Loading...
021908 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners, Gagne, Geng, Hutchins, Meyer, and Ruoff; Engineer Landini; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Gniffke Chair Schmitt stated that Engineer Landini would be filling in for Director Nielsen who was out ill. Therefore, he stated he suggested that Item 3 Discuss Planning District 6 and Item 4 Discuss Comprehensive Plan Issues be continued to the March 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ? 15 January 2008 Geng moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 15 January 2008 as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1 with Gagne abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicants: Harvey and Carol Ann Mackay Location: 5925 Christmas Lake Road Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a February 25, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Engineer Landini stated Harvey and Carol Ann Mackay owned the property at 5925 Christmas Lake Road. Pete Boyer, representing the Mackays, had submitted plans for a significant renovation and a two- level addition to the Mackays’ house. The lower level of the addition would consist of an additional garage stall and elevator compartment. The level above that would be a four-season porch. The new garage stall, combined with the existing tuck-under garage and a detached studio building, would bring the total area of accessory space on the site to 2084 square feet. Because the amount of accessory space would exceed 1200 square feet, the Mackays had applied for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.). Landini explained the property was zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contained approximately 2.76 acres of land. The existing house contained approximately 6114 square feet of floor area above grade, divided between two levels. The proposed addition would expand that to 6390 square feet. The existing house was nonconforming with respect to the setback from the lake. The proposed addition, however, would comply with the 75-foot setback requirement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 19 February 2008 Page 2 of 6 Landini reviewed how the Mackays’ request complied with at least three of the four criteria specified in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. 1. The total area of accessory space (2084 square feet) did not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (6390 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space did not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-1A/S zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage complied with the setback requirements of the R-1A/S zoning district. The property took advantage of the “average setback” provision for lakeshore lots; the required setback for Christmas Lake (75 feet) was reduced because the immediate property to the south was closer to the shoreline. The average between the adjoining property and the required setback was 71 feet; therefore, that became the setback for the subject property. It was noted that the freestanding studio building to the west of the house was nonconforming, but it had been granted a variance to be in that location in 1982. The survey submitted with the application indicated the hardcover on the property would be 23.76 square feet. Staff questioned if the hardcover figure provided was all inclusive. For example, was the additional driveway that would lead to the new garage stall included in the hardcover calculation; if it was not that addition would increase the total hardcover to more than 25 percent. The hardcover could not exceed 25 percent. 4. The new accessory space would be integrated into the architecture of the existing home. The roof lines, materials and architectural character of the garages would be consistent with the principle dwelling. The building would not appear much different, since the proposed addition was replacing an existing greenhouse structure on the south end of the building. Chair Schmitt stated when a C.U.P. was granted for accessory space over 1200 square feet, one of the requirements was to bring any nonconforming structure into conformance. He questioned if the variance previously granted to the nonconforming freestanding studio building allowed for that structure to remain nonconforming if the C.U.P. was granted. Council Liaison Turgeon stated because the freestanding studio had already been granted a variance to be in its current location it would not have to be brought into conformance. Chair Schmitt asked Doug Friend, an agent to the applicants who was representing them this evening, to clarify what the revised hardcover calculation would be. Mr. Friend stated the surveyor had originally neglected to include the access driveway to the new garage stall in the first survey. Including it would result in hardcover in excess of 25 percent. In order to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent, the existing flagstone patio area would be removed and some other hardcover mitigation would be done. He thought the survey submitted earlier that day indicated the flagstone would be removed and the hardcover figure would be 25 percent. Landini stated if the 25 percent hardcover requirement could be satisfied, Staff recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 19 February 2008 Page 3 of 6 Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M. Chair Schmitt requested Staff verify the nonconforming freestanding studio building allowed for that structure to remain nonconforming if the C.U.P. was granted because that structure had previously been granted a variance. Commissioner Hutchins questioned what documentation had been presented to confirm the new accessory space would fit in with the character of the existing house. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Harvey and Carol Ann Mackay, 5925 Christmas Lake Road, subject to the 25 percent maximum hardcover requirement being satisfied and confirmation that the new accessory space would fit in with the character of the existing house. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 1102 (WETLAND DEVELOPMENTS) REGARDING REGULATORY AUTHORITY Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M Engineer Landini stated the Planning Commission had discussed a draft amendment to the City Code Title 1100 Chapter 1102 Wetland Developments at its January 15, 2008, meeting. The changes recommended at that meeting had been incorporated into the updated draft amendment before the Commission this evening. Landini explained in the past the City had delegated the authority for administering the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) to the respective boards of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The RPBCWD Board had chosen to no longer be the Local Governing Unit (LGU) for WCA permits effective January 1, 2008. The City had requested the RPBCWD continue to perform LGU responsibilities for the City until May 1, 2008, to allow the City the time it needed to put the necessary procedures in place for the City to perform its own WCA permitting responsibilities for lands inside the City within the RPBCWD jurisdiction (e.g., the proposed draft amendment to the Code). Landini went on to explain the draft amendment would adopt, by reference, the regulations and standards of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (a law found in Minnesota Statute Chapter 103G, “the Act”), and the accompanying rules of the State Board of Water and Soil Resources (Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420, “the Rules”). Landini stated the City was investigating a different option for administering the permitting responsibilities. If that option proved feasible the proposed amendment would not be required. Because of that uncertainty the City needed to continue to move forward with the amendment process to ensure the necessary procedures would be put in place. He explained he had investigated what would happen if the City did not accept the permitting responsibilities; if that happened the permitting responsibilities would be assumed by the State Board of Water and Soil Resources and that governing body could place a moratorium on development for lands inside the City within RPBWCD jurisdiction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 19 February 2008 Page 4 of 6 Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Chris Lizée, 5705 Brentridge Drive, stated she had three questions she would like the Planning Commission to consider before deciding on its recommendation about the amendment. First, how much was the City willing (or able) to charge back to the applicants for WCA enforcement; and, was there a fee schedule available from RPBCWD? Second, would the City actively enforce wetland fill and draining violations or would it work on a complaint basis? Third, did water management issues exist in the area of the City within the RPBCWD jurisdiction that the City would like that District to fix or fund? If there were issues she suggested they be identified before the City assumed permitting responsibilities. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Engineer Landini stated approximately 80 percent of wetland fill and draining violations would be identified on a complaint basis, 15 percent would be identified as part of the building inspection process, and the remainder would be identified by active enforcement such as aerial photographs which identified changes in wetlands. Chair Schmitt questioned what process the RPBCWD used to identify violations. Landini stated it was his understanding the District managed violations on a complaint basis. Landini commented the City would likely have stricter controls. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Engineer Landini explained if the City received a complaint about a perceived wetland violation on lands inside the City within the MCWD jurisdiction the City would call the MCWD and the MCWD would dispatch someone to investigate the complaint. He was not sure if the RPBCWD’s consultant on those matters would investigate a complaint for lands within the RPBCWD jurisdiction; if not, the wetland fill complaints would be given to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to investigate per the WCA. In response to another question, Landini explained 80 – 85 percent of City Code violations were identified on a complaint basis (not including those identified during building inspections). With regard to charging applicants back for WCA enforcement and violations, Engineer Landini explained the proposed fee schedule did not include a fee for enforcement; the proposed fee schedule included permit fees and if the permit included annual inspections and a replacement plan then ultimately that cost would be covered as part of the escrow paid by the applicants. Chair Schmitt questioned if the City Code stated a building permit issued after the fact was double the normal permit fee; if it did could that after-the-fact permit fee approach apply to WCA permits. There was ensuing discussing regarding charging a fee for wetland enforcement and violations. With regard to enforcement and penalties in the proposed amendment, Engineer Landini stated enforcement of the WCA would be done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103G.2372 and penalties for noncompliance of the WCA would be in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103G.141; he reviewed those statutes. He stated if the Commission recommended an after-the-fact permit fee, a condition of approval could be that Staff investigate if an after-the-fact permit fee was addressed somewhere in the Code, and if it was not then it must be included in the proposed amendment. Commissioner Geng questioned if an after-the-fact WCA permit fee equal to double the regular permit fee was sufficient. Chair Schmitt stated if the recommended permit fees were sufficient, then doubling of that fee for after- the-fact permits should be sufficient. Commissioner Meyer stated he could support a double fee. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 19 February 2008 Page 5 of 6 Engineer Landini clarified that more field time or technical evaluation time was required on larger sized properties; the permit fee schedule addressed that. Engineer Landini stated there were probably numerous water management issues in the area inside the City within the RPBCWD jurisdiction; he did not think there was one list which identified all of them. Chair Schmitt stated it was likely there were water management issues, but he thought it unlikely that the RPBCWD would fund correcting the issues. Schmitt then stated it may be appropriate to develop a list. Commissioner Meyer stated Section 1102.12 Subd. 3 Delegation of the proposed amendment stated “The City recognizes local government unit authority to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to administer the Act for lands inside Shorewood within the MCWD jurisdiction, ….” He questioned if the word “recognizes” should be replaced with “delegates”. Engineer Landini explained the word “delegates” was originally used and an attorney for the MCWD requested it be changed to “recognizes”; that attorney questioned if the City had the authority to delegate. There was Commission consensus to change it back to “delegates”. In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Engineer Landini stated if the City delegated LGU responsibilities for WCA permitting for lands inside the City within the RPBCWD jurisdiction to the MCWD the MCWD would recover its costs through its fees and it would also be entitled to bank the wetland credits. Commissioner Geng questioned if there was a downside to delegating LGU responsibilities to the MCWD. Landini clarified the City would only delegate WCA permitting responsibilities to the MCWD. There was ensuing discussion regarding how to state a motion. Meyer moved, Gagne seconded, recommending Staff be directed to identify existing water management issues for lands inside Shorewood within the RPBCWD jurisdiction and to research the feasibility of delegating Local Government Unit authority for Water Conservation Act permitting for lands inside Shorewood within the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; if that delegation of authority was not feasible, then recommending approval of an ordinance amending Title 1100 Chapter 1102 of the Shorewood City Code relating to Wetland Developments subject to Subd. 3 Delegation being changed to say “The City delegates”, Staff verifying the Code already addressed after-the-fact permit fees being double the amount of regular permit fees and if not modifying the draft amendment to address after-the- fact permit fees for wetland violations, and Staff verifying that the proposed after-the-fact permit fee of double the amount of the regular fee would be sufficient. Motion passed 6/0. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Engineer Landini explained the three-person Technical Evaluation Panel would be comprised of one individual chosen by the City and the other two were appointed by State Statute. The City had contacted Barr Engineering and it had expressed an interest in representing the City on the Panel and possibly performing all of the permitting responsibilities. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:54 P.M. 3. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT 6 This item was continued to the March 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 19 February 2008 Page 6 of 6 4. DISCUSS COMP PLAN - ISSUES This item was continued to the March 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. 5. NOMINATE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR FOR 2008 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending the nomination of Scott Schmitt to the position of Planning Commission Chair. Motion passed 6/0. Commissioner Gagne asked if there was any other Commissioner that would like to serve as Vice-Chair. There were none. Geng moved, Ruoff seconded, recommending the nomination of Bob Gagne to the position of Planning Commission Vice-Chair. Motion passed 6/0. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Schmitt stated the Study Session portion of the March 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting would be devoted to discussing Planning District 6 and Comprehensive Plan updates. 8. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Geng reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 11, 2008, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Turgeon reviewed the timetable for interviewing candidates to fill the Ward 3 Council position until an election was held in November 2008, and she provided an update on the City Hall renovation project. • SLUC No report was given. • Other Chair Schmitt stated Commissioner Meyer’s term as a Planning Commissioner was done at the end of the month; therefore, this was the last meeting he would attend as a Commissioner. He thanked Meyer for his years of service. 9. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Meyer seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 19 February 2008 at 8:05 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder