Loading...
111808 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER MONDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 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 Geng, Gagne, Gniffke, Ruoff and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. 21 October 2008 Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Minutes of 21 October 2008 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Applicant: Telecom Transport management, Inc. Location: Minnewashta Water Tower – 26352 Smithtown Road Chair Schmitt opened the Public hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval this evening will be placed on the 24 November 2008 City Council regular meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained last month the Planning Commission recommended approval of a conditional use permit for Telecom Transport Management, Inc. (TTM) to locate microwave dish antennas on the Southeast Area water tower. TTM has now applied for a conditional use permit to locate telecommunications facilities at 26352 Smithtown Road. This property is zoned R-1A, Single-family Residential and is part of the Minnewashta Elementary School property. It is also the site of the City’s Minnewashta Water Tower. Nielsen stated although this request is similar to TTM’s SE Area Water Tower request, TTM proposes to erect dish-style antennas around the tower pedestal at a height of 110 feet. It also proposes to install four antennas; two of them are two-foot in diameter and the other two are three-foot in diameter. TTM’s request letter proposes to locate ground equipment inside the water tower. Staff has advised them that no equipment will be placed inside the Tower. There are two buildings on the site and one of them was oversized to accommodate future equipment. TTM’s equipment can be housed in the oversized building. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained telecommunications facilities are governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1995. The City has adopted its local regulations consistent with Federal CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 2 of 10 requirements. These regulations are found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 21 of the City Code. For the most part, telecommunications facilities have been limited to commercial zoning districts within the City, although the Code does allow the use of public property for this purpose by conditional use permit. The City Code suggests any new telecommunications carriers be located on existing towers (i.e., City water towers) wherever possible before constructing additional freestanding towers. Nielsen then explained although much of the current Code is intended to address new, freestanding tower sites there are several provisions that are relevant to location of facilities on existing towers. Those provisions are as follows. 1. Finish – The proposed antennas must be finished to match the color of the existing water tower. 2. Proposed Ground Facilities – The applicant initially proposed placing the equipment inside the base of the tower. The City’s Director of Public Works strongly recommends the equipment be placed in one of the existing buildings on the site. The larger of the two was specifically oversized for just such purpose. 3. Fencing – The existing fencing on the site will remain as is. 4. Landscaping – Since ground equipment is proposed to be located in a building and landscaping is already established, no additional vegetation is considered necessary. 5. Stealth – Locating antennas on existing towers or water towers is undoubtedly less visually obtrusive than building new freestanding towers. The applicant proposes using two two- foot in diameter round dishes and two three-foot in diameter round dishes to be located on the pedestal of the tower at a height of 110 feet. The purpose of this type of antenna is to boost the transmission capacity between telecommunications towers. 6. Evaluation and Monitoring – The current Code requirements provide for initial and ongoing monitoring of FCC radiation emission requirements. The City’s standard lease agreements between telecommunications carriers and the City provide for annual monitoring and, if necessary, testing. The City uses Owl Engineering for such work. The conditional use permit, if approved, should include a condition that the antennas installation be subject to the review, recommendations and approval of Owl Engineering. 7. Engineering – The structural attachment to the Minnewashta Water Tower has to be reviewed by KLM Engineering. Details should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit subject to the following conditions. a. The recommendations of the City Engineer with respect to structural and operational issues. b. The applicant must enter into the City’s lease agreement including provisions for annual monitoring. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 3 of 10 c. The current lease rate for water tower space is $1500 per month. There are provisions in the standard lease agreement for annual rate escalation, based on the CPI or four percent, whichever is greater. It is noted that TTM has requested a lower lease rate for the SE Area Water Tower because it may use space that is otherwise unusable. The City has agreed to look into this issue for that application. Since the Minnewashta request proposes to use space on the pedestal of the tower, the standard lease rate will apply. Director Nielsen stated Debra Weiss, representing Telecom Transport Management, Inc., is in attendance. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Ms. Weiss said the dishes were very similar looking to a Direct TV dish. The dishes will be placed around the pedestal of the tower. In response to another question from Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained there is still room to locate additional telecommunications facilities on the Minnewashta Water Tower, but the SE Area Water Tower is near capacity. Commissioner Ruoff stated there is a water tower in Medina that has so many telecommunications facilities on it that it is an eyesore. In response to a comment from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the reason Council did not act on TTM’s last request is because TTM’s is changing that request from three antennas to one antenna. Ms. Weiss explained TTM equipment uses line-of-sight to communicate and there were line-of-sight issues for two of the proposed antennas for the SE Area Water Tower. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained that generally the rental money the City receives from telecommunications carriers is placed in the City’s General Fund. Geng moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Telecom Transport Management, Inc., to locate telecommunications facilities at 26352 Smithtown Road on the Minnewashta Water Tower subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLANT - BROCKWOOD Applicant: Synergy Land Co. (Brent Hislop) Location: Approximately 6 acres lying between Strawberry Lane and Cathcart Drive Director Nielsen stated Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company, LLC, has arranged to purchase approximately 5.3 acres of land located between Cathcart Drive and Strawberry Lane, just north of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) right-of-way. Mr. Hislop proposes to subdivide the property into two parcels. Nielsen explained the property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential, which requires lots to be at least 40,000 square feet in area. The proposed lots range in size from 40,638 square feet in area to 60,475 square feet in area. The land is relatively flat and substantially wooded. According to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, there are no wetlands on the subject property. Since the property is capable of being redivided into additional lots, the applicant has submitted a resubdivision sketch demonstrating how the property can be redeveloped in the future. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 4 of 10 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated the proposed division is somewhat similar to the Petron Rearrangement approved earlier this year, except in this case a new building site is being created as a result of the division. This applicant proposes to subdivide off one lot fronting on Cathcart Drive to be sold. He intends to build his own house on the larger parcel, which could be resubdivided at a later date. Nielsen explained the City’s Zoning Code requires when properties capable of additional development are subdivided, the applicant must provide a resubdivision sketch, or “ghost plat” demonstrating how the remainder of the property can be developed in the future, in accordance with Subdivision and Zoning Codes. It is not necessary to develop the property as illustrated in the sketch; this sketch will be incorporated into a development agreement as a guide for when the property ultimately develops. The applicant has submitted a plan that will accommodate the future development of the site. The two initial lots and the proposed future lots all meet or exceed R-1A zoning requirements. One item that should be corrected is the lot line between future lots 3 and 4; straightening this line will not adversely affect Lot 4. All proposed lots have ample buildable area. This is illustrated on applicant’s preliminary utility plan and preliminary grading plan, which show proposed utilities and grading, respectively, as well as building setbacks. Nielsen then explained the resubdivision sketch shows the future lots being accessed by a cul-de-sac street extending westward from Strawberry Lane. The proposed cul-de-sac street satisfies all the requirements of the City Ordinance: they must have a 50-foot right-of-way width; a 100-foot-diameter cul-de-sac; and they can be no longer than 700 feet. The proposed location of the street is based upon soil tests of the property, which indicate deeper levels of organic soil on the northerly portion of the site. Placing the street on the southerly portion of the site, results in considerably less site alteration (grading and tree removal) than a northerly alignment. Nielsen went on to explain all surrounding properties are larger than what is required by the R-1A zoning district. The lots to the north were designed as two-acre lots with a drainage pond at the rear of the lots. The lot to the west of the property in question is large enough to be divided; however, extending the proposed cul-de-sac would necessitate a variance for the length of the cul-de-sac. The property to the south benefits from the proposed street location as it provides street frontage that does not exist otherwise. Nielsen stated the applicant proposes connecting the two proposed lots to sanitary sewer. He explained the City’s sanitary sewer main does not come all the way to the proposed property fronting Cathcart drive. Therefore, the main will have to be extended from its nearest location to the property. The sewer line for the property fronting Strawberry Lane will come in on the proposed road alignment which will also be the future driveway alignment. Nielsen noted the developer had originally considered extending City water to the site, but the cost of doing so became prohibitive. He explained the City’s development regulations require that a development capable of three or more lots must install water if the cost does not exceed $10,000 per lot. In this case, the estimates prepared by the applicant’s engineer suggest nearly twice that amount. Therefore, the two proposed lots will be served by on-site wells. This may change in the future since there is land south of the HCRRA LRT Trail capable of development. This would extend the water main closer to the subject property, increasing the feasibility of extension later on. Nielsen stated most of the issues associated with this plat had to do with engineering. The City Engineer has addressed these under separate cover in a report dated November 13, 2008. Nielsen thought most, if not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 5 of 10 all, issues had been addressed. He stated some of the issues had to do with drainage. The area is very sensitive with regard to drainage. The Engineer was concerned that what little flow of drainage there is across the property might be interrupted by the proposed street alignment or driveway alignment. Therefore, a series of culverts with be installed to insure water can move freely as it does today. Nielsen then stated the applicant shows drainage and utility easements for all lots, including the ones that will be required as part of this proposal. Nielsen explained the two-lot plat will require payment of park dedication fees ($5000 per lot) and local sanitary sewer extension charges ($1200 per lot). The development of the future lots will be subject to the charges in effect at the time they are platted. The applicant has to submit a final plat within six months of receiving approval from Council to divide the lot. Nielsen stated Staff recommends the preliminary plat be approved. This approval is contingent upon the applicant entering into a development agreement as part of the final plat process, stipulating that any future development of the property will include the installation of all site improvements, including street, utilities and storm water drainage facilities. Nielsen stated Mr. Hislop, the applicant, is in attendance. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Curt Carpenter, 6080 Strawberry Lane, stated his property was just south of the HCRRA LRT Trail. He then stated it is his understanding the driveway on the larger lot appears to be almost parallel to the Trail. Director Nielsen explained the initial driveway will go along the alignment where the proposed street would be if the larger lot was subdivided. Brian McConnell, 5990 Strawberry Lane, was concerned about drainage if the larger of the two properties were to be subdivided and developed in the future. Director Nielsen stated the City Engineer spent a lot of time on assessing the drainage situation. Nielsen explained the original two-lot plat does not require any ponding facilities. If the larger lot were to be subdivided and further developed, the applicant’s subdivision sketch illustrates an option for installing a pond on the north side of the property, noting that would require cooperation of the property owner to the north. The sketch also illustrates a second option for a pond that would be located entirely on his property. If any draintile is disrupted during construction or development it would have to be maintained. Mr. McConnell noted that he has considered building on the back side of his lot, and he questioned what type of access would be available. Nielsen stated the applicant’s plan would not provide access to the back of Mr. McConnell’s property. If Mr. McConnell were to build on the back of his property it would likely require some type of extensive cooperative agreement between the property owners on both side of the existing pond to get access to that part of his property. Kerry Mullen,6035 Cathcart Drive, expressed concern about drainage. The property line between the two proposed lots is approximately where a pond forms in the spring and he does not want that water flowing onto his property toward his house. The area is an old apple orchard. He questioned if there had been study of what the impact would be of adding five more houses to the aquifer. Director Nielsen stated no specific studies have been done. Nielsen then stated at the time the City chose not to install City-wide water there were no capacity problems with the aquifers being able to support one acre lots. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Ruoff questioned if the impact on drainage of possibly of raising the height of the HCRRA LRT Trail to support light rail had been assessed. Director Nielsen explained the City has not dealt with how light rail would be built with the exception of the Shorewood Yacht Club and Minnetonka Portable Dredging properties much further to the east. Nielsen stated he did not think the height of the Trail would have to be raised much because it had previously been used for rail. Drainage flow from the south to the north has to be maintained. Gagne moved, Vilett seconded recommending approval of a preliminary plat for Brent Hislop, Synergy land Company, LLC, subject the conditions identified in the Staffs’ reports. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Director Nielsen stated the City’s present system of code enforcement is extremely costly and time consuming. There was a situation during 2008 where a property owner was cited for a zoning violation. When the violator ignored the violation letter a complaint was signed and executed at Hennepin County District Court. The City eventually won the case, but only after it spent thousands of dollars for attorney fees. It took over nine months to resolve the case. Nielsen stated several cities in Minnesota (including the cities of Bloomington, Minnetonka and Otsego) have initiated systems of administrative citations and penalties. Under an administrative code enforcement process a city writes citations for certain levels of offenses and imposes local fines for the code violations. A violator could appeal the citation in what would be the equivalent of a city court where a city-appointed hearing officer would preside. This process greatly minimizes the need for lawyers by either the violator or the City, especially for minor violations. This process benefits both the violator and the City. If the violator did not like the ruling of the hearing officer, the violator could appeal the citation to the Council. If the violator did not like the Council’s ruling, the violator could appeal it in District Court. Nielsen stated after Staff discussed this process with Council, Council agreed it was worth pursuing. Council referred the topic to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding an amendment to the City Code which would establish the process. The Commission has experience with holding public hearings, the Council values the Commission’s opinions and recommendations, and the process will ultimately affect some of the City’s land-use regulations. Nielsen explained in addition to amending the City Code, several forms prescribed in the amendment have to be developed. The forms are an Administrative Notice form, a Citation form, a Hearing Request form, a Hearing Officer’s Decision form, and an Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision form. A manual must also be written for use by the hearing officers. Attorneys who would be able to act as hearing officers need to be identified. Staff suggests the City do a request for qualifications. He noted that although Bloomington and Minnetonka have in-house legal staff, they use other attorneys to serve as hearing officers to ensure the violator does not perceive it is the city judging the appeal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 7 of 10 Nielsen stated recently the possibility of partnering with other South Lake cities has been discussed. It is his understanding that Excelsior has developed some of the mechanics for this type of process, but it has not implemented it. At a minimum, maybe the five South Lake cities could share a hearing officer to make it worth that person’s time to take on the task. Nielsen noted the draft amendment included in the meeting packet does not reflect any comments from the City Attorney. Also, the meeting packet includes supporting information about the process and various discussions about it. Chair Schmitt asked Director Nielsen if the Planning Commission was supposed to recommend any action on the draft amendment this evening. Nielsen stated if the Commission was comfortable with the draft amendment it can make a recommendation. It could also wait until the City Attorney’s comments have been incorporated into the amendment before making a recommendation. He commented the incoming city attorney is familiar with the administrative code enforcement process. Council Liaison Turgeon stated traffic citations can not be issued by the City. Commissioner Gniffke stated the process would definitely be more efficient. Director Nielsen noted the City would first send a zoning violation letter to the violator. If the violator does not correct the violation the City will then issue the citation. Commissioner Gagne questioned what happened to the City’s old system where the City would clean up a property and then place the cost of the clean up on the property tax roll. Director Nielsen explained when the City codified its Ordinance a few years ago and routed the Ordinance to the League of Minnesota Cities the League suggested the City should not go on a private property and clean it up unless it went through the legal system for authorization to do so. Many cities are returning to that type of process. Commissioner Gniffke stated this process could help with enforcement relating to docks, boats, etc. Director Nielsen stated judges have come around to appreciating this process rather than resenting it as they had done early on. He related the Bloomington City Attorney noted the District Court is much more cooperative with cities that have taken the time to go through an administrative process. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Commissioner Gagne stated he was in support of implementing the process, but he wanted the incoming city attorney to be provided the opportunity to comment on the amendment. Councilmember Turgeon stated the incoming City Attorney has no problem with this administrative process. Turgeon then stated that 90 percent of that firm’s clientele is municipals and they use the process. Gagne clarified he would rather have the incoming city attorney’s input rather than the current City Attorney’s input, noting the current City Attorney was a good attorney. Commissioner Vilett stated she was in support of implementing a process that could save the City money. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Geng stated he was in support of implementing the administrative process. He expressed concern the violator’s right of appeal to the Council set forth in the amendment to Chapter 104.03 Subd. 4.a, Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision, was limited to three classes of persons; the right of appeal to the Council did not extend to all persons. It appeared this right of appeal did not extend to all persons who may be found to have been in violation of City ordinances. He asked Director Neilson if it was his understanding the right to appeal to the Council did not extend to all persons who were found by a Hearing Officer to have been in violation of City ordinances. Nielson stated the right to appeal to the Council was limited to the three instances identified in the draft amendment; others found to have violated City ordinances could appeal to Hennepin County District Court. Gniffke moved, Gagne seconded, recommending approval of the draft amendment to the City Code with regard to implementing an Administrative Code Enforcement process subject to the review by the incoming city attorney. Chair Schmitt questioned what the reason was for moving this item forward prior the incoming city attorney’s starting with the City effective January 1, 2009. Director Nielsen stated the current City Attorney will weigh in on the amendment. He did not think there was any issue with waiting for the incoming city attorney to comment on the amendment because there was a lot of work that had to be completed before the administrative process could be implemented. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. 4. STUDY SESSION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN  Community Facilities Chapter Revisions Director Nielsen stated he had not had the opportunity to provide the Commissioners with a final draft of the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.  Transportation Chapter Director Nielsen stated he had provided the Commissioners with a complete draft revision of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (including graphics) the previous evening. He stated there are very few changes. Chair Schmitt suggested only the changes be reviewed this evening. Director Nielsen reviewed the changes to the Issues Section. The highlights are as follows:  The issue of the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road intersection was deleted because it has been resolved.  The issue of Street Maintenance and Reconstruction was added. Nielsen then reviewed the changes to the Transportation Plan Section. The highlights of the less minor changes are as follows: CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 9 of 10  In Streets – Functional Classification System Item 3, the maximum length for cul-de-sac streets was changed to 700 feet.  In Streets – Functional Classification System Item 4, a paragraph was added regarding the Street Maintenance and Reconstruction issue including funding of and process for.  In Streets – Functional Classification System Item 4, a paragraph was added regarding the need to inventory the City’s rights-of-way that were planted but not built, and possibly vacating some of them.  In Streets – Functional Classification System Item 4/Minor Expanders, the discussion of the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road intersection problem was deleted and replaced with discussion that the intersection problem was resolved.  In Streets – Functional Classification System Item 4, the reference to the proposal to upgrade Lake Linden Drive was changed to reflect that had been completed. The following additional changes were identified.  In the Transportation Policies Section under Parking, Item 5 will be changed to reflect parking lot standards will be enforced.  In the Transportation Policies Section under Mass Transit, Item 1 will be made grammatically correct.  In Streets – Minnesota State Aid System the reference to MSA funds for the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road intersection project will be removed and that paragraph rewritten. Director Nielsen stated the revisions to the all the Chapters in the Comprehensive Plan were basically done with the exception of the Land Use Chapter regarding Planning District 6. The issue of Planning District 6 redevelopment is not going to go away so at some point it needs to be discussed again. He explained as part of the process the draft revised Plan has to be routed to adjoining cities, and that will be done before the Planning Commission holds a public hearing on the revised Plan which is proposed for January 2009. The routing will also occur before Council has the opportunity to discuss the revised Plan. Ideally the draft revised Plan would have been discussed by Council and a public hearing held before routing the Plan to the adjoining cities. The very final copy of the Plan will be provided in May 2009. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the study portion of the meeting will be devoted to the review of the complete (including graphics) revised Community Facilities Chapter and the Transportation Chapter and possibly the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. REPORTS  Liaison to Council CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 18 November 2008 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the 10 November 2008 City Council regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Council Liaison Turgeon elaborated on Gniffke’s report.  SLUC No report was given. Chair Schmitt and Commissioners Geng, Gniffke and Vilett all stated they wanted to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition program titled Twin Cities Housing 2008 Report 2009 Outlook scheduled for 10 December 2008 from 11:30 A.M. – 1:30 P.M.  Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 18 November 2008 at 8:15 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizée, Mayor ATTEST: Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk