Loading...
PC-04-04-17 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Maddy, Bean, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Nielsen; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for April 4, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  March 7, 2017 Bean moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from March 7, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from March 7, 2017. He explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive- thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. Director Nielsen apologized for sending out the report for this item late. The applicant submitted the material later than staff would have liked. The staff report was sent out earlier that morning. He explained the staff report talked about a number of things discussed during the March 7, 2017, public hearing. He reviewed the items discussed in the report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 2 of 8 1. During the March 7 Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked the applicant to have a traffic study done. It was to take into account the intersection, the site, and what affect the proposed use would have on the traffic issues in the area. The applicant submitted the results of the study to the City the previous week, but not in time for the City’s consultant to review it and comment on it. Primarily because of that staff is recommending the Public Hearing again be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting which is scheduled for May 2, 2017. The report is about 100 pages long and he did send it to the Commissioners under separate cover. The report contains an executive summary which summarizes most of the highly technical report. The City will have its Engineer review and comment on the report. 2. A more detailed landscape plan was submitted. Most of what is proposed is decorative landscaping. There is no need to screen the site from Highway 7 or the intersection. The original staff report recommended putting in some landscaping on the easterly entrance to / exit from the site to provide screening of the parking lot from residents on that side of the street. That is not shown on the new plan. Staff continues to believe that something should be done to create a screen between the parking and those residents. A row of maple trees is proposed along the front of the site. There is a backdrop of Black Hills Spruce and various decorative landscaping around the building. 3. Site lighting still has not been addressed. It was mentioned during the March 7 Hearing. 4. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted. It includes a small infiltration pond at the easterly entrance to the site, which may be why no landscaping has been provided there. The City Engineer has noted that no drainage calculations have been provided. Whether or not additional ponding would be needed on the site would be dependent on whether or not the applicant intends to add additional hardcover to what already exists. The applicant had told him that his engineers have done those calculations and that the amount of hardcover would be less than what is currently there. Therefore, no additional ponding would be needed. Staff needs to review those calculations. The plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. He reiterated that staff recommends this be continued to the May 2 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that as follow-up to continuing the application, the applicant was sent a letter advising him that the application would take more than 60 days and up to 120 days to process. If the City does not take action within 120 days it would automatically be approved if the applicant was not notified of the 120 days. Chair Maddy asked if the infiltration pond site is part of the drainage expansion that could possibly be needed. If the amount of hardcover is not increased could that be replaced with landscaping? Director Nielsen clarified he did not know the answer to that question. Director Nielsen explained that in the past the City has always asked for landscape berms for screening. Because of the desire to keep stormwater on the site to control drainage developers have gone to creating depressions which the water would flow into and then into the ground where soils allow that. He does not know if that is necessary for what is being proposed. It is possible things could be modified so a little of both infiltration and landscaping could be done. The worst case there could end up being a section of fence along there to screen the cars. Commissioner Davis stated that area is not very deep and that she thought it could be nicely landscaped easily. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Chair Maddy asked if a copy of the traffic study can be found on the City’s website. Director Nielsen stated the ability to link to the study remotely is down at this time; it has been that way since March 31. The technology consultants are trying to resolve the problem. Director Nielsen stated if anyone wants a copy of the traffic study or any other part of the staff report he asked them to provide the City with their email address on the sign in sheet. Commissioner Riedel stated the study makes the assumption that there would not be an increase in traffic and he questioned that. He did not find there to be any justification for that assumption. Commissioner Davis stated it was also refuted by Starbucks during the March 7 Hearing. Riedel stated the statement that caught his attention was “The overall amount of traffic and the congestion that occurs because of the school is not likely to increase over time.” He thought that statement is questionable. Director Nielsen stated he thought the applicant may believe that they would be drawing from traffic already in the area; that would be somewhat logical. He then stated from his perspective if a driver traveling on Highway 7 decided they would stop at the coffee shop the next morning he does not think they would ever do that again because of the volume of traffic. Commissioner Sylvester asked if the data included in the Study report was aligned with data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Director Nielsen stated one of the recommendations included in the executive summary was to create another northbound lane at the intersection. Currently there are north, left and right turn lanes. MnDOT has considered doing that before this proposed project came before the City. Commissioner Bean clarified that currently at that intersection there is a dedicated left turn lane and there is a center-right lane; a driver could go northbound on Vine Hill Road or they could turn right and go eastbound on Highway 7. Bean stated there is only about a three-car queue space in the right turning space. Traffic is already backed up along the curve and past the Public Storage facility long before there is a chance to turn right. Bean noted that he has a number of questions about the study. He asked if there was anyone who could answer his technical questions. Director Nielsen encouraged Bean to ask his questions so the traffic engineer could address them. Bean stated the City has no control over the right-turn lane. Nielsen confirmed that and noted the City cooperates and coordinates with MnDOT. He clarified it is MnDOT’s right-of-way (ROW). He commented he was not sure why the City would object to what MnDOT is proposing. Chair Maddy asked Commissioner Bean if he was asking if approval of this application could be contingent on MnDOT adding a lane. Bean stated possibly contingent on reconfiguring the curve. Director Nielsen stated the City is aware that MnDOT wants to do something and commented that usually it comes down to MnDOT being willing to do what a city wants provided that the city pays for it. Commissioner Bean stated the study report indicates that area of Highway 7 has a posted speed of 50 miles-per-hour (mph). That posted speed has been increased to 55 mph. Bean then stated the report indicates there are 24-hour videos of the intersection. He asked how many cycles there are of them and how many of them were actually viewed. Commissioner Davis asked what CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 4 of 8 days the recordings were done on. Director Nielsen stated staff will get that information. Someone from the audience stated the intersection was video recorded on a Monday and a Tuesday and not during spring break. Bean went on to state the report refers to Vine Hill Road E and Vine Hill Road W yet Vine Hill Road does not run east and west. Someone in the audience clarified that is the Vine Hill intersection and encouraged people to think of them as west of the site and east of the site. Bean noted that he will send his questions to staff and copy the other members of the Commission. Director Nielsen asked that they be sent to him and he will forward them on to the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Riedel stated there is a brief section in the report on non-site traffic forecasting. It pertains to any increase in traffic not related to the Starbucks facility; the assumption was there would not be any. He questioned that assumption. He would like an explanation for that analysis. He has read that traffic at the Minnetonka High School is increasing. Director Nielsen stated it could be based on the size of the School parking lot. However, there are a lot of parents of open enrollment students who drive the students to school. That volume could potentially increase. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Study report states the land-use is expected to produce approximately one-half the morning trips when compared to the alternative development which would be a coffee shop and fast food combination. She asked if that means that if the drive-thru is not approved there is an alternate plan. Dave Watson, the applicant with Watson Vinehill, LLC, stated the probable alternative would be to develop a non-drive-thru coffee shop along with some form of drive-thru fast food or a fast casual restaurant. In response to a comment from Commissioner Sylvester, Mr. Watson stated if the drive-thru portion of the proposal was not approved he would not just have a small coffee shop built. Chair Maddy stated if the applicant did not have a drive-up window he asked if a C.U.P. would not be required. Director Nielsen explained that for this application the drive-up window is what required the Public Hearing. If it was just a permitted use in that C -1, General Commercial district it would still have to go through a site plan review. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated it would take 20 years before newly planted maple and spruce trees look half way decent. They are slow growing trees, particularly spruce. There will also be a great deal of salt spread along the roadways in the winter and she does not think the spruce trees will tolerate the salt. Director Nielsen explained the spruce trees are a backdrop to the building; they are not in front by the road. If spruce trees are taken care of correctly they can grow about one foot a year. The minimum size the applicant is supposed to plant is about six feet. He reiterated that for the most part it is decorative landscaping and not required screening. Near Vine Hill Road those trees should be an effective screen. Six-foot trees start to block out cars effectively. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Ms. DeSanto stated six foot spruce trees would block very much. She then stated maple trees won’t have leaves very long. Director Nielsen stated maple trees do not screen anything, noting that is not the intent of the maple trees. Paul Stelmacher, 5210 Shady Lane, Shorewood, stated that MnDOT has already graded that intersection as “F”. He questioned the value of entertaining another traffic study done by a consultant who could be somewhat biased in favor of the firm that hired him. He also questioned why something would be added that would exacerbate the current situation and not make it safer. Until that intersection is improved he cautioned against doing anything that would make the traffic at the intersection worse. Susan Hambor, 5146 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, noted her property is located right across Vine Hill Road south. They also own the property located at 5147 Valley View Road and the log house at the corner of Delton Avenue and Valley View Road. She thought it was senseless that people were considering having a coffee shop there with a drive-thru. She noted there are two times during the day when they cannot get off of Valley View Road. They are at a dead stop at those times. She had to always leave for work one hour early so she could get out of her neighborhood. She anticipates that same thing would happen for the proposed drive-thru. She stated they have a hard time renting their rental units to anyone who has children because of existing traffic to and from the High School. She noted the traffic at the High School did increase because the size of the parking lot was increased last summer and more permits were given outs. People coming from the School “scream” through her neighborhood especially during the afternoon on a beautiful day. The residents in her neighborhood have wanted their road blocked off. She anticipates that if the proposed project moves forward drivers will be stuck in the parking lot of the site. She agreed that people would not go to the drive-thru more than once because of traffic. Thomas Millen, 5117 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, stated his property is located directly across from the proposed project site and therefore would be greatly impacted. He asked why the application is being considered further because it has already been recognized that traffic in that area is a significant problem. He also questioned the need for a traffic study because it has already proved to be an issue. He suggested locating the proposed drive-thru coffee shop a quarter of a mile to the east where there is an existing shopping center. He thought it was counter intuitive to put it in the proposed location. His children are not allowed to play in their front yard for safety reasons. He noted that drivers frequently use his driveway as a turnaround. He stated that there would still be a traffic issue even if there was not a drive-thru coffee shop. Chair Maddy stated the reason for having another traffic study done is primarily because of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all property owners have to be treated the same. The Planning Commission cannot prejudge the application until it goes through the public hearing process even though there is a busy intersection in the area. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. Riedel moved, Bean seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 to the Planning Commission’s May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy continued the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 6 of 8 2. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Joel and Lori Schuenke Location: 4485 Enchanted Point Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Joel and Lori Schuenke, 4485 Enchanted Point. Director Nielsen explained that Joel and Lori Schuenke own the property located at 4485 Enchanted Point. They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home with both attached and detached garages. The floor area of the two garages exceeds 1200 square feet of floor area, requiring a C.U.P. The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential Shoreland and contains approximately 80,841 square feet of area. The proposed home will contain 5295 square feet of floor area between two floors. The attached garage will contain 983 square feet and the detached garage will have 991 square feet for a total of 1974 square feet of accessory space. With regard to the analysis of the case, he explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code: a. The total area of accessory space (1974 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5295 square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R- 1C/S zoning district (.10 x. 20,000 square feet = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed home complies with the setback requirements for the R-1C/S zoning district. The proposed detached garage, however, is 12.7 feet from the easterly side of the lot. In order to maintain a total side yard setback of 30 feet with no one side less than 10 feet, the detached garage must be moved at least 5.8 feet to the west. Proposed impervious surface would be 12.6 percent, about one half of the 25 percent allowed. 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. The applicants’ tree preservation and reforestation plan requires 15 replacement trees. d. The materials and design of the new garage would be consistent with the character of the existing house and garage. Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case staff recommends granting the C.U.P. as proposed. Director Nielsen explained that for corner lots, which the subject property is, the Ordinance states that the narrowest width on a public street is the front of the lot. For this property the lake side is the rear of the property. There was ensuing discussion about side yard setbacks. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 7 of 8 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Joel and Lori Schuenke, 4485 Enchanted Point, subject to moving the detached garage at least 5.8 feet to the west. Motion passed 5/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its April 24 meeting. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS  Update Schedule for Liaison to Council Council Liaisons were selected as follows: April 2017 Commissioner Bean May 2017 Commissioner Sylvester June 2017 Commissioner Davis July 2017 Chair Maddy August 2017 Commissioner Bean September 2017 Commissioner Riedel 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is the continuation of the Public Hearing for the conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 slated for the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. There are also a setback variance request, a redo of a minor subdivision, a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet, and a minor subdivision slated for that meeting. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Sundberg stated the local Partners in Energy Program with Xcel Energy is having its first meeting tomorrow. The meeting is scheduled to be four hours long. She noted the new City Clerk starts on April 10; she has a great deal of experience. She also noted Council will interview a candidate for the Planning Director position on April 10. • SLUC Commissioner Davis noted the next Sensible Lane Use Coalition (SLUC) session is about Super Bowl LII. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 4, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Director Nielsen stated when the short-term housing rental ordinance was approved there was some discussion about possibly making exceptions for the Super Bowl. Commissioner Davis stated she would like to attend that session. In response to a question from Commissioner Sylvester, Director Nielsen explained what SLUC’s purpose is and who participates at sessions. Commissioner Sylvester stated she would also like to attend. • Other 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2017, at 7:55 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder