Loading...
PC-03-06-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 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 Davis, Hasek, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Siakel Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet and Garelick Chair Geng welcomed Larry Muehlberg who is a newly appointed Planning Commissioner. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Nielsen asked that Item 3 be removed from the agenda. Davis moved, Geng seconded, approving the agenda for March 6, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 21, 2012 Chair Geng noted that Commissioner Charbonnet had informed him that he had no changes for the minutes as prepared. Davis moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW Applicant: Dan Krieter Location: 450 Lafayette Avenue Chair Geng reviewed how this item will be handled this evening. Director Nielsen explained Dan Krieter, with Mathias K Builders, has submitted plans to substantially renovate the house on the property located at 450 Lafayette Avenue. He explained Lafayette Avenue (which is basically a very narrow driveway) serves four lots on a peninsula of land extending into Lake Minnetonka. All of the lots are thru lots; they go from shoreline to shoreline. The subject property is very substandard. The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains approximately 6370 square feet of area. The applicant proposes to essentially take the upper level of the house off, underpin the existing foundation, and then put a new upper level on the house. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 2 of 12 Nielsen noted the City Zoning Code was changed in 2011 to make it consistent with State Statute with regard to nonconforming structures. He explained State Statute, and now the City’s Ordinance, allows that a person gets to put back what is there even if it is torn down. The City’s old rule was if it was destroyed to 50 percent or more of its value it had to be put back in compliance with the setback requirements. The Code allows an expansion of the nonconforming structure provided the expansion meets all of the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. That does require Planning Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval. Nielsen explained the house started out as a summer cottage and it has been added on to a number of times. The existing house has a bad foundation that does not meet building code requirements. The second floor has some sagging; it was never quite structurally correct. Nielsen then explained the hardcover exceeds the maximum allowed for a shoreland lot. Hardcover is 38.11 percent and 25 percent is the maximum allowed. Even though the applicant will expand the house somewhat he will reduce the hardcover to 34.4 percent; a substantial reduction. With regard to expansion of nonconformities he noted the City Ordinance states the City is looking for better compliance with the Code requirements. Nielsen noted there are two subdivisions in the Code that deal with nonconformities. They are found in Section 1201.03 General Provisions Subd. 1.d. and Subd. 1.i. Nielsen explained two of the ways the applicant proposes to reduce hardcover is to remove some of the concrete walkways that are not necessary to the structure and remove the existing gravel driveway. The applicant proposes installing a “geo-grid” system in place of the gravel driveway. Approval of the permit should include engineered drawings for the geo-grid system. He noted that technically the Ordinance doesn’t recognize a geo-grid system but it does achieve the reduction in hardcover. He suggested the Planning Commission consider adding a provision for this to the Ordinance in the future. Nielsen reviewed how the applicants request complies with the Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.i. which addresses the requirements for allowing the expansion of nonconforming structures. 1. The proposed plans do not increase the nonconformity and in many ways lessens the nonconformity. The expansion areas comply with setback requirements. The applicant has spoken with the two adjoining neighbors. One of them has provided comments in writing noting they have no objection to the proposed project and have granted approval to the contractor to use their property as necessary to do the renovation. The applicant has indicated the other neighbor will also submit something in writing. The part of the current house that is very close to the property line on the west has a pitched roof. The applicant proposes making that a flat roof. Doing so will lessen the visual impact of that portion of the remodeled building on the property to the west. The other side of the roof will be flat as well. Although the applicant is going to increase the size of the second floor, the expansion will be in compliance with setback requirements. The renovated building will maintain a traditional cape cod character and therefore fit it in with the existing neighborhood. Nielsen noted he has never worked with an applicant whose architect worked so hard to fit something onto an oddly configured tiny lot. 2. The house and existing garage do not exceed 30 percent building to floor area ratio. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 3 of 12 3. The proposed design should fit in with the existing neighborhood. The neighbors appear to agree with the proposed project and as of this meeting one has expressed their support in writing. 4. The impact on the two adjoining residences is considered to be minimized. 5. Although the existing structure is too close to both side lot lines, there is no opportunity to make up a deficiency on the other side. Director Nielsen noted Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to engineered plans for the geo-grid parking space being submitted with the building permit. Chair Geng asked Mr. Krieter, the builder, if he had anything to add. Mr. Krieter stated Bob Shaffer, the architect, is credited with coming up with a design that would work. Bob Shaffer, with the Foundation Architects, stated the goal was to make a renovation work, look good and fit in. He thought the plan works nicely on the inside as well. He noted the existing house has a lot of deficiencies. A lot of work is being done with the existing house to make it work. He stated it is more sustainable to work within the confines of the existing house than it is to tear the house down and rebuild. He explained that he had met with Director Nielsen numerous times, reviewed the Code and came up with a plan that will work with the Code requirements. He stated the applicant is excited about the plan. He reviewed a lot of details about the renovated house. Commissioner Muehlberg stated that Subd. 1.i.(2) states “… the expansion shall not increase the floor area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30%.” He asked what that means. Mr. Shaffer explained that only 30 percent of the area of the entire site can be building. Director Nielsen explained that any floors above grade are counted in the calculation plus the garage. That square footage cannot exceed 30 percent of the lot. Mr. Shaffer stated it was a difficult lot to work with. He noted there is a driveway that runs through the middle of the lot that goes to two neighboring properties. That increases the impervious surface quite a bit. The two frontages on Lake Minnetonka also create difficulties. He noted the renovated house will have great views of the Lake. Commissioner Hasek asked Mr. Shaffer to provide the square-footage area for the two floors and the garage. Mr. Shaffer said the garage is 306.5 square feet and the house footprint is 969 square feet. He did not have the square footage for the second level with him. He noted that Director Nielsen had worked that through. Nielsen noted he does not have the square footage information with him this evening. Hasek asked to be provided the square footage area so he can understand how the building to floor area ratio was arrived at. Hasek then asked if the entire driveway was factored into the hardcover calculations. The response was it is. Hasek explained that the Planning Commission has discussed how a driveway that serves more than one lot should be factored into hardcover calculations for each of the lots served. He asked if maybe only one-third of the driveway should count for the subject property because the driveway serves three lots. He then asked if there is a granted easement for the driveway in the deed. Director Nielsen stated he assumes there is an easement for the driveway but he doesn’t know that for sure. Nielsen then stated the shared driveway can be factored into the decision, noting the City doesn’t have a policy on that. Nielsen went on to state the driveway is effectively like the street for that property. In the past the City has at times stated the shared driveway would not be counted as hardcover and the land underneath it would not be factored CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 4 of 12 into the hardcover calculations. Hasek suggested the Planning Commission have more discussion related to shared driveways and hardcover calculations. Hasek stated the meeting packet contains a drawing for the site that shows everything. He thought it was difficult to read. He questioned if it that could be split into two drawings. Part of his rationale is that he wants to know what the existing hardcover currently is and what it is proposed to be. Mr. Shaffer stated a larger copy of a site plan had been submitted to Director Nielsen. Hasek asked Director Nielsen if he counted the land between the garage and the driveway as hardcover in the hardcover calculation; a vehicle could be parked there. Nielsen stated he does not think the calculations included that very small strip. Hasek stated he thought that should be included in the calculations because a 3.7 percent reduction in hardcover is considered substantial and that small strip could significantly change the reduction percent. Hasek stated one of the improvements proposed for the nonconforming building mentioned the flat roof on the new portion of the structure; it won’t be visible to the adjoining properties. From his vantage point he doesn’t think the neighbors can see the roof that is on the current structure. Mr. Shaffer stated the real difference will be that the overhangs will be eliminated and the new flat roof will come down a little bit also. He explained the current framing for the roof is actually above the roof and it will come down with the new roof. He noted that one of the overhangs is almost into the neighbor’s property. Hasek asked if there is something in the Code that says factors in a reduction in the impact on the adjoining property. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective visually it is. Hasek stated that substantial reduction needs to be quantified from his perspective. Mr. Shaffer showed Commissioner Hasek a larger drawing. Commissioner Hasek stated from his perspective things need to be tightened down in order to demonstrate to Council that all things have been considered. Hasek stated Exhibit C, the proposed site plan, shows a high water line and he asked if that is the ordinary high water line. Director Nielsen stated ordinary high water line is what is used, not the front property line, and the ordinary high is 929.4 feet. Hasek asked Mr. Shaffer why the front yard property line and the ordinary high water line are not parallel on the drawing. Mr. Shaffer explained his rationale for how things are drawn. Hasek challenged Mr. Shaffer to make sure the site plan drawing is correct. Mr. Shaffer noted the drawings and calculations were done in a way that was the least beneficial for his client. He erred on the side of the City. Chair Geng stated he thought the applicant and the architect did a commendable job of designing the renovation of the home to conform to the zoning requirements. Director Nielsen noted that he has met with at least three owners or prospective buyers of the property and all of them wanted to do things that were well outside of what the City Ordinance requires. This is the first applicant that has tried to work to make it fit. Chair Geng asked Commissioner Hasek what he is looking for that he doesn’t have for this application. Hasek responded a solid calculation of the floor area ratio; the square footage of the second floor is needed. Geng stated it’s his understanding that Director Nielsen has that information. Nielsen noted he has it in his office. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 5 of 12 Commissioner Hasek asked if the applicant is going to be rebuilding a small portion of the now removed second floor. The response was yes. Hasek stated that is the piece that violates the setback requirements on the east side of the property. The response was that is correct. Chair Geng stated it will be a little smaller because the overhang will be eliminated. Chair Geng asked Commissioner Hasek if it is acceptable to him to have Director Nielsen provide Council with the second floor square footage. Hasek stated he will not have a problem with that as long as things are tightened down. Commissioner Hasek asked Council Liaison Siakel if anything he has mentioned is out of line with what Council is looking for. Siakel responded she is comfortable with what Director Nielsen has recommended, and if Nielsen has the square footage calculation information all is well. Director Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek if he wants the hardcover calculation to be redone removing the driveway and the land underneath it from the calculation. Hasek stated he did not think it would hurt anything. Nielsen noted that would be for information only; it is not required by Code. Hasek reiterated what he thought the current hardcover percent is and what it will be reduced by the. [He stated the current hardcover is 52 percent, but the staff report says its 38.11 percent.] He also noted he does not think there is a lot more that can be done. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the expansion of a nonconforming structure for the Campbell Residence located at 450 Lafayette Avenue subject to engineered plans for the geo-grid parking space being submitted with the building permit, the building to floor area ratio being verified and provided to Council, and an additional hardcover calculation be done which excludes the shared driveway and the land underneath it. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen when Council will consider this item. Nielsen responded during Council’s March 12, 2012, meeting. 2. SUSTAINABILITY – LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2012 includes three items listed as Best Practices in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program having to do with landscaping. They are: 1) adopt a policy of no net loss for specified natural landscapes; 2) adopt landscaping/nuisance ordinances that promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation; and, 3) low maintenance turf management/native landscaping. GreenStep Cities provided resources and links to what some other cities have done. There are some suggestions the Planning Commission may want to incorporate into Shorewood’s City Code. With regard to the item of “no net loss of natural landscapes”, Nielsen explained Staff found out that most other cities have adopted wetland ordinances and/or tree preservation ordinances. Shorewood adopted rules in the early 1970s setting wetlands aside. The City’s current rules also provide buffers and setbacks from those wetlands. The City has also been enforcing tree preservation and reforestation for many years. He suggested clarifying the wetland ordinance regarding what is and is not allowed in wetland buffer areas. He explained that the current understanding is it is to be left in its natural state. If it is disturbed in any way it is to be restored to its natural state. The City has told people they can remove Buckthorn from the wetland buffer area because the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wants it out. With regard to the item “promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation”, Nielsen explained that a lot of cities have nuisance ordinances containing provisions that state if grass is over a certain CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 6 of 12 height it is considered a public nuisance. That creates a barrier for someone who wants to plant prairie grasses. He noted the City Code does not contain such a provision. It has been discussed in the past but the City has too many natural areas to consider such a requirement. He stated in the past the City has addressed the issue of a lawn that is overgrown or unsightly by conducting a weed inspection. He asked the Planning Commission if there is any interest in having a grass length ordinance. He stated if there is it should include language to allow for alternative landscaping. He noted the City has not had a problem to date with someone planting an out-of-place prairie treatment. Some cities with a grass length ordinance require residents to get a permit for alternative landscaping. With regard to the item “low maintenance turf management/native landscaping”, Nielsen stated he thought this should fall under the Park Commission’s jurisdiction because it has to do with City park property land management. He noted the City did a little of this with the City Hall property and it turned out well. The maintenance of the plantings has been minimal. Nielsen reviewed some policy items for the Planning Commission to address with regard to residential properties. Does anything need to be done about unwanted vegetation (e.g., noxious weeds, grass length, etc.)? Is it important to maintain choice (some people like turf grasses a lot)? The City does enforce state regulations regarding noxious weeds. Should the City educate people about and encourage use of native/natural landscaping rather than take a regulated governmental approach? Nielsen then reviewed some policy items for the Planning Commission to address with regard to nonresidential properties. Should there be a requirement for professional design? The City’s code already calls for that. Should there be maintenance requirements? The City Code already requires a business to have some means of maintaining any landscaping it puts in; specifically irrigation. Is it important to maintain choice? Some business owners may prefer a formal landscape as opposed to natural landscape. Should the City encourage the use of and provide incentives for native/natural landscaping? He stated from his perspective if a business liked the look of a natural landscape the incentive of not having to put in an irrigation system might be enough. Director Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek to briefly talk about the difference between “native” and “natural” plants/landscaping. Commissioner Hasek stated there is some confusion about what is native and what is natural. He explained the Webster Dictionary defines native plant as “natural, grown, produced originating in a particular place or vicinity living or growing naturally in a particular region; indigenous.”. The definition of natural plant is “having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature, not cultivated, growing without human care, closely resembling an original true to nature, having a form or appearance found in nature”. He noted native is natural but natural need not be native. He explained cultivars (a plant that has been introduced into the landscape because it has been cloned from other plants or happened accidentally) are neither native nor natural. Hasek then stated that one of the reasons so many native plants are not cultivated for sale is because they are difficult to cultivate and grow in a nursery. Therefore, native landscapes are difficult to achieve. He explained this area is in what is called a maple-basswood climax forest. It is the major grouping of plant materials that run through the metropolitan area. There are no native pine and spruce trees in this part of the country. Natural landscapes are created using cultivated plants that closely resemble native plants emulating their natural form and appearance. He noted that many native tree species such as American Elm, Cottonwood, Willow, American Linden, and Evergreen in a lot of cities are prohibited from being planted because they are considered to be weak trees. He commented that to consider planting native landscapes is basically impossible. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 7 of 12 Director Nielsen stated he thought the maple-basswood trees in the Gideon Glen area are considered natural and native. Commissioner Hasek stated a lot of cities don’t allow anything to be planted in the wetland buffer area. Director Nielsen noted the City requires it to be left in its natural state; the state before the property was developed. Nielsen explained in some cases altered wetlands have been restored. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained for a lot of record where there is no conservation easement over a wetland buffer area they are not required to meet the setback or maintain the buffer. The property can be built up to the edge of the wetland. Director Nielsen explained that more recently for any plats or subdivisions approved there is a requirement for a conservation easement over the wetland buffer area which is 35 feet wide and then there is a 15-foot-wide setback that the property owner has to maintain. There is a total of 50 feet between the edge of the wetland and any structure. The buffer has to be left in its natural state. There have been a few exceptions where in the development process the City has allowed retention ponds to be created in the wetland buffer area. That was mainly because that is where the water flows to and the ponds protect the wetlands. Buckthorn removal has also been allowed. The City has been tolerant of people removing dead or dying trees from the buffer area. Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen if residents have complained about the length of grass on other properties. Nielsen stated that over the years the City has received some complaints, but not a lot of them. Maybe it receives one a year. Nielsen explained if someone neglects a lawn to the point where the grass is reaching 8 – 10 inches high the weed inspector will likely be able to find a noxious weed growing in the lawn. Once a noxious weed is found either the person at the property cuts the grass or the City personnel do. He stated he thinks the City has the authority to go on a lawn if there are noxious weeds there. He commented the City hasn’t received complaints about foreclosed properties and that is a likely place for it to happen. Hutchins questioned if there is a need to have an ordinance to address something that has not been a problem. Hutchins then asked Nielsen if there have been any commercial properties in the City that have planted prairie grasses. Nielsen stated there are not. Nielsen stated to some degree prairie grasses have something to do with size and scale. When prairie grasses are planted in very small areas they tend to look unkempt or overgrown. He noted most commercial properties do not tend to have a lot of land/yard area. He commented the commercial properties can have natural landscaping. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen how he wanted to approach this topic. Nielsen suggested addressing each question. Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if it thought the Code should be amended to address unwanted vegetation (i.e., noxious weeds or grass length) or is the current Code satisfactory. He stated if the current Code is satisfactory he stated he didn’t think much has to be done to accommodate natural landscaping. The City could educate the public about the value of natural landscaping and use the City Hall property as an example. It takes very little maintenance and watering to keep it looking good. Nielsen stated in the GreenStep Cities model he found a provision that would not allow provisions that require turf landscaping when considering development agreements. Often development agreements have a protective covenant in the homeowners’ agreement that stipulates the yards have to have a certain CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 8 of 12 percent of the yard covered in turf grass. A change could be made to prohibit that provision in a declaration of covenants. The homeowners would not be required to have turf grass. If the homeowners want grass it should be up to them. Chair Geng asked if there are any such protective covenants in the City. Nielsen responded he thought there may be one or two. Geng asked what would happen to existing protective covenants if the City decides that is no longer allowed. They would exist in perpetuity. Commissioner Hasek stated if the City makes a decision not to allow such protective covenants and then a development’s yards become unsightly he asked what the City could do about the unsightliness. Director Nielsen explained that removed provision would be replaced with something else about landscaping. Hasek asked how Buckthorn fits in. Nielsen responded it doesn’t. Hasek stated it makes no sense to eradicate Buckthorn from public areas in the City while letting it grow on private property and in wetlands. Nielsen agreed that Buckthorn is a complex problem. Nielsen noted the City applied for a grant to help fund the removal of Buckthorn from some areas in Freeman Park. Commissioner Davis stated she thought property owners would remove more Buckthorn if the City would take it and get rid of it, noting it has to be burned. The City would have to pay to dispose of it. Owners of properties near a wooded area cannot obtain burning permits. Yard waste drop-off sites don’t want it either. She explained in her neighborhood it has taken 10 years to remove Buckthorn from one half of the boulevard. She noted it has to be removed three years in a row to actually get rid of it, and it has to be dug up. She stated she lives adjacent to 27 acres of wetland and it is full of Buckthorn. She then stated her preferences are to protect the wetland buffer areas and to find a way to get rid of Buckthorn or at least a lot of it. Chair Geng stated that because the City is 95 percent developed he wasn’t sure protective covenants about turf grass are a problem that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Hutchins agreed and stated there are higher priority issues to deal with. Commissioner Davis stated it may be a public service to encourage residents to use less water. It’s a moral issue and a sustainability issue. Chair Geng agreed with her. Director Nielsen stated that could be done as part of the education process on the benefits of natural landscaping. Chair Geng suggested having something on the City’s website encouraging people to come and look at the natural landscaping at City Hall and in other communities, and telling them about the benefits of having natural landscaping. It could remain on the website permanently. Director Nielsen stated with regard to landscaping requirements for commercial properties he asked the Planning Commission if it thought it would be worthwhile to amend the Code to add language encouraging, but not requiring, natural landscaping. Or as an alternative, amend the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan to encourage natural landscaping. Chair Geng stated the Comp Plan may be the more appropriate place to address it. He noted the City doesn’t have that many commercial properties. The Comp Plan could address the desire for sustainable landscaping in general. Nielsen explained the Smithtown Crossing Study Report includes language about natural landscaping. He asked the Planning Commission if that language should be more specific or if it should be elaborated on. He stated that could be discussed as part of the Smithtown Crossing discussion scheduled for the March 20, 2012, Planning Commission work session. Commissioner Davis agreed with discussing it then. Davis stated those specifics would be discussed when a developer decides to redevelop the area. Commissioner Hutchins stated he thought the Report addressed that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it important to address natural landscaping in the Comp Plan. He then stated from his perspective the teeth of the Comp Plan are the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance should also address it. He went on to state after the Planning Commission decides where to amend the Comp Plan about this topic he suggested Staff provide direction about where to amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly. Director Nielsen noted the Ordinance tends to implement the Comp Plan. He stated under the irrigation ordinance there could be a provision that stipulates a commercial property could get around the irrigation requirement by having natural landscaping. Director Nielsen stated he has enough to move forward with. He explained he will review the wetland buffer part of the Code. Staff will do some research on Buckthorn eradication and disposal. The Comp Plan will be reviewed to determine where natural landscaping and sustainability fit it. He will talk with the Communications Coordinator about putting information on the City’s website about natural landscaping. Chair Geng asked Council Liaison Siakel how the Buckthorn removed from Freeman Park will be disposed of. Siakel responded she does not know that answer. Geng stated he was the liaison to the Council meeting when the matching grant for removing Buckthorn in Freeman Park was discussed but he doesn’t recollect there being any discussion about disposal. Commissioner Davis stated it has to be removed and burned. Siakel stated she will ask Engineer Landini because he has been coordinating the grant application process. Commissioner Davis suggested the Southshore Community Center operations manager schedule a session about natural landscaping later this spring close to planting time. Director Nielsen stated he will gather and prepare more information for further discussion. 3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION – GENERAL PROVISIONS This item was removed from the agenda at Director Nielsen’s request. 4. APPOINT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2012 Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it wants to continue this item to a future meeting because two Planning Commissioners are not in attendance. Commissioner Hasek stated he didn’t think there is a need to do that because a quorum is present. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending the nomination of Thomas Geng to the position of Planning Commission Chair and David Hutchins to the position of Planning Commission Vice- Chair for 2012. Motion passed 5/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Hutchins asked Council Liaison Siakel and Director Nielsen about the status of the Trail Budget. Nielsen stated the budget is under discussion. Hutchins stated he thought something was CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 10 of 12 allocated for trails for 2012. Nielsen stated that is correct. Nielsen explained there have been questions raised about trail expansion costs. Council Liaison Siakel stated Council wants to have a lot more discussion about costs. Siakel then stated Council has discussed the idea of having the Planning Commission take on a greater role with trails. She explained that during its February 27, 2012, meeting Council discussed overlaying the Trail Plan into the already overlaid 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan and draft 20-Year Water Plan. She explained the Ad Hoc Trail Committee prioritized potential trail projects and Staff made a guestimate of what it would cost to implement the Trail Plan. There is a lot more work that needs to be done on the Trail Plan and cost estimates before Council approves moving forward with any trail segment. Chair Geng asked Council Liaison Siakel what Council thinks the Planning Commission can contribute. Siakel explained the Commission could make recommendations on the type of non-vehicular access (e.g., a trail, a sidewalk, or a path), where the access should be located, and the physical aspects of them. One of the trail segments identified in the Trail Plan would be along County Road 19 from the LRT Trail down to approximately the bus garage property. When the Ad Hoc Trail Committee discussed that segment it was told that segment would be easy and relatively inexpensive to construct. It will be more costly and complicated to construct than originally thought. She stated the Council thinks more thought should be given to that segment and some of the other top priority segments before committing to anything. She stated that from her perspective it’s more appropriate for the Commission to assume responsibility for implementing the Trail Plan, noting the Park Commission will have some say about trails. She then stated trails should be built into the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a great deal of experience with public hearings and neighborhood issues. He noted that trails are as much about transportation as they are about recreation. Chair Geng clarified he is not questioning Council’s thoughts about having the Planning Commission being involved. Council Liaison Siakel asked the Planning Commission if it would be open to taking on the responsibility for implementing the Trail Plan and working with Council on it. There was support from the Commission to do that. Commissioner Hutchins stated that what he is hearing is there isn’t any question about the priorities of the trail segments identified in the Trail Plan. There is question about the implementation of the Plan. Commissioner Hasek stated the Trail Committee put that short segment of proposed trail along County Road 19 at the top of the priority list because of the pending creation of an overpass at the LRT Trail and County Road 19 crossing. He noted construction of that overpass has been pushed back one year. He stated there was an accident on Smithtown Road the previous week and that reaffirms the need to build connections between neighborhoods and schools. Council Liaison Siakel noted that Staff has done a great job of researching grant opportunities for matching funds. She explained that Council is concerned about the possibility of the City accepting a grant that has to be used for a specific trail segment during a specific timeframe without knowing the actual costs for the project upfront. She noted the high-level cost estimate for the short segment of trail along County Road 19 is $72,000. Council was concerned the cost could be much higher yet the City would have been committed to doing it because it accepted that particular grant. Council needs more information before it decides what the best use of City funds for trails and connections is. She stated she thought it would be very helpful to have the Planning Commission assist with trail projects. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Hutchins asked if there has been any thought given to reviving the Ad Hoc Trail Committee, noting the Committee members may be getting asked questions about the Trail Plan and the implementation of it. Council Liaison Siakel stated that was discussed briefly during the Council and Park Commission joint work session. Hutchins suggested the Committee be brought up to date. Director Nielsen stated he thought it would be wise to let the Committee know that the Planning Commission is going to become more actively involved with the Trail Plan. Hutchins stated it would be helpful to let the Committee know about Council’s concerns about things such as construction costs. Council Liaison Siakel stated there was Council discussion to refer to the connections as safe passage ways rather than trails. Director Nielsen stated the Trail Committee did try to address that. The Trail Plan Implementation Report states that the term trails encompasses sidewalks, paths and so forth. Each segment will be analyzed to determine what the appropriate type of passage way is for that segment. Nielsen noted the specifics for the short segment along County Road 19 will be dictated if it is constructed in the County right of way (ROW). In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated the short segment of trail along County Road 19 is being specked out as an 8-foot-wide bituminous surface. Director Nielsen noted the very first cost estimates put in the Trail Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were way too low. That is why the Trail CIP was pulled from the Trail Plan Implementation Report. Director Nielsen stated the City Engineer is working on the feasibility portion of that trail segment. He explained it should be “relatively” inexpensive when it is compared to other segments with ROW issues and wetland issues and bad soils. It is possible electrical poles won’t have to be moved to construct the trail. He stated there should not be any neighborhood opposition to that segment of trail. 7. NEW BUSINESS None. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated the March 20, 2012, Planning Commission meeting is dedicated to discussing the Smithtown Crossing Study Report. Director Nielsen asked to possibly take five minutes of that meeting to discuss the Zoning Code Study General Provisions item on the Commission’s 2012 work program and to lay out the various topics for that Study. Nielsen noted that item was pulled from this evening’s agenda. In response to a comment from Chair Geng, Director Nielsen noted he is meeting with a senior housing developer on March 7. The developer is interested in two locations in the City with one of them being the Smithtown Crossing study area. Commissioner Davis noted the Garden Patch property is for sale and she stated that may be a better place for senior housing because the area is more walkable. Director Nielsen noted the soils on that property are very poor. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6, 2012 Page 12 of 12 Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 27, 2012, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She stated representatives from the League of Women Voters Minnesota made a presentation about the League’s position on voter ID during Council’s February 27, 2012, meeting and she found the presentation to be very interesting and thought provoking. She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to go to the League of Women Voters Minnesota’s website www.lmvmn.org and look at its information on voter ID. • SLUC Commissioner Hasek asked who is going to report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) going forward. Director Nielsen stated he will take on that responsibility, noting it may just be about upcoming sessions. Commissioner Davis stated the upcoming SLUC session is on homeowners association liabilities. Director Nielsen stated he may buy the DVD for that session. Davis asked if any of the Planning Commissioners attended the SLUC session on stormwater management, noting she had a prior commitment that day. She stated the DVD of that session may be worth seeing. Director Nielsen noted that he and Council Liaison Siakel attended a session earlier in the day about stormwater management. It was put on by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He thought the two case studies presented to the attendees, one successful and one unsuccessful, were very interesting. Siakel and Nielsen elaborated on the unsuccessful stormwater management project the City of Minnetonka did. Siakel stated there was discussion about the stormwater management effort associated with the West End development in the City of St. Louis Park. She noted the City is doing many things right. • Other In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated he is trying to get the government training session scheduled for a Saturday in April. 10. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2012, at 8:51 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder