Loading...
PC-11-20-12 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 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, Garelick, and Muehlberg; Council Liaison Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Hutchins APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng recommended Item 2 on the agenda be discussed before Item 1. Davis moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the agenda for November 20, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 2, 2012 Garelick moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Discussion moved to Item 2 on the agenda. 1. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION This was discussed after Item 2 on the agenda.  Noise Director Nielsen noted that he does not have anything specific for this item this evening. He explained when a draft noise ordinance was discussed during the Planning Commission’s October 2, 2012, meeting there was a great deal of discussion about an individual who is extremely inconsiderate of his neighbors with respect to noise. The residents that were present to complain about that problem asked if there was some way the City could help. He stated he thought at least some of them understood that a noise ordinance would not address that extreme situation; it would be intended to address normal situations. He noted the City is trying to address that problem in a different manner. Nielsen suggested that for the December 4, 2012, Planning Commission meeting the Commission go nd back to discussing the draft ordinance reviewed during the October 2 Planning Commission meeting with a focus on normal situations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 2 of 9 Commissioner Davis stated in her neighborhood children are riding mini-bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on the street and that is very dangerous. Director Nielsen noted there are rules to address that if police can catch them in the act.  Zoning Permits Director Nielsen explained Council and the Planning Commission had a joint meeting on June 11, 2012. During that meeting Council agreed to reconsider an ordinance establishing zoning permits for various activities that are regulated by the City’s Zoning Code but not currently covered by building permits. The Commission provided Council with a short list of potential items that would be addressed by the ordinance amendment. It was somewhat based on the City of Chanhassen’s ordinance regarding zoning permits. The list of projects proposed to require a zoning permit were: accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area; fences; driveways; temporary signs; sport and tennis courts; patios and sidewalks; retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a building permit is required for grading); and, above-ground fireplaces and cooking facilities (not including portable appliances). Nielsen then explained that in 2010 the then Planning Commission recommended Council adopt an ordinance amendment to establish a system for zoning permits on a 4/2 vote. That failed at the Council level for lack of a motion. During the June 2011 joint meeting Council directed the Commission to reassess what items the Commission thinks should require a zoning permit. Once it agrees on a list of items Council can discuss the possibility of establishing a system for zoning permits. He noted that he thinks the original items on the original list are still appropriate. Nielsen reviewed additional items that could potentially be considered to add to the list that were discussed during the joint meeting. They include: irrigation systems; large playground systems (timber type playground systems); boundary line trees (trees planted too close to the property line); garden fences; basketball hoops on driveways; and, invisible fences. With regard to trees, he stated he thought the first thing the City should do is encourage people to think ahead about how large a tree will grow before they decide where to plant it, and to share the City’s knowledge about trees that extend over the property line. He noted that essentially the attorneys have said that if a tree’s branches overlap on to an abutting property that property owner can trim it at the property line but it is crucial they don’t trim over the property line. He explained garden fences would be covered under fences technically. Basketball hoops on driveways have not proven to be much of a problem. He stated he did not think there would be much value in requiring a zoning permit for an invisible fence. He noted that he thought irrigation systems and large playground systems should be added to the list. He also noted that a large playground system needs to be defined. Chair Geng clarified that there would not be policing of the items on the final list that are already in place. He stated he assumed the items will be addressed on a complaint basis. Director Nielsen agreed. Director Nielsen stated a zoning permit process would give the City an opportunity to let residents know what the rules in the Zoning Code are relative to items on the final list. He explained there would be at least one inspection for a new fence to ensure it will be located on the property of the person applying for a permit. He stated from his vantage point zoning permits will save a lot of heartache for people. Chair Geng asked if temporary signs will be included. Director Nielsen explained the City already has a temporary sign permit that has specific regulations, and that there is nothing in the Building Code that deals with temporary signs. Other structural signs require a building permit. He recommended having a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 3 of 9 separate sign permit under the category of zoning permits. Geng asked what the nature of a temporary sign is. Nielsen explained it is usually a commercial business’ temporary sign such as a banner. Commissioner Davis noted a permit is required in the Cities of Excelsior and Tonka Bay to put up banners for the Arctic Fever event. Nielsen noted that the City removes signs placed in the public right- of-way. Commissioner Davis stated large playground systems are not safe unless they have footings. She asked if there should be a square footage stipulation for patios and sidewalks. For example, someone may just be replacing a small area of sidewalk or patio. Director Nielsen stated repairing is different than new. Davis suggested adding the word new. Chair Geng suggested a permit be required if a sidewalk is being relocated. Director Nielsen suggested it should be for new or replaced patios or sidewalks. There was Planning Commission consensus to support the proposed zoning permit fee of $20. Director Nielsen stated the updated list will be forwarded to Council for consideration. 2. DISCUSS SMITHTOWN WEST TRAIL OPEN HOUSE This was discussed before Item 1 on the agenda. Director Nielsen stated he was pleased with the turnout at the open house regarding the Smithtown West Trail that was held on November 15, 2012, at the Minnewashta Elementary School. The purpose was to present the Feasibility Report for the Smithtown West Trail which would go from the Shorewood/Victoria border to the Minnewashta Elementary School then on to the Lake Minnetonka Light Rail Trail (LRT) at Eureka Road. There were a lot of good comments made and good questions asked during the open house. Staff has compiled a list of them, almost verbatim, and intentionally did not include the individuals’ name. Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission review the responses to the questions Staff has proposed this evening. The revised responses would be forwarded to Council for its consideration during its November 26, 2012, meeting. Nielsen noted that the intent is to have a separate section on the City’s website devoted to trails. The comments and the questions and answers would be placed in that area. The Trail Plan Implementation Report can be found there. Nielsen reviewed the questions and the answers proposed by Staff. The questions (with a few minor grammatical changes) and the answers (in italics) that will be presented to the City Council are as follows. 1. Is the proposed trail cross section the safest and least costly possible? Will other important linkages be installed at no cost to residents as well? Safety along Smithtown Road is the predominant factor in this project. The project could potentially be done for less money, but it would involve a different material and additional crossings of a collector street. These aspects have been factored in to the decision to build a concrete trail on the south side of the road. To suggest that the road comes at no costs to residents would be somewhat deceiving. That is, the project will not be assessed to adjoining property owners. There are obviously costs to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 4 of 9 project, the majority of which are planned to come from the City’s Infrastructure Fund, a significant portion of which came from the sale of the liquor operations a few years ago. Other money will come from MSA (Minnesota State Aid) transportation money. This is money the City receives back from the taxes on motor fuel to do transportation related projects. Yet another source of money is the Stormwater Management Fund, since a portion of the project includes correction of existing drainage issues. Finally, the City will aggressively pursue grant opportunities. 2. Will homeowners be compensated for landscaping/tree replacement? Any assessments? Other costs to residents along the trail and/or residents throughout city? Project plans attempt to avoid disruption of landscaping to the extent possible. In cases where the City has to acquire easements on properties and landscaping restoration is involved, that will be factored in to the acquisition costs. See above re: assessments. The City has included the trail program in its 5-year Capital Improvement Program. Proposed funding sources are as described above and future trail segments are subject to funding availability. 3. How soon can it be done – before my kids are in college? The current plan is to construct the Smithtown West Trail segment in 2013. 4. I understand you will replant some trees, but will you reimburse homeowners for diminished property value after losing their screening when trees are lost? Even if trees are not removed for trail construction, cutting down 18 inches for trail construction will result in tree loss due to root interference. How long will you remove trees and replace them after the trail is constructed? What is the cost of construction for both sides of the road? There is currently no plan to reimburse for vegetation located in the public right-of-way (see above re: easement acquisition). The City Council will have to adopt a policy regarding reimbursement for, or replacement of, tree damage done to vegetation beyond the right-of-way. The trail is only proposed to go on the south side of the road. Estimated costs pertain to the south side of the road. 5. Suggest a unified FAQ (frequently asked questions) posted on the website: 1) Where is the funding coming from? 2) How much will it cost/any additional costs? 3) Define the scope of Phase I, II, III, costs, implementation dates, decision making process (e.g. council vote). 4) Background should be provided on the “why”, including safety studies, etc. Good idea! See above re: funding sources. Additional costs will include easement acquisition where public right-of-way is inadequate. The cost of easements will be determined in the easement acquisition phase (the next phase of the project). The impetus for the Shorewood Trail Plan is safety and health, which are explained in the Trail Plan Implementation Report adopted in 2011 as an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. 6. Are taxes increasing for year-round maintenance? There are likely to be some initial up-front costs (e.g., snow plow equipment). Beyond that, the intent is to provide for trail maintenance with existing resources. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 5 of 9 7. What is the liability for homeowners if the trail is in front of their yard? Who will clear trails of snow? No plans to switch to north side? Since the sidewalk is being located on public right-of-way or on public easements, the property owner would not be liable. The City’s policy on trails and sidewalks is that the City is responsible for maintenance, including snow plowing. The current plan is to build the trail on the south side of the road. 8. Why not use recycled tires as an overlay over concrete (could get by with a thinner layer of concrete). As an alternative to concrete, do the same as above by putting an overlay of blacktop over the concrete. You will get the durability of the concrete, but the comfort of rubber or asphalt. Interesting thoughts. The plan for Smithtown Road is to simply extend the same type of trail that was constructed in Victoria. This does not preclude the use of alternatives for other trail segments in Shorewood. 9. Is there any chance that any of the “Phase II” segments will be completed sooner than in 5 – 10 years? I’d like to know what criteria were used to determine how these areas were prioritized. Can costs/taxes be shared by the city/cities and neighborhoods, not just those properties affected? Construction of all segments included in the trail plan will be subject to the availability of funding, as well as neighborhood demand and support. A number of criteria were considered in arriving at the current Plan (e.g. safety, expected use, availability of right-of-way, physical constraints, etc.). See the Trail Plan Implementation Report, 2011 for further information. There is no intent for individual property owners or even neighborhoods to be assessed for trail construction. The Trail Plan is considered to be a community-wide system. 10. What are next steps? Who shovels the trail in winter? What cost will we incur to do it as taxpayers? See the answer to question 7. 11. Is it possible to further breakdown some of these projects into even smaller sections? The Galpin Lake Road project currently appears to be one project that stretches from the Chanhassen city limits to the State Highway 7/County Road 19 intersection. I would be in favor of breaking it into 2 projects – one that goes from the Chanhassen city limits to Highway 7, and one that handles the situation bringing pedestrians and bikers across Highway 7. If breaking the Galpin Lake Road segment into those two projects would fast-track a crossing area on Highway 7, then I would support that move. The proposed segments are not carved in stone. In other words, yes, it may be possible to break up segments, or to enlarge other segments. Galpin Lake Road may be such a segment. The portion along Highway 7 may have a different character (bikes and pedestrians) and a different funding source (e.g., a cooperative agreement with the MnDOT) than the portion connecting from Highway 7 to Chanhassen. The Galpin Lake Road project is scheduled for discussion in 2013 and construction in 2014. It is anticipated that any crossing would take advantage of the existing crossing at County Road 19. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 6 of 9 12. Wonder why the power lines on the school side can’t be placed underground in order to beautify the area and make room for sidewalks on the school property. Any way to place group mailboxes on the south side of the street? The City attempts to look at power lines in conjunction with street projects, however, the costs of that are relatively high and are either assessed to homeowners or spread out to the customers of the city being served. Mailboxes are subject to Post Office rules. If homeowners were interested in grouping mailboxes, it seems likely the Post Office would cooperate. Director Nielsen noted there were differing comments made about traffic controls and the amount of them. He explained the City will have signage that complies with the requirements in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Nielsen stated he is not sure if the City has data on the number of accidents on Smithtown Road. He does know there is no data on close calls. Commissioner Muehlberg noted there was a lot of concern expressed about safety during the open house. Nielsen stated from his personal perspective Shorewood may be a great city but it is not a good place to walk or ride a bike. Commissioner Charbonnet stated the Feasibility Report for Smithtown West talks about relocating mailboxes to the north side of the street. He cautioned against doing that for safety reasons. Director Nielsen concurred, and stated especially because Smithtown Road is a collector street. Nielsen noted the United States Postal Service has rules about where mailboxes can be; for example, how far from the street. Nielsen stated it is only beneficial to group mailboxes if that is what residents want. Director Nielsen addressed a couple of miscellaneous questions he took out of residents’ comments. He explained that he did try to call the assessor earlier in the day regarding a resident’s question about whether or not having a trail across a property will negatively impact the property’s value. He stated that hopefully drainage issues along the trails route will be addressed as part of the project. He explained a comment was received expressing concern that the use of the LRT may increase after the trail is constructed. That same individual questioned what hours the LRT can be used. Another resident had a comment about dog droppings and trash along the trail. Director Nielsen asked the Commission for feedback on the proposed responses. Commissioner Garelick stated he thought the responses to the questions were nicely done. Chair Geng thanked Planning Assistant Helgesen for compiling all of the comments and questions and for doing it so expeditiously. Commissioner Charbonnet stated the way he read the comment on the negative impact on the property value he interpreted it to be about the loss of vegetation and not so much about the trail. Director Nielsen stated one comment was specifically about how taking down trees could devalue a property. He explained if trees have to be removed on a residential property then there needs to be some reimbursement for that. Nielsen then stated another person specifically asked him if having a trail in front of their property would devalue it. He is waiting for a response from the assessor on that. Chair Geng stated the concern about loss of trees is valid, but he thought a lot of the trees that would have been impacted were previously removed when Smithtown Road was being redone. He noted that a Project Engineer from WSB & Associates, the firm who conducted the feasibility study, had indicated that there may be six trees at risk along the entire route. Nielsen explained that during the planning and specification process survey work CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 7 of 9 will be done and that is when trees will be identified for removal. Nielsen stated he assumed efforts will be made to work around trees where possible. Chair Geng stated that most of the answers to the questions are either addressed in the Trail Plan Implementation Report or the Smithtown West Trail Feasibility Report. But, it may be difficult for some people to find the answers. Therefore, he thought it would be beneficial to include the comments and the questions and answers on the City’s website. Director Nielsen stated he likes the idea of having a summary. If people want additional information they can be referred to the documents on the website. Chair Geng recommended forwarding the questions and answers to Council for consideration. Commissioner Davis suggested combining questions 7 and 10 because they seem to be about the same thing. She stated that the answers make it clear that residents will not have to clear snow from the trail. She suggested explaining the priority order for plowing snow. She then stated there was a lot of concern about possible assessments for the trail. She suggested it be clarified right up front that property owners will not be assessed for the trail. She also suggested explaining MSA funds can only be used for MSA roadways or for example a trail along an MSA route. This would be a tremendous opportunity to do that. Director Nielsen noted the questions and answers document will be made more concise. Commissioner Davis stated the cost of removing trees, even if they are in the ROW is nominal. She recommended consideration be given to replacing them. Director Nielsen stated per a Project Engineer with WSB there is not a specific line item in the Feasibility Report for tree replacement, but there is a fairly strong contingency line item. Davis stated a fairly nice 2 – 3 inch tree can be purchased for a couple hundred dollars. Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, approving the questions and answers be forwarded to the City Council for consideration to direct Staff to formalize the frequently asked questions and place them on the City’s website. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Davis asked how many people came to the open house. Director Nielsen stated he was not sure because not everyone signed the attendance sheet. Director Nielsen stated a number of people provided their email address. He suggested some consideration be given to creating a broadcast list from that information, with the intent of allowing residents to ask that their email address be added to the list. When additional noteworthy information regarding the trail is added to the City’s website those residents could be notified with an email blast. Chair Geng stated a number of people told him they liked the process this project was following. People think it is a public process and that the public is being consulted. Some people indicated that this is different than other public processes in the past. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has had really good luck with the open house process in the past from the perspective of being able to talk with groups of residents and provide them with information. He noted he likes to use the open house format. Chair Geng stated more cities are using that format. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 8 of 9 Discussion returned to Item 1 on the agenda. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This was discussed after Item 1 on the agenda. There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. Council Liaison Zerby stated there was a gentleman in the Council Chamber earlier who lives on the south side of Smithtown Road who expressed some concerns to him about the Smithtown West Trail segment. They were about the loss of landscaping when the trail is constructed, the trail being located on the south side of the road rather than the north, pedestrian right-of-way, bicycles not stopping when they should, and that it seemed to him that the trail has come about suddenly. That person thought the north side could be a better alternative in the winter months because it would get more exposure from the sun. The person’s biggest concern was about landscaping. He explained to that person that trail planning has been going on for quite some type. Director Nielsen noted that person would be affected when the segment of trail past the Lake Minnetonka LRT at Eureka Road is constructed. Zerby stated that person suggested considering having the Trail cross to the north side of Smithtown Road at Minnewashta Elementary School. 4. OLD BUSINESS Council Liaison Zerby suggested the Trail Plan Implementation Report be updated. The Plan included a more aggressive time schedule than has been realistic. He suggested the process identified in the Plan be revised to include more detail based on experience. He noted that it needs to be changed to reflect that the Planning Commission has been given the responsibility for oversight of the implementation. Director Nielsen stated he thought it is very beneficial for the Commission to walk a proposed trail site before having an open house. He then stated the Plan does not address specifics about the trails (e.g., width, surface type). He recommended the Planning Commission have some input into initial discussions about the type of trail. Council Liaison Zerby stated Council has been hearing from the residents along Galpin Lake Road about their desire to move forward with the first phase of a sidewalk/trail in that area. He asked if the Commission’s 2013 work program will have an action to walk that area for a possible trail in March 2013. Director Nielsen stated it would. Zerby noted that Plan already has trail projects grouped into various years. Director Nielsen noted there is a comment toward the back of the Report that mentions the need to refine the process. 5. NEW BUSINESS None. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated during the December 4, 2012, Planning Commission meeting he would like to complete the review of the General Provisions in the Zoning Code with a focus on the noise ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 20, 2012 Page 9 of 9 The final plat for Ashland Woods will be on the agenda. There will be a conditional use permit for accessory space on the agenda. There will be initial discussion about the Planning Commission’s 2013 work program. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Garelick stated he was the liaison to Council in October. He noted that he brought up the Planning Commission’s concern about the noise issue caused by an inconsiderate resident and how to address it. Commissioner Davis noted that during the open house for the Smithtown West Trail segment she repeatedly heard people say they had moved to the country. She then noted she lived in the City for 35 years and things are different. • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she attended a recent Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) round-table session and she found it to be very good. She gave a brief report on the three round-table discussions she visited. One was about urban farming. Another was about apartment development in the City of Minneapolis for the next five years and she thought it was fascinating. The third was about the new River Place and office cubes. She noted that she thought the SLUC should have round-table discussions at least twice a year. • Other Director Nielsen asked who planned on attending the GTS training session being hosted by the City of Greenwood on January 12, 2013. Chair Geng and Commissioners Davis, Garelick and Muehlberg plan on attending. Commissioner Charbonnet is not sure. Nielsen stated he will contact Commissioner Hutchins to find out if he plans on attending and noted he will fill out the paper work. Nielsen encouraged the Planning Commissioners to RSVP for attending the appreciation event on December 7, 2012. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Charbonnet seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 2012, at 8:30 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder