Loading...
PC-04-03-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Garelick, Hasek, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Lizée (departed at 8:47 P.M. because she was not feeling well) Absent: Commissioner Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for April 3, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 20, 2012 Commissioner Hasek stated he thought everyone needs to be very careful about how the minutes are put together. He commented he read a paragraph of his comments three times to really understand what the minutes were saying. He expressed concern that excerpts from the minutes could be taken out of context and misconstrued. He noted he did not want to change his comments on page 2, paragraph 7. Director Nielsen stated he has mentioned before that taking minutes for a conversational discussion can be difficult because the recorder is trying to pick up the pertinent points of a casual discussion. Often times there is more than one person speaking at a time. Chair Geng reminded the Commissioners that it is difficult for the recorder to pick up the pertinent points of the discussion when multiple people are speaking at the same time during a work session. He encouraged the Commissioners to only have one person speaking at a time. He also encouraged the Commissioners to keep their comments as brief and to the point as possible. He stated when a person elaborates on a point it can be difficult to discern what the pertinent point is. He then stated if a document is being referred to a person should make it very clear what the document being referred to is by name. Hasek moved, Meuhlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 20, 2012, as amended on Item 1, Page 5, Paragraph 6, change “… more positively to a duplex in the transitional area rather than only single-family residential” to “… more positively to a duplex in the transitional area rather than only commercial property”. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 2 of 12 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicants: Tom and Velinda Schrepel Location: 28180 Woodside Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on an April 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted the applicants (Tom and Velinda Schrepel)are not in attendance this evening, but their representatives (Mike Sharratt of Sharratt Design, LLC, and Kyle Hunt their builder) are present this evening. Director Nielsen explained Tom and Velinda Schrepel have commissioned Sharratt Design, LLC, to make application for the construction of a new home on the property located at 28180 Woodside Road. They are applying for two conditional use permits (C.U.P.s). The first C.U.P. is to build on a substandard lot with respect to the lot width requirement for the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which it is located. The subject property is currently vacant and contains 40,747 square feet of area. Although it complies with the area requirement for that district, the lot is only 84 feet wide at the front building line. The width does comply with the 70 percent requirement that allows nonconforming lots of record to be considered buildable. The second C.U.P. is for accessory space (including a detached garage) in excess of 1,200 square feet of area. Nielsen noted this property was the subject of a lot line rearrangement approved last month (for Mike Cannon). That application eliminated the need for any kind of variance in this case. Nielsen explained the applicants have prepared a site plan for the property. The proposed home fits on the site very well. Owners of lake front properties tend to have their home as close to the water as they possibly can. The applicants are building farther back from the shoreline in part because of hardcover constraints. The home is to be located on the level portion of the lot where a previous house had been located years ago. The proposed house will have an attached double garage. The applicants are also proposing a detached garage. For the time being the applicants will be sharing a driveway with the property to the north. Nielsen then explained the property slopes from east to west, dropping dramatically as it approaches Lake Minnetonka (the Lake), and quite dramatically the closer it gets to the Lake. This elevation change constitutes a bluff under the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The proposed home will be located well behind the required setback for the bluff. Nielsen reviewed how the application complies with the four criteria for granting a C.U.P to build on a substandard lot. 1. The lot is in separate ownership from adjoining properties. 2. The lot complies with the area requirement for the R-1A/S zoning district. The width of the lot complies with the 70 percent requirement for existing lots of record. 3. The proposed home and detached garage comply with setback requirements for the R-1A/S zoning district. In taking advantage of the level area of the lot, the home not only sits well back from the shoreline of the lake, it is 64 feet behind the bluff line on the property (only 20 feet is required). 4. At just over 15 percent, the proposed floor area ratio is well under the 30 percent maximum provided by the Code. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 3 of 12 Nielsen then reviewed how the application complies with the criteria for granting a C.U.P for accessory space over 1200 square feet. 1. The total area of accessory buildings (1404 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (4449 square feet – upper two levels) above grade of the existing home. 2. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garages and the principle dwelling comply with R-1A/S zoning district setback requirements. The house is somewhat centered on the lot. The Shoreland district requires a total side yard setback of 30 feet with no one side less than 10 feet. The detached garage is somewhat buffered by existing vegetation to the east of it. The proposed hardcover for the site is at the maximum 25 percent, including a shared portion of driveway for the house to the north and 184 square feet of “contingency hardcover”. At such time as the property to the north is redeveloped, it is anticipated that it will have its own driveway, freeing up 486 square feet of hardcover for the subject property. The applicants had an arborist prepare tree preservation and reforestation plans and it appears they will do a nice job of protecting the clusters of trees. The tree protection fencing on one side of the house will be brought down to the property line. The trees in that area are not in great health so they will be removed and replaced as part of the tree reforestation plan. 4. The architectural character of the detached garage will be the same as the proposed house. Siding and roofing will match the house. Nielsen noted detached buildings are limited to 15 feet and one story in height. The detached garage will have storage trusses with a ceiling height of less than seven feet. Therefore, this space will not constitute a second story and the floor area is not counted in the C.U.P. calculations. Nielsen stated based on the preceding analysis, Staff recommends the applicant’s request for both C.U.P.s be granted, subject to the following: 1. Building permit plans for the detached garage must show storage trusses for the upper level with a permanent ceiling height of less than seven feet. 2. Erosion control consistent with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements must be in place prior to excavation. This will likely comply with tree protection fencing especially on the Lake side. Mike Sharratt, 5590 Woodside Lane and with Sharratt Design, stated he has been a resident of the City for 20 years and his office is located in the City of Excelsior. He noted the Schrepels asked to have a smaller house designed when compared to most new homes around the Lake. He stated the only thing he was not able to do as well as he would have liked to have deals with the hardcover issue. Unfortunately, the lot is very long and narrow. The house is proposed to be farther back from the Lake to increase the buffer and to shorten the length of the driveway. He commented that he thought the proposed house is a very humble house. He also commented that the Schrepels have lived in the Smithtown area for about the last 15 years. He stated that he and the Schrepels ask the Planning Commission to recommend approval. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 4 of 12 Director Nielsen stated he had met with two of the adjoining property owners. One of the others came to City Hall and picked up a copy of the plan. Albeit hearsay, apparently all of their concerns have been addressed. Commissioner Garelick asked how the size of the proposed house compares to others in the surrounding area. Mr. Sharratt stated it is quite a bit smaller when compared to other houses around the Lake and in the Boulder Bridge area. He highlighted some of the features on the site plan. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought Director Nielsen said a grading plan had been submitted. Nielsen clarified he did not say that and one was not submitted. Hasek explained if you look at Exhibits B and C on the lot to the north where it says vacated street there is a low, flat area in the yard and it looks like it has some type of wall around it. It appears that where the proposed house will be located will block the current drainage flow. He asked if any consideration will be given to how the drainage will flow from the low area into the Lake. Nielsen explained that will be reviewed as part of the building permit to ensure that drainage will not be blocked or create drainage onto another property. Hasek stated the area where construction will occur drains off to the south. Nielsen stated the arborist took drainage into consideration when making the decision to remove some of the trees. Hasek expressed concern that so many trees on the survey are just labeled trees and he does not consider the survey to be an adequate tree survey. He stated from his vantage point some of the trees are worth saving. He questioned if it couldn’t go around the north side of the lot so as not to impact the trees. He commented that there is a lot of overhead canopy on the lot and to get trees to grow underneath it if there isn’t enough light will be difficult. Director Nielsen noted the arborist mentioned that in his second report. Nielsen stated that nothing would prohibit the transplantation of trees that could survive that. Hasek stated the root systems of the trees are very extensive and that makes them difficult to transplant. Therefore, he would opt for nursery grown trees. Hasek stated where they are actually going out on to the street it looks as if there will be a little two or four foot cut in the mound. He thought there are some relatively nice trees in there. He stated if there is going to be a connection to that street he suggested the connection be made where it takes out the least number of what he calls valuable trees and causes the least amount of grading to occur. He noted there is a little knob off of the southeast corner of the property. He stated the farther to the north it goes the less grading there will have to be. Hasek asked what is on the east of the accessory garage. Is it a window or a door? Mr. Sharratt explained the east side door is intended to be an access door for things such as a lawn tractor and would eliminate the need to move cars in front. Hasek stated where the trees to the east of that area are it appears there was a large Linden tree that came down. There is a large Linden tree with maples around it. The two trees to the north don’t appear to be worth saving. He asked if there is a tree survey with more trees identified on it than the one provided. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has all that has been submitted. He then stated the building permit process will address that. He noted the arborist did indicate that near that garage there will be one good size tree (30 inch) that will be removed because it is damaged. Hasek asked what size trees the reforestation plan requires. Nielsen explained a significant tree is defined as eight inches. Nielsen noted the City does ask applicants to try and protect significant clusters of trees. Hasek stated the site plan shows there are two solid lines that run within what he assumes is the setback line. He asked what the solid lines are. Mr. Sharratt explained they are the 15-foot and 20-foot respective setbacks depending on where the house is located. The northerly line is the 15-foot setback. Hasek asked CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 5 of 12 where the air conditioner will be located while noting the City’s Ordinance stipulates it cannot be located in the side yard setback. Mr. Sharratt stated if it can’t be it won’t be. He explained the plans are sized scale schematics. At this point in the process the focus has not been on mechanical systems. Hasek asked if the hard surface cover includes the patio and the walls below it. Mr. Sharratt responded it does. Mr. Sharratt explained the terrace retaining walls off the patio where the screened porch is would also have planting bed between the walls. Hasek commented he would not count that as hard surface cover. Hasek then asked if the applicants are going to be required to have a cross-access easement for the property to the north. Director Nielsen noted they have one already. It was done as part of the lot line rearrangement. Hasek asked if there is an agreement between the property to the north and the subject property for parking on the south lot. Nielsen responded yes. Hasek stated the Staff report under Analysis/Recommendation Item B.1 states “The total area of accessory building (1404 square feet) does not exceed the area (4449 square feet – upper two levels) above grade of the existing home.” And, Item B.2 states “The total area of accessory building does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1A/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet.” In reading through Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) states one thing (he thought 10 percent) and then Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4)(a)(iv) indicates 7 percent. It’s in a discussion about greenhouses. He asked if greenhouses are somehow separated from other structures. Director Nielsen noted they are. Nielsen explained Subd. 2.d.(4)(a) was specifically added to the Code for someone with a greenhouse. Item (a) does not apply to this application. He noted the 10 percent rule applies. Hasek questioned why it is 7 percent for greenhouses and 10 percent for other accessory structures. Chair Geng suggested the discussion come back to the topic at hand. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the applicants did a good job of trying to fit a structure on the lot. He then stated he wanted to ensure that a situation wasn’t allowed to happen that the Planning Commission and the City will regret in the future. He noted he supports what is being proposed. Commissioner Hutchins asked, out of curiosity, if the walls on the detached garage are going to be angled as indicated on the schematic. Mr. Sharratt explained that both of the applicants grew up on farms and that design is somewhat of a reflection of taking them back to their roots. They may very well have the sloped sides. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to build a single-family home on a substandard lot and a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for the property located at 28180 Woodside Road subject to Staff recommendations. Commissioner Hutchins asked if both conditional use permits can be addressed in one motion. Director Nielsen responded they can. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M. 2. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING Chair Geng stated this is a continuation of a number of discussions and two public meetings related to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) the Planning Commission has had. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 6 of 12 Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t have a lot for the Planning Commission this evening. He explained that since the last discussion during the Commission’s March 20, 2012, work session Staff has worked on a two of the items the Commission wanted modified. The meeting packet contains a copy of the expanded chart showing the pros and cons of a unified/coordinated versus piece-meal redevelopment of the northwest quadrant Study area. This document will be included in the introduction to the Study report. He noted that he took a lot of the language Commissioner Charbonnet provided him. The packet also contains a copy of the revised Study Area Boundary map (the map). Per the Commission’s request, Staff pulled the Study area boundary down to the backs of the individual properties (including the removal of Gideon Glen); the public works property was taken out of the northeast quadrant of the Study area; and, the square footage and acreage of each property was added. He indicated that he will add a total acreage amount for the northwest and southwest quadrants and for the 24250 Smithtown Road to the map as well. He noted the appendix lists all of each property’s details. Staff is continuing to work on revising other maps (e.g., the Study Area Location map). Commissioner Hasek stated he did not think it is necessary to include the square footage for each property. He thought having just the acreage would be sufficient. He then stated he would prefer the lot information of the map be located at the bottom of each property for ease of reading the map. He also wants to have the word South Lake Public Safety put into the 24100 property location so people know it is already developed. He suggested labeling the location of the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) on the map. If a piece of Badger Park is located in the Study area it should be labeled as well. Director Nielsen stated because a segment of trail was eliminated from the Trail Plan he suggests removing the SSCC and Badger Park from the southeast quadrant of Study area. He noted that some of the properties on the map may be too small to have the lot specific information print horizontally at the current font size. Chair Geng stated for the lots that are too narrow to print the information horizontally the print should remain vertical. Commissioner Hutchins agreed. Commissioner Davis suggested lightening up the contours on the map, and if the map is to have contours the map should have elevations. Chair Geng noted that Gideon Glen has been removed from the map. He stated he thought the map looked good. Commissioner Hutchins noted that the north edge of the 24620 and 24590 Smithtown Road properties the yellow boundary line should be dashed. He stated he thought the map reflects what was discussed during th the March 20 meeting. th Director Nielsen stated during the March 20 meeting there was discussion about including a site location map in the introduction. The purpose of the map would be to show the context better next to the surrounding neighborhoods. He displayed two options for the site location map. One is a plain, simple map with the Study area shaded. The other would show more detail including the individual houses in the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Davis stated she prefers the one that shows the houses because people want to see their houses. Commissioner Hasek suggested both be included, that the boundary line around the two residential properties in the northwest quadrant being dashed, and making the color of the dashed line blue to distinguish that those two properties may or may not be part of the redevelopment. Commissioner Hasek asked the Commission what it thought about including either a land use or zoning map with area boundaries in the Study report. He stated the land use would be a projection of what it is expected to be. Director Nielsen stated the land use and zoning are consistent. There was consensus to include a zoning map in the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 7 of 12 Director Nielsen asked if the Commissioners had any comments about the unified versus piece-meal chart. Commissioner Davis stated she likes the chart as presented; it is not overwhelming and it says what it needs to say. Chair Geng asked if it would be practical to include the page number in the Study report where the items in the chart are primarily discussed. Nielsen explained some are discussed in several locations in the report. Nielsen noted the Study report will include an executive summary and it will be placed in the front part of the document. Geng stated that would be sufficient. Nielsen stated the chart will be located near the list of issues. Commissioner Hasek stated for now it makes sense but once the Planning Commission has the opportunity to see the complete revised report he may have a different perspective. Geng stated he likes the improved descriptions on the chart. Nielsen stated he will ponder including the page numbers by the descriptions on the chart. Commissioner Hasek suggested changing “Each site provides its own separate pond for rate control and volume storage; more land lost to ponding” to “Each site provides its own separate pond for rate control and volume storage; more land consumed by ponding”. He also suggested changing “Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use” to “Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use and circulation”. Commissioner Muehlberg stated that although he understands what constitutes an acre there are a lot of people who don’t think of property size in terms of acreage. Many people can relate to square footage better. Maybe, if there is room to include square footage he suggests doing so. Chair Geng stated that square footage information will be in the appendix along with other specific property information. Geng suggested having an appendix notation on the Study Area Boundary map. He stated having both on the map makes the map too busy. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission discussed having another joint meeting with the City Council to talk about the revised Study report. The joint meeting is scheduled for June 11, rather than on th May 29 as the Commission proposed. Chair Geng asked what the delay does to the overall timetable for this Study. Nielsen responded it extends it out slightly. Director Nielsen commented an architect and a developer have been working on development plans for the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing Study area. He displayed a sketch to the Commission. He explained that the sketch indicated there would be a two and a half story senior housing facility built on two lots and then increase to three to three and a half stories on another portion of the structure. The extra half story is the parking level. He stated he told the architect and developer he would show the sketch to the Commission and he clarified approval is not being sought. He commented he thought the concept is good. He stated he thought they needed to focus on considerably more landscaping. Chair Geng stated based on comments made by residents he thought there would be concerns about building a senior housing facility that far into the buffer zone [on the west end of the Study area]. Director Nielsen stated he shares that perspective. Geng stated if they put the structure further east and north into the Study area there may be less resistance to it based on comments heard. 3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSIONS • General provisions – Section 1203.03 Subd. 2.a.-f. Director Nielsen stated this evening the Planning Commission will begin its discussions about the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code Sections 1201.03 Subd. 2.a – f. What he refers to as the nuts and bolts of the Ordinance. It contains provisions that apply to several zoning districts. He noted that a copy of that part of the Code is included in the meeting packet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 8 of 12 Nielsen explained that the discussion this evening will go through the fences section. He noted that the nonconformities portion was updated in 2011 to comply with statutory requirements. The accessory buildings provisions have worked well over the years. He stated during the discussion he will note questions that Staff has. Nielsen noted that earlier this evening one of the conditional use permits (C.U.P.) requests dealt with Section 1203 Subd. 2.c.(3) Property development. Nielsen explained that State Building Code requirements must be complied with. The City Code adopts the Building Code by reference. He also explained that unless there is an urgent need to make a change to the General Provisions all recommended changes will be made as part of a housekeeping ordinance. Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.a Purpose. No comments were made.  Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.b Dwelling unit restriction. Living quarters in basements have to meet building code. For true basements there have to be  window well egress windows. Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.c Property development. For fence permits a property owner does not have to submit a survey if they can show where  property boundary monument markers are located. The same thing applies to additions, garages and so forth. The monument marker has to be identified by the property owner. There was a suggestion that a verification of property line by survey be required for things like  fences, sheds, parking areas and so forth. The stakes (the monument markers) are what are used to verify where things are located in  accordance to setback requirements. The survey is just a drawing. There is concern about the cost to get a permit becoming so expensive that property owners will  build a fence without a permit. The City tries to be reasonable. In Subd. 2.c.(3) the reference to the effective date of this chapter will be changed to include the  actual effective date of this chapter. In Subd. 2.c.(4) regarding allowing a single-family residential dwelling to remain on a lot while a  new dwelling is being constructed, any concern about substantial site alteration would be discussed during the public hearing for the C.U.P. There was a comment by one Commissioner that the wording of Subd. 2.c.(5) was awkward.  Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.d Accessory buildings, uses and equipment. In Subd. 2.d.(4) there was a suggestion to change “… shall exceed three in number, or 1,200  square feet” to “… shall exceed three in number, nor 1,200 square feet” and to change “… R-3A Districts, or 1,000 square feet” to “… R-3A Districts, nor 1,000 square feet”. The gross floor area does not include walls at this time. It would be easier on a survey to look at  things if it did. There was a comment that it is not uncommon for the gross floor area to be the outside dimension of a structure. Staff agreed that could be cleaned up. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 9 of 12 There was a question as to why the total area of accessory buildings cannot exceed 7 percent  when greenhouses are being considered (Subd. 2.d.(a)(4)(iv) yet it is 10 percent when greenhouses are not (Subd. 2.d.(b). It was clarified that this was driven by a specific case and Staff will research that case. With regard to Subd. 2.d.(4)(a)(i), it was clarified that once a greenhouse has been built on a lot  that must be at least 80,000 square feet of area the lot cannot be subdivided at a later date. The word subsequently will be added to the second sentence. In Subd. 2.d.(4)(e) there was a suggestion to change the two “or” words to “nor” in paragraph  one. With regard to Subd. 2.d.(4)(e)(ii), it was questioned if the provision relating to the condition of  the nonconforming structure is still valid. Staff believes it is because in this section an expansion of a nonconformity is being asked for. In Subd. 2.d.(4)(e)(iii) it was questioned if the correct agencies are listed. Staff clarified they are.  There was a suggestion to clarify the last sentence to indicate there is one member each from the Planning Commission, City Council and Park Commission. In Subd. 2.d.(5), it was clarified that Section 1201.04 of the Code referenced is titled  “Administration, amendments and conditional use permits”. There was a comment that including the name may be helpful. Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.e Drainage plans. No comments were made.  Following is a summary of comments, clarifications and suggestions made with regard to Section 1203 Subd. 2.f Fences – general requirements. Staff displayed images of solid versus 25 percent open fences, different fence heights, looks of  fences with no setback requirements and so forth. Staff also displayed images of the most common 25 percent open fence (the alternating board-on-board fence). The most common fence constructed is the alternating board-on-board fence. In the City there has to be a minimum of 3.5 inches between the boards on each side. The City Code has setback and height provisions for fences. Six-foot high fences are allowed  along arterial roads. Some cities don’t require a permit for fences. There are some differences in the provisions for solid fences and 25 percent open fences. The Code doesn’t specifically stipulate some of the things Staff requires. Staff has discussed  developing a handout with illustrations that would be given out with the permit application specifying such things. The 25 percent open can be achieved in many ways. Staff asked if there is a preference for a handout or illustrations in the Code about fences. The  Commission thought a handout would be most useful. The purpose of the 25 percent open is more structural than anything; it helps reduce wind  resistance for taller fences. It also allows some light to pass through the fence. There was a suggestion to mention the light and air flow rationale in the Code. It was suggested that be added to Subd. 2.f.(9). Staff indicated they will do that. There was a suggestion for the fence posts to go down to or below the frost line. Staff clarified  there isn’t a lot of fence heaving from not going below the frost line. The heaving is caused by strong winds, and the frost line goes down more than three feet. There was a comment that based on experience three feet deep for a fence post wasn’t deep enough. There was agreement to add the actual date of adoption to Subd. 2.f.(5).  With regard to Subd. 2.f.(9)(iv), Staff recommends including the side yard abutting the street. The  side yard abutting the street is treated the same as the front yard. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 10 of 12 4. DISCUSS TRAIL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION – STATUS OF COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL Director Nielsen stated Council has decided that the Planning Commission should assume responsibility for the implementation of the Trail Plan. This evening he intends to provide an update on the trail segment that would go from Smithtown Crossing north to the LRT Trail. Nielsen explained that the City Engineer has started to prepare plans for that segment. During the planning process he has determined that there are state standards, Hennepin County desires and so forth. The Engineer is working through those things with the County. The original hope was that the entire segment of trail could be located within existing right of way (ROW). That is still a possibility but it will depend on the design of the trail. Trails have a very specific meaning if they are to be placed in State or County ROW. If the trail is intended to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic, it has to be a minimum of eight feet wide. In order to have an eight-foot wide trail there is a section in the ROW where it goes down and a power pole is located in the ROW. Commissioner Davis noted that it costs $10,000 to relocate a power pole. Nielsen then explained the City Engineer has been meeting with representatives from Xcel Energy and Hennepin County. The County considers County Road 19 to be a bike route. The County has striped both sides of the road for bicycles. It is not labeled as such, but it is in the County’s plans as a bike route. Therefore, it would be possible for the City to get by with a five-foot wide sidewalk and keep it within the ROW. He noted there is a five-foot wide sidewalk along the shopping center. It’s possible there could be a striped route north of the area anyway. He stated at this time it appears as if a five-foot wide sidewalk is the better option to pursue. He noted easement may be needed as it gets closer to the LRT Trail to allow the walkway to connect to the future overpass at the LRT. Nielsen stated at this time the City does not have any pending grant applications in. A grant was applied for in 2011 but it was not awarded to the City. The City was encouraged to apply for future grants. Nielsen explained the City Engineer is trying to make contact with the owner of the bus company, but he has been unsuccessful to date. The Engineer thinks there is a possibility that the bus company may be leasing a sliver of land that joins County Road 19. Nielsen then explained the plan is to solicit bids for constructing that segment of trail. The hope is that Xcel Energy will grant the City an easement, noting it will have a request for a large conditional use permit coming up within the next year. Nielsen reiterated that both an eight-foot wide trail and a five-foot wide sidewalk are currently being considered. He stated he will keep the Commission posted on the status of this endeavor. Chair Geng stated he assumes that the sidewalk would be for pedestrians only and the bicycle traffic would be routed onto County Road 19. Director Nielsen clarified the sidewalk would not have to be labeled that bicycles are not allowed. It cannot be labeled that the passage way is intended for bicycles. Geng stated from his perspective if the sidewalk option is selected then the roadway would have to be striped. Nielsen noted it already is. Director Nielsen stated the hard-core bikers who want to bike on County Road 19 probably want to bike on the roadway. Commissioner Davis commented hard-core bikers don’t bike on trails. Casual bikers do. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Hasek asked if the City has any idea what the overpass design at the LRT Trail is going to be like. Director Nielsen responded no and explained the design work has not been started. Nielsen stated he thought discussions are supposed to being the summer of 2012. The Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay will be involved in those discussions. Hasek commented that recently when he approached the intersection of the LRT Trail and County Road 19 two bicyclists did not stop at the stop sign. When he told them they were supposed to stop there they responded it was a pedestrian stop sign. Director Nielsen explained that a few years ago the City Council adopted a resolution asking the County to install uniform signage at all trail crossings of County Road 19. A similar request was sent to the State asking the State to educate people on the difference between a trail crossing and a pedestrian crossing. Commissioner Hasek shared what his perspective is about bicyclists and rules. Director Nielsen noted Trail Plan implementation needs to be added to the Commission’s work program. He stated if the City wanted to construct a five-foot-wide trail along Smithtown Road, a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) route, the City would not be able to get any funding assistance. To be eligible for a grant or MSA funding with a five-foot-wide passage way it would be limited to pedestrian only. 5. DETERMINE JULY THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2012 COUNCIL LIAISONS Council Liaisons were selected as followed: July 2012 Commissioner Muehlberg August 2012 Commissioner Davis September 2012 Chair Geng October 2012 Commissioner Garelick November 2012 Commissioner Hasek December 2012 Commissioner Hutchins 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Davis asked about the status of the Planning Commission’s government training session. Director Nielsen stated the new target date is for May. Nielsen explained that for one of the dates being considered in April the Department of Natural Resources is using the Southshore Community Center for aquatic invasive species training. 8. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Garelick stated he did some mediation the previous week for the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). He asked what the LMC does with the City of Shorewood. Director Nielsen explained the LMC does a great deal of research that the City uses the results of. The LMC lobbies on behalf of cities. The LMC has an insurance program that the City used to belong to, but he thought the City has pulled out of that. He indicated he does not always agree with the model ordinances it creates. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 3, 2012 Page 12 of 12 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there may be a public hearing for a conditional use permit slated for the May 1, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. If so, it will be for accessory space over 1200 square feet. There will be a public hearing for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for what can basically be considered a housekeeping item. There will continued discussion about life-cycle housing and landscaping. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Nielsen gave a brief report on the March 28, 2012, City Council meeting. Commissioner Hasek commented on how poor a recent video recording of one of the City Council meetings was. • SLUC No report was given. Director Nielsen stated Commissioner Davis is attending a Sensible Land Use Coalition session at the end of the month. • Other None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 3, 2012, at 9:22 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder