Loading...
06-11-12 Joint Council Planning Comm MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2012 MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM Mayor Liz& called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Liz6e; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby (arrived at 6:15 P.M.); Interim City Administrator/Director of Public Works Brown; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Planning Commission Chair Geng; Planning Commissioners Davis, Hasek, and Hutchins Absent: Planning Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick and Muehiberg B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Geng seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 8/0. 2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains copies of the changes that were incorporated into the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) Report (the Report). Many of the changes came about because of the comments received at the neighborhood meeting and the public hearing about the earlier draft of the Report. He highlighted the changes made. They are as follows. ➢ The Study Area boundaries were pulled in. Gideon Glen was removed. The public works property, the public safety property and the Southshore Community Center were also removed. ➢ References to increased height and densities have been removed from the Report. ➢ The Executive Summary has been included in the front of the Report. ➢ The previous draft contained a copy of photograph of a four -story building showing how architecturally the impact of height could be overcome with materials and landscaping. That was replaced with a shorter building. ➢ The Report now specifies that if the westerly two lots in the Study Area are incorporated into a redevelopment plan the lots will be residential and the structures built on them cannot be higher than two and one half stories. ➢ A Zoning map was added to the Report showing the boundaries of the Study Area relative to the zoning pattern for that Area. ➢ Revisions were made to a number of the graphics in the Report. ➢ A schematic Concept Sketch was added to the end of the Report. It is the one used during the neighborhood meeting and public hearing. It shows the relative locations of the various uses. A brief text explanation of the Sketch still needs to be written. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Nielsen then stated if Council is satisfied with the third draft of the Report it will be published on the City's website for a 30 -day comment period for residents to comment on. As comments are received they will also be placed on the website. After the 30 -day comment period another public hearing will scheduled for the Report. Chair Geng stated that the third draft of the Report is much better than the draft that was originally presented to the public. It articulates the City's vision much more clearly. It makes it clear that the City is not driving any potential redevelopment. It will be developer driven. Hopefully it will be compatible with the City's vision and the surrounding neighborhood in particular. Mayor Liz&e asked if it is the Planning Commission's hope that the Council will adopt the Report as a planning concept that would be included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen stated that would be the goal. Nielsen explained that basically it would be an area plan for that planning district; similar to the Country Road 19 Corridor Study. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the third draft is great and that the Report has come a long way. From his vantage point it conveys the City has some thoughts about what it wants for the area but it is not stipulating what will get done. He then stated it is his understanding that a small area of grass in front of the old Tonka Bait shop belongs to the City of Tonka Bay. Director Nielsen confirmed that is correct. Woodruff stated on the south side of the corner, where what he calls the metro petro is located, on one of the graphics there is a similar drawing of a piece of grass. He asked who owns that area. Nielsen stated the City of Shorewood owns that. Woodruff asked what the metro petro and the small concrete pad are zoned. Nielsen responded C 1 and he noted that designation will be added to the Zoning map. Woodruff stated he thought this third draft is the final product with the exception of adding the text explaining the Concept Sketch and a few minor corrections. Councilmember Siakel stated the Planning Commission did a nice job of incorporating the residents' feedback into the Report. Councilmember Hotvet stated the Zoning map is very helpful. She asked if the Report in its entirely will be on the website. Director Nielsen responded it will be. Hotvet asked if residents will be informed that the Report is published on the website. Nielsen stated that will be done. Mayor Liz6e recommended that this topic be placed on the June 25, 2012, Council meeting agenda for a quick overview. Council could then recommend that it be published on the City's website for a 30 -day comment period. Councilmember Zerby arrived at 6:15 P.M. Chair Geng stated the more attention that can be drawn to the Report the better. He noted that one of the comments during the public hearing was that there had not been enough transparency about the process and that they, the residents, were the last to be consulted. He then stated he likes the idea of Council discussing it during one of its regular meetings. Mayor Liz6e stated she thought the graphics and illustrations included in the Report are helpful. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Hutchins stated this draft of the Report includes a lot of comments from residents. He then stated he thought it important to include text explaining the Concept Sketch. He noted a concept plan is one example of what it could be. Councilmember Zerby thanked the Planning Commission and Staff for the efforts that went into conducting the Study and preparing the Report. He noted that his property is located close to the Study Area so he has a personal as well as professional interest in this. 3. DISCUSSION ON ZONING PERMITS Director Nielsen explained that the Planning Commission wants to have the task of potentially amending the Zoning Code to establish zoning permits put back on its 2012 work program. Early in 2010 the Commission considered such an amendment to the Code. The Commission recommended approval of such an amendment on a 5/2 vote. The permits would be for a small list of items. Things not covered under the Building Code that are provided for in the Zoning Code but do not have any permit process associated with them. He noted the City has a permit for signs. He stated there have been instances that arose over the years where if the residents knew what the rules were, problems encountered when building without a building permit could have been avoided. Nielsen then explained the most significant thing that would be addressed with a zoning permit would be driveways. People may install driveways that are wider or closer to the property line than the City's Ordinance allows or they may seriously violate the hardcover restrictions. He cited an example of such a problem. Within two weeks of Council not taking action on the Commission's recommendation to establish zoning permits during Council's April 26, 2010, meeting the City received a call from a property owner asking how close to their property a driveway could be constructed. It is five feet. That individual thought his neighbor had put in a driveway that actually went on to their property which they had. Another item that would be addressed would be patios. He cited another example. An individual was going to do work on his property. Staff checked the property file and found out that a couple of years before that the then property owner was required to remove some hardcover in order to get a permit for something they wanted to do. That individual removed a ground level deck to reduce his hardcover area. Unfortunately, after that the property owner put is a ground cover patio. The current owner now has hardcover issues. When residents call the City and ask if a permit is needed for things such as driveways, patios and smaller sheds (sheds less than 120 square feet in area) Staff explains a permit is not required but the City does have zoning requirements. Nielsen related that Councilmember Hotvet, as liaison to the Planning Commission, had suggested Staff research what other cities do with regard to these types of things. Staff found out few cities have zoning permits. But, many cities require permits for things such as driveways, fences, and smaller sheds. They just don't call them zoning permits. Nielsen stated that in the past Staff has suggested that zoning permits would be a valuable tool, and he thought the Planning Commission shares that perspective. He explained the City of Chanhassen put together a brochure which explains what a zoning permit is, when it is required and how to apply for one. That is not only of benefit to that City but of benefit to the residents. He then stated it gets very messy for the second and third owner of a property who inherit a violation to correct it. He explained that if the codes are not enforced uniformly it ends up punishing those individuals who follow the rules. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 4 of 7 Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission wants to know if Council is receptive to the idea of zoning permits before it holds a public hearing on this topic. Commissioner Hasek stated that from his perspective zoning permits would be extremely beneficial just to protect all property owners in the City. He expressed that he did not think it is appropriate to expect the residents to monitor what goes on with development or properties adjacent to their property. He cited his personal example where a neighbor, who did have at least a survey sketch, built a fence where the fence in the back was on the neighbor's property and the front was on Hasek's property. If that had been surveyed and a permit required that would likely not have happened. He noted that he has not called the neighbor on it, but it could become an issue if /when one of them sells their property. Chair Geng stated his support for it is very similar. He cited his personal example. When he and his wife purchased their home 12 years ago they had a survey done a few months later. The survey revealed that the previous owner had built a large, stone retaining wall on the neighbor's property. They drew up a document that was recorded with Hennepin County making it clear that they did not want to take the neighbor's property through adverse possession. He stated he did not think the City is doing a service to its residents by requiring residents to police each other. He noted that he is sensitive that this could be considered a "big brother" type of thing. That the City is getting too intrusive. He stated he has no desire for a large, intrusive government. He did think the City should promote some degree of uniformity, and remove this aspect of favoritism. He clarified he did not think the zoning permits have to be expensive. He thought it would help people get along. Commissioner Davis stated she agrees some things need to be managed, and she cautioned against micromanaging things. She noted that she will be wary with her vote. She stated she thought the permits need to be low cost to get residents to comply. Commissioner Hutchins stated much of what comes up are boundary issues. He cited a personal example. He applied for and got a permit to put up a two -rail fence. The survey discovered that on one side of his property the neighbor had installed their irrigation system on his property. On the other side that neighbor installed their invisible fence on his property. He noted that he had a boundary survey done to identify where the stakes are; not a full blown survey. He stated boundary issues cause problems for neighbors. Some of the emotion can be eliminated through the permitting process. He noted he thought the cost for a permit should be minimal. When the Planning Commission discussed this the last time it thought $25 would be a reasonable fee. He stated a boundary survey costs $300 — $500. Councilmember Hotvet stated she supports revisiting this topic because she was not on the Council the last time it came up for consideration. She then stated that when she and her family moved into the City 12 years ago they had no idea what the rules and regulations were. Having a check list clarifies things for residents. She went on to state that Shorewood is an older community. People are renovating things. It is different when compared to a relatively new, developing community. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the City in general has colossal boundary issues. She cited the example where the American Legion hired a licensed surveyor to do a full blown survey. Hennepin County was involved. Yet, to this day it is unclear what the boundaries are. She commented that most property owners in the City have pencil -drawn surveys. Councilmember Siakel stated that "Minnesota nice" goes away when issues with property lines arise. She commented that it is never a problem until a property owner decides to sell. She stated that she agrees CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 5 of 7 that tightening up the process would be helpful. She then stated that process needs to be easy and cost effective. It should not be an arduous task. Councilmember Zerby asked how to go about determining which items should require a zoning permit. For example, a large playground system is not on the list. He questioned if that is because it is technically considered a movable system. He stated some of those types of systems are too large to move. He commented that there was discussion about irrigation systems, yet there is nothing on the zoning permit list that is below ground. He stated that some property owners put pipes below ground to get the drainage to the road. He asked where the line should be drawn for requiring zoning permits. He stated the boundary issues are the biggest thing. He questioned if it may be best to just consider those things that are within ten feet of the property line. He stated he would like to have it in a simpler context. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission came up with a list of things that could be included. He suggested shortening the list if Council thinks the list is too picky. He stated signs are already covered and real estate signs are allowed as long as they meet the rules. Temporary signs are handled through an administrative process. Things that are hard to correct, such as driveways, should be covered by zoning permits. He stated that establishing zoning permits is not a panacea. But, he thought it would go a long way toward eliminating problems. Councilmember Zerby stated if a fence is constructed over the property line he asked what the corrective measure would be. Director Nielsen stated it would have to be moved. Zerby stated if a permit is required and it is constructed over the property line he asked what the recourse would be. Nielsen stated it would have to be moved. He noted that before the fence is constructed there would be an inspection to assess that it would be constructed in the correct spot. He stated that at least this way the current owner would be the person dealing with the issue. Zerby stated that from his vantage point the zoning permit process would be more educational then anything. Director Nielsen stated that is largely true. Nielsen noted that when an applicant picks up a permit there is a handout that goes with it. Councilmember Siakel asked Director Nielsen what items are being proposed for a zoning permit. Director Nielsen stated it could be as minimal as driveways, patios, ground level decks, and small sheds. Nielsen commented that could be determined based on input received during a public hearing. Councilmember Zerby cited a personal example where his neighbor planted trees along the property line and now that the trees have grown there is a lot of overhang over his property. He stated he would consider a lot of items to be included on the list. Commissioner Hasek stated there is someone in his neighborhood who installed a play structure that is right outside of another neighbor's window. He asked if there are items that should be included on the list that have not been considered yet. Councilmember Woodruff stated he is troubled by what is on the list of items the Planning Commission proposed for zoning permits the last time it considered this item. And, there may be some items that should be included on the list that are not currently on it. He suggested the Commission review the list and determine if the items on the list will accomplish what the Commission wants zoning permits to accomplish. He commented that for him there is no difference between a large play structure and a tennis court. He cited an old example of the location of a garage on a former resident's property. The comment CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 6 of 7 on the location of a garage was a person does not own the view. If a person wants to own the view then they should buy the property next to theirs. He stated caution should be exercised when trying to regulate where residents locate things on their property. The then provided an example where there is a 10 -foot by 20 -foot garden in a middle of the property and the person wants to put chicken wire around it. He asked if that would require a zoning permit for a fence should zoning permits come to fruition. Director Nielsen explained that one of the items on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is to review the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Code. That is where most of the items recommended for zoning permits are found in the code. Each of the items in the General Provisions could be assessed as to whether or not it should require a zoning permit as part of that review process. Councilmember Woodruff commented that based on the list a permit would not be required to install a basketball hoop pole on their driveway. Yet, that could encroach on the neighbor's property. He stated there needs to be careful thought given to what items are proposed for requiring zoning permits. Mayor Lizee asked if the zoning permit process is working for Chanhassen. Director Nielsen noted that Staff has not spoken with representatives at Chanhassen since this was considered the last time. Nielsen stated he will follow up with them. He then stated he thought the Cities of Eagan and Edina both have good programs. Mayor Lizee stated that part of the older discussion was about play structures. A few years ago there was also discussion about skate board ramps being built in front of a property owner's house. The ramp didn't bother the owners but the neighbors had to live with seeing it. Director Nielsen stated play structures were taken off the list because they are considered somewhat temporary. Commissioner Davis stated there is the question of how safely a play structure is installed. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is any liability for the City if it were to permit a play structure. Is the City actually implying that it is safe? Director Nielsen explained this code would not be warranting the construction of any of the items on a zoning permit list. There is no standard in the Building Code for them. Councilmember Siakel asked how the Planning Commission came up with the list of eight items it proposed require zoning permits when this was last discussed. Director Nielsen explained it was based on the City's history and experiences as well as Chanhassen's program. Nielsen stated that invisible fences notoriously go over a property line. Commissioner Davis stated that when her family installed their invisible fence 25 years ago they were told they didn't need a permit and to put the fence where they think it needed to be located. It is located in the right of way. Councilmember Siakel stated she would like the Planning Commission to draft of list of what it thinks should require zoning permits. Director Nielsen reiterated the best way to do it is to consider each of the items in the General Provisions of the Zoning Code as to whether or not they warrant requiring a zoning permit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION June 11, 2012 Page 7 of 7 Chair Geng suggested the Planning Commission draft a list and submit it to Council for Council's consideration before holding a public hearing on zoning permits. Councilmember Zerby recommended starting with a guideline. Examples could be infringing on property boarders, infringing on the use of property and so forth. Chair Geng stated infringing on property rights is key. Councilmember Hotvet stated Chanhassen seems to focus on smaller or lower height items. Director Nielsen stated he thought that is because taller things are covered in Chanhassen's zoning regulations. Commissioner Davis noted that it is not possible to regulate common sense. Councilmember Hotvet stated that maybe by requiring zoning permits for some of the items discussed residents may think they have some recourse. Chair Geng it is uncomfortable to have a discussion with a neighbor about whether or not something they are building or installing is on the neighbor's property or your property. Commissioner Hutchins stated that this evening the Planning Commission wanted to find out if Council wants the topic of zoning permits to remain on the Commission's work program. There was Council consensus that it should remain there. 4. ADJOURN Zerby moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the Work Session of the City Council and Planning Commission of June 11, 2012, at 6:48 P.M. Motion passed 9/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Christine Freeman, Recorder l ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Brown, Interim City Administrator /Clerk