be required prior to final approval of a C.U.P. 4. There is no indication in the applicant's submission that curbing is proposed for the parking and drivewav areas. The Zoning Code does require that the parking area have perimeter curbing around the parking and driveway pavement. The parking has to be striped. 5. Landscaping should include some sort of screening along the south edge of the proposed parking area, as Nvell as additional vegetation as recommended in the County Road 19 Corridor Studv. 6. The applicant proposes to retain both driveNvays on the property. Staff suggests that the northerly drivewav on County Road 19 is unnecessary to the proposed operation, it results in a poor parking layout, and it adds additional hardcover. If that driveway Nvas removed it Nvould provide an opportunity for better parking lot design. Staff prepared an enhanced site plan that shows one Nvav to do that. The applicant has not submitted a sign plan; that can be addressed administratively under a separate sign permit. The property is alloNved three signs in total, one free - standing sign and two Nvall signs. Like other properties, this one is alloNved two temporary sign permits for ten days each per Near. They can be run back to back for twentN- days in a row. The C.U.P. should reference compliance Nvith sign codes as a condition of approval. The C.U.P. should address the issue of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 3 of 17 using business vehicles as signage (e.g. commercial vehicles must be screened from view, particularly outside of business hours). The applicant has indicated that there Neill be no outdoor storage. The permit should expressly state that outdoor storage of any kind is not alloNved. That Nvould have required a separate C.U.P. It's anticipated there Nvill be some overnight parking. That should be addressed in the C.U.P. — it should not exceed 24 hours. Along Nvith that, the applicant's plans should address Nvhere the trash enclosure Nvill be located. 9. The proposed use is not what Nvas intended in the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study. The Studv states that individual sites Nvill be revieNved under current code requirements. Although it appears that the American Legion is simply trying to rent the space until ultimate redevelopment of the area occurs, it is essential that even "temporary" activities meet cite standards. With regard to site requirements, Nielsen explained the applicant's plans are considered quite conceptual and have not been professionally prepared. He revieNved items that should be required to be included in plans prepared by professionals, either a registered engineer or a registered landscape architect. 1. The existing building complies Nvith C -1 district setback requirements, but the current parking lot does not. The applicant's plans propose to use the parking lot and driveNvays as they currently exist, patching in Nvhere asphalt has previously been removed. It is recommended that the parking lot be corrected to include concrete perimeter curbing and removing the portions of the parking lot that do not comply. The applicant proposes five perpendicular parking spaces in the southNvest corner of the site and two parallel spaces along the east edge of the parking lot. For the use proposed, the Zoning Code requires eight parking spaces. Staff prepared an enhanced site plan that shows one Nvay this could be revised to achieve the eight spaces Nvhile correcting the existing nonconformity, it is not considered to be the best design. Circulation between the two driveNvays conflicts Nvith the parallel parking and the parallel parking may conflict Nvith access into the building. Staff prepared an alternative site plan that eliminates the County Road 19 driveNvay and creates four perpendicular parking spaces on the north side of the existing pavement. No landscape plan has been presented. The applicant should be directed to commission a registered landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan that includes the requirements of the Zoning Code and the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study. Nielsen stated based on the review of the case, at this time the best staff can recommend is some sort of conceptual approval. Basically, the use is acceptable subject to addressing the issues raised. Conditions of that use Nvould be addressed upon receipt of plans that Nvould address Nvhat site improvements Nvould be made. Nielsen noted staff recommends conceptual site approval only. The applicant should come back Nvith professionally prepared site plans in compliance Nvith the City Ordinance. Mr. SteinNvand noted that he understands all of the conditions that Director Nielsen brought up. He also noted that the MST Car Guv business is doing fine in the building located at 24470 SmithtoN -,n Road. He stated he thought it Nvould be fun to clean up the old gas station building in a very economical Nvay. He commented that even-one knows there is limited life left for that building; it's in very poor condition. It CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 4 of 17 has been an eyesore for many Nears. He stated he thought it Nvould be easy to spruce it up — to get the landscaping and the yard looking nice, and to paint the building. Mr. SteinNvand noted that although he did not realize it at the time he submitted his application he now understands the City is going to construct the County Road 19 trail which Nvill go from the LRT Trail to the existing sidewalk on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of County Road 19 and SmithtoN -,n Road. Mr. SteinNvand stated the auto cleaning and bicycle repair operation is not going to be a money making deal for him. He also noted there is no bicycle repair shop in the area any more. He stated the feedback he has received from people in the area about this idea has all been positive; in part, because of cleaning up the corner. He stated it's nice that the Lucky 7 gas station is coming to the southeast quadrant of the intersection. He noted that it is not within his budget to put a lot of money into the old gas station building or property, and stated he is not sure anyone else is Nvilling to do that. He stated he thought he could clean the building and property up, and that the people who oN -,n the Heartbreaker men's store next to his property Nvould like to see that happen. Mr. SteinNvand noted that he did not anticipate having any parking at the 5680 County Road 19 property day time or night time. There is a huge parking lot at the 24470 SmithtoN -,n Road property. Customers' cars are not stored outside overnight. And, the majority of the business at the 5680 County Road 19 property Nvill be bicycle repair. He explained the paper Nvork processing Nvill done in the facility MST Car Guy operates out of now. There Neill be limited use of the parking area at the site location. He stated he would like to bring the parking lot to a condition better than it Nvas when it Nvas the bait shop. He has an estimate for restoring the surface above where the gas tanks Nvere to what it Nvas. That condition Nvas obviousIv fine back then. He noted that he has spoken to representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and they have no issues Nvith what he is proposing. He stated he and his N ife Nvould like to clean up the building and site for about $10,000; he cannot do that for tens of thousands of dollars. He explained that garbage Nvill be handled out of the MST Car Guy facility. He stated he could have it cleaned up by July 1 if the C.U.P. is approved the third Nveek of June. He then stated if the expensive improvements suggested by Director Nielsen are required he cannot do what he is proposing. Chair Geng asked Mr. SteinNvand about the type of lease agreement he has reached Nvith the American Legion. Mr. SteinNvand stated he has a 10 -Near lease agreement for the Blair Burry building where he operates his MST Car Business out of and he had hoped to get the same term for the American Legion oN -,ned property. He noted the tentative agreement is for a five -Near lease. Due to the unknoN -,n life of the building no one Nvants to commit to five Nears. That is another reason it does not make sense to put a lot of money into the building and site. Geng stated the 5680 Country Road 19 property is part of the SmithtoN -,n Road Redevelopment Study area. He asked Mr. SteinNvand if he has had anv discussion Nvith American Legion representatives about the possibility of a developer buying individual parcels or a number of parcels in that Study area. Mr. SteinNvand stated that has been discussed but people do not think that Nvill happen Nvithin the five -Near lease period. Mr. SteinNvand stated he is not going to do anything to the inside of the old gas station / bait shop facility other than whitewash it and clean it up. Mr. SteinNvand then stated he thought the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study area also included the gas station property located on the southeast quadrant of the County Road 19 and SmithtoN -,n Road intersection. Chair Geng stated it does but the focus to date has been on the northwest quadrant. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 5 of 17 Chair Geng asked Mr. SteinNyand if the American Legion is comfortable entering into a five -Near lease agreement. Mr. SteinNyand responded apparently yes. Geng asked if there Nyould be a Nyav for the American Legion to void the lease if a developer presented the Legion Nyith an opportunity to sell the property. Mr. SteinNyand stated he can only assume Nyhat Nyould happen; but, he does not knoNV. Commissioner Garelick asked if the customer base for the bicycle repair business Nyill be same as the customer base for the My Car Guv business. Mr. SteinNyand stated the bicycle business Nyill be called South Lake CNTcle and doing business as part of MST Car Guy. Garelick commented that he vievys MST Car Guy as an upscale operation. Garelick asked if South Lake Cycle Nyill also be upscale. Mr. SteinNyand clarified he does not consider his car repair business to be upscale nor his potential bicycle repair business to be upscale. The services are for people from all different Nyalks of life. Garelick stated if South Lake CNTcle does not come to fruition he asked Nyhere people take a bike for repair. Mr. SteinNyand stated there is no one in the South Lake area. Commissioner Davis stated if South Lake Cvcle comes to fruition she Nyould immediately take her bike there for a tune -up. She explained she cannot transport it to, for example, Chanhassen. She could ride it to South Lake CNTcle and Nyalk home. Mr. SteinNyand noted they pick up and deliver bicycles, and they have loner bicycles. Mr. Garelick asked Mr. SteinNyand hoNv many employees South Lake Cycle would have. Mr. Steinvyand responded probably tNyo or three. Mr. SteinNyand explained the main technician used to oN -,n a bicycle shop in the City of Excelsior, noting he has no interest in being a full-time technician forever. Commissioner Labadie stated her major concern is drainage. She asked Mr. SteinNyand if he Nyas aNvare he Nyould have to have a drainage plan N-,-hen he estimated his fix -up costs to be $10,000. Mr. SteinNyand stated there is seNver drainage along the existing curbing. He then stated if the asphalt is restored to the Nyav it Nyas before the gas tanks Nyere taken out drainage should be the same as before. LoNvell Dav (Boone), 25 Pleasant Avenue, Tonka Bay, and a representative for the American Legion located at 24450 SmithtoN -,n Road, noted there are tNyo catch basins on the subject property. They Nyere put in as part of the reconstruction of the County Road 19 and SmithtoN -,n Road intersection. He explained that before the intersection Nyas reconstructed the subject property line Nyent straight because Smithtovyn Road Nyent straight. When the reconstruction came along Hennepin County took a pie- shaped piece of land. Mr. Dav stated once the asphalt is restored over the location of the former gas tanks the drainage should be the same as Nyhat it Nyas after the intersection Nyas reconstructed. He then stated that Mr. SteinNyand did Nyant a ten -Near lease for the 5680 County Road 19 property but the American Legion Nyas more inclined to have a five -Near lease agreement Nyith a buy -out clause included. He Nyent on to state he does think that someday that area Nyill be redeveloped, but he has been around the American Legion for a long time and he does not think that Nyill happen over the next three Nears. It may over the next five Nears. He noted that Mr. SteinNyand has been a good neighbor, and that he keeps his site clean. He stated the old bait facility is a bit of an eyesore and Mr. SteinNyand has proposed an opportunity to clean it up a little. In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Mr. SteinNyand noted MST Car Guy already provides car detailing services. Mr. SteinNyand explained that his car repair side of the business is picking up and he Nyanted to move the detailing Nyork to the building located at 5680 County Road 19. He stated there Nyill be a MST Car Guy sign and a South Lake Cycle sign on that property and most of the activity there Nyill be for bieveles. Maddv asked if Mr. SteinNyand anticipates selling bieveles or bievele accessories. Mr. SteinNyand responded at this time no. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 6 of 17 Mr. SteinNyand stated he Nyants to do Nyhat he has proposed and that he thought it Nyould be good for that corner. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Bill Hennev, 25920 Birch Bluff Road, stated he has done business N ith Mr. SteinNyand for about fifteen years; most recently at My Car Guv in Shorevyood and for fourteen years before that N-,-hen Mr. SteinNyand ran the Midas business at the intersection of Highvmy 7 and Vine Hill Road. He noted as a customer his experiences have alNyays been positive. He also noted that he supports what Mr. SteinNyand is proposing. He stated Mr. SteinNyand has alreadv brought one neNy business to ShoreNyood. It has been good for Mr. SteinNyand, Shorevyood and the customers of MST Car Guv. He then stated he thought the proposed bicycle repair business Nyould be a unique business for ShoreNyood. He Nyent on to state Mr. Steinwand is proposing to change an eyesore into business operation and he expressed his support for that. Bruce Smith, 5875 Country Club Road, stated he is a customer of MST Car Guv. He then stated he thought Nyhat Mr. SteinNyand is proposing Nyould be a great thing for the community and it Nyould clean up Nyhat is currentIv an eyesore. He expressed his support for what Mr. SteinNyand is proposing. Jessie SteinNyand, 20795 Garden Road, noted he is a son of Mr. SteinNyand and an employee of MST Car Guv on the Nyeekends. He has a remodeling company in ShoreNyood. He stated he Nyould probably be responsible for getting the old bait shop building functional. He expressed his support for Nyhat Jim SteinNyand is proposing to do. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M. Commissioner Davis asked Director Nielsen if the building has to be inspected. Director Nielsen stated it does. Davis noted that the building has been gutted. She stated she concurs N ith Mr. Day that there are tNyo catch basins there. She explained if the area Nyere to re- sculpt the curb there that Nyould interfere Nyith the drainage and existing catch basins. There had been a landscaping plan done once for the subject site. Davis stated, N ith the understanding that Mr. SteinNyand Nyants to get the proposed business going, she asked if he could come back Nyith a plan for items on the list Nielsen presented for the Planning Commission to consider tNyo Nyeeks from noNy. She then stated that property is an eyesore and anything done to that property Neill be an improvement, even if it is just painting it and repairing the asphalt. Director Nielsen stated he does not disagree Nyith Commissioner Davis's argument. Unfortunately, there are probably a lot of places in the City Nyhere the same thing could be said about them. He then stated the City has to consider requests as if they Nyill be there for a long time. It may be three to five Nears, or it could be ten Nears. He Nyent on to state it is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to alloy something less than Nyhat the City Code requires and that Nyould require a variance Nyhich Nyould have to be processed as such. If Mr. SteinNyand doesn't Nyant to put in curbing he needs to make that proposal and make a variance request. Commissioner Davis asked if he could put in hand - formed asphalt curb rather than concrete curb? Director Nielsen stated the City has alloNyed that. Nielsen noted snoN -,-ploNys N neck that type of curbing. He does not think that is a good alternative. Director Nielsen explained the City Code addresses Nyhat is called an interim C.U.P. It's basically a C.U.P. for something that is an interim use. It may be possible under that to Nyork around some of the requirements. He clarified that suggests there Nyould be a definite time period and if the interim use goes CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 7 of 17 beyond that the site Nvould have to be brought into compliance Nvith the City Code. The process for the interim C.U.P. Nvould be the same as just the C.U.P. Nielsen noted an engineer can make the curbing Nvork Nvith the existing catch basins. Commissioner Davis stated she Nvould like the drivewa -,T on the north end closed off. She noted that she frequently sees people cut through the subject property using that driveway. Chair Geng stated he Nvould have difficulty recommending to the City Council that it approve this C.U.P. because from his perspective the application seems to be inadequate. He noted that Director Nielsen has detailed a number of points that need to be addressed. He stated he appreciates there is a need for a bicycle repair shop in the South Lake area. He then stated he appreciates the spirit of the applicant in coming fonvard Nvith a goal of Nvanting to make positive change. He did not believe there Nvould be any disagreement Nvith the characterization that the subject property is an eyesore. He Nvent on to state that the City has adopted a Zoning Code stipulating numerous regulations and the Planning Commission and Council need to stand by that. From time to time there have been instances where people have sought a variance from compliance Nvith certain aspects of the Code. That has not been asked for in this circumstance. Geng noted that it is unclear to him what the plan is. It has been characterized by Nielsen as more of a concept plan. He stated based on comments made by some Commissioners there seems to be sympathy for the concept. But, when it comes to compliance Nvith the Zoning Code Nielsen has indicated that it does not seem like enough thought has gone into addressing some areas of the Code. He then stated there is no professional plan for things such as drainage, circulation, parking or landscaping. He noted that he understands that there is a cost associated Nvith doing that. He also understands that the bicycle repair business may not justify that expense. Geng stated that Nielsen has suggested an interim C.U.P. as an alternative to the C.U.P. for a set period of Nears. The applicant could give some thought to that. He then stated that he does not think the plan as submitted is ready to be sent to the City Council. There are too many provisions in the Zoning Code that have not been addressed. He explained if in the end the applicant Nvants to seek relief from certain Code requirements that requires applying for a variance. The City is required to publicize an application for a variance(s) to allow members of the community the opportunity to voice their perspectives on the requested variance(s). He noted the best the Planning Commission could do this evening is recommend conceptual approval. He stated he thought all of the Commissioners are in favor of cleaning up the site. He then stated the suggested use is reasonable. Commissioner Labadie stated recreational biking is done in the summer time for most people. She stated there are timelines that must be adhered to for publication of when a variance Nvould be considered. She questioned if those timelines Nvill Nvork for the applicant. She stated it seems that the applicant has a maximum dollar amount of about $10,000 that he Nvants to spend on the property and building. She asked if the applicant has a date by which the bicycle repair business has to start operating if it is going to go into operation at all this season. Mr. Steinwand stated he understands there are Zoning Code regulations. He also understands what he is proposing is a temporary thing. And, that there are things that are not in compliance. But, he is not going to spend the money to do all of the things Director Nielsen identified. He then stated he remembers what the site looked like when it Nvas a bait shop (probably most of his life time) and he can make the site look much better than what it looked like then relativehT quicld -T. He Nvent on to state if he can't do something Nvithout bringing everything into compliance then he is not going to do an- ahing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 8 of 17 Commissioner Davis stated there are three big issues — landscaping, parking and drainage. Parking and drainage are actualIv one issue. She then stated even if the Planning Commission called another meeting for two Nveeks from now to address this request it Nvould not go before Council until July 8 at the earliest assuming everything Nvas perfect. She clarified she is not saying the proposal can't move fonvard; only that it has to do so Nvithin a specified timeframe. Director Nielsen stated if the application Nvere amended to an interim C.U.P., based on the publication timeline, the earliest it Nvould appear on the Planning Commission meeting agenda Nvould be on July 2. It could possibly be placed on the July 8 Council meeting agenda. Mr. Dav asked whN- a landscaping plan has to be prepared by a professional. Can it just be a piece of paper Nvith options? Chair Geng stated he did not think it Nvould pass muster Nvith the Planning Commission or the City Council. Mr. Dav asked whN-. Geng explained the City has a Zoning Code and it includes professional design standards. Mr. Steinwand noted the property that the Heartbreaker store is located on which abuts the subject property on the north has no landscaping. Director Nielsen stated Heartbreaker moved into an open retail operation. Mr. Dav stated there is existing asphalt curb on a portion of the subject property. He asked whN- that cannot just be continued. He commented that to say a snowplow would hit the curbing Nvould be speculative at best. Director Nielsen stated extending the asphalt curbing could be considered if the applicant decides to go Nvith an interim C.U.P. Mr. Dav noted he is still confused about the need for a professional landscaping plan. Chair Geng stated the plan Nvould have to be prepared by either a professional landscaper or by a civil engineer to address the various Code requirements. Commissioner Davis noted that landscape architects and designers deal Nvith drainage as Nvell. Garelick moved, directing the applicant to amend his conditional use permit request to be an interim conditional use permit and submit that. The motion died for lack of a seconded. Chair Geng clarified that the Planning Commission cannot instruct the applicant to do that. He noted that he thought that is a sensible suggestion. He stated if the applicant Nvants to move forward Nvith the proposal the Zoning Code requirements have to be addressed in some Thev can be addressed by speci -,Ting how requirements will be complied with or by asking for a variance(s). He noted state law requires notice to the public a certain amount of time in advance of the variance being considered. He stated if the applicant Nvants to consider resubmitting the plan as an interim C.U.P. the existing application Nvill have to be amended and resubmitted to the City. The Planning Commission Nvould then evaluate the amended application. The resubmitted plan Nvill have to show how it complies Nvith Code requirements or if the applicant chooses he can make requests for one or more variances from certain provisions in the Code. He noted the Commission is very supportive of the conceptual plan. Director Nielsen asked if it may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to grant conceptual approval and continue the Public Hearing to its July 2, 2013, meeting. He stated during that time he can Nvork Nvith Mr. Steinwand about which application he should be submitting. If the applicant Nvere to take the interim C.U.P. approach the current application can be amended to that effect and notice published. The applicant can address the comments and recommendations in the staff report as Nvell as the Planning Commission's CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 9 of 17 comments. The applicant could instead apply for variances. He noted that it Nvould be difficult for a variance to be granted in this situation. Commissioner Maddy stated if the Planning Commission expresses its support for the plan in concept and if the applicant addresses the three issues before the next City Council meeting Nvould it be possible to move this along more quickly. Director Nielsen stated if the applicant came back Nvith plans that resolve the three issues and if the Planning Commission is Nvilling to meet in two weeks this could possibly be placed on the July 8 City Council meeting agenda. Maddy commented that there probably is not a person in the City who does not Nvant to see something better on that corner. He stated he Nvants to give the applicant a chance to spend more money and do it right or amend their application for an interim C.U.P. Chair Geng stated the applicant is going to have to decide about the various Zoning Code compliance issues, noting there are more than the three main issues. He then stated the applicant needs to submit something on paper indicating how the plan complies or does not comply. Nielsen reminded the applicant that revised plans Nvould have to be submitted no later than early in the Nveek of the 24" Commissioner Labadie stated if the amended application addresses the issues and if the Planning Commission is ready to forward it to Council Nvith a recommendation, she asked what the earliest is that Council could consider this. Director Nielsen stated possibly during its July 8 meeting. Geng moved, Davis seconded, continuing the public hearing for a conditional use permit for an automobile cleaning and bicycle repair service for James Steinwand for the property located at 5680 County Road 19 to the July 2, 2013, Planning Commission meeting to provide the applicant the opportunity to address the code compliance issues identified in the May 30, 2013, staff report and expressing the Planning Commission's conceptual approval of the proposed land use. Motion passed 6/0. 3. DISCUSSION r Zoning Code — General Provisions - Fences Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission had recommended to Council that the City adopt a system of zoning permits. A zoning permit system Nvould address things not covered in the Building Code )-et regulated in the Zoning Code. There Nvas a short list of items recommended for the permits' items that the City has had issues Nvith in the past. Council adopted an ordinance during its March 25, 2013, establishing such a system subject to leaving fences, temporary signs and patios /sidewalks until staff provide Council Nvith definitions for those items. Staff provided Council Nvith definitions for those three items during Council's April 8, 2013, meeting. Council asked that the Commission discuss the proposed clarifications before Council takes action on them. With regard to fences, Nielsen explained the concern expressed by Council Nvas about what type of fence Nvould be subject to a zoning permit. For example, Nvould a picket fence or Nvire fence around landscaping require a permit? In the past, when fences Nvere handled under building permits the City did not require a permit for that type of fence. There Nvas Council consensus that it should be clarified. He thought height Nvas the main issue for fences. He suggested an exception for unobtrusive fences (e.g., interior yard type fences) less than three feet in height be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. He then suggested changing Section 1201.03(f)(9)(iv) which currently reads " S'ublect to other restrictions within this section, fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side yard property line from the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 10 of 17 rear lot line to the required front yard setback line; " to include except side yard property lines abutting the street. This is particularly for corner lots. He Nvent on to suggest Section 1201.03(f)(9)(vi) Nvhich currentIv reads "All boundary line fences in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open ... "be relaxed for four - foot -high fences. He explained the main concern Nvith solid fences is the Nvind resistance; that is not a problem for four - foot -high fences. The ratio betNveen the amount of the fence post that is below ground and above ground is not that great for a four -foot high fence as it is for a six -foot high fence. Nielsen stated if the Planning Commission is amenable to the three changes he suggested a public hearing Nvould be scheduled for those amendments during the July 2, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Davis asked Nvhat the standard height of chicken Nvire is. Director Nielsen responded it varies, but it may not get much higher than four feet. She suggested four feet high should be the exception for chicken Nvire garden fences. She stated she applauded Council for sending this to the Planning Commission. Chair Geng clarified that Nvhat is being talked about is an exemption for interior fences rather than parameter. Director Nielsen stated it's possible the garden chicken Nvire fence could go along the property line for corner lots. Nielsen noted the current ordinance does talk about interior yard fences. It states if it is eight feet from the property line it is considered an interior fence. Nielsen stated if a four - foot -high fence is at the boundary line it should probably require a permit. Maybe it is the interior four - foot -high fence for a garden should be Nvhat is exempted. There Nvas Planning Commission consensus to provide an exception for an interior four - foot -high Nvire fence. Director Nielsen stated he Nvill put the three agreed upon amendments into an ordinance amendment for the JuIv 2, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Davis asked Council Liaison Hotvet if she thought the Planning Commission addressed Council's concern. Hotvet responded she thought so. Council Liaison Hotvet stated an open -Nvire fence is somewhat vieNved as a temporary fence. Commissioner Maddy asked if the proposed amendment Nvould prohibit someone from putting up a six - foot -high Nvire fence to protect against deer provided they got a permit. Director Nielsen stated as long as they got a permit it Nvould be permitted. Commissioner Labadie asked if a person has to reapply for a fence permit annually. Director Nielsen noted they do not. r Noise Ordinance Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has been Nvorking on and off for the past Near on a possible noise ordinance. He noted the City has not had a noise ordinance in the past. He stated from his perspective there have been enough noise issues that it may be time to put one into effect. He then stated most other cities' noise ordinances attempt to deal with hours of operation; not metering noise. He noted there is a provision in the City Code that deals Nvith noise levels for sustained noise. He explained there had been a few instances Nvhen staff Nvent to a site to measure sustained noise Nvith a noise meter generated by equipment. Staff Nvas able to prove the noise exceeded the Minnesota Pollution Control CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 11 of 17 Agency (MPCA) standards. The draft noise ordinance Nvould address things such as domestic poNver equipment (e.g., laN -,n moNvers, chain saws, leaf bloNvers, etc.); things that cannot be measured by a noise meter. From the beginning staff has tried to make the draft noise ordinance similar to other South Lake cities' ordinances; in particular the City of Excelsior's. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission is being asked to again consider the draft ordinance staff N rote dated September 27, 2012. The ordinance Nvould be an amendment to Chapter 501 (the nuisance section) in the City Code. The Commission discussed that draft ordinance during its October 2, 2012, meeting. Nielsen reviewed the draft ordinance's hourIv restrictions on certain operations Recreational vehicles — No person shall, between the hours of 9:30 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. drive or operate any minibike, snov mobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highN-,-aN-s. Domestic power equipment - No person shall operate a power laN -,n moNver, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 9:30 P.M. on any Nveekdav or between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on anv Nveekend or holiday. Snow removal equipment is exempt from this subsection. Refuse hauling - No person shall collect or remove garbage, refuse, or recycling in the city, except between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. on any day. Nielsen noted Excelsior does not allow haulers to start before 7:00 A.M. He stated the Planning Commission may Nvant to adjust the start time for the City. Construction activities — No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of anv kind of electric, diesel, gas - powered machine, or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on anv Nveekdav or between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on anv Saturday. No construction activities are allowed on anv Sunday. Nielsen noted Excelsior allows construction until 8:00 P.M. Optional — Residential construction, repairs or maintenance, including laN -,n maintenance, conducted by the homeoN -,ner or occupant shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Sundays and public holidays. Nielsen suggested incorporating this into the final draft ordinance. Nielsen noted the unusual nuisance situation in the Hillendale Drive neighborhood cannot effectively be addressed by the noise ordinance. There is no Nvav to write an ordinance to address the behavior of the people causing the situation. He stated Staff continues to Nvork on alternative solutions to that problem. Nielsen stated he thought the draft ordinance Nvould be a good amendment to the City Code. Chair Geng noted that the hours of operation for domestic power equipment and in the optional language are inconsistent. In the optional language the hours of operation Nvould be shortened. Director Nielsen acknowledged the hours need to be made consistent. Director Nielsen asked if the 9:00 A.M. — 9:00 P.M. hours of operation on Nveekends and holidays in domestic power equipment is too liberal or the hours of operation of 8:00 A.M. — 6:00 P.M. in the optional language on Nveekends and holidays too conservative. Chair Geng stated he thought 9:00 A.M. — 9:00 P.M. is reasonable. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he thought the end time of 9:00 P.M. is too late. Commissioner Davis stated especially on Sundays and holidays. Commissioner Maddy stated he has mowed his laN -,n past 8:00 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 12 of 17 Commissioner Maddv asked if the duration of sound had been considered. Director Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission discuss the restrictions one by one. After discussion about Nyhether or not to have different hours of operation for different types of recreational vehicles, there Nyas Planning Commission consensus to have Director Nielsen include an exception for snov mobiles in route to or from trails or a lake in the hours of operation for recreational vehicles. There Nyas also consensus to change the hours of operation to betNyeen 7:30 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. After discussion about domestic poNyer equipment, there Nyas Planning Commission consensus to change the hours of operation to end at 9:00 P.M. on Nyeekdays. After discussion about the hours of operation for refuse hauling, there Nyas Planning Commission consensus to leave the hours at betNyeen 6:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. After discussion about the hours of operation for construction activities, there Nyas Planning Commission consensus to leave the hours at betNyeen 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on anv Nyeekday and between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on anv Saturday. For the optional language, there Nyas Planning Commission consensus to change it to basically read Residential construction, repairs or maintenance conducted by the resident — shall be permitted betNyeen the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on anv Nyeekday or betNyeen the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. on anv Nyeekend or holiday. Commissioner Maddy asked if a fee is going to be charged for the exception. Director Nielsen responded no. Director Nielsen noted this Neill not require a public hearing because it is not a land use ordinance. The revised draft ordinance Nyill be placed on the July 2, 2013, Planning Commission meeting agenda for a recommendation to Council and it Nyould likely be on the Council's July 22, 2013, meeting agenda. Smithtown Crossing (What's Next) Director Nielsen stated N-,-hen the Planning Commission developed its 2013 Nyork program it decided to put a discussion about N-,-hat is next for northNyest quadrant of SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study area (Study area) on the Nyork program. He explained the first option is for the Commission to do nothing but Nyait until redevelopment of that area occurs. That is a relatively passive approach. Another option is to refine the redevelopment incentives and mitigate some of the obstacles to redevelopment. For example, establish criteria for the City s participation including N-,-hat to do Nyith the CitN-- oN -,ned property in that area. Another option is amend senior housing provisions. From his vantage point the first thing that is likely to happen in the area is a housing project and most likely senior housing; that is N-,-here the market is. There is the possibility of looking at increased density for that type of project; the current density for senior housing is ten units per acre. Staff has been told by more than one developer that ten units per acre is not financiallv feasible. A distinction could be considered for independent living than for assisted living facilities and care facilities; from his perspective that should be done sooner rather than later. Commissioner Muehlberg asked if there is any idea of hoNy many of those types of facilities are in the surrounding communities or planned for them. Director Nielsen stated he does not have that information available. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 13 of 17 Director Nielsen stated there may be benefit in going to look at a developed site in the City of Chaska built by Aeon to see N-,-hat that type of density looks like. Chair Geng asked hoNy difficult it Nyould be to find out N-,-hat types of senior housing (independent living, assisted living facilities and care facilities) other communities in the area have. He stated the City needs to decide if it Nyants to be more restrictive than surrounding communities from a competitive perspective. If the City is more restrictive that Neill be an impediment to having the SmithtoN -,n Crossing area redeveloped. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she thinks there is a need for housing for all age groups. She then stated she thought it prudent to think about intergenerational housing; not just senior housing but a mix of housing. Commissioner Garelick commented that at Shorevyood Ponds they are having Nyallcing races next Nyeek. Commissioner Davis commented that she does not think all seniors Nyant to live Nyith only old people. Chair Geng asked if the Metropolitan (Met) Council ever provided feedback on the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Study information incorporated into the Citv's Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. Director Nielsen responded the Met Council lilted the mixed use idea. Nielsen stated he is not sure senior housing Nyould even qualify for affordable housing. Geng noted Met Council has been pushing affordable housing. Nielsen explained the Met Council Nyants three units to the acre overall. The City is not even two units to the acre overall. Even if the project Nyere to be ten units to the acre it Nyould have almost no impact on the Citv's overall density. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she and Director Nielsen have talked in great length about incorporating some type of transit piece into the development. Although it may seem as if there is not a need right noNy, there are not feeder options to get to a future southNyest light rail system or from the system to the South Lake community. She noted that because of her job as the Executive Director of the Excelsior — Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce people ask her hoNy to get out to the South Lake area. Nielsen noted there is the one bus route. Director Nielsen commented that a bike shop and car detailing center operating out of the former bait shop facility it is not going to increase the need for bus traffic. Nielsen stated marketing and promotion Nyas effective N-,-hen the first effort for senior housing Nyas done. He suggested marketing and promoting the SmithtoN -,n Crossing area and the incentives the City has to offer for the redevelopment of the area. Nielsen then stated another option is to hire a developer (through a request for proposals process) to Nyork Nyith the City to actually get a project going. If a developer believes there is a market they may be interested in doing that. Nielsen noted the options he presented are options for N-,-hat could be next for SmithtoN -,n Crossing. He asked the Planning Commission hoNy aggressive of an approach it Nyants to take. Chair Geng stated if there is a desire to embark on a marketing promotion project or hire a developer then redevelopment incentives Nyould have to be refined and redevelopment obstacles Nyould have to be mitigated. Director Nielsen stated that Nyould be the logical thing to do. Geng questioned if Council Nyould support hiring a developer. Geng stated marketing and promotion could possibly be done relatively inexpensively. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 14 of 17 Director Nielsen stated it's better to have the City refine incentives and mitigate obstacles rather than have a developer request changes to the Zoning Code. People are alwa -,Ts suspect of that. Chair Geng stated when a developer is involved there is a higher level of scrutiny. Chair Geng stated he thought it prudent to have things in place before a developer comes fonvard. That Nvas part of the reason for doing the Study, to take a proactive approach. He then stated from his perspective the Planning Commission needs to further discuss City participation and senior housing. He noted he is not in favor of taking the passive approach of just Nvaiting. He also noted that he has a great deal of sympathy for what the oN -,ner of MST Car Guy Nvants to do; to expand into the old gas station building and have a bicycle repair and auto detailing operation. That is a laudable thing to do. Unfortunately, that is a piecemeal approach. Director Nielsen stated during the public hearing there Nvas discussion about making the old gas station building property look better. The oN -,ners had a demo permit about a Near and a half ago which would have allowed them to demo that building. That is an option — to demo the building, plant grass over the site and then market the site. He noted that building is not in good condition. Commissioner Davis stated there is no Nvater or electrical in that building. The belief that the building could be fixed up for $10,000 is not realistic. She thought it Nvould be more like $40,000 — $50,000. Director Nielsen stated there are differing points of view among American Legion representatives, the oN -,ner of the bait shop property, regarding demolishing the old gas station building. Nielsen stated staff Nvill get life -cycle housing on a future agenda as Nvell as discussions about possible incentives from the Citv. Commissioner Maddy asked how potential developers are finding out about the properties in the SmithtoN -,n Crossing area. Director Nielsen stated developers pay attention to developable land. The City receives inquiries about sites all the time. Nielsen then stated it helps to get the Nvord out. MaddV expressed concern about the City promoting properties it does not oN -,n. He explained developers usually have a purchase agreement for less than the value of the property and the come before a cit -,T for major variances. He indicated he thought the property should be rezoned Nvith the hope that a property can entice a developer to purchase the property because they could enhance the parcels and the seller could get a fair market value for their property. That approach could be good for the seller, the buyer and developer, and the Citv. Director Nielsen stated the biggest concern staff has is the property owners Nvant more than fair market value for their properties in the Study area. He then stated he agrees Nvith Chair Geng's recommendation that the Zoning Code amendments talked about in the Study should be addressed now. They could potentially be in place before a developer approached the City. Commissioner Maddy stated based on giving the current property ov'ners the new property rights through the amendments a Nvait and see approach may be appropriate. The City Nvould not have to market the Studv area. Director Nielsen clarified the marketing and promotion effort Nvould not be about a specific site in the Studv area. It Nvould be about the redevelopment opportunity and what incentives the City is N filling to consider. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 15 of 17 Chair Geng stated he does not think any developer is going to be interested in any particular parcel in the Study area. He commented that he is not sure the property ovmers realize that. The individual properties do not have much redevelopment potential. The value of the properties is the land itself; not the structures on the land. Director Nielsen stated during the next couple of Planning Commission meetings there Nvill be discussion about criteria for life -cycle housing. Chair Geng again suggested staff research Nvhat other surrounding communities are doing Nvith density. It may make it easier for staff and the Planning Commission to come to a consensus about density for that area. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission could do site visits to various density developments Chair Geng asked if there is any more to be done Nvith public participation at this time. Director Nielsen stated there are different Nvays to deal Nvith the City -ovned property in the Study area. They range from giving it to a certain type of development for a certain type of use to selling it for the amount the City paid for it. He noted the City is not in a position to purchase any more land in the Study area. He stated he thought the American Legion has reasonable expectations about the value of its land. And, the ovmers of the little apartment building have the most unreasonable expectation. Chair Geng clarified he Nvas talking about amending the Zoning Code for senior housing provisions. That Nvould require a public hearing. He stated he Nvas talking about how to get the public involved before the hearing stage. He then stated the residents who live the closest to the Study area Nvere the ones that Nvere most concerned and the ones that came to the open house and Planning Commission meetings about the Study. To him there seemed to be unease about a senior housing project. Director Nielsen stated he thought they Nvere concerned about the look as much as an- ahing. Some Nvere concerned about the level of activity. He explained the look Nvas addressed by limiting the height of a structure on the first two lots in that portion of the project area to residential height restrictions; two and one half stories or 35 feet. He stated having the density for senior housing different from that for assisted living and care facilities Nvould be helpful. It Nvould also help if the entire project area could be used for density purposes even though part of the area is commercial. Nielsen noted that he Nvill get the Planning Commission background information about current projects in the surrounding communities and the densities alloNved for the July 2, 2013, meeting. r Life -Cycle Housing Director Nielsen stated that he Nvants to pull this item from the agenda. He has not prepared anything for the discussion. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nvere no matters from the floor presented this evening. _5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis stated there had been discussion about getting together Nvith planning CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 16 of 17 commissioners from other South Lake area cities for additional planning and zoning training or informational sessions. She asked what has become of that. Director Nielsen stated he Neill check Nvith the other cities about that. In response to a question about the proposed 2014 trail segments, Director Nielsen explained during its Mav 28, 2013, meeting Council authorized the survey Nvork for the two segments. Staff Neill have a proposal for feasibility studies for Council to consider during its June 24 meeting. Chair Geng stated there is another open house for the SmithtoN -,n Road (Nvest) sidewalk project on June 5; a preconstruction open house. He asked if Staff Nvants the Planning Commissioners to attend. Director Nielsen stated they are Nvelcome but not expected. Director Nielsen encouraged the Planning Commissioners to come to the ground breaking ceremonies on June 10 for both the SmithtoN -,n Road (Nvest) sidewalk project at 6:00 P.M. and the County Road 19 trail/side�valk project at 6:30 P.M. He noted he Neill send out a reminder email. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for July 2, 2013. Director Nielsen stated the conditional use permit for MST Car Guy may be on that agenda again Nielsen noted the City can probably Nvork around bringing some of the things on the old gas station property into conformance at this time. He clarified he does not think they should be let off the hook for landscaping; there should be some reasonable landscape plan. Chair Geng stated he does not think that what is being proposed is good use of that property. He noted that he is sympathetic. He stated there ma -,T be a need for a bicycle repair operation, but questioned the need for an auto detailing operation. He then stated alloNving that Neill make it more difficult to move forward Nvith the redevelopment of that northwest quadrant of the SmithtoN -,n Crossing Redevelopment Studv area. Director Nielsen stated also on the July 2 meeting agenda there Nvill be another conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1,200 square feet. There will also be discussion about life -cycle housing. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council None. SLUC None. Other None. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 4, 2013 Page 17 of 17 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 4, 2013, at 9:30 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 June 2013 RE: Ische, Jeff and Jennifer - C.U.P. for Accessory Space. in Excess of 1200 Square Feet s FILE NO.: 405(13,04) r BACKGROUND Jeff and Jennifer Ische have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage' on their property, located at 25365 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A attached). The floor area of the new garage, when combined with the,Isches' existing detached garage and an existing utility shed brings the total area of accessory space on the property over j 1200 square feet. The property is zoned R -1A, Single - Family Residential and contains I approximately 87,346 square feet of area. Exhibit B shows the location of existing and proposed buildings on the property. The existing house is a walkout rambler with approximately 3000 square feet of floor area above grade. The existing garage, located east of the house, on the east side of the lot, contains 737 square feet of floor area. The utility shed, located farther back on the property contains 151 square feet. The new garage (see Exhibit C) will be located in a small clearing, north of the house, just over 60 feet back from the street. It measures 30' x 30' and contains 900 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1637 square feet. j i ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION j Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies with the Code: ®�0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Ische C.U.P. 27 June 2013 a. The total area of accessory space (1637 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (3000 square feet). i b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for r the R -IA zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). C. The proposed garage and the existing house comply with the setback requirements of the R -lA zoning district. The new garage will be approximately 27 feet from the west side of the property and approximately 62 feet from the front of the lot. Given the size of the j property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping are [ not considered to be issues in this request. Although a couple of existing trees will be I removed to accommodate the garage, it will remain well screened from both the street and adjoining properties (see Exhibit D). d. As shown on Exhibit E, the materials and design of the new garage will be consistent with the character of the existing house and garage. E i In light of the preceding, the applicants' request is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Jeff and Jennifer Ische -2- Val tVall � �' ,� e d =� N Isi � 3: S nn v le o r ILa L w o L L Cr ;nlit6t n L it rn �t Subject co Property nithto n L Minnetonka Country Club FZI �a M n La it N Freeman Park 0 300 600 1,200 c a� Feet n t-' w H E13 Yellow Tr a F o d D �n for: Jeff Ische 25365 Smithtown Road Shorewood, MN 55331 1= 0 Description - ofProRertv Sufweved: That part of Lot 5, EUREKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the northerly line of said Lot 5, distant 105.00 feet northwesterly of the northeasterly corner thereof; thence southerly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 5, distant 200.00 feet westerly of the southeasterly comer thereof and said line there terminating. Subject to easements of record. Hard -cover Calculations: Total Lot Area = 87,346 s.f. (2.005 Acres) Existing House = 1,883 s.f. Existing Garage = 586 s.f Existing Shed = 151 s.f Existing Driveway = 4,526 s.f Existing Concrete = 40 s.f. Existing Pavers = 1,456 s.f Existing Deck = 357 s.f Proposed Garage = 900 s.f. Total Impervious = 9,899 s.f Total Impervious % = 11.33 LEGEND s �,,'> Arborvitae X Spot Elevation DECIDUOUS TREE • FOUND IRON MONUMENT FILE NAME Pine Tree xy certify that this plan or report was prepared by ® � order my direct supervision and that I am a duly ti7 27 d Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of W le of Minnesota. y —Y-. \' ` 22703 05/29/13 5� V. Ische License No. Date N I 112" torn P� p$O0 �r wNe PROPOS ED eB2 aa�s g GARAG .s _ 2s. s� (FF 894.5, a93;� PINE S�iTHTpwN ed eofbitumr a 170A0 nWs S��p4:38 -; 199 98 S 00"'e! Or C 9 f r p ar ry p / 91. 0 ! mr/ ­NE mer of Lot 5 ot5 of ae.m "/ e10 i° 3. � Jyo 1 987.1 s Spike �yy 200.00,(Deed) N 88 °0345" W FILE NAME 1106 -OO.try y9y" I DATE y y I 5 -29 -2013 26.6' 2r.0• - g�A A9�3 OT REVISION y O 1/1 f >,3• 99�o- EX /ST /NG >zz. £ v*s• ,e.i• bi _as,• HOUSE _ n rra•'� r ry 241. DECK � _i9.e• PAVERS _ — Er /vying Garage O Storage - -. L Shed -- y lot�j — Fire Pit 2 Sul v w ' u w w 1 987.1 -- South line of Lot 5 i Spike 999.54' (Meas) 200.00,(Deed) N 88 °0345" W FILE NAME 1106 -OO.try SCALE DATE DRAWN BY. 50' 5 -29 -2013 SVI JOB REVISION SHEET 1106 -00 1/1 1/1 This map drawn with TRAVERSE PC, Software C 9ez.o SE Comer of Lot 5 1" Iron Pipe MUMIER LAND SURVEYING, LLC 952- 443 -3010 I mie, I' 03 Here are the wall configurations Illustration May i Gable Front View (2) - MSESV 10X8 EZ -SET WHITE MSESV INSUL 3'X64' Eave Front View �3� -48X36 VINYL SLIDER CLEAR GLASS 1 - E -10 HALF LITE STEEL DOOR36X80 RH DB Eave Back View IRC4 4r, v��L& 6 v toe - Building Size: 30 feet wide X 32 feel long X 9 feet high Approximate Peak HeiahL�ncludes� row of concrete blocks) 15 feel 0 inches (180 inches) Menards provided material estimates are intended as a general construction aid and have been calculated using typical construction methods. Because of the wide varinhle in codes and site restrictions, all final plans and material lists must be verified with your local zoning, Exhibit C Menards is a supplier of construction materials and does not assume liability for design, engineers PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATIONS phone and gas lines should be located and marked before your building plans are finalized. Reme protection during construction to ensure a positive building experience. I 0 0 4- � a--+ i CU Cv w y0--W (1i Exhibit D AERIAL PHOTO ii tul ". Exhibit E EXISTING GARAGE PHOTO CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960 -7900 • FAX: (952) 474 -0128 • Email: planning @ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 June 2013 RE: Proposed Fence Ordinance Revisions FILE NO. Zoning (Fences) A public hearing has been scheduled for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting to consider proposed revisions to Shorewood's fence regulations. The attached material is the current code section relative to fences, with revisions highlighted in red. These revisions were initially triggered by the Zoning Permit process, recently adopted by the City. Staff included various "housekeeping" revisions as well. If you have any questions relative to the proposed changes, please do not hesitate to contact me by phone or e -mail prior to Tuesday night's meeting. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane f. Fences - general requirements. (1) Permit required. No person, firm or corporation shall construct or erect any fence without first securing a Ong zoning permit. Exception: No permit is required for interior yard fences used for landscaping, gardening or decoration, provided the fence does not exceed four feet in height and is at least 50% open. (2) Locations. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that the fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. No boundary line fence shall be erected closer than three feet to an existing parallel boundary line fence. (3) Surveys. The Building Official may require an applicant for a fence permit to establish his or her true boundary line by a survey thereof to be made by a registered land surveyor. (4) Construction and maintenance. Every fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of material reasonably suited for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in the condition as to not become a hazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. All fences shall be so constructed that the finished side faces away from the fence owner's lot. Any fence which endangers the public safety, health or welfare shall be considered a public nuisance and abatement proceedings may be instituted by the proper city official if within 15 days after notification the owner of the fence has not undertaken the necessary repairs himself or herself to abate the nuisance. Link fences, where permitted, shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the top. (5) Nonconforming fences. All fences existing on the date of the adoption of this chapter, but not conforming herewith, except as to height restrictions, shall conform and be subject to the terms of this chapter. If at any time a nonconforming fence shall be damaged to the extent of more than 25% in any plane, then without further action by the Council, the fence shall, from and after the date of the damage, be subject to all the regulations specified by these zoning regulations. Any fence which is damaged to an extent of less than 25% may be restored to its former extent. It is the intent of this section that all nonconforming fences shall be eventually brought into conformity. (6) Prohibited fences. Electric fences shall not be permitted except in conjunction with the issuance of a horse permit pursuant to Chapter 702 of this code and shall be removed upon expiration or revocation of a horse permit. Barbed wire fences shall not be permitted except as hereinafter provided. Fences of the picket, rail or slat types shall be so constructed that the spaces between the pickets, rails or slats shall be greater than 12 inches or less than six inches. Wire fences which are not readily visible shall be prohibited except where attached to a wooden or other fence of opaque material which is itself plainly visible. (7) Required fences, swimming pools. Outdoor swimming pools with a capacity of 1,500 gallons or with a depth of three feet or more of water shall be adequately fenced to prevent uncontrolled access from the street or adjoining property. The pools shall be completely enclosed by a nonclimbable fence at least four feet in height. (8) Shoreline fences. No fence shall be allowed within the shoreline setback area as specified in . 1201.26 Subd. 5a(3) of this chapter. In addition, fences on or adjacent to the shoreline of any navigable lake, channel or stream or on or along that portion of a lot line extending from a navigable lake, channel or stream to the near side of the average building construction line, shall not exceed four feet in height. (9) Residential District fences. (a) Boundary line fences. In all parts of Shorewood which are zoned residential, no boundary line fences shall exceed four feet in height, except that: (i) Fences on all corner lots erected within 30 feet of the intersecting property line shall be subject to subdivision 2h of this section; (ii) Fences along any rear property line which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in height; (iii) Fences along a rear property line, which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in height for a distance as calculated in (iv) below and shall not exceed four feet in height when abutting a front yard line; (iv) Subject to other restrictions within this section, fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side yard property line, but not on side yard property lines abutting a street, from the rear lot line to the required front yard setback line; (v) In those instances where a fence exists as an enclosure which restricts access from the front to the rear yard, a gate, identifiable collapsible section or other means of recognizable ingress shall be provided for emergency vehicles. The ingress shall be unobstructed and a minimum of ten feet in width. The location of the ingress points shall be positioned at any point paralleling the front lot line, between the side lot property line and the principal structure; (vi) All boundary line fences over four feet in height in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open; (vii) Fences in yards abutting an intermediate arterial or minor arterial street, as designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, may be constructed to a height of six feet in a front or side yard abutting the arterial street, by conditional use permit as provided for in • 1201.04. In addition the following conditions shall apply: A. The fence shall be located no closer than eight feet to the property line; B. A landscape plan for the above - referenced eight foot setback area must be submitted in compliance with . 1201.03 subd. 2.g. of this chapter; C. The fence shall not obstruct traffic visibility. (b) Interior yard fences. (i) Any fence erected within any portion of the required front yard shall not exceed four feet in height. and shall be at yeast 251 open. (ii) Within a rear yard, at a point eight feet beyond any property line, a solid fence up to six feet in height may be erected as a total enclosure. The enclosure shall not exceed 25% of the required rear yard area and shall have adequate means of emergency access. (iii) Chain link or woven wire fences (without slat screens, canvas or other screening material opaque in nature) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other recreational purposes shall not exceed ten feet in height. (10) Commercial District fences. Fences in all Commercial Districts shall not exceed eight feet in height, except that: (a) Boundary line fences abutting R Districts shall conform to those regulations applicable to the R District; (b) Security fences: (i) Fences which are erected primarily to secure a particular area may have arms not to exceed 36 inches in length, located a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet above ground level, on which arms barbed wire may be strung; (ii) A survey establishing the true boundary line must be made by a registered land surveyor and submitted to the city; (iii) Fence arm extensions may not extend across an abutting property line or over any public right -of- way; (c) Fences erected within the required front yard area shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be of a chain link or woven wire construction which affords maximum visibility. (11) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit. (12) Fence height. The height of fences prescribed herein shall be considered to be the maximum height allowed. Fence posts may extend above the specified height by no more than eight inches. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960 -7900 • FAX: (952) 474 -0128 • Email: planning @ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 July 2013 RE: Noise Regulations FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 500) Attached is the most recent, hopefiilly final, draft of the noise ordinance. We have incorporated the revised hours from the last Planning Commission discussion and included an exception for snowmobiles en route to trails or a lake. Since this item is not a land use regulation, a public hearing is not required. Do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday night's meeting if you have questions. Cc: Dick Woodruff CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 500 OF THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE, REGARDING NUISANCES (NOISE) Section 1. Section 501.05 of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to add: "Subd. 20. Noise. The purpose of this section is to protect the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety, or welfare of city residents, and the quiet enjoyment of property within the city by imposing reasonable restrictions on the hours during which significant sources of noise may be used or operated. a. Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations. (1) Recreational vehicles. No person shall drive or operate any minibike, snowmobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways, except between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Exception: Snowmobiles en route to or from trails or a lake, may operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., on Friday and Saturday. (2) Domestic power equipment. No person shall operate a power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. Snow removal equipment is exempt from this subsection. (3) Refiise hauling. No person shall collect or remove garbage, refiise, or recycling in the city, except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day. (4) Constriction activities. No person shall engage in or permit constriction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, gas - powered machine, or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any Saturday. No constriction activities are allowed on any Sunday. Exception: Residential constriction, repairs or maintenance, including lawn maintenance, conducted by the homeowner or occupant shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and public holidays. b. Emergency work exempted. (1) Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise generated by such work. (2) The term "emergency work" means activities that are necessary to protect or preserve lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm, including work that is necessary to restore a public service or to eliminate a public hazard. (3) Emergency declaration. When conditions or circumstances within the boundaries of the city warrant, the City Administrator (or designee) in its discretion may declare that a city emergency exists. Without limitation, such emergencies may include or be the result of weather phenomena. The declaration that a city emergency exists shall have the effect of waiving application of this article to all activities reasonably related to the emergency. C. Exceptions. (1) Authority. The City Administrator or its designee shall have the authority to grant exceptions from the requirements of any provision of this subdivision. (2) Application. Any person seeking an exception shall file an application with the City Administrator or its designee on a form prescribed by the City. Information to be supplied in the application shall include but not be limited to the following information: (a) Statement of the dates and times during which the noise is proposed. (b) The location of the noise source. (c) The nature of the noise source. (d) Reasons why the exception is sought and identified hardship. (e) Steps taken to minimize the noise level. (f) Other information as required by the City Administrator. d. Enforcement. (1) Enforcement duties. The City Administrator or its designees shall enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The City Administrator or its designees may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this article. (2) Nuisance violation. Any violation of this subdivision shall constitute a public nuisance. (3) Civil remedies. Violations of this subdivision shall be subject to the Administrative Enforcement provisions in Chapter 104 of this Code. Noise violations shall be classified as a Class A offense." Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of July 2013. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: JEAN PANCHYSITYN, CITY CLERK