Loading...
120109 pl mn CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2009 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Gagne, Hasek, Hutchins, and Ruoff; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Commissioner Vilett APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Gagne asked the guest present this evening to introduce himself. Blake Paradise, a student at Holy Family Catholic High School, introduced himself and stated he was present this evening to observe a meeting as part of a government class he was taking.  17 November 2009 Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 November 2009 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF 2010 WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated during the 17 November 2009 Planning Commission meeting he had indicated that the annual variance discussion would take place this evening. Also, Commissioner Arnst had expressed interest in starting the discussion about the Commissions 2010 work program sooner versus later. Therefore, he suggested starting the work program discussion this evening. Nielsen then stated 2010 is going to be all about timing. He apologized for getting meeting materials to the Commissioners late on many occasions. He promised to get the materials out earlier going forward. He explained the goal is to mail out the meeting packets on the Thursday preceding the meeting, and if that did not happen they would be hand delivered on Friday. The reason the packets are not sent out earlier is because Staff waits to receive public comment on public hearing items. He asked the Commissioners if they received the packets no later then Saturday when they were mailed out on Thursday. There appeared to be consensus that was the case. Commissioner Gagne stated he likes to have the packet for the weekend so he has time to go to look at the sites over the weekend. Commissioner Hutchins stated the number of sites to review impacts when the packets are needed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 2 of 7 Director Nielsen explained when it’s not possible to get the complete packet out in time the Commissioners will at least be provided with the site location maps and graphics so they can go to the sites. Nielsen explained the City Council is wrapping up its discussion of goals and objectives. It’s the first time Council has set the goals and objectives for the upcoming year by the end of the current year. It is the job of both Staff and the Commission to implement the goals and objectives identified by Council. He noted Council has not prioritized the goals and objectives yet. Council Liaison Turgeon stated she wanted the Commission to prioritize the tasks. She indicated Council did not think it was necessary for it to prioritize the individual tasks. She wanted to know what was important to the Commission and Staff. She did not want Council to set the priorities. She thought it very important for the Commission to set the priorities. Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet for this evening contained a draft list of goals and objectives that is the outcome of Council discussions. The objectives’ priorities are based on the rankings received from individual Councilmembers, but they have not been finalized by Council. Staff has identified a preliminary list of tasks for each objective. He asked the Commission to add tasks to the list or modify the list as the Commission deems appropriate, and to prioritize the tasks. He reviewed the list of City Planning and Protective Inspection goals identified by Council. He noted Council also identified objectives for 2010. 1. Preserve property values and improve the physical, environmental and economic health of the community by anticipating and managing change. 2. Prepare and enforce regulations relative to the physical environment (man-made and natural) and improve the processes for completing building and zoning permits, applications and other requests for services. 3. Inform and educate residents and businesses about the City’s planning goals and objectives and code compliance to assist in developing a safer, well-planned and healthier community. There was Planning Commission consensus to prioritize the tasks identified by Staff on a 1 – 5 ranking system. The results of the prioritization discussion are as follows. The comments written in bold/italic are outcomes of the discussion. Commissioner Arnst stated she wanted to address the tasks sequentially. She assumed informal control of the discussion at this point. Key Objectives for 2010 Priority 1. Prepare, update, improve and publicize the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. a. Finalize Comp Plan Update incorporating Met Council revisions Ongoing task b. Implement Comp Plan Update recommendations 1. Prepare Housing Plan element of Land Use Chapter, including P2, planning inventory and life-cycle housing discussion. Invite Ongoing housing experts to present. The life cycle part of this was to be done in 2009. 2. Elaborate on Smithtown Crossing redevelopment. P1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 3 of 7 3. Study - service road connection between Seaman’s Drive and P5 Eureka Road. Combined with Items 1.b.4 & 1.b.5 4. Study – Vine Hill Road/State Highway 7 intersection – north P5 leg (joint effort with Deephaven). Combined with Items 1.b.3 & 1.b.5 5. Study – Galpin Lake Road/Highway 7 intersection alignment. P5 Combined with Items 1.b.3 & 1.b.4 6. Incorporate Park Commission revised master plans into P5 Community Facilities chapter. 7. Public hearing – once Met Council has approved Plan Update. P3 Combined with Items 1.b.8 & 1.b.9 8. Prepare Comp Plan brochure. Combined with Items 1.b.7 & P3 1.b.9 9. Comp Plan – The Movie remake. Combined with Items 1.b.7 & P3 1.b.8 c. Prepare updated planning inventory. (Primarily staff) P2 d. Prepare background/introduction for Comp Plan Update. (primarily P2 staff) 2. Develop a proactive process to ensure planning district plans remain current and viable. a. Direct mail Comp Plan brochure with area plans to respective P4 planning districts. b. “Garage marketing” (i.e. meet with small groups of residents, at P4 their convenience, on their turf) to present plans and identify upcoming issues. 3. Provide continuous review and revision as necessary to the City’s development regulations. a. Adopt mixed use regulations as part of P.U.D. provisions P1 b. Zoning permits for items not covered by building permits. P2 c. Amendments as may arise from housing plan/life-cycle housing P3 discussion. (To be done after Item 1.b.1) d. Review current provisions relative to nonconformities. P2 e. Have annual variance discussion. Combined with Item 3.d. P2 4. Miscellaneous. a. Discuss the issue of feeding deer. P2 Objectives Targeted for 2010, and Key for 2011 1. Establish a system of zoning permits to fill in the gap between the Same as 3.b building code and other City development regulations. above a. Item should be able to be completed in 2010 (see 3.b above). 2. Enhance communication techniques through written and graphic educational materials, a series of planning articles for the website and newsletter, and public outreach. a. Update and improve planning maps. This should be done in P2 conjunction with Items 1.c & 1.d above. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 4 of 7 b. Quarterly website/newsletter articles on planning topics. This P3 should be done in conjunction with Items 1.b.7 – 1.b.9 above. 3. Provide in-house government training service (GTS) for planning commissioners. a. Arrange for GTS staff to provide local presentations for Shorewood P1 in 2010 and surrounding communities. 4. Sustainability b. Educate the Planning Commission about what sustainability is, and P1 in 2011 define what sustainability means to Shorewood. The following are the noteworthy comments, explanations and suggestions were made about the tasks for Key Objectives for 2010. Nielsen stated many of the tasks related to the Comp Plan are things he took out of the Plan. It  may not be possible to do some of them (e.g., preparing the housing plan element). Regarding Item 1.b.1 - Nielsen stated there is and will continue to be a need for life cycle  housing. Arnst suggested the Planning Commission have more conversations with experts about senior housing because there is new information availability. Regarding Item 1.b.2 – Nielsen said this may not amount to anything. The Comp Plan already  indicates how the City would like the area to be developed. He thought it important to make the changes necessary to allow mixed use development to help that redevelopment. Arnst thought the City ought to do whatever it can to make the site a successful development because that site is the gateway to Shorewood. Gagne thought the City should purchase the entire site so it has some control over how it’s developed. Nielsen stated the City does not want to be in the real estate business, but it does want the site developed right. Hasek stated now would be the opportune time to prepare materials that could be given to potential developers so they can understand the City’s desires. Turgeon stated Council has never received a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission on how they would like to see the northwest quadrant of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 redeveloped. Ruoff suggested there be a complete plan including financing options for potential developers. Regarding Items 1.b.3 – 1.b.5 – there was consensus to combine these items. There is question as  to why Item 1.b.3 should be done. There was comment that Items 1.b.4 and 1.b.5 were engineering. Nielsen explained that the concept starts in Planning. Nielsen stated with regard to Item 1.b.3 Council needs to decide if it wants a service road. Turgeon stated she thought the City dropped any consideration of the Vine Hill Road/State Highway 7 intersection effort. Nielsen stated it does affect Shorewood residents and it is still an issue, but he did not anticipate the City spending money on it. Regarding Item 1.b.6 – Nielsen explained the old park master plan is referenced in the Comp  Plan. He did not think that there is consensus on the part of the Park Commission or Council that all of the items recommended in the revised plan should be done. He thought there needs to be more discussion by the Park Commission and Council. Regarding Item 1.b.9 – Nielsen stated last year Council wanted to make a movie explaining the  Comp Plan similar to what was done a number of years ago. Turgeon stated Council had discussed using a video approach to explaining the Comp Plan during a work session [about the Comp Plan in January 2009]. She did not think Council specifically stated it wanted that to be a priority task. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 5 of 7 Regarding Item 1.b.7 – 1.b.9 – there was consensus to combine these items. After ensuing  discussion there was also consensus to devote one study session to discussing how to market the Comp Plan and to whom it should be marketed before making any decision on communication vehicles. There was agreement that new or potential residents may want to know how the City intends to achieve the number one goal for the City. Much of that is found in the Comp Plan. Regarding Item 1.c and 1.d – Nielsen stated these are primarily Staff tasks but Staff would still  like input from the Commission. He also would like the Commission’s thoughts about the priority of these items. He noted a complete physical inventory of the City has not been done for a number of years. This will take some time to do this. Once the population of the City is known it may impact the vision for things such as parks. Geng stated Item 1.d about the background/introduction chapter for the Comp Plan ties to how the Plan will be marketed. Regarding Items 2.a and 2.b – these items are the next phase of things to be done relative to  marketing the Comp Plan after Items 1.b.7 – 1.b.9 are completed. Nielsen suggested the area plans be sent to residents along with a Comp Plan brochure. Regarding Item 3.a – the mixed use regulations must be defined prior to finalizing the  redevelopment vision for the Smithtown Crossing site. Regarding Item 3.b – Nielsen explained the City has a number of zoning provisions that it  imposes on a property. Without there being a permit there is no way to control or regulate them. For example, a permit is not required for driveways, patios, unattached decks and so forth. These types of things should require a zoning permit, noting it doesn’t have to be an expensive permit. He explained the City has a tree preservation and reforestation ordinance which applies to new development, including a new house. If someone has a house on a property the trees are theirs. Regarding Item 3.c – this should be done after Item 1.b.1.  Regarding Item 3.d – Gagne asked if revising nonconformity provisions could have helped the  residents [Mark Themig and Bradley Heppner] who were denied a front year setback variance so they could expand their house on their beautiful lot full of vegetation. They would not have harmed anyone with their proposed expansion. The following are the noteworthy comments, explanations and suggestions that were made about the tasks for Objectives Targeted for 2010 and Key for 2011. Regarding Item 1.a – this is the same as Item 3.b under Key Objectives for 2010.  Regarding Item 2.a – there was consensus that this should be done in conjunction with Items 1.c  and 1.d under Key Objectives for 2010. Regarding Item 2.b – there was consensus that this should be done in conjunction with Items  1.b.7 – 1.b.9 under Key Objectives for 2010. Regarding Item 3.a – Arnst strongly suggested government service training (GTS) be a priority 1  in 2010 as she wants to know the basics. Nielsen stated the City has historically offered those classes to people who want to attend them; there has been varying degrees of interest in attending them. He then stated a number of years ago the City brought GTS trainers in house. The session was held on a Saturday and other neighborhood cities were invited to send participants. He noted the City paid for the cost of the session. Turgeon stated participants had to pay for their lunch. Nielsen stated the City does not have to bring in a trainer that cost money. Arnst stated she thought this training is the least the City can invest in the Commissioners. There appeared to be Commissioner interest in this type of training and for it to be conducted in-house sometime in the first quarter of 2010 on a Saturday. Director Nielsen stated the next thing to do is to determine what the time commitments would be to completing the tasks and then to develop a realistic 2010 work program. He noted the deadlines will be met. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 6 of 7 The following are the noteworthy comments about other items the Commission may want to add to the list. Sustainability – Hasek suggested the Planning Commission have someone come to a Planning  Commission study session to talk about sustainability and how it fits into development in the City. He stated there are things a city can do to preserve the land for future generations. There was ensuing discussion about this topic. Arnst suggested the Commission educate itself about what kind of practices can be implemented to help preserve the land. Nielsen clarified that planning is about sustainability. Nielsen suggested the Commission first define what sustainability means to the City, and then determine if each element of the Comp Plan works toward achieving sustainability. Nielsen commented there are planners who would say Shorewood is not sustainable. Hasek stated the Commission should discuss whether or not the City can have a plan that considers what happens 50 years out. Regarding feeding deer – A Miscellaneous Objective will be added as the fourth objective under  Key Objectives for 201 and a task will be added to discuss the issue of feeding deer. There was ensuing discussion about the City’s deer management program. Commissioner Hasek suggested if the first Planning Commission meeting of the month is at least in part devoted to a work session it may be worthwhile to have the second meeting in that month to continue that discussion and to work on the tasks in the work program. Director Nielsen explained the City has the 60- day rule it has to comply with. The practice has been to handle applications during the first meeting of the month. He suggested when there are no applications to consider during the first meeting of the month the meeting can be a study session. It’s up to the Commission to decide if it still wants to have two meetings a month. There was consensus to schedule two meetings each month and then consider the second one n an individual basis. Nielsen stated that he doesn’t have time to prepare for a study session every two weeks. He noted that he also had Council meetings to prepare for. Hasek clarified that he thought if a topic was not completed the first meeting of the month then the topic could be completed during a second meeting that month. Councilmember Turgeon commented that if there were no applications to consider then there is nothing to prepare for the Council meeting. Commissioner Arnst agreed with having two meetings a month. 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission will have its annual variance discussion during the 5 January 2010 Planning Commission meeting. There will also be continued discussion of the 2010 work program. 4. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Turgeon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 23, 2009, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commission Hasek commented on the discussion about the possibility of having a trail along County Road 19 from Smithtown Road to the Dakota Train in the City of Orono. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING 1 December 2009 Page 7 of 7 • SLUC The next Sensible Land Use Coalition program is titled “History, Culture and Secrets of the Minneapolis nd Riverfront” and it is scheduled for December 2. Linda Mack, a former Star Tribune reporter, will be the guest speaker. • Other Commissioner Hasek suggested the Planning Commission discuss the need for a dog licensing ordinance. He noted the City of Plymouth dropped that ordinance because of the cost to that City. Commissioner Gagne noted he will not reapply for a Planning Commissioner position when his term ends in February 2010. 5. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 1 December 2009 at 9:05 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder