Loading...
PC-07-02-13 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2013 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:22 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Garelick (arrived at 7:22 P.M.), Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis and Labadie APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Nielsen asked to remove life cycle housing from the agenda because he does not have anyone lined up to talk to the Planning Commission about this yet. Garelick moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the agenda for July 2, 2013, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 4, 2013 Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Jeff and Jennifer Ische Location: 25365 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He noted that the Planning Commission is an advisory body only. He stated this evening the Commission is going to consider a request for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Jeff and Jennifer Ische, 25365 Smithtown Road. He noted Mr. Ische is present this evening. He explained that this item will go before the City Council on July 22, 2013. Director Nielsen explained the Isches own the property located at 25365 Smithtown Road. The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains approximately 87,346 square feet of area. The applicants are proposing to build a second detached garage on their property. The new garage would be located on the west side of the loop driveway. The floor area of the new garage when combined with the Isches’ existing detached garage and utility shed brings the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. That requires a C.U.P. under the City’s Zoning Code. The existing house is a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 2 of 9 walkout rambler with approximately 3000 square feet of floor area above grade. The existing garage, located on the east side of the lot, contains 737 square feet of floor area. The utility shed located farther back on the property contains 151 square feet. The new garage will be located in a small clearing north of the house just over 60 feet back from the street. It will contain 900 square feet (30 feet by 30 feet), which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1637 square feet. Regarding the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He noted if an applicant’s C.U.P. request complies with the four criteria it is basically treated as a zoning permit. It does get the extra scrutiny of a public hearing and approval of the City Council. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code criteria. 1. The total area of accessory space (1637 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (3000 square feet). 2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- 1A zoning district (0.10 x 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage and the existing house comply with the setback requirements of the R-1A zoning district. The new garage will be approximately 27 feet from the west side of the property where only 10 feet is required. It will be approximately 62 feet from the front of the lot where only 50 feet is required. Given the size of the property and the amount of existing vegetation on the site, drainage and landscaping are not considered to be issues in this request. Although a couple of existing trees will be removed to accommodate the new garage, it will remain well screened from both the street and adjoining properties. 4. The materials and design of the new garage will be consistent with the character of the existing house and garage. It will be a clone of the existing detached garage. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case staff recommends the C.U.P. be granted as requested. Mr. Ische clarified the existing garage contains 585 square feet of area (it is 24 feet by 24.4 feet). The new garage will have 960 square feet of area (it will be 30 feet wide by 32 feet deep but the surveyor wrote down 30 feet by 30 feet). That will increase the total area of accessory space to 1697 square feet. Commissioner Maddy asked Director Nielsen to explain how total floor area above grade is calculated. Nielsen explained floor area above grade is whatever is above grade. For a rambler it is the main floor above grade. For a walk out one half of it is counted. Director Nielsen explained that entire ordinance is intended to maintain scale. Seeing no one present to comment on the case Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:36 P.M. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for the property located at 25365 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 3 of 9 3. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REGULATIONS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. He noted the same procedures as described above will be followed. Director Nielsen explained that during its March 25, 2013, meeting Council approved an ordinance establishing zoning permits. Fences were one of the items to be covered by that ordinance. Fences six feet high or higher currently require a building permit. Fences were removed from the zoning permit ordinance because Council thought it prudent for the Planning Commission to look at the general requirements for fences in entirety. Also, during Council’s discussion there was a question as to whether or not an 18-inch-high wire fence around a garden area would require a zoning permit. Nielsen reviewed the changes proposed to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.f. Fences – general requirements. They are the changes the Planning Commission discussed during its June 4, 2013, meeting. Item (1) permit required was changed to read “No person, firm or corporation shall construct or erect any fence without first securing a zoning permit.” It had read building permit. The following was added “Exception: No permit is required for interior yard fences used for landscaping, gardening or decoration, provided the fence does not exceed four feet in height and is at least 50% open.” Item 9(a)(iv) was changed to read “Subject to other restrictions within this section, fences may be constructed to a height of six feet on or along the side yard property line, but not on side yard property lines abutting a street, from the rear lot line to the required front yard setback line;”. Item 9(a)(vi) was changed to read “All boundary line fences over four feet in height in residential districts shall be constructed in a manner that at least 25% of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence constructed is open;”. Item 9(b)(i) was changed to read “Any fence erected within any portion of the required front yard shall not exceed four feet in height.” Commissioner Maddy asked if Item 9(b)(iii) which reads “Chain link or woven wire fences (without slat screens, canvas or other screening material opaque in nature) used for the enclosure of tennis courts or other recreational purposes shall not exceed ten feet in height.” is in conflict with Item 9(b)(i) above with regard to the four foot height restriction. Director Nielsen noted tennis courts cannot be constructed within the required front yard. Maddy asked what someone would need to do to be able to construct a ten-foot-high fence around a tennis court in a back yard. For example, would it require a conditional use permit (C.U.P.)? Nielsen explained the City has not traditionally required a C.U.P. for fences around tennis courts. Director Nielsen stated Item 11 which reads “Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by issuance of a conditional use permit.” is somewhat vague; it’s a catchall provision. He does not like a provision that references a C.U.P. without conditions. That is usually not a good idea. He recommended either deleting Item 11 or adding conditions to it. He also recommended leaving Item 9(b)(iii) as proposed. Council Liaison Woodruff stated if Item 11 is stricken and someone does want a fence for a special purpose he asked how that would be processed. Director Nielsen stated it would be processed as a variance. Woodruff stated he thought handling it as a variance would be better than inventing conditions for a C.U.P. Director Nielsen commented that he has been speaking with someone who wants a taller fence because of the topography of his property. He stated he agreed that Item 11 should be deleted and special purpose fences be handled as a variance. Variances do deal with unique situations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Maddy asked if it would also make sense to delete “shall not exceed ten feet in height” in Item (9)(b)(iii). Director Nielsen stated people do want higher fences around tennis courts or sport courts. Council Liaison Woodruff asked how many applications for tennis courts the City receives. Director Nielsen responded not a lot; maybe one a year. Commissioner Maddy suggested adding to Item (9)(b)(iii) the clarification “shall be allowed up to ten feet” so it is clearly understood that fences up to ten feet in height are allowed around tennis courts or other recreational surfaces. Commissioner Muehlberg thought that would be redundant. Director Nielsen agreed with that. Chair Geng asked if Item 11 could be changed to be by issue of a variance rather than a C.U.P. Director Nielsen reiterated that he would like to delete Item 11. In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated interior yard is defined in the Code. Commissioner Maddy asked if the City regulates the planting of trees as fences. Director Nielsen responded no and added there are residents who wish the City did. He clarified there is an exception for that at street corners. It stipulates within a 30-foot site triangle vegetation cannot exceed thirty inches in height. Maddy explained he would need an agreement with his neighbor to construct a four-foot-high fence within eight feet of his property line yet he could plant fifty-foot-high pine trees all the way down. Nielsen stated landscaping is encouraged and in many cases it is required, and man-made structures are regulated. Nielsen then stated if the Planning Commission wants to take that up it can be added to the Commission’s work program, but he does not recommend holding this up for that. Chair Geng stated the interior fence definition is found in Section 1201.02 on page 1201-9. There was consensus to delete Item 11. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he feels pretty good about the amended ordinances for fences – general provisions. Seeing no one present wanting to comment on this case Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony of the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code text amendment relative to fences subject to deleting Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.f.(11). Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation about this during its July 22, 2013, meeting. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 P.M. 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR BICYCLE REPAIR BUSINESS Applicant: James Steinwand Location: 5680 County Road 19 The applicant withdrew this item prior to this meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 5 of 9 5. DISCUSSION  Noise Ordinance (Revised Draft) Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has been discussing a possible noise ordinance for quite some time – most recently off and on since the Commission’s October 2, 2012, meeting. During that meeting there was a great deal of discussion about an individual who owns property over on Hillendale Road who is extremely inconsiderate of his neighbors with respect to noise. The draft ordinance amendment is intended to address activities that generate noise by defining reasonable hours during which that can be done. He commented that these types of codes are generally written for a relatively small group of people (e.g., a person who mows their lawn at 11:00 P.M.). He stated that the noise ordinance will help address the Hillendale Road situation by limiting hours of operation somewhat. Nielsen then explained that from the beginning staff has tried to make the draft noise ordinance similar to other South Lake cities’ ordinances; in particular the City of Excelsior’s. That ordinance is quite concise. Although the City may not have a code addressing construction hours, it does have a policy limiting the hours of occurrence. When a commercial builder pulls a permit from the City they are advised that construction hours are from 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. on weekdays, 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, and no construction is allowed on Sundays. Nielsen noted that the hours agreed upon during the Planning Commission’s June 4, 2013, meeting are reflected in the revised noise ordinance (a copy of which is included in the meeting packet). He also noted that because this is not a land use code it does not require a public hearing. He then noted that when someone in Shorewood calls the police department about a noise issue the police note that Shorewood does not have a noise ordinance. Commissioner Garelick asked if anyone has spoken with the owner of the property on Hillendale Road about why he is so inconsiderate of his neighbors. Director Nielsen stated that allegedly that individual has told the owners of the properties on each side of his that he ultimately wants to buy their properties. Nielsen explained that a noise ordinance generally doesn’t address the person who wants to irritate people. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that the exception in Subd. 20 (a)(1) Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations – Recreational Vehicles only addresses snowmobiles en route to or from trails or a lake. In his neighborhood there are a number of people who ride three wheelers or four wheelers onto the lake. Director Nielsen suggested changing it to include other recreational vehicles as well. Woodruff then stated that in that same provision the hours of operation are limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. There are people who go out on the lake late at night and he wondered how they would feel about that restriction. Woodruff then stated in Subd. 20 (a)(2) Domestic Power Equipment does not specify that the hour restrictions are limited to exterior use. That would mean a person could not use a drill in their home during other hours. He suggested clarifying in the purpose of the noise ordinance that it applies to exterior noise. Director Nielsen indicated he agreed with that suggestion. Woodruff then stated he thought the 9:00 A.M. start for hours of operation on a weekend or holiday was too late on Saturday and suggested 7:30 A.M. would be more reasonable. Woodruff also stated that a stop time of 9:00 P.M. would be irritating to him. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he has been using a miter saw outdoors and he does not even consider using it before 8:30 – 9:00 A.M. because there are people who like to sleep in on the weekend. And, in CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 6 of 9 the nicer weather months they may have their windows open. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he was okay with leaving the hours of operation as is in Subd. 20 (a)(2) and then Council can decide what it thinks. He suggested adding an exemption for emergency generators to this provision. Commissioner Maddy stated in Subd. 20 (b)(2) Emergency work exempted states “The term "emergency work" means activities that are necessary to protect or preserve lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm, including work that is necessary to restore a public service or to eliminate a public hazard.” He thought that would cover generators. Council Liaison Woodruff agreed that would cover generators. Director Nielsen stated after the last storm there were backup generators running and the City did not receive any complaints about that. People understand the need. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Subd. 20 (d)(1) Enforcement duties states “… The City Administrator or its designees may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this article.” He asked if the City Attorney has reviewed this. He questioned if it would be okay for someone to go onto private property without being given permission from the owner. Director Nielsen clarified it would not. Nielsen explained the process would be the same as for a complaint and that requires an administrative warrant or permission from the owner. The only time the City can go onto private property without an administrative warrant or permission from the owner is if there is some imminent danger such as someone screaming. Woodruff recommended the City Attorney review this provision. Director Nielsen noted the City Attorney will review the entire ordinance and specifically provision Subd. 20 (d)(1) Enforcement duties. Commissioner Maddy asked if the language was taken from Excelsior’s ordinance. Director Nielsen responded he is sure it was. Chair Geng agreed with Council Liaison Woodruff’s suggestion to have the City Attorney review the provision. Director Nielsen explained the City’s policy is if a property owner states they do not want City staff to come onto their property they don’t. Director Nielsen stated he will make the changes talked about, he will ask the City Attorney to review the entire ordinance and then it will be placed on the Planning Commission’s August 6 meeting for consideration. The changes include clarifying that the ordinance was for exterior activities and that the hourly exception for recreational vehicles in Subd. 20(a)(1) will be expanded to include snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles. Commissioner Muehlberg stated he lives about 500 – 600 feet from the lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka and he likes to go out on the Lake at 6:00 A.M. sometimes to go fishing and sometimes he will stay out there until 10:00 – 11:00 P.M. Yet, the hourly exception for recreational vehicles en route to or from trails or a lake in Subd. 20(a)(1) are 7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 A.M. – 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday. He noted he did not think the night restrictions are as much of a problem as the morning restriction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 7 of 9 Commissioner Maddy suggested taking out the language about the hours in the exception in Subd. 20(a)(1) and then wait to see if it is a problem. The exception would be for snowmobiles or recreational vehicles en route to or from trails or a lake. Director Nielsen cautioned against allowing someone to race around their yard at 6:00 A.M. Council Liaison Woodruff asked if there are any trails in the City where it is legal to operate snowmobiles or other recreational vehicles. Director Nielsen stated they cannot ride on the LRT trail anymore. Nielsen then stated he thought snowmobiles are allowed to travel on the street on their way to a destination where snowmobiling is permitted. Woodruff suggested having a different set of hours for a recreational vehicle en route to a lake than for en route to a trail. He stated he agrees with Commissioner Muehlberg’s point about fishing early in the morning or late at night being a legitimate use, and he thought that should be acknowledged. There was discussion about snowmobilers riding on the lake very late at night and very early in the morning. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates the speed for snowmobilers on Lake Minnetonka. Director Nielsen stated he thought there was a regulation about distance from the shoreline. Woodruff stated that is a Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) regulation and the LMCD’s speed limit regulations are more restrictive than the DNR’s. Commissioner Muehlberg noted the regulations make no difference unless there are enforcement personnel out on the Lake very late at night or really early in the morning. Commissioner Muehlberg asked what the other communities around Lake Minnetonka allow. Director Nielsen stated for the Planning Commission’s next meeting he will provide the comparison matrix Excelsior prepared. He then stated he agreed that 7:00 A.M. was too late for snowmobiles or other recreational vehicles traveling en route to a lake. Commissioner Muehlberg stated early on when the lake is frozen fisherpeople tend to fish until 10:00 PM to midnight. Council Liaison Woodruff agreed with making the hours somewhat consistent with what other communities around Lake Minnetonka have. Chair Geng stated he does not think Excelsior’s matrix includes snowmobiles or recreational vehicles traveling en route to trails or a lake. Director Nielsen stated then he will have to prepare such a matrix. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he did not want the surrounding communities to get annoyed because the City has an ordinance that prohibits reasonable use. Director Nielsen reiterated he will make the changes talked about (i.e., clarifying the ordinance was for exterior activities and that the hourly exception for recreational vehicles in Subd. 20(a)(1) will be expanded to include other recreational vehicles), ask the City Attorney to review the entire ordinance and then it will be placed on the Planning Commission’s August 6 meeting for consideration. He will also prepare a chart showing what the hours of operation are for snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles en route to Lake Minnetonka for other communities around the Lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 8 of 9  Life-Cycle Housing This item was removed from the agenda at Director Nielsen’s request.  Sale of City-Owned Property Located at 5795 Country Club Road Director Nielsen explained when Council decided to remodel City Hall it basically made the decision there was no need for the City-owned property located at 5795 Country Club Road. When the City purchased the property it was to keep the options open for what may happen to City Hall. City Hall could have been expanded on to that property or City Hall could have been torn down and a new facility built. Instead, City Hall was remodeled in place. The main reason the City has not sold the property was because of the poor real estate market. The decision was made to rent the property until the market started to recover. Council has decide that time has come. The Park Commission has weighed in on the property. It does not relate well to Badger Park. He noted that when cities buy or sell property State Statute requires cities to have their planning commissions review the sale and comment on it. Therefore, as a formality the Commission needs to make a recommendation on the sale of the property. Council Liaison Woodruff stated Council authorized the replacement of the HVAC system and water heater on the recommendation of the City’s Building Official. He then stated he thought the City paid $305,000 for the property more than eight years ago. He went on to state that if a city owns a piece of real property and has not put it to public use within a period of time (that was changed during the last legislative session) then a city has to start paying property tax on it. As of last year, the City had to start paying property tax on it. Director Nielsen stated there was some consideration given to swapping that property for a property in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area. The owner of that other property was not interested in doing that. Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending the sale of the City-owned property located at 5795 country Club Road after review of that consideration pursuant to State Statute. Motion passed 4/0. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Garelick noted he served on the Hennepin County Board of Appeal and Equalization again this year. He stated that the appraiser for the City of Shorewood did such a great job that there were no appeals to the County. Garelick asked what the catalyst was for James Steinwand, 5680 County Road 19, deciding not to move forward with his proposal to operate an auto detailing and bicycle repair business out of the building on that location. [Item 3 on the Agenda.] Director Nielsen explained during its June 4, 2013, meeting the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Mr. Steinwand to this meeting to allow him the opportunity to refine his plans for the site and make sure the plans were consistent with the City’s current zoning standards. The Commission wanted Mr. Steinwand to also submit a landscape plan prepared by a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 2, 2013 Page 9 of 9 certified landscaper and an updated survey. Mr. Steinwand did not want to spend the amount of money it would take to do that. On June 5 Mr. Steinwand sent an email stating he wanted to withdraw his C.U.P. application. On June 6 he sent another email stating the American Legion, the owner of the property, may be willing to help out and he suggested the two of them meet. When they met they spoke about an interim use permit as an alternative which may have gotten him around the need to install curbing. Mr. Steinwand did call one time after the meeting and asked what difference it would make if he dropped the auto detailing portion of the proposal. A bicycle repair shop is a permitted use in that zoning district. That would have eliminated the need for a C.U.P. but it would not eliminate the need to bring the site up to standard. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are a lot split application and a conditional use permit application slated for the August 6, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. The Commission will be asked to make a recommendation on the revised noise ordinance. There will be discussion about life-cycle housing and he hopes to line people up to talk about life-cycle housing. He indicated he would like to have Council attend a presentation so it does not have to be given to Council another time. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he has given any more thought to having the Planning Commission take a trip to the City of Chaska to look at the Aeon development. Nielsen stated he will poll the Commissioners to find out when they would be able to do a tour on a non-meeting night. Geng suggested inviting Council to come along to tour the development. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the June 24, 2013, Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he attended the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session on June 26. Planning Commissioner Davis also attended as did Finance Director DeJong. The session had to do with creativity with redevelopment projects. Unfortunately, the session turned out to be a bust. • Other None. 10. ADJOURNMENT Garelick moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 2, 2013, at 8:56 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder