Loading...
PC-04-20-10 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 20 APRIL 2010 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett, Davis, Arnst, and Hasek; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of April 20, 2010. Motion passed 7/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 16, 2010 Ruoff moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2010 as amended. Motion passed 7/0.  April 6, 2010 Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2010 as presented. Motion passed 7/0. 1. CHAPTER 201 (BY-LAWS) - REVISIONS Director Nielsen explained that the draft of Chapter 201 of the City Code which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 6, 2010 was further revised by the City Council at their th. meeting of April 12 The revisions pertained to the sections “Liaisons”, “Removals”, Attendance”, and “Staff for the Commission”. The revised draft has been referred back to the Commission for its review. Commissioner Arnst said that some parts of the Chapter, specifically the removal clause, are not consistent with the Park Commission by-laws. Councilmember Turgeon said it is intended for the Park Commission to update its by-laws at some point in time. The Commissioners discussed the significance of the Council’s revision to Subd. 3., Removals, where “for just cause as defined in the Shorewood Personnel Policy…” was deleted. Chair Geng said he sensed some discomfort among the Commissioners and said he could see where there could be a perception of a change in the Council’s policy or expectations of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 April 2010 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Vilett said since the Planning Commission is just an advisory body, this seems like a moot point. Commissioner Hasek said it seems to him that if somebody is willing to give their time, they should be given the opportunity to serve that time, barring a justified reason for removal. Director Nielsen said the Personnel Policy that was referenced in the Code lists specific cause for dismissal, such as theft, offensive conduct, etc. Commissioner Ruoff stated that he thought the deletion of “just cause…” from Subd. 3, Removals, was somewhat harsh. He said he thinks it serves a purpose to clarify, for future Planning Commission applicants, that a member could be removed, but it would be for a reason and there is a process in place. There was general agreement among the Commissioners that the word “cause” should be added back into Subd. 3, Removals. Chair Geng said the statement appeared arbitrary without it. Commissioner Hutchins said he didn’t think there should be reference to the Personnel Policy as that confers certain rights that don’t really exist. He stated he personally didn’t have a problem with the revisions. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, to recommend that City Code Chapter 201.03, Subd. 3., Removals., read: “The City Council shall have the power to remove any member of the Planning Commission for cause.” Director Nielsen asked if the definition of “cause”, as stated in the Shorewood Personnel Policy, should be included in this revision. Hasek agreed it should and amended the motion to also recommend that the language in the Shorewood Personnel Policy that defines “cause” be included in Chapter 201.03, Subd. 3, Removals. Davis seconded the amended motion. Motion passed 6/1 (Hutchins opposed). 2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING – VISION STATEMENT Director Nielsen read a draft “Vision Statement” that he crafted to serve as a starting point for discussion. He said the intent of the statement is to focus on what the area should be, rather than how it’s arrived at. Commissioner Vilett said she thought it is a very good first draft and it articulates everything that the Planning Commission has been discussing. Commissioner Arnst said she has been doing research and offered some things that could be added to the statement to address why the City is interested in this redevelopment. She said she found that other redevelopment projects have endeavored to remove blight, have the best tax revenue situation possible, create employment opportunities, attract businesses, and create housing to meet the mixed needs of residents. Chair Geng suggested that a preparatory statement could be developed to address the existing conditions within Smithtown Crossing. He said one could describe the area as underdeveloped, underutilized, it’s split into multiple parcels that inhibit the best use of the land, and is ripe for redevelopment. It is one of the gateways to Shorewood, and the City needs something vibrant there. The quality of development should be commensurate with the surrounding area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 April 2010 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Vilett said the statement should promote redevelopment that would enhance community and quality of life in Shorewood. th The Commission decided to review the next draft of the Vision Statement at the meeting of May 4, meet thst with landowners on May 18, and the developers on June 1. Commissioner Ruoff commented that it seems as if senior housing is the choice for any residential portion of the Smithtown Crossing project. Director Nielsen said there are other options, however, the Comp Plan targets senior housing. It would carry the highest value for the space available, have the lowest traffic impact, and would probably be the most acceptable to the neighborhood. And the Met Council has identified this site as well as the Xcel Energy property for higher density residential. 3. MIXED-USE REGULATIONS Director Nielsen stated that where the Smithtown Crossing Vision Statement addresses the “what” of development, Mixed-Use Regulations address the “how”. Nielsen said mixed-use is handled by Planned Unit Development (PUD) in one of two ways. It can become the zoning district itself, or can be applied by conditional use permit. Either way, it provides for a variety of elements not found in any one zoning district. The basic permitted uses remain intact, with the flexibility provided by PUD allowing for different standards via a negotiated contract called a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement essentially becomes the zoning. Nielsen said he researched regulations prescribed by other cities, some of which included: a mixture of uses proportionately dictated by the market; ratio of commercial versus residential; zoning standards; hours of operation; landscape standards; signage; lighting; pedestrian/bicycle circulation; bike racks; public space; etc. He said there should also be some reference to architectural details and environmentally-compatible features included. He pointed out that whatever criteria that is eventually determined to be desirable, it doesn’t necessarily have to be mandatory, but rather strongly encouraged. Chair Geng said there should be some focus on aesthetics over a specific list of uses. Commissioner Hasek encouraged everyone to read the PUD section of the zoning code. He also suggested driving around to see different settings, taking note of the architectural features of commercial buildings that appear to have a residential character. 4. DISCUSS THE “60-DAY RULE” Director Nielsen said that State law requires cities and other agencies to process most land-use applications in a timely manner. Specifically, they must take action no later than the end of 60 days. If there is a reasonable cause for delay, the applicant must be notified of the delay and that the application may take up to 120 days. The applicant has the right to waive the time requirement. Without the waiver, failure by the city to meet the deadlines results in automatic approval of the request as proposed. 5. DISCUSS NONCONFORMITIES Director Nielsen stated there are two different types of nonconformities: nonconforming uses, and nonconforming structures. He said an example nonconforming use is a commercial activity in a residential zoning district, a use not intended for the land. A nonconforming structure example is a building that is permitted by code but does not meet setbacks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 20 April 2010 Page 4 of 4 Nielsen said another factor of nonconformities is legal versus illegal nonconformities. A legal nonconformity is something that existed prior to the adoption of regulations that made it nonconforming, therefore it has “grandfather rights”. An unlawful nonconformity would be a structure built in violation of the code. Nielsen stated that it is the intent of the zoning code that all nonconformities will eventually be brought into conformance with the established zoning standards. And there have been various amendments to the code addressing nonconforming structures by placing certain conditions and restrictions on their continued existence. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. 7. NEW BUSINESS None. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA th The Agenda for the May 4 meeting will include continued discussion regarding the Smithtown Crossing Vision Statement, mixed-use regulations, and begin discussion of Life-Cycle Housing. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Vilett reported on items discussed and actions taken by the City Council at their meeting of April 12, 2010. • SLUC Director Nielsen said he and two Commissioners are signed up to attend the next program on April 29th: “Extreme Subdivision Makeover: Bringing a project back to market”. • Other None. 9. ADJOURNMENT Vilett moved, Arnst seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 20, 2010 at 9:20 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Patti Helgesen, Recorder