Loading...
011607 pl mn . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 16 JANUARY 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gagne called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Bailey (arrived at 7:15); Commissioners Conley, Gagne, Gniffke, Meyer, and Schmitt; Planning Director Nielsen, and Council Liaison Callies Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES · 5 December 2006 Gagne moved, Schmitt seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 5 December 2006 as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Conley abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. . 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT WIDTH VARIANCE / MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Bob Morlock Location: 24995 Glen Road Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a January 22, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained Bob Morlock, who owned the property at 24995 Glen Road, had requested a minor subdivision of his property. He proposed to divide the site into two residential lots. Because the property was slightly shy of having 200 feet of width at the building the line, Mr. Morlock had requested a lot width variance that would amount to two inches on each of the lots. Nielsen then explained the property was currently zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential, and was occupied by a single-family dwelling and one small accessory building. The proposed lots, if approved, would have 38,932 square feet of area - nearly double the 20,000 square feet that was required by the City's Zoning Code. With regard to analysis of the case, Director Nielsen first reviewed the following definition: "de minimis or de minimus a. of trifling consequence or importance; too insignificant to be worthy of concern; a reference to the phrase de minimis non curat lex. de minimis non curat lex [Latin] The law does not concern itself with trifles; a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 2 of7 law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings." Nielsen explained that when this item was mentioned to the Planning Commission under upcoming agenda items, the Commission's reaction was the same as City staffs - can't we just round up? The answer was that the R-1C district required a minimum width of 100 feet. Anything less required a variance. He noted that the Hennepin County half-section maps showed the subject property as being 100 feet wide, the same as the other lots on Glen Road in the Manitou Glen plat. Nevertheless, the survey provided by the applicant was more exact. The original plat for Manitou Glen had platted the subject property as two lots; and as of yet a copy of the original Manitou Glen plat had not been found to determine if the subject property and the other lots on Glen Road were shown as being 100 feet wide. Nielsen then stated although the two proposed lots could be lacking two inches each of width, they each would have considerably more area than what was required. Both lots would be considered quite buildable and would be very much in keeping with the other properties on Glen Road. Nielsen stated Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide drainage and utility easements on all four sides of the new lots. As drawn, the survey did not include an easement on the north side of the lot. 2. The applicant's attorney must provide deeds for the drainage and utility easements. 3. The applicant's attorney must provide deeds for the 10 feet of additional street right-of-way as shown on the proposed site division drawing (Glen Road was currently substandard in width). 4. The applicant must provide a title opinion, up-to-date within 30 days, for review and approval by the City Attorney. All parties having an interest in the property must consent to the deeds referenced in 1-3, above. 5. Prior to release of the resolution approving the division, the applicant must pay one park dedication fee of $2000 and one local sanitary sewer access charge of $1200 (credit has been allowed for the lot with the existing home on it). 6. The nonconforming outbuilding on the west side of the site must be brought into conformity with setback requirements (i.e., it should be relocated or removed). If this can not be accomplished prior to the release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must provide a letter of credit for $2500 to guarantee that the correction will be made no later than 1 June 2007. Acting Chair Gagne opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7: 12 P.M. In response to a question from Kathryn NetwaL 25165 Glen Road, Director Nielsen stated there were no plans to widen Glen Road. Wallace and Kimberlv Pirovan, 24845 Glen Road, stated their garage was located ten feet back from Glen Road and he questioned what the impact would be on their garage if the City did decide to widen the road. Director Nielsen again stated there were no plans to widen the road. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 3 of 7 Both Ms. Netwal and the Piroyans expressed concern with a possible increase in drainage problems in the area when a house was built on the new lot. Director Nielsen stated the City was assessing the possibility of guiding stormwater runoff from Glen Road to the LRT. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Planning Commissioner Bailey arrived at 7: 15 P.M. Commissioner Gagne commented that residents in the Glen Road area complain of drainage issues when it rains, but when the topic of special assessments to fund correcting the problem was mentioned then the problem doesn't appear to be that significant to the residents. Conley moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of a Lot Width Variance / Minor Subdivision for Bob, Morlock, 24955 Glen Road, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Acting Chair Gagne closed the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M. Commissioner Bailey assumed the role of Chair of the meeting. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7: 17 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission had previously discussed amendments to both the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code with regard to nonconforming accessory structures. He then reviewed the draft amendments that were the outcomes of those discussions and he explained the rationale for the changes. Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion ofthe Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. In response to a question from Chair Bailey, Director Nielsen responded he had not received any feedback from the City Attorney regarding the draft amendments. He stated he had received some minor edits for the Comprehensive Plan amendment from the City Administrator. The edits are underscored in the following draft Comprehensive Plan text amendment: Historic Preservation There exist buildings, structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events and persons important in local, state and national history. There are also places which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past, or which provide present and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived and worked. Shorewood recognizes these buildings and places as assets that can help to promote community pride and create a sense of community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 4 of7 . It is not the City's intent to regulate or restrict the use or development of properties of historic, architectural or cultural value. Rather, it is in the interest of the community to evaluate tools and implement policies that encourage property owners to protect and preserve these buildings and places. In this regard, the City should create and maintain an inventory or database of potentially historical~ architecturally, or culturally significant structures. A program of physically identifying these sites should be established to enhance awareness of the locations and provide educational information regarding these places of interest. In Shorewood, these reminders of the past often times exist as lesser structures that were accessory to some long-gone farm or estate. Since most of them were built before zoning regulations ever existed, they seldom comply with current development standards. To minimize conflicts between current standards and the desire to preserve historic/significant structures, Shorewood's development regulations should be amended to allow for the preservation of those found to be significant. Strict criteria should be established that address the age of the structure - recognizing that age alone does not make a building worthy of preservation, structure condition, and its historic, architectural or cultural value. Exceptions to current standards should be subject to heightened scrutiny. A special ad hoc committee, under the Planning Commission, should be created to review and comment on cases where exceptions to current standards are requested. When exceptions are granted, it shall be incumbent on the property owner to maintain the structure in very good condition. . The Planning Commission agreed with the City Administrator's edits. Council Liaison Callies questioned what the impact of the amendments would be on the Petersons, who had applied for a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet and under the current Zoning Code they would have to remove what could be considered a nonconforming historical barn as a condition of a C.U.P. She then stated she interpreted the Zoning Code text amendment to mean once a nonconforming structure was classified as historical it could not be moved or removed from the property. Both Director Nielsen and Chair Bailey stated that was not the intent of the Zoning Code amendment. After ensuing discussion, there was consensus among the Commissioners that the amendment to the Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4).(e).(iv) be clarified to ensure it was understood that a property owner had the right to bring a nonconforming historical structure into conformity or remove the structure. Due to a desire by residents in the audience to make a comment, Chair Bailey reopened the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. In response to questions from Wallace and Kimberly Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, Director Nielsen explained that any improvements made to a nonconforming historical structure must satisfy the City's Building Code; and the current Zoning Code allowed for a nonconforming structure to be added on to provided the addition complied with the Code (e.g., if a structure was too close to the lot line but the addition satisfied setback requirements, that would be allowable). . In response to a question from Bob Nyberg, 4785 Lagoon Drive, Director Nielsen stated the size of the nonconforming area could not be increased by an addition to a nonconforming structure. In response to a comment from Mr. Nyberg, Nielsen stated the amendments were intended to encourage the preservation of historical structures not to regulate those structures. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 5 of7 . Mr. Piroyan stated his existing garage was an in-ground garage and it was located ten feet back from Glen Road; he questioned if he could add on the shed-portion of the garage. Director Nielsen stated that would be allowed provided the addition complied with Zoning Code setback requirements. Nielsen clarified an old structure did not necessarily equate to a historical structure. Director Nielsen and Council Liaison Callies both clarified that the amendments related to nonconforming structures and the amendment to the Zoning Code being discussed does not contain all of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4). Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M. After ensuing discussion, Director Nielsen stated he would add the following statement to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(e)(iv): Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner from bringing the structure into conformance with this Code or removing it from the property. Commissioner Schmitt stated that the Planning Commission had previously agreed that Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(e)(ii) would be changed to state "If the structure requires fifty percent or more replacement". The Commissioners agreed. The Planning Commission agreed with the following revised draft of the Zoning Code text amendment (the edits are underscored): Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) . (c) In evaluating the conditional use permit, the city shall take in to consideration the location of existing and proposed structures, site drainage and landscaping. (d) The architectural character of proposed accessory buildings shall be similar and consistent with other buildings on the site and in the area. (e) As a condition of approval of the conditional use permit, existing nonconforming accessory structures located on the property shall be removed or brought into conformance with this code. Under very special circumstances, a nonconforming accessory structure may be allowed to remain nonconforming provided that: (i) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure was constructed prior to 2 August 1956. Evidence of date of construction may include, but is not limited to, property surveys, assessor's information, aerial photographs or affidavits from persons who lived on or near the property on or before 2 August 1956. (ii) The structure must be in sound structural condition with respect to roof, walls and foundation. If the foundation structure requires fifty percent or more replacement, the building must be removed or brought into conformity with this Code. The extent of replacement required shall be determined by the Building Official. . (iii) The applicant can demonstrate that the structure has historic, architectural or cultural value. Specifically, the structure shall meet one or more criteria established by the City and patterned after the National Park Service . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 6 of7 standards for historic designation. The historic, architectural or cultural value of the structure shall be subject to review and comment by a special ad hoc committee, consisting of one member of the Planning Commission, City Council and Park Commission. (iv) The owner of the property shall enter into a development agreement with the City, the purpose of which is to set forth what, if any, repairs may be necessary to place the structure in good condition. The agreement shall be recorded against the property to ensure that the structure is kept in good condition. Repairs to the structure shall be consistent with the original architectural style and materials of the structure. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner from bringing the structure into conformance with this Code or removing it from the property. Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of the Text Amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan as Revised. Motion passed 6/0. Schmitt moved, Gagne seconded, Recommending Approval of the Text Amendment to the City's Zoning Code as Revised. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the 6 February 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Meeting Agenda would include the development of the 2007 Planning Commission Work Plan, and a discussion of Planning District 6. Chair Bailey informed the Planning Commissioners and Director Nielsen that he would not apply for another term on the Planning Commission at this time. He believed in term limits, and he had reached the term limits for a Planning Commissioner. He stated he would complete his annual spread sheet prior to the end of his term. Commission Gagne stated he would re-apply for a Planning Commissioner position. Commissioner Conley stated he had not intended to re-apply for a Planning Commissioner position, but knowing that the Planning Commission Chair position would be open he may reconsider his decision. Commissioner Conley complimented Chair Bailey on his monthly articles in the Shore Report. 5. REPORTS . Liaison to Council Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at a January 8, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16 January 2007 Page 7of7 . SLUC No report given. · Other None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 16 January 2007 at 7:55 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Christine Freeman, Recorder