Loading...
051507 pl mn . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2007 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, and Ruoff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Wellens Absent: Commissioner Meyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES . 1 May 2007 Gagne moved, Geng seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 1 May 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT 6 Director Nielsen explained that this was a study session, and it would be a very informal meeting. Director Nielsen stated at the 1 May 2007 Planning Commission study session it was agreed that the next step in the discussion of the commercial end of Planning District 6 would be to invite the commercial property owners in that District and the owners of the commercial properties located on south side of County Road 19 to come before the Planning Commission to discuss their visions. The area under discussion includes the following commercial sites: 1) the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) (zoned L-R, Lakeshore Recreational; its multiple dock facility was a conditional use); 2) the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (zoned C-2); 3) the South Lake Office Building (zoned R-C, Residential Commercial; the office building was a conditional use); 4) the Garden Patch Nursery (zoned C-2); and 5) the property between the South Lake Office Building and the Garden Patch Nursery (zoned C-2). Nielsen went on to state that discussion of redevelopment possibilities for the SYC property began in 2005 when the SYC was put up for sale. The SYC had been purchased by new owners since that time; therefore. the interest in the property had subsided. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Code do not reflect any potential changes to the area, although it would be likely that there would eventually be changes to how the area was developed. Nielsen explained that the C-2 District (which had previously been named the C-4 District) was a specialized district that was established to address existing industrial uses in the area. The L-R District was intended to address the existing multiple dock facilities (the SYC and Howard's Point Marina) and to create standards for that zoning district. The L-R District was fairly flexible, and the District accepted existing deficiencies. The L-R District was not intended to be expanded. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 May 2007 Page 2 of 5 . Nielsen then stated Gabriel Jabbour and Mike Maloney (partners in the SYC business), Tom Niccum (Minnetonka Portable Dredging owner), and Tom Lingo (Garden Patch owner and owner of the old Crepeau Dock property) were present this evening. Todd Frostad (the South Lake Office Building developer) put his comments in writing. Gabriel Jabbour stated that it was his intent and the intent of his partner Mr. Maloney to run a first class conforming yacht club and to do so in a manner that was suitable for the surrounding community. Jabbour commented that the SYC was not doing well from a financial perspective. He also commented that he was a strong advocate oflife-cycle housing. Although it was his and Mr. Maloney's plan to maintain the SYC and to pass that business on down to future generations, that plan could change. He stated he thought it would be beneficial for the City to have identified standards regarding what the requirements would be to develop the property differently. The SYC property was an ideal site for public access. Mr. Jabbour stated that he and Mr. Maloney wanted the site to remain legally conforming. Sometime during the next two - three years, they would approach the City with a request to allow some of the SYC's slips to be used for power boats; they did not think it would have been appropriate to bring that request forward while the City had been in litigation with the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club. Mr. Jabbour explained that the SYC had engaged the services of the University of Minnesota to conduct a study regarding the need for the community to have access for power boats; allowing power boats at the SYC would also infuse cash into the SYC. He commented that the SYC had provided two slips (for no cost) to two premier rigging supply companies with the hope that they could help reintroduce sailing into the Lake Minnetonka area. Mr. Jabbour stated that he and Mr. Maloney applauded the City's effort to create a long-term vision for the area. . Mr. Jabbour stated he and Tom Niccum had a very positive working relationship. Chair Schmitt summarized Mr. Jabbour's comments. He stated that the SYC owners planned to remain a sailing yacht club, they wanted to remain legally conforming, and they had considered making a public donation to the DNR for a public access. Mr. Jabbour stated there were five public access sites on Lake Minnetonka, and four of the sites were located in Orono. He commented that Orono shared a border or bay with eleven of the thirteen other Lake Minnetonka cities. He stated the State had previously committed to having 700 lake-access parking spaces. Chair Schmitt noted that if the SYC owners wanted their property to be zoned to something other than L- R, it would create a nonconforming situation. Mr. Jabbour stated he thought the property could be rezoned to high residential, while still allowing the SYC and the Minnetonka Dredging Company to remain legally conforming. If they were to become nonconforming they could not expand; State statute would not allow that. He commented that over time nonconforming uses should eventually disappear. Bill Niccum stated that he wanted his Minnetonka Dredging Company to remain at its current location. There had been occasions where he had been approached regarding the sale of his property. If his plans were to ever change he would want to work with Mr. Jabbour to see if they could sell both properties at the same time. He commented his son Tom Niccum ran the company at this time. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 May 2007 Page 3 of 5 . Tom Lingo stated he and his wife did not have any plans at this time to cease owning or operating the Garden Patch. He then stated the property should be zoned such that it would allow future owners to have some creativity regarding how they would develop the properties. Commissioner Gagne stated that the SYC and Minnetonka Portable Dredging properties both currently used a driveway off of County Road 19 to access their properties; the driveway crossed over the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) LRT Trail, and it was there by license from the HCRRA. Although West Lake Street served a residential neighborhood in Excelsior, the portion of West Lake Street that could provide access into Shorewood was blocked off (but not vacated). He questioned what would happen if the HCRRA revoked the license. Director Nielsen stated that West Lake Street was a public roadway, and any planning would have to anticipate that West Lake Street would be opened and used as a public access. Mr. Jabbour stated that he had an easement over the Minnetonka Portable Dredging property to access West Lake Street; SYC's address was West Lake Street. Mr. Jabbour then stated that Mr. Niccum had gated the access to his property from West Lake Street; and the HCRAA had granted access across the LRT trail to the SYC only. Nielsen commented that the Minnetonka Portable Dredging property next to West Lake Street had not been abandoned; the access to West Lake Street had been temporarily blocked off. Director Nielsen stated the discussion of Planning District 6 would be continued to the next study session. He clarified that the City's Comprehensive Plan had to be resubmitted in 2008 and the intent was to submit the Plan in June 2008. . Chair Schmitt noted that Mr. Frostad had submitted his written comments regarding the future use of the property in the area. Mrs. Lingo stated that she and her husband had not had any conversations with Mr. Frostad about his vision. In response to a question from Mrs. Lingo, Director Nielsen explained that the City was not trying to change the zoning of the properties in the area. He commented if the current zoning remained in place for the next 20 years the City would not have any objection to that. Although the City may not have chosen to have Minnetonka Portable Dredging at its current location if it was starting with undeveloped property, the company was recognized as a valuable asset to the area in the Comprehensive Plan and it did provide a valuable service to the Lake Minnetonka communities. The City was considering the future of the area because of the inquiries it had received about the properties in the past; it was not instigating a change. Chair Schmitt stated the City had to look at long range considerations for the area. 2. DISCUSS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING mSTORIC NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Director Nielsen explained that the City's Code required nonconforming accessory structures be brought into conformity with current zoning standards. That action typically occurred when a property owner requested a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space in excess of 1,000 feet or 1,200 feet, depending on the zoning district the property was located in. Earlier in 2007 the City adopted an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code which were intended to provide for the preservation of certain nonconforming accessory structures, provided it could be demonstrated that the structures were of historic, architectural or cultural value. A special ad hoc committee, under the Planning Commission, had been established to review and comment on cases where exceptions to current standards were requested. The committee consisted of the Planning Director, one Councilmember, one Planning Commissioner, and one Park Commissioner. The amendment also required that the structure shall meet . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 May 2007 Page 4 of5 . one or more criteria established by the City, criteria that were patterned after the National Park Service standards for historic designation. Nielsen stated Staff had reviewed a number of preservation codes and proposed a list of preservation criteria. Staff recommended that in addition to the age and condition requirements set forth in the Code, the ad hoc committee would evaluate candidate structures for preservation based on the condition that they would meet one or more of the following criteria. 1. The character, interest or value of the structure is part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community; 2. The structure is the location of a significant local, county, state or national event; 3. The structure identifies with a person or persons significantly contributing to the local, county, state or national history; 4. The structure embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials; 5. The structure was the work of an architect, landscape architect, or master builder whose work has influenced development in the county, state or nation; . 6. The structure is an example of either architectural or structural innovation; 7. The proposed structure has archaeological significance; 8. The structure relates to other distinctive structures or sites which would also be determined to be of historic significance; and 9. The structure must have been built prior to 2 August 1956; however, age alone does not necessarily confer a special historical, architectural or cultural significance, value or interest. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen stated the criteria would be adopted into a policy; they would not be included in the Code. It was easier to amend a policy than the Code. In response to a question from Commissioner Geng, Director Nielsen stated that when researching what other cities had done, two cities had included their preservation criteria in their city code and one city had adopted it in a policy. Nielsen stated it was possible to incorporate the policy into the Code after the policy had been in effect for a while and it was proven to be effective. Commissioner Gniftke questioned the requirement in the Code amendment that a nonconforming accessory structure had to have been built before 2 August 1956 if it was to be considered for preservation. Director Nielsen explained the City's Code went into effect on 2 August 1956; therefore, any building constructed prior to that date would have been a legal structure. . Councilmember Callies questioned if the Code should be amended to also include a specific age that a structure could be to be considered for preservation (e.g. a minimum of 50 years old); 30 years from now it may be appropriate to consider a 50-year-old structure for preservation. It was stated there may be CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 15 May 2007 Page 5 of5 . relatively unknown architects and builders today that would become renowned in the future whose structures should be preserved. Chair Schmitt stated that from his perspective the language in criterion #8 was too broad. It would allow property owners to say structures have a relationship to other structures, but in reality had little to do with each other from a historical perspective. He then stated he would like to eliminate criterion #8. He also stated he thought criterion #5 was too broad. Commissioner Ruoff stated criteria #5 may be broad, but for a starting point that criterion did not seem unreasonable. Commissioner Geng stated it was not possible to know which architects and builders would be renowned in the future. After additional discussion, there was consensus to eliminate criterion #8. Director Nielsen explained that the ad hoc committee's recommendation on a structure considered for preservation would be considered by the Planning Commission, which in turn would forward a recommendation to the Council. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA . Director Nielsen stated there was a Conditional Use Permit for Excelsior Covenant Church slated for the 5 June 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 5. REPORTS · Liaison to Council Commissioner Gagne reported on matters considered and actions taken at a May 14, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Callies reported on the May 14 2007, Council work session meeting. · SLUC No report given. · Other Director Nielsen provided background on and an update of the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club matter. 6. ADJOURNMENT Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 15 May 2007 at 8:10 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. . RESPECTFULLYSUBNITTTED. Christine Freeman, Recorder