Loading...
PC-08-07-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 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 Charbonnet, Garelick, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Council Liaison Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioners Davis and Hasek APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Garelick seconded, approving the agenda for August 7, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  July 3, 2012 Geng moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 3, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – ASHLAND WOODS Applicants: Ashland Woods, LLC Location: 6045 Strawberry lane Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 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 August 27, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted Ashland Woods, LLC has submitted a preliminary plat for the property located at 6045 Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen explained that Ashland Woods LLC has submitted a preliminary plat for a seven-lot subdivision to be called Ashland Woods. The plat was approved in 2009 under the name of Wildwood. The property is zoned R1-C, Single-Family Residential. The LRT Trail and Freeman Park border the property on the north, and it sits on the east side of Strawberry Lane. The plat submitted by Ashland Woods is virtually identical to the one submitted by Wildwood, with the exception of the proposed grading plan which Staff thinks is for the better. Because of that Staff used the same staff reports and the same recommendations as it did for Wildwood. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the City Code minimum size requirements for the R-1C zoning district which are 20,000 square feet in area, 100 feet in width and 120 feet deep. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 2 of 13 With regard to grading, Nielsen explained the whole area this is located in has a very subtle drainage pattern. Because of that Staff spent a great deal of time with the previous developer working on a drainage solution that would not adversely affect the surrounding properties, particularly the properties in the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood on the south and east side of the proposed plat. The original grading plan for Wildwood was to drain to a ponding area in the northeast corner of the site. The southerly lots all drain south and southeast into a drainage way then into the pond. The fronts of the lots all drain to the street. The street drainage is conducted through a pipe into the drainage way and then into the pond. The overflow of the pond will go into the drainage pattern in Freeman Park. Because the drainage is so subtle it cannot tolerate any change in elevation. Therefore, the City Engineer recommended the rear yards of Lots 5 – 7 be designed as a system of rain gardens with a drainage way that would conduct the drainage to the ponding area in the northeast corner. The Engineer also recommended the drainage swale be designed as a dry creek bed to conduct the subtle drainage to the ponding area. The rip rap wall as part of the cry creek bed will demark where the property owners will leave in a natural state. The original staff report also recommended a homeowner’s association (HOA) be established to maintain the drainage pattern and system. The development agreement for the final plat will require the HOA to annually monitor the elevations of the drainage way to ensure the drainage way is not being filled in by sediment or people dumping things into it. If the elevation in the drainage way reaches a height higher than it is supposed to be the HOA would be responsible for cleaning it out. If the HOA fails to clean it out the agreement would give the City the authority to clean it out and assess the cost back to the development. It would be a self-contained drainage system. The same recommendations apply to the Ashland Woods grading plan which is quite similar to the Wildwood Plan. For the Ashland Woods plan the City Engineer has recommended that some grading work occur in Freeman Park to ensure the overflow from the pond flows where it is supposed to. The Ashland Woods grading plan proposes to bring in a total of 16,000 yards of fill; 10,000 for the initial plat grading and 6000 for the individual site grading. The Wildwood plan proposed 23,000 cubic yards of fill. The Ashland Woods developer proposed to do what is called “custom grading” for the lots for specific types of buildings. The developer submitted a Secondary Grading Plan for the individual lots based on various building types. If a different building type is proposed it will require a revised grading plan that adheres to the low floor proposals in the preliminary plat and maintains the approved drainage pattern. Staff’s perspective is that the Ashland Woods grading plan is an improvement over the Wildwood plan. The City Engineer submitted the following list of recommendations.  The cross grade on the proposed street should not be less than 2.5 percent.  The comment on the Secondary Grading Plan regarding “custom grading” must be revised to reflect the understanding that if a different building type is proposed than what was submitted in this Plan a revised Plan must be submitted and approved.  There shall be no retaining walls in the street right-of-way (ROW). The retaining wall on Lot 7 goes into the ROW a little.  The concrete curb and gutter should extend around the street radius to Strawberry Lane.  In the final plat, consider allowing some minor grading within Freeman Park to enhance the flow of drainage through the Park. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Nielsen noted that based on the analysis and the recommendations included in the original Wildwood memoranda, Staff recommends the approval of the preliminary plat for Ashland Woods. Commissioner Charbonnet stated that on the news not long ago there was discussion about HOAs and the desire to get out of their contracts because of cost. He asked what protection there would for the proposed HOA. Director Nielsen explained the protection would be the part of the development agreement that states if the HOA does not keep the elevation in the drainage way at or below what is required the City has the authority to clean it out and assess the cost back to the development. The Declaration of Covenants will create the HOA. Anyone buying a lot will know they are subject to that obligation. Cory Lepper, with Vine Hill Partners (VHP) located in Deephaven, stated VHP’s primary focus is home building. Its goal on the front end is to minimize the impact on the site, and to somewhat let the home design dictate how the site will look in the end. Although VHP custom grading is not desired it does help minimize the impact on the front end. Commissioner Garelick stated he understands that VHP tried this in 2009 and he asked Mr. Lepper why he thinks this project will be successful in this economy. Mr. Lepper clarified that VHP had nothing to do with this site in 2009 – 2011. VHP came into this about 60 days ago. The VHP team collectively thinks this is a perfect time for this project. Garelick then asked what the price of the average house and the average lot value would be. Mr. Lepper clarified VHP does not sell lots and therefore doesn’t look at the lot value very much. Mr. Lepper stated VHP’s bread and butter is in the $600,000 – $800,000 price range with a large focus on the details inside. Garelick ask if the house on the proposed Lot 1 will be taken down or removed. Mr. Lepper stated that it had been removed when the Wildwood development was active. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24. John Hoeting, 26340 Shorewood Oaks Drive, stated he had been aware that there had been potential for the subject property to be developed. He noted he has lived in Shorewood for 12 years. He stated he did not think he would be facing an artificial mesa. He assumes the maximum size houses from the backside will be three stories high with a roof on top of that. The houses will be shoved into the artificial mesa and from the front it will be a two story house. During the time of the Wildwood development he had a resident from Shorewood come out who told him that the then developer was trying to shove 500 pounds of substance into a 200 pound bag. The artificial plateau is being created in order to build the largest houses possible with Ashland Woods. Mr. Hoeting then stated as a result of the development the owners in Shorewood Oaks are going to have to deal with what he terms a “storm drain”. The underground draining system is going to take everyone’s salt, sand, antifreeze, oil and so forth and drain it underground into the pond right up against his property. He went on to state that what is being called the Ashland Forest is in the backyard of Shorewood Oaks. He expressed concern about the health of the trees. There is one Burl Oak tree that is over five stories high. There is a huge cottonwood tree. The development will destroy the root system of some of the trees. He asked how the proposed drainage system is going to affect the ground water level in the area of the back yards. Mr. Hoeting went on to state that in perpetuity the drainage system has to work. But, it is likely it will fail because there is already a backup system in place. It’s known that the ponding area is probably not going to be able to hold the stormwater and therefore it will be routed onto Freeman Park. He noted that he doesn’t want to wake up 30 years from now to find his back yard filled with stormwater and not be able to call anyone and ask to have the water pumped out within a certain timeframe. He asked for assurance that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 4 of 13 if any machinery has to be brought onto the developed site to clean out the drainage way it would be brought onto the area through the new development. Dave Eisenmann, 26320 Shorewood Oaks Drive, asked if the installation of rain gardens at the back of Lots 5 - 7 means the elimination of all of the trees near them while noting he assumes it does. Director Nielsen stated when the Wildwood preliminary plat was discussed in 2009 protecting the trees, especially the large ones, was noted as a requirement of the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan. It is understood there will be some impact on trees. The developer is required to plant 35 trees and Staff’s recommendation was to plant the majority of them along the south and east borders of the site where most of the trees will be removed. Cara Otto, with Otto Associates and the project engineer, stated she was also the project engineer for Wildwood. She noted all of the City codes are being met, just as they were for the Wildwood preliminary plat approval. There is not much difference other than there is someone interested in the entire area rather than just individual lots. She indicated two areas where trees will be saved. Mr. Eisenmann asked if that means the cottonwood tree will be destroyed. Ms. Otto stated in 2009 they could not promise that it would be saved. A concerted effort would be made to minimize the impact on the tree but there are no guarantees. Ms. Otto noted there will be some grading done in the area of that tree. Ms. Otto then stated the overflow from the pond flowing into Freeman Park is currently occurring. That is why there is the wet pond on that side of the property. She explained the houses are being built up to meet the elevation requirements in the City Code related to stormwater management. Mr. Eisenmann stated he thought he heard it stated that it would be foolish to believe the large trees will survive because of their extensive root systems. He noted that both he and Mr. Hoeting have large trees on their property that back up to the subject property. One of his trees is right at the property line. He questioned if there is any guarantee that his tree located close to the property line will survive. He asked who would have to have to pay to have his large oak tree removed if it dies. Ms. Otto stated the two trees Mr. Eisenmann is referring to are located father away from the area that will be graded than the cottonwood tree is. The cottonwood tree is located within the grading limits. At one time the plan was to show the cottonwood taken down, but the intent now is to try and save it. The oak tree on the common lot line between the Eisenmann and Hoeting property is at the blend point and there will be minimal grading in that area. She noted there is a legal right to excavate for a basement on a property even if a tree on the adjacent property is located close to the excavation area. She stated it does not benefit the residents in the future development to take trees down because the trees will be their buffer from their neighbors. Mr. Lepper stated if VHP had the opportunity not to touch anything outside of the ROW that is what it would do. It prefers not to take any trees down. If there is anything that can be done not to take a tree down it will be done. He encouraged people to go and look at other sites VHP has developed. Mr. Eisenmann asked if the rain gardens have to be installed. He then asked if the swath has to be that wide. He stated the plan shows a buffer being left between the north/south parts of the development that keeps quite a number of the existing trees. It appears to him that proposed Lots 4 and 5 will have quite a few trees, while Lots 6 and 7 will have quite a loss of trees up to the existing borders with Shorewood Oaks. He asked if rain gardens are the only option, and if so how many trees have to be taken down. He then asked if this is just going to be rubber stamped because it was approved in 2009. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Ms. Otto reiterated Otto Associates was involved with the Wildwood preliminary plat and it would like for that rain garden not to be there. It makes Lots 5 – 7 less marketable. But it is necessary to satisfy stormwater management needs. Originally the rain garden was pushed into the southeast corner even further. After working with City Staff some of the back yards on Lots 6 and 7 were given up in order to save some of the trees in that corner. There is not a lot of leeway on that flat site. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen what the setback from the property line is for the drainage system on the south and east side. Nielsen responded there is no required setback. The rip rap wall that defines the drainage area effectively becomes the setback. If it were not for the drainage system it would be a 40-foot rear yard setback for the Lots and that would be substantially less than where the wall is. Chair Geng asked if the rip rap wall will only exist on the newly developed Lots. Director Nielsen responded that is correct and reiterated the primary purpose is to demark where the lawns are no longer to be mowed. Geng stated one of Mr. Hoeting’s concerns is about what happens 20 – 30 years into the future after the drainage system has been gradually filled in. It is his understanding there will be an ironclad agreement that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining the system, and if they don’t the City will clean it out and then assess the entire HOA for the cost of doing that. Nielsen again responded that is correct. Director Nielsen explained that ordinarily final plats just go back to the City Council. When this was discussed in 2009 the then Planning Commission wanted the opportunity to see the final documents. This Planning Commission may want to see the final documents as well. Chair Geng stated a concern raised this evening was about if there is a need to maintain the drainage system where the egress to bring the equipment in would be. Director Nielsen stated it would have to be on the new development; not on the Shorewood Oaks development. Commissioner Charbonnet asked if the rain garden option is the only workable solution for the site. Or, are there other options that may be cost prohibitive. Ms. Otto explained one of the ways to get the drainage to flow toward the north all the way from Lot 7 is to elongate the ponding area so that as the water rises up it overflows that way. Otherwise, it could overflow incorrectly into Shorewood Oaks. By connecting the system of backyards it allows it to function as one stormwater system. Charbonnet stated Mr. Eisenmann noted the rain garden system eliminates so many trees. He asked if it could be made into a smaller footprint in order to reduce the number of trees that have to be taken out. Ms. Otto explained one of the struggles is the elevations can only go to a maximum before stormwater causes problems with other houses or properties. And, they can only go so low before there is no way for the stormwater to flow out. There are constraints by where Freeman Park is and by the maximum allowable elevations. The area goes out farther but it doesn’t go up very far. She noted the City Engineer asked them to go above the Code standard and have a little extra volume because of the area being so low. Director Nielsen stated in terms of drainage one of the alternatives for any development is to put in a storm sewer system. But, because the site is so flat and the drainage system so subtle that is not an option. He noted it is preferable to have a natural drainage system as opposed to a pipe. He explained there is a pipe that picks up stormwater from the two catch basins and brings it down to the rain garden area. Commissioner Hutchins stated the Tree Preservation Plan submitted as part of the Wildwood plat process shows that the large majority of the trees that would be removed are on Lots 4 – 7. He asked if there is CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 6 of 13 any commitment to replace the removed trees on Lots 4 – 7 in order to create some buffer. Director Nielsen stated earlier in the discussion he explained that Staff recommended that the majority of the 35 required replacement trees be concentrated along the southerly and easterly boundaries. Director Nielsen explained that since the Wildwood development was discussed there have been projects where to enhance the likelihood of survival of large trees the City can require saw cutting of the tree roots. That is allowable as part of the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. He recommends including that as a recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat. Commissioner Hutchins asked if concerns about the maintenance of the drainage system would be monitored and enforced on a complaint basis or based on a schedule. Director Nielsen stated based on a schedule. Nielsen explained in the development agreement in the Declaration of Covenants the HOA will be obligated to submit to the City elevation shots once a year of the drainage way to demonstrate that it has not filled in. Council Liaison Zerby stated the old railroad tracks on the north side of the site typically have a drainage system on both sides because the tracks are elevated. He asked why the drainage can’t be guided to the drainage ditch on the south side of the tracks. Director Nielsen stated that was considered but it is not possible to make the water flow uphill. Zerby asked if the property that is to the south of the subject property next to Strawberry Lane could eventually connect to the new lane to reduce traffic turning onto Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated it could access that street but it would have to contend with the grade that is there. Zerby asked if the houses on Lots 1 – 3 would be constructed far enough back from the old railroad tracks in the event that the area of the tracks would be used for some type of mass transit system. Nielsen stated they would be as far back as they can be. Chair Geng stated he wanted to address the comment made by Mr. Eisenmann about the Planning Commission just rubber stamping this preliminary plat because it had been approved once before. He did not think that is a fair comment. He noted he was a member of the Planning Commission back in 2009 when the Wildwood preliminary plat was considered. The Commission made recommendations at that time that went above the recommendations made by Staff for that application. He stated that Director Nielsen noted that this application is significantly better than the previous application because of requiring significantly less fill than what was proposed in 2009. He then stated the system of rain gardens is a compromise. The developer has made it clear that the preference is not to have rain gardens there. There is no choice if Code requirements are going to be satisfied. It is his understanding that all feasible alternatives have been considered and the system of rain gardens is the practical solution. The City Engineer would not approve the system of rain gardens if he did not think it was going to work. He noted he trusts the Engineer’s judgment. Hutchins moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Ashland Woods based on the analysis and recommendations presented by Staff and the City Engineer as stated in the Staff memorandum dated July 31, 2012; the Staff recommendations set forth for the Wildwood preliminary plat in the Staff memorandum dated January 1, 2009; the recommendations set forth in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated December 31, 2008; saw cutting the roots of trees to try and preserve as many trees as possible; and, providing the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the documents, including the maintenance agreements, for the final plat. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng thanked the applicants for coming this evening and the residents for sharing their concerns. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 7 of 13 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT –ACCESSORY APARTMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. It is about a Zoning code text amendment related to accessory apartments in residential districts. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on an August 27, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained that earlier in the year the Planning Commission discussed accessory apartments as part of the larger topic of life-cycle housing. This housing option is viewed as addressing both ends of the housing spectrum. The Commission thought amending the City Ordinance to allow for accessory apartments would be a good thing to do for a number of reasons. Nielsen reviewed two standards in the draft ordinance related to size. The first states “The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms.” The second states “The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room.” He explained that when the Planning Commission discussed the draft ordinance during its February 21, 2012, meeting there was concern expressed that smaller homes may not be able to satisfy the size requirements specified in the second standard. Changing the ordinance to require at least 700 square feet of living space remaining and at least 480 feet for the accessory apartment would make it possible for people with smaller homes to take advantage of the ordinance. He noted he thought the 850 and 500 square feet minimums mean the house is already pretty small (1,350 square feet). st Nielsen stated during its February 21 meeting the Commission expressed a desire to allow for the accessory apartment to be occupied by a live-in care-provider. He explained the occupancy standard discussed during that meeting stated “Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage.” The current draft of the ordinance includes the addition of the following language: “Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult live-in care- provider serving the needs of the primary occupants provided that if the care-provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator.” He noted that added language is already in the elderly housing provision in the City Code. Nielsen then stated the Commission wanted to ensure that there would be adequate off-street parking for the occupants of the accessory apartment. He explained the occupancy standard discussed during the st February 21 meeting stated “A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed.” The current draft of the ordinance includes the addition of the following language: “Any parking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a garage or an approved driveway.” Nielsen went on to state that allowing accessory apartments is a significant step for the City. He noted the draft ordinance is intended to be restrictive. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Garelick stated he thought allowing accessory apartments is a wonderful idea and he thought it may be a way to rejuvenate the City. It will allow for something some communities don’t allow. He then stated his peers that he has spoken to want this type of thing. Commissioner Hutchins questioned the accuracy of the alternate size minimums of 700 and 480 square feet. Director Nielsen stated it should be 475 instead of 480 square feet. Hutchins then stated he thought the proposed ordinance amendment is great. Council Liaison Zerby stated the ordinance states “…the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner.” He asked if marriage is a proper restriction to use in this day and age. He noted that in 2011 the City established a Domestic Partnership Registry. Director Nielsen stated he thought marriage is the right word to use until the definition of family is changed in the City Code. Nielsen noted the State Building Code uses the same definition as the City. Zerby stated there are lots of blended families. Director Nielsen expressed his concern that if the ordinance is too flexible it could result in people wanting to rent the accessory apartment out. Nielsen stated the intent is not to make the City like the Kenwood neighborhood in the City of Minneapolis. The main objective with the ordinance is to try and keep the elderly in their homes as long as possible and to bring in younger families. Commissioner Hutchins asked how the ordinance will be enforced. Will it be by complaint? Director Nielsen explained the owner of the single-family residence must enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City prior to occupancy which stipulates that the accessory apartment is for the use of the family only. Commissioner Garelick asked what the penalty is for violating the Zoning Code. Nielsen responded it is a misdemeanor penalty. Chair Geng stated he assumes that process is already in place. Nielsen stated it is. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:12 P.M. Garelick moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code amendment relating to accessory apartments. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:13 P.M. 3. REVIEW COMMENTS REGARDING THE SMITHTOWN CROSSING STUDY Director Nielsen stated the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) had been available on the City’s website and at City Hall for resident comment during the month of July. He noted the Planning Commission has been provided with a copy of the comments received. He asked the Planning Commission what it wants to do with the comments. He stated he thought notifying people that the Study would be placed on the website to comment on worked quite well. He has received compliments on having done that. He noted some residents came to City Hall to read the paper copy of the Study as well. Nielsen then stated the Commission had already heard or seen similar comments to some of those received during the comment period. Some of the comments were new. One comment asked the City to consider additional financing options when the time comes. To date the discussion has been about tax increment financing (TIF). There was a request for cost estimates. To date nothing has been done with costs because no one has proposed developing the Study Area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Nielsen noted that the more a developer does what the City is proposing the more the City will propose to do. Chair Geng stated a comment was made that it was unclear if the City is going to exercise eminent domain. He thought that had been addressed in a public forum. To date the topic of eminent domain has never come up in the Planning Commission’s discussions about the Study. To his knowledge Council has never discussed it either. Director Nielsen stated it has never been suggested that the City would use the tool of eminent domain for the redevelopment of that area. He then stated the City has been extremely conservative with regard to condemnation. If it has been used for other projects it has all been friendly condemnations. He noted the hands of a future Council cannot be tied. He stated there is nothing in the Study Report that suggests the City will use eminent domain. Chair Geng stated one person asked what the precise involvement of the Metropolitan (Met) Council has been. To date it has not been involved in this Study. The Study was conceived of by the City in recognition that the area under study is prime for redevelopment sometime in the future when economics justify it. It has been the Commission’s intent and he believes the City Council’s intent to be proactive in putting forth a vision. The Met Council’s only involvement would be once there is a final Study it would be submitted to the Met Council for approval as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen noted that is correct. Commissioner Hutchins stated from his perspective all of the comments, whether or not they were supportive, were in alignment with the guiding principles outlined for this project. He then stated a development project will have to be an effective development for the City and it has to meet the needs of the people in the community. He clarified that the project is a concept and there are no specifics to it at this time. The Study can only talk about what the City would like to see happen if the Study Area is redeveloped. He stated he was pleased with the comments received. Some of them were insightful and constructive. Some reaffirmed what the Commission has discussed over time when trying to create the concept plan for the Study Area. He noted there were a number of comments expressing support for pedestrian access and trails. Director Nielsen stated there were a couple of comments received during and after the first public hearing expressing they did not want trails. He then stated there has been more of a ground swell about wanting to have additional trails constructed in the City. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if the intent is to keep the public comment feature open on the City’s website for a while. Nielsen stated that is what will likely happen although it has not been spoken about specifically. Geng recommended keeping that feature open up until the time of the next public hearing. Director Nielsen stated the next step in the process is to hold another public hearing. Chair Geng stated rather than incorporating the comments into the Study Report at this time he suggested first making copies of the comments available for the public hearing. He recommended considering all of the comments after the public hearing has been held. He expressed that he wants to keep the comment process as open and accessible as possible until the public hearing. Director Nielsen stated he assumes that the Planning Commission is comfortable with using the third draft of the Study for the public hearing. He asked the Commissioners when the hearing should be scheduled. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 10 of 13 th He noted there is one Commission meeting scheduled for September and it is on September 18. He thought the hearing could be held during that meeting due to the lack of zoning items that need to be considered. Chair Geng recommended publishing the date for the public hearing in the City’s newsletter. There was Commission consensus to schedule the public hearing for the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study for the September 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. 4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions – Noise Ordinances Director Nielsen stated there has not been any direction given to consider a noise ordinance. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to see what other cities are doing in that regard. He commented that the City does receive occasional noise complaints; a couple of them were received the past week. He stated that occasionally Staff thinks it would be of value to have something more specific than what is currently in the City Code which relies on nuisance. He then stated that without there being something more specific the police are reluctant to enforce it. Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of excerpts of the City’s Zoning Code General Provisions Chapter 501 Nuisances. It also contains excerpts from the Cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Excelsior and Tonka Bay city codes. Nielsen explained that in terms of construction the current policy works well for the most part. The building permit states construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sunday. Contractors are informed that if the City has to respond to complaints about working outside of those hours it tends to result in the City’s inspection schedule being slowed down. This does not deal with the individual homeowner who, for example, is working on his deck on a Sunday. Hopefully, the neighbors can work something out. He then stated the only other noise complaint the City receives is with regard to using lawnmowers and chain saws outside of those hours. Most of the codes included in the meeting packet address those types of things. Commissioner Garelick stated he receives calls at Shorewood Ponds about kids revving car engines, spinning cars near the baseball field in the park and going as fast as they can on the dirt roads. He asked if that would be addressed under a noise ordinance or is it just a nuisance. Director Nielsen stated that is a topic for the Park Commission to discuss because the cars spinning around tears up the gravel. Nielsen then stated that it is part of a larger issue of vandalism. He explained some city codes have provisions that deal with revving engines when they are being repaired. Director Nielsen noted that the City’s dog ordinance stipulates a dog can’t bark for more than a continuous five minutes. Council Liaison Zerby stated as soon as the police show up to a place where a dog is barking that long the dog tends to quiet down. Chair Geng stated he understands Director Nielsen to be saying noise from for profit contractors are regulated sufficiently with the City’s current policy. And, that it is the incidental noise from electric equipment that appears to be a problem. Nielsen clarified it is power equipment. Nielsen noted that Excelsior’s Code defines domestic power equipment quite well and what the allowable hours of operation are. Director Nielsen stated a lot of the City’s ordinances are written for a small group of people. People who are inconsiderate or just don’t think about such things. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 11 of 13 Chair Geng stated based on comments Director Nielsen made during the Planning Commission’s July 5, 2012, meeting he understood Nielsen to say there was not enough in the current Zoning Code for staff to respond on. And, that there aren’t standards for the police to enforce. Director Nielsen stated the City has equipment available to monitor ongoing noise levels, but not intermittent noise levels. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if it is sufficient to rely on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards for stationary equipment. Nielson responded it is. Geng stated it is domestic power equipment that is the problem. Nielsen added vehicle noise can also be problematic. Director Nielsen explained the City has received a complaint that he does not think any of the sample codes would address. The complaint is about a property owner who has a four-wheeler and a SUV and it is his understanding that the owner and his sons drive around on his approximate two acre lot all day long. It appears that the property owner believes his right to use his property overrides his concern for his neighbors. Chair Geng stated the law teaches people that property rights are a bundle of sticks. One of the sticks property owners have is the right to quiet enjoyment of their properties. That is where he thinks the rub is. He then stated he does not want to recommend regulations for the sake of regulations. But, if the police don’t have sufficient standards to enforce and if staff believes there is not enough for them to respond on then there is a need for regulations. Commissioner Garelick asked if there were any problems on the Fourth of July holiday above and beyond firecrackers. Director Nielsen responded not that he is aware of, noting that he does not see all of the police reports. Chair Geng asked the Commissioners what they thought about some of the code provisions that address large gatherings. Commissioner Garelick stated the complaints he received about noise from people in the park was for noise after 10:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated that is a different violation because people are not supposed to be in the park after 10:00 P.M. Police could enforce that. Garelick stated excessive noise can impact the quality of life. Therefore, he thought there needed to be some noise regulations. Council Liaison Zerby stated he thought it would be prudent to solicit input from law enforcement before defining noise regulations for standards the police will have to enforce. He noted the police department for the City does not have a decibel meter. He stated a noise complaint may be a lower priority than other issues law enforcement may be responding to. Director Nielsen agreed with that. Director Nielsen explained most of the noise related things the sample ordinances try to get after are difficult to measure. Therefore, cities try to regulate the hours of activity. Council Liaison Zerby stated with regard to noise from motor vehicles such as ATVs there are laws that regulate their noise levels. Director Nielsen stated people modify the ATVs after they purchase them. Nielsen then stated police have told him that it is difficult to enforce vehicle noise regulations on the highway. Chair Geng suggested asking the police for information about volume and type of noise complaints before going any further with this. He stated he thought any regulations should be as focused as possible. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Director Nielsen stated he assumes the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would like any regulations the City agrees upon to be consistent with what the other SLMPD member cities have. Commissioner Muehlberg stated an ordinance would lay out the criteria for what violations are, but it will likely come down to repetitive violations of the ordinance. Chair Geng stated if the City receives a noise complaint he asked if that is referred to the SLMPD. Director Nielsen stated the City advises the complainant to call the SLMPD. Nielsen noted that most of noise violations occur outside of the City’s normal business hours. Nielsen stated the only complaint he remembers the City receiving about lawnmowers was for using them too early at the Minnetonka Country Club’s gulf course. Council Liaison Zerby stated there is the issue of garbage trucks traveling roadways at 6:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated there are regulations to address that. Zerby stated he thought the earliest that should be occurring is 7:00 A.M. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen to check with the SLMPD and get back to the Planning Commission. Nielsen stated he will do that and that he will compile a list of pertinent provisions from the sample codes for potential consideration. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for discussion. 7. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business for discussion. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there will be a public hearing on the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study on the September 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There will be an update on a potential County Road 19 trail segment. There will be continued discussion about the general provisions in the Zoning Code. Director Nielsen stated Xcel Energy has not been very responsive about getting together with the City to discuss a potential easement for the County Road 19 trail segment. Chair Geng asked if Hennepin County can get involved and exert any influence to help that along. Nielsen stated that is an option. Nielsen then stated he was hoping that Mayor Lizée would write a letter to Xcel asking for it to have representatives meet with the City. Geng suggested carbon copying the City’s representative on the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on the letter if one is sent. Director Nielsen stated there is a desire to at least get bids for the trail segment to help Staff in estimating what it will cost to construct other trail segments. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 7, 2012 Page 13 of 13 Director Nielsen noted that the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member City Administrators/Manager are assessing the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance prepared by the SLMPD. He stated he thought there needs to be consistency between the four member cities when it comes to enforcement of things such as dangerous dogs. There could be individual regulations for things such as the number of dogs allowed. He noted for the time being the Planning Commission does not need to deal with the draft Ordinance. Commissioner Hutchins stated the calendar of meetings sent out by the City’s Deputy Clerk shows there is a second Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission agreed to have only one meeting each month unless there is something particular that had to be addressed. Hutchins recommended adding a review of the Planning Commission’s work program to the September th 18 meeting agenda. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council No report was given. • SLUC None. • Planning Commission Training Director Nielsen stated he has not heard what the proposed date for the Planning Commission training is. He noted that the program the City has coordinated in the past is going to be coordinated by the City of Deephaven this year. 10. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 7, 2012, at 8:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder