Loading...
PC-09-18-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Hasek, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Council Liaison Zerby (departed the meeting at 8:01 P.M.); and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Garelick APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the agenda for September 18, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 7, 2012 Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He asked Director Nielsen when it will be placed on a City Council agenda. Nielsen explained it could be placed on a September 24, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration depending on the outcome of this meeting. Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has been discussing the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) for approximately two years. He noted the Study Report being considered this evening is the third draft. He stated this evening he intends to review the Executive Summary which has been added to the Report. It highlights the recommendations in the Report. He also intends to review the changes that were made between the second and third drafts. The meeting can then be opened up for discussion. He stated the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) has identified the Study Area as not being up to Shorewood’s standards in terms of its use and the quality of current developments there. The City would like to direct how the Study Area may be developed in the future. Nielsen highlighted the Executive Summary. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 2 of 16 It encourages a unified/coordinated redevelopment versus a piece-meal/individual approach to  redevelopment. It discusses considering incentives to encourage coordinated and higher quality development.  It encourages the use of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establishes parameters for  mixed use (residential and commercial). It discusses incentives and rewards that would be tied to compliance with the City’s  redevelopment “guiding principles” set forth in the Report. The City may consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to facilitate the assembly of land and redevelopment of the lower quality buildings in the Study Area. It states the City may consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to possibly participate in the open-space component of the project. The City has already acquired one parcel. The Report recommends that for any redevelopment the City require marketability and traffic  studies for the proposed activities. There is a strong emphasis on providing bicycle/pedestrian connections and circulation within the  Study Area. There is a strong emphasis on requiring substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping to  create buffers and to enhance hopefully higher quality architecture on the site. The Report suggests there be public/common open space internal to the project for people to  gather and take advantage of the views in the project. The Report encourages well-articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels,  interesting shadowing and natural materials. Nielsen noted the third draft of the Study Report was placed on the City’s website for the month of July 2012 to allow people the opportunity to comment on it. The comments received were also made available for viewing on the website. The meeting packet contains a copy of all comments received. Nielsen then highlighted the changes between the second and third drafts of the Report. The Executive Summary was added to the front of the Report.  Numerous changes were made to the Study Area map. Topo lines were labeled and lightened, and  elevations were added. Gideon Glen, the South Lake Public Safety facility property and the Southshore Community Center were removed from the Study Area. Gideon Glen has been labeled as a conservation area. The map reflects the properties for reference purposes. On the westerly edge of the Study Area the current commercial properties and the residential properties were clearly delineated. The mostly westerly residential properties may not be included in a redevelopment project. A copy of the Zoning Map was included. There is a graphic showing the Study Area overlaying  the Zoning Map. The Vision Statement was replaced with Redevelopment Guiding Principles. One of the Guiding  Principles states the westerly two residential lots if included in the redevelopment will be used for residential purposes only. Any use of land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height to 35 feet or two and a half stories. Some photographs were replaced. For example, one of a tall building was replaced with one of a  lower building. The photographs are intended to be examples of what is being discussed. They are not intended to dictate anything. He displayed the photographs contained in the Report. The Concept Sketch presented at the open house and the last public hearing was included at the  end of the report. It is not intended to show how buildings would be laid out. Page 18 in the Report still talks about possibly allowing the height of a structure on the  commercial portion of the Study Area to be as high as 45 feet. Currently the zoning allows 40 feet CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 3 of 16 in the commercial zoning district. The Planning Commission discussed limiting the height to what is currently allowed so that needs to be changed in the Report. Director Nielsen noted there is a signup sheet for any member of the audience who wants to talk about Smithtown Crossing. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Bryan Maghan, 5670 Christopher Road, complimented the Planning Commission for coming up with an overall good concept. He noted he has never been opposed to it, and that he had submitted a fairly lengthy list of comments in October 2011 in response to the second draft of the Report. He stated he thought the City has done a very good job of looking at what the future needs of the City might be, and taking a long- term vision and applying it to paper. He then stated he did not think there were a lot of changes that need to be made to the third draft other than in headings. Mr. Maghan noted the height issue referred by Director Nielsen is an overall concern. He expressed his pleasure with the Gideon Glen conservation area being removed from the Study Area. He then noted the zoning of Gideon Glen is still shown as C-1, General Commercial District. Nielsen noted that is the current zoning. Mr. Maghan stated that when the Gideon Glen project was done it was agreed that it would remain a conservation area. If that is the long-term intent he suggested rezoning the property to be consistent with a conservation area. Commissioner Hasek asked if the zoning for Freeman Park is different than for open space. Director Nielsen responded it is zoned residential. Hasek stated the best that could be done is to rezone it to R-1, Single-Family Residential or some designation that would make it residential. Mr. Maghan stated his primary concern was that because Gideon Glen had previously been included in the Study Area it allowed the developer the opportunity to ask for it to be included. He thought keeping it with the C-1 zoning would continue to allow that. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is anything on the books that would allow the Gideon Glen property to be anything other than open space. Nielsen noted there is a conservation easement over it that is perpetual and that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was a partner in the purchase of that property. Nielsen explained if the City wanted to allow anything different to be done to that property would require a public hearing to be held. He noted that changing the zoning would not prohibit that because the zoning could be changed again in the future. He also noted the City does not have open space zoning. Mr. Maghan stated he is pleased to hear there is a conservation easement over the Gideon Glen area. Mr. Maghan stated some of the other concerns he originally conveyed have been talked about by Director Nielsen this evening. For example the two westerly residential lots, one of which the City acquired. He commented that he did not know if much would be gained by including the most westerly lot in the Study Area other than the additional tax dollars that could be generated from a single-family house. He stated he thought it would be difficult to find any area in the City where a commercial area would intrude that far into a residential area. He then stated he did not think there would be a problem with keeping the City- owned property next to the westerly most lot for higher density residential development. He suggested the westerly most residential property be excluded from the Study Area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Meghan noted that he is personally opposed to Tax Increment Financing (TIF). He stated he thought development should be able to happen without subsidies. He noted he has worked for organizations that have benefitted from TIF. He stated that a lot of what is going to happen in the Study Area won’t happen for five, ten to fifteen years. Therefore, he questioned if buying properties in the Study Area is the best use of the taxpayers’ dollars. He thought it would be a shame for the City to get into a situation where it would have unlimited liability associated with mitigation of contaminated soils. He did think at some point a government agency would have to get involved to mitigate it, but hopefully not the City. Mr. Meghan stated this area is surrounded by commercial properties. Therefore, he is not sure why the height should be limited. Director Nielsen stated that would depend on how it would be rezoned. The Planning Commission talked about it potentially being rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial and that has its own height limitation. Mr. Meghan stated the City building next door is pretty large, pretty tall. Therefore, the property would easily lend itself to a multi-level structure; maybe three to four stories tall. Mr. Meghan thanked the City, Staff and the Planning Commission for its hard work and for making Shorewood a nice place to live. Ron Goetz, 5790, Echo Road, complimented Staff and the Planning Commission for what they are doing. He stated the residents have experienced the benefits of the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. He commented that from his vantage point the faster the Study Area can be redeveloped the better. He asked what the requirements are for the back of the redevelopment area. For example, the view of dumpsters and the possibility of an alley. Director Nielsen explained the City does require screening of commercial uses from residential. Nielsen then explained that the County Road 19 Corridor Study done a few years ago calls for exactly that. It calls for landscaping the fronts of the commercial properties. The Corridor study is asking to landscape the back so it frames the commercial development. He noted there will not be an alley in the back of the commercial area of the Study Area. The sites are quite shallow. Mr. Goetz stated that in the back of the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center there is a line of dumpsters. Nielsen noted the City does require enclosure of commercial dumpsters. They would be screened as part of any commercial site plan. Mr. Goetz asked if there are any plans for City water extension as part of a redevelopment. Director Nielsen stated the redevelopment area is serviced by City water. Nielsen then stated the City Council and Staff have been working on a 20-Year Water Plan for the extension of city water. Mr. Goetz thanked Staff and the Planning Commission for all that it does. Blair Bury, 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive, stated he also owns a parcel (24470 Smithtown Road) within the northwest quadrant of the Study Area. He expressed his appreciation for the hard work on behalf of Staff and the Planning Commission. He stated it is progress and planning, and he thought it is a good deal. He asked how flexible the western boundary will be for a developer, especially the last two lots. Director Nielsen responded that boundary was intended to be flexible. Director Nielsen stated a lot of the Study was about quality and requiring things that are not in the current City Ordinance. He explained the City has landscaping ordinances, but in this redevelopment it will be looking for enhanced landscaping. The Study Report talks about architectural treatments that the ordinances don’t address now. He stated the tradeoff will be the right project will receive incentives or rewards for complying with the guiding principles. Mr. Bury stated if the two westerly most properties were properly buffered he understands Nielsen to be saying the City would be willing to listen to including them in the Study Area. Nielsen stated the City expects the development area to go at least to the end of the Commercial District. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 5 of 16 Mr. Bury stated the Study Area has a varying topography. He asked if the 45 foot height limitation takes into consideration the drop offs in the area in the back. Director Nielsen stated that has been taken into consideration. Mr. Bury stated there has been progress and he thinks what has been done to date has been well thought out. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, stated his only concern has been about building heights. He does not think there is a reason to allow 45-foot high buildings or go past what is currently allowed in the City Ordinance. He asked Director Nielsen where the City has granted height variances. He stated he did not think the City gave a height variance for the medical facility near Lake Linden Drive. Nielsen stated he cannot recollect the City giving any height variance. Nielsen noted that in the first and second drafts of the Study Report where there was discussion about increasing the height as an incentive would have been done by ordinance not by variance. Mr. Zerby stated he cannot recollect going above the current 35-foot height restriction. He asked what would make this property different than others to allow it to go above the 35-foot height limit. He noted his concern is that it is abutting residential property, and that two of the potential properties in the Study Area are zoned residential. Nielsen stated that earlier this evening there was Planning Commission consensus on the height issue. It is his recollection that there was discussion by residents about the height issue during the open house and there was discussion by the Commission. Nielsen clarified the height restriction on the commercial properties is 40 feet; it is 35 feet or two and a half stories on the residential properties. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Commissioner Muehlberg stated with regard to the property where the residents along Echo Road said they can see dumpsters, he asked how refuse haulers will get to the dumpsters. Director Nielsen explained the gas station does have a driveway that comes around the building. The original site plan included a concrete dumpster enclosure that was accessible by that driveway. It hasn’t been used because it wasn’t convenient for the workers to walk down there and dump their stuff. Therefore, a couple more dumpsters were put on top and they have since been screened. Nielsen then explained the site design will have to accommodate loading and refuse. Today a lot of convenience stores have their receptacles inside. That will likely be the case if this area is redeveloped because the lots are shallow. There may be driveways but not alleys. Commissioner Davis noted the property adjacent to that property is the City Hall campus. Director Nielsen noted it is a residential zoning district boundary and therefore it would have to be screened. Commissioner Hasek stated he is not sure what more could be done to improve the Study Report because no plan has been proposed. Chair Geng suggested the Planning Commission discuss the height issue. He stated it is his understanding that there was Commission consensus that the height in the western buffer area would remain at two and a half stories or 35 feet for residential properties and for commercial properties it would remain at 40 feet. He asked the other Commissioners if that is their recollection. Director Nielsen explained it was addressed in the Redevelopment Guiding Principles when the taller building incentive was taken out and the restriction for the residential properties of two and a half stories or 35 feet was added. The statement on page 18 in the Report stating “… the right project could be built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 6 of 16 the number of stories” needs to be revised. Commissioner Hasek suggested tying it to the existing zoning requirements. Geng moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would incorporate the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan subject to existing commercial and residential zoning requirements guiding the height restrictions. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng thanked those in the audience who spoke on this item for their comments. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – OVERSIGHT OF GIDEON GLEN Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. He noted this is about a Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding oversight responsibility for the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space property. He noted the same procedures he outlined at the start of the earlier Public Hearing will be utilized. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a September 24, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen noted that he is the Staff liaison to the Park Commission as well as the Planning Commission. He explained that during this year’s tours of the Shorewood parks system the Park Commission visited the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space property located near County Road 19. During that visit a question was raised about who is responsible for the oversight of that property. Nielsen noted the initial work on the project to develop the property as conservation open space was done by the Planning Commission. Since then, the actual work has been primarily done by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD’s work is coming to a close. He stated various improvements have been made to the property to draw public use. Although the property is different than the other City-owned parks (it doesn’t have an active use, there aren’t any ball fields on it and so forth) the Park Commission thought it would best fit under its oversight and has recommended that to the City Council, and that the costs of improvements and maintenance would be in addition to its Capital Improvement Program. Nielsen stated the Park Commission was asked how to best assign responsibility for the property to it. Staff suggested a very simple amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) could clarify that. The meeting packet contains a copy of a draft amendment to the Community Facilities Chapter of the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan currently states “Conservancy Lands. Shorewood's wetland system, while not suitable for active recreation, is preserved for its aesthetic value, as well as its environmental benefit.” The amendment will add “While most of the conservation open space lands are undeveloped, at least one – Gideon Glen – has improvements designed to attract visitors. Responsibility for planning and maintenance should be directed to the Park Commission for inclusion in its capital improvement planning and budgeting.” He noted this amendment does not have to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and it is unlikely it will be forwarded to the adjoining cities. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 7 of 16 Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, stated he was involved in an interesting conversation this past weekend. He explained that his neighbors along Christopher Road have always felt a little landlocked when it comes to getting to various amenities such as trails because Smithtown Road is very busy. One of his neighbors suggested carving a path at the back property line and connecting it to the Gideon Glen property. He stated he would be in favor of the Park Commission taking this on. He noted the Park Commission has for previous projects or plans connected neighborhoods through short little connector paths. He thought the property owners would give permission to do a small wood-chipped trail as well. He thought this is a great opportunity as a park to connect residents to a walking trail, to a safe walking path and to the shopping center. He expressed his support for the Park Commission to take this on and to look for these types of opportunities. Commissioner Hasek asked Mr. Zerby to tell him what the position of the owner of the property between those along Christopher Road and Gideon Glen might be. Mr. Zerby responded he thought they would allow it, the assumption being there would not be traffic other than from people living along Christopher Road. It would connect those living in those ten homes into a broader system. Mr. Zerby noted the back half of that property is left natural. Hasek noted he would like to see that happen. Hasek then stated the property could be sold and the new owner could have visions of subdividing that property into three single-family lots. Mr. Zerby stated the City does not allow flag lots. Hasek stated he was not sure there would have to be any flag lots. Hasek questioned if a street could be installed similar to an area south of Smithtown Road called Club Lane. Mr. Zerby stated it is possible, but his thought is it would not be an investment but rather a casual trail. Hasek stated the City would need to get an easement. Mr. Zerby noted the discussion was about doing it privately, but a formal arrangement could be discussed. Hasek suggested that an attorney be involved in that discussion because there would be a liability. Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Zerby to note where the path would be on the display of the Gideon Glen area which Mr. Zerby did. Hutchins stated based on what the Commission was just shown there would be two properties involved. Mr. Zerby stated that is correct. Chair Geng stated what is being discussed is a wood-chipped trail that would begin at the property line at the cul-de-sac on Christopher Road extending to the northeast and then along a line that would proceed east to the northeast corner of the Gideon Glen property. Mr. Zerby noted this is just an idea. Bryan Maghan, 5670 Christopher Road, asked what would prohibit residents from putting in a trail on their own and prohibit the City from putting a trail out to the border of its property. Commissioner Davis stated this is the perfect situation of neighborhood residents cooperating with each other. The neighbors could have done this without ever letting the City know. Commissioner Hasek stated there is a trail similar to what Mr. Zerby talked about that goes between lots on a cul-de-sac to the Minnewashta Elementary School. He asked if that is private or public. Director Nielsen responded it is public and it was done as part of the plat, and that there is an easement through there. Commissioner Muehlberg stated there are different access trails to Lake Minnetonka that most people don’t know about because they are covered with woods. Director Nielsen stated they are fire lanes (paper streets). Muehlberg noted there is one up from his property and it is not a fire lane; it was just put in to access the Lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 8 of 16 Director Nielsen stated he thought the Park Commission should take this into consideration. He then stated if a casual trail is put in and the interpretive trail extended down it should theoretically be open to the public. He went on to state if residents along Christopher Road want to put a trail across and if they have their neighbors’ agreement and it puts people onto the Gideon Glen property he does not see any problem with that because it is a private issue. He noted that to bring it in on the northeast corner of the Gideon Glen property it would have to drop down and come across the south because the northerly boundary is part of the wetland. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Commissioner Davis noted that she was on the Park Commission for eight years and the Commission repeatedly discussed who was going to be responsible for maintaining Gideon Glen. She noted there had been a lot of hesitance over the years to let the Park Commission have any say in it. She expressed her support for the Park Commission assuming that oversight responsibility. Chair Geng stated he supports having the Park Commission assume oversight responsibility for Gideon Glen. Because it is in conservancy and is not subject to development it does not belong under the purview of the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen explained when Gideon Glen was acquired there was discussion about extending the interpretive trail to the north along side of the church property line and the apartments and bring it up to Glen Road. That was specifically dropped because people wanted it to be an interpretive trail and not part of someone’s running route or dog-walking route every day. He stated he thought neighborhood use is different than that. There was off-topic discussion about the landscaping on two small corners of land near the Smithtown Crossing intersection and who should be responsible for maintaining the landscaping there. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would identify the Park Commission as being responsible for oversight of the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space property. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. 3. MINOR SUBDIVISION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT) Applicants: Kenneth Carlson Location: 5725/5775 Ridge Road Chair Geng stated Kenneth Carlson proposes a minor subdivision / lot line rearrangement involving the properties located at 5725 and 5775 Ridge Road. He noted the applicant is present this evening. Council Liaison Zerby departed the meeting at 8:01 P.M. Director Nielsen explained Ken Carlson owns the properties located at 5725 and 5775 Ridge Road. He proposes to rearrange the lot line between the two properties. He reviewed the existing site plan and the proposed site plan. He explained that both of the properties are zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland. They both currently exceed the minimum lot size requirements for that zoning district and will continue to do so after the minor division/combination takes place. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 9 of 16 There are existing drainage and utility easements along the existing lot line that will need to be vacated. New easements will be created along the new lot line. There currently is no drainage and utility easement along the easterly edge of the existing homestead parcel. That has been included in this proposal. Mr. Carlson proposes to grant a driveway easement over the homestead parcel in favor of the vacant parcel. This will allow better access to the vacant parcel, which has a relatively steep slope off of Ridge Road. It will enhance the ability to get at that lot without having to do a lot more site alteration than would otherwise be necessary. There is currently a wetland conservation easement on the vacant lot that provides for a four-foot wide “access corridor” to get to Silver Lake. As part of his request, Mr. Carlson has requested an amendment to the original easement to allow for a second four-foot access corridor for the new lot. Staff recommends approval of that. Staff and Mr. Carlson talked about the possibility of having one access down the property line. But, the terrain there and vegetation would require more site alteration than simply allowing a second four-foot corridor. A very minimal amount of work is allowed to be done there. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the amendment language. Nielsen noted that Staff recommends the proposed division/combination be approved along with the vacation of the existing easements, the creation of the new easements and the amendment to the wetland easement. He also noted the applicant has already submitted the legal descriptions necessary for the resolution that will be recorded with Hennepin County. He stated the division/combination and easement documents should be recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request. He stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request it will be placed on the agenda for Council’s September 24, 2012, meeting for further review and consideration. Chair Geng asked Mr. Carlson if he had anything he wanted to add. Mr. Carlson stated this is his first contact with city government in any form. He noted that he is very impressed. He stated he wished he was not going to be leaving Shorewood because his contacts with Director Nielsen and the Planning Commission have been very positive. He commented he would find a way to become involved if he could stay here. He expressed his appreciation to Nielsen and the Commission. He stated he and his wife have lived on the 5725 property for twelve years. He explained the house comes very close to the original lot line. They were only able to own the four trees until they bought the second lot. Commissioner Hasek asked how the two four-foot access corridors to Silver Lake will be located to ensure they go where the existing deer trails are. Director Nielsen explained the conservation easement currently in place simply talks about a four-foot wide corridor. Nielsen noted Mr. Carlson had marked the two corridors (trails which are more like deer trails). It is not a defined easement or corridor. Nielsen explained if the City received a complaint about the corridors and the City found out they were different than what was agreed to they would have to be restored. Commissioner Hasek stated if the goal is to keep the pathways in a very specific location he asked if the location of them should be surveyed. Nielsen stated the way it has been done and worded has worked in the past. Hasek asked the other Commissioners if they are concerned about this. There was no response. Commissioner Hutchins stated the 5775 property is currently undeveloped. If/when it were to be developed a site plan would be required. He asked if that easement would have to be identified on the site plan. Director Nielsen clarified it is not an easement. On the site plan the applicant would typically show what is going to be done to the site. Hutchins stated the topography on that property will make it very CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 10 of 16 challenging from a development perspective. He questioned if it may be best for the property to have some flexibility for where the access would be. Commissioner Hasek commented that there is nothing that will preclude the new owner of the homestead property from moving the corridor access on that property. Director Nielsen noted that is true. Someone could move that particular deer path over but it would still be limited to four feet wide with there being minimal removal of vegetation. Hasek stated there is nothing that would indicate to a new owner that they would have to come to the City. Mr. Carlson highlighted where there is a path that goes to the Silver Lake, noting he has never used it during the summer months. The deer don’t use that trail much in the winter. There is a second path in a different location that is used more throughout the year by the deer. He noted that although the location of the corridor could be changed the only thing that could be done is trim the vegetation. He stated he thought it important that the owners of both properties be able to access the Lake. Commissioner Hasek asked for a show of hands if the Planning Commissioners think the corridors should be located now. He counted four who thought it should be dropped so he did. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a combination/minor subdivision for Kenneth Carlson, 5725 / 5775 Ridge Road, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 6/0. Mr. Carlson stated he is leaving town tomorrow and Chris Meyer will represent him at the September 24, 2012, City Council meeting. He noted Mr. Meyer and his wife live at 5770 Ridge Road. His intention is to sell them one of the parcels because they love the woods as much as he does. 4. DISCUSS TRAILS Director Nielsen stated efforts related to the County Road 19 trail segment have been stalled for a few months due to easement activity obstacles. The City has recently received feedback from the owner of the bus garage property and Xcel Energy that they will be willing to grant the needed easements and that the City will not have to pay for them. He noted that trail segment will not be constructed in 2012. It may be done in 2013. Nielsen explained that during its September 10, 2012, meeting the City Council authorized a feasibility study for the segment of trail that is referred to as Smithtown West. That segment of trail goes from the City of Victoria/Shorewood border to the Minnewashta Elementary School (the School). Council also asked that the study include the short segment between the School and the LRT trail. Council could th accept that feasibility study report as early as November 15. There are easements that will be necessary along that segment. The easements would be acquired over the winter months. Hopefully, there would be a late spring early summer construction start on that segment. Nielsen reminded the Planning Commission that Council assigned responsibility for the process portion of the Trail Plan to the Commission. He explained the first thing the Commission will have to do is a trail walk. That can either be done as part of a regular meeting or a separate meeting can be scheduled to do that. The Commission will then hold an open house. The current date being considered is Thursday, th November 15. It is proposed that the open house be held at the School. He indicated he thought that nd would be an excellent idea. He noted the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 2. There are already some items slated for that agenda. He asked if there is interest in doing the trail walk during that meeting or at a separate meeting. He then asked what the Commissioners’ availabilities are for th a November 15 open house meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 11 of 16 Commissioner Davis stated the trail walk will have to be done early because the sun sets at 7:30 P.M. The walk would have to start by 5:30 P.M. Director Nielsen stated the distance is close to two miles and to walk that at a good pace would take about 40 minutes. Once stopping and talking is factored in it could take 70 – 80 minutes. Commissioner Hasek suggested doing the walk on a weekend. Nielsen noted he would not be able to attend on a weekend because it is grouse hunting season, noting it could be done without him. Commissioner Davis noted she had been on the Park Commission for eight years and she has been on the Planning Commission for almost three years. She explained that when she first joined the Park Commission it was just finishing the big Trail Plan. The first trail segment was going to be that very stretch with it going all the way to City Hall. The only people that wanted it were from the City Hall area to Eureka Road. After that there was nothing but resistance. She stated that unless some major things have changed the City would be undertaking the worst segment to start with. Director Nielsen noted this City Council is very, very committed to implementing the trail plan. He stated Council seems to think there has been a change in attitude. The Councilmembers and the City have received a lot of comments and requests including during the Trail Plan study. There are residents all over the City who want trails who were not vocal or evident when that work was done before. The Trail Plan Committee recommended that any time City is going to consider constructing a segment of trail the Committee would go out and rally residents in favor of the trail. The intent is to get more people at the public meetings in support of it than oppose it. He then stated that although he was not involved in the trail planning process many years ago he does remember it going on and the opposition that there was. The opposition was primarily from property owners whose property the trail would cross. Commissioner Davis stated there was the issue of the right of way (ROW) to the middle of the street. Director Nielsen stated that is where the City needs the easements. Director Nielsen stated one of the advantages there is now that there was not before is Victoria has brought its trail to the border with Shorewood. He noted Council has basically suggested that trail be the model for what comes east from there. He stated it is either five or six feet wide and it is basically a sidewalk. It is right behind the curb basically the entire length. Whether the City’s would abut the curb or not would have to be determined. At least now there is something to show residents. The City didn’t have that visual many years ago. He then stated he has heard a lot of positive comments about improving the trail system. But, he has no doubt there will be some opposition. th Commissioner Hasek stated he listened to Council’s September 10 meeting and he thought he heard Council Liaison Zerby be somewhat adamant about the trail being on the same side of Smithtown Road as Victoria’s is. He then stated the feasibility study would provide some insight as to where the trail should go. He went on to state if anyone has any idea of what it would take to construct a trail through a wetland all they have to do is drive down to West Junior High School near Highway 41. It will be expensive. And, the higher the quality of the trail the higher the quality the substructure has to be. Hasek asked the Commissioners if they want to do a walk on a Saturday or Sunday so it can be done earlier in the day. Commissioner Charbonnet noted the road may be a little less busy on those days. Commissioner Davis agreed. Chair Geng expressed concern about lack of sunlight if it is done after the normal workday. Davis asked Director Nielsen when he goes hunting. Nielsen responded October and one half of November. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 12 of 16 th Chair Geng asked what is driving the November 15 open house date. Director Nielsen stated one of the things that go along with this is wetland delineation in order to know exactly where the wetlands are. Nielsen noted that does not affect the open house date. But, they have at least a preliminary schedule they are trying to adhere to. There is an awareness to stay away from the Thanksgiving Holiday weekend when some people are out of town. That date fits between the holidays. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commissioners would be willing to do the trail walk on either Saturday thth or Sunday, September 29 or 30 in order to make it possible for Director Nielsen to participate. Two indicated they could do either day, one indicated they could do Sunday, and two indicated they could not make either day work. Hasek asked if there is another day someone wants to suggest. Director Nielsen th stated he could make Sunday November 11 work. Commissioner Davis cautioned against waiting that long. Nielsen stated that maybe Engineer Landini or Public Works Director Brown may be able to participate in the walk. Davis suggested the option of starting the walk at 5:00 P.M. one day. Chair Geng asked what is on the agenda for the October 2, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen stated there is a conditional use permit, the continued discussion of the noise ordinance, the continued discussion of general provisions and zoning permits slated for that meeting agenda. Geng asked nd if the Commission would be open to doing the trail walk on October 2 starting at 5:00 P.M. and then th having another meeting on October 16 to discuss the items Nielsen just identified. Nielsen suggested the walk be done just before the regular meeting. Commissioner Muehlberg stated due to some other responsibilities he may not be able to get there by 5:00 P.M. There was Planning Commission consensus to do the trail walk on October 2, 2012, starting at 5:00 P.M. prior to the regular meeting. 5. REVIEW WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen reviewed the status of the items on the work program. They are as follows. Zoning Code Study about entry porches/allowable encroachments – complete  Code amendment for massage therapists – complete  Code amendment for farm and other animals – complete  Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study – needs Council approval  Zoning Code study regarding mixed use regulations – not much has been done yet but it will be  discussed this year. Current planned unit development regulations would handle a project if it came in today. Revisit zoning permits – Council agreed the list of items requiring permits should be reviewed for  applicability and possible expansion. This will be discussed again during October. Annual variance discussion – it will likely occur in either November or December.  Zoning Code study regarding life cycle housing – the portico Code amendment and the accessory  apartment amendment were part of this. Both were approved by Council. Revisit Planning District 6 – nothing has been done this year. This may be discussed during the  November meeting. Policies regarding variances and nonconformities – this will probably go hand in hand with the  variance discussion. Sustainability relating to low maintenance landscaping model ordinance – what is proposed as  part of the GreenStep Program the City is somewhat doing already. The necessity of this is not very great. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 13 of 16 Sustainability relating to “no net loss of specified natural landscapes” – this related to the  GreenStep Program and the City already specifically addresses wetlands and tree preservation. Zoning Code study regarding General Provisions – various aspects of this have been discussed  and will continue to be discussed. Sustainability relating to landscaping/nuisance ordinance – the noise ordinance is being discussed  as part of General Provisions and there should be a draft ordinance available for the October meeting. GTS training session – that will be hosted by the City of Greenwood in January 2013.  Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding municipal state aid routes – this was a housekeeping  item that has been completed. Added: Council has added in the responsibility for the Trail Plan – ongoing.  Added: Review of all ordinances related to licensing – these were reviewed and changes  recommended. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has done a great job. He noted that in general some of the items on the work plan may be a little behind schedule, but other things were added. 6. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions Chair Geng stated this evening the Planning Commission will be discussing Section 1201.03 Subd. 3 through Subd. 9 in the General Provisions Section of the City’s Zoning Code. A copy of that is included in the meeting packet. Director Nielsen stated some of the items in these subdivisions have been reviewed fairly recently. For example, parking requirements (which is a significant portion of these provisions) were reviewed a couple of years ago in conjunction with changing the commercial districts. He clarified that if someone has a concern about parking they should bring it up. He noted that Staff deals with items in the General Provisions almost on a daily basis. Nielsen then stated zoning permits will help with a lot of things that happen. He noted that currently the City does not require permits for driveways. He also noted that a provision for storage of trash receptacles for single-family and two-family dwellings was recently added to the Code. He stated that he thought a provision for wind generators should be discussed and possibly be added to the Code and General Provisions Subd. 4 would be one of the places it could be added. Commissioner Hasek stated in Subd. 3 Yard Requirements there is a provisions which states “For residential districts, one recreational vehicle or piece of equipment may be stored in required front yards; provided, that it is located within an approved driveway, it does not take up required parking space as provided in subdivision 5h of this section, it is currently licensed and operable and it is located no closer than 15 feet from the paved surface of the street. This provision shall only apply when there is no practical way to store the vehicle or equipment within the buildable area of the lot.” He asked what the last statement means. Director Nielsen explained if a person has a spot that would comply with the setback requirement but the topography was such that a person would not fill it in to do that the City would consider something different than that. That builds in some flexibility. Hasek commented the reason he brought this up is there was a lot where there is a bobcat and small dump truck parked adjacent to the street surface. There is no driveway on that property, and the entire front yard is stacked with building materials. Director Nielsen explained that a recreational vehicle cannot be parked CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 14 of 16 within 15 feet of the paved surface of the roadway. Also, those are not recreational vehicles. If they are commercial vehicles for a business being run from there they cannot be located there. If the vehicles are there because work is being done at that site it is a temporary thing that is something different. Director Nielsen stated if a person wants to park their boat in a back corner of their lot because that area is flat that would be okay. Hasek asked if that would require a conditional use permit. Nielsen stated that would be a judgment call on the part of Staff. Hasek then asked if that would be added to the list of items requiring a zoning permit. Nielsen suggested it should because wherever recreational vehicles are stored should be on a surface other than grass. Chair Geng stated Subd. 3(c)(1) states “Chimneys, flues, belt courses, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not project more than two feet into a required yard”. He asked if it should say required yard setback. Director Nielsen explained that if you look at the definition of yard it is defined as the setback because setbacks create the “required yard”. The standard side yard setback is 10 feet. If a person’s house is 20 feet from the lot line the required yard is only 10 feet. Commissioner Hutchins noted Subd. 3(c)(9) states “Storage of trash receptacles for single family and two family dwellings may extend into a required front yard setback or required side yard setback …” He thought the two were inconsistent. Nielsen stated it is his recollection that Councilmember Woodruff asked that setback be added. Nielsen noted he does not have a problem adding the word setback to Subd. 3(c)(1). Geng suggested setback also be added to required yard in Subd. 3(c)(3) for consistency purposes. Nielsen noted that he will make those modifications. Commissioner Davis stated for residents who have PODs she asked if the storage requirements are the same as for recreational vehicle storage. Director Nielsen responded they are treated more like accessory buildings. Nielsen stated when someone is moving in or out or if they have a building project going on the City tends to look the other way provided they are not too close to the street or they are too long. He noted some Cities have been specifically looking into PODs. He commented there had been an instance when someone had a POD on their property for over six months. Davis commented there was a person who had one in her neighborhood for over a year and they added a second one. Commissioner Hutchins stated he has been seeing an increase in what is called Green Bags for stuff that is to be hauled away. They are typically located at the end of a driveway. Director Nielsen stated those are typically hauled away pretty quick. Nielsen then stated there was one instance on a foreclosed house where the residents got one before they moved out and it was there for quite some time. The bank finally had it taken away. Director Nielsen stated he thought it would be worthwhile to discuss PODs. Commissioner Hutchins asked what the time limitations are for dumpsters. Director Nielsen stated they are viewed somewhat as a trash receptacle, noting it is not something that is going to be put out 12 hours before and then removed within a similar window of time after being emptied. It is exempted from that. Nielsen noted that for a building project a dumpster may be there for weeks on end. Commissioner Hasek stated Subd. 5(d)(1) states “Floor area. Except as hereinafter may be provided, the term FLOOR AREA, for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required, shall be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the building, structure or use times the number of floors, minus 10%.” He noted it does not indicate whether it is the inside or outside of the walls. Director Nielsen explained the way the definition reads in the Definition Section it is the interior. It is exclusive of the exterior walls. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 15 of 16 Commissioner Hasek stated in the Code the definition of floor area states “The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building or portion thereof devoted to a particular use, including …” He interprets that to mean the outside walls of the structure. Director Nielsen stated it has been compared to the State Building Code which he thinks is a little clearer. Nielsen noted Staff has not interpreted it to include the outside walls. He explained there was a time when they were included because the City gets surveys more often than it does accurate floor plans. He noted he prefers the interpretation to include the exterior walls, but currently the City has been using interior and not including the exterior walls. Hasek asked why. Nielsen explained a wall is not floor area. Interior walls sit on the floor. The floor stops at the exterior wall. Hasek disagreed. Commissioner Davis questioned how much parking space will be lost by measuring inside or outside. Nielsen stated is it more relevant when it comes up for accessory space. Hasek stated he really doesn’t care. Nielsen stated it should be clarified, and noted his preference is would be to use the exterior because surveys are often submitted. Hasek explained a person could be given credit for the width of the exterior walls. Nielsen stated he will clarify the definition of floor area. Hasek commented some cities have gone to compact parking spaces. He stated that he had advocated that before because cars were getting smaller. He noted the City’s requirement is 9 feet wide by 20 feet in length. Commissioner Davis stated where she works it goes with 10 feet by 20 feet. Hasek stated if people are going to be driving trucks it is important to have the driving lanes big enough for trucks to turn. Director Nielsen stated the parking lot at City Hall has the exact minimum aisle width and a larger truck would have an issue pulling in. Hasek stated the parking lot diagram does not talk about two-way angled parking. It may need a wider aisle than one-way angled parking. Commissioner Davis noted that allowing that would take a lot more space. Director Nielsen stated it somewhat defeats the purpose of angled parking because usually angled parking is done to save some room. Hasek then stated Subd. 9 states if 400 cubic yards or more of material is to be removed it will require a mining permit. If a 50 foot by 50 foot house is constructed and 10 feet of depth is used for a basement and all of that excavated material is removed it would amount to 920 cubic yards. Director Nielsen stated the 400 cubic yards was used anticipating there would be a basement. He noted that in most cases all of the excavated material is not all hauled away. He also noted that he does not remember there being a project where more than 400 cubic yards was removed. That limitation has not been a problem. Nielsen acknowledged that when this provision was written houses were substantially smaller. Nielsen noted that he and the Building Official have discussed whether or not there is a need to increase the amount of fill that can be brought to a site to more than 100 cubic yards. Hasek noted he really does not care if it is or is not 400 cubic yards and he suggested Staff decide. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business for discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2012 Page 16 of 16 9. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Hutchins asked if the City is involved in the bow fishing discussion going on at the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Director Nielsen responded it was not, but he will look into it. 10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated this was discussed under Item 4 on the agenda. [Items slated for the agenda are a conditional use permit, the continued discussion of the noise ordinance, the continued discussion of general provisions and zoning permits.] 11. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Muehlberg gave a brief report on the August 13, 2012, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC Director Nielsen asked those Planning Commissioners who want to attend the next Sensible land Use Coalition program to return their registration form to him. He commented that he thought it should be a good session. • Planning Commission Training Chair Geng noted this was discussed as part of Item 6 on the agenda. [The City of Greenwood is hosting a GTS training session on January 12, 2013, at the Southshore Community Center. All Planning Commissioners are invited to attend.] 12. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of September 18, 2012, at 9:17 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder