Loading...
PC-07-18-17 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Riedel and Sylvester; and, Planning Director Darling; Absent: Commissioner Davis APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Bean asked that Item 4.A Discussion Regarding Public Testimony be added to the agenda. Riedel moved, Sylvester seconded, approving the agenda for July 18, 2017, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 20, 2017 Bean moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQURE FEET Applicant: Paul and Jodie Siegle Location: 5550 March Point Drive This application was withdrawn from the agenda after it was posted. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – CONSIDER ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS REGARDING DOCK REGULATIONS; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES/USES; AND DEFINITIONS Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He explained this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider Zoning Code text amendments. Director Darling noted staff is proposing some amendments to the Zoning Code which pertain to accessory structures and shoreline property regulations. She explained the accessory structure amendments are intended to clarify the City’s intent to prohibit accessory buildings and structures on a residential property until a principal dwelling was constructed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Staff added Structure to the definition for Accessory, Building or Use to clarify that structures not meeting the definition of building are still regulated and prohibited until there is a principal dwelling. There are some structures that do not meet the definition of building; fences and light poles had previously not been included. The amendment would further enhance the City’s ability to enforce existing prohibitions. Staff also removed language in the Code that allowed a person’s ability to connect an accessory building to a principal structure by a covered walkway as an attempt to consider it part of the principal structure. Allowing the covered walkway to connect two buildings was in conflict with Section 1201.03 Subd. 7.b.(2)(a) which requires homes to be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation. With regard to dock regulations, Director Darling explained the intent was to clarify that docks are not permitted without there being a principal dwelling on the lot and that the 10-foot setback applies to all docks. Staff recommends removing some superfluous language in the Code related to construction type to make the language clearer. Staff also proposes changing the word occupy to reside because occupy does not exclusively mean reside. The intent of the Code is to only allow the residents of the property to have a dock. Commissioner Bean stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(2) states “Accessory building shall not exceed 15 feet or one story in height.” The City has a number of homes with a bonus room above the garage. If the garage is considered accessory space he asked if the bonus room above the garage would now be in violation. Director Darling stated if the bonus space is attached to and part of the house there is no issue. It would only apply to those detached. Commissioner Riedel stated he plans on putting an addition for a garage on his home. The project includes a bonus space behind and below it that is directly attached to the main residence. He asked if the garage would be considered an accessory space. Director Darling stated yes. Riedel asked if a garage is always considered an accessory space. Darling responded yes. Darling clarified if it is part of the principal dwelling and there is living space that is connected to the principal dwelling then the 15-foot height does not apply. Commissioner Bean stated if he built a detached garage as an additional accessory space he asked if he could build a loft or something else above the garage. Director Darling stated he would have to comply with the 15-foot height restriction. That keeps the garages lower in height. The size of the loft would have to be included in the total accessory space calculation. Bean asked what the intent is of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(2) is. Darling stated it is to keep from having a living area above the detached garage. Bean asked if there could be a workshop or office space, for example, above the garage. Darling stated that would not comply with the one-story restriction. Bean then stated, for example, if he had a 7-foot peak down the middle of his garage and he had large dormers on it giving him five foot access at the outer wall that could be a workable space. Darling clarified the only thing changed in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(2) was structures was replaced with buildings. That was changed because there are various height limitations for structures other than buildings; the 15-foot height restriction only applies to buildings. Commissioner Bean stated he thought to answer the questions he just asked he thought he would be referred back to the Building Code. Chair Maddy stated if there is not definition of story then she would have to go to the Building Code or a definition. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 3 of 7 Bean suggested adding the following to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(2) – as further defined in the section that defines building items. That would let people know that they have to go to the Building Code to get the clearest understanding of what is required for second story space. Chair Maddy stated the Zoning Code defines story as “That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar or unused underfloor space is more than six feet above grade as defined herein for more than 50% of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined herein at any point, the basement, cellar or unused underfloor space shall be considered as a story.” Commissioner Riedel stated to him it seems clear that one story can never be multiple levels. An accessory space could not have more than one story. That would preclude having a work space. Chair Maddy stated that technically a person could have a 2-foot high story. Commissioner Riedel stated if a garage is connected to the main residence he asked if the 15-foot or one story restriction applies. Director Darling stated not if it is connected to the house. Riedel asked if the garage would be counted as accessory space. Darling confirmed that. Riedel stated that seems unclear to him and noted the approved/current Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(1) states “An accessory structure shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building by a covered passageway.” He thought that conveys that the 15-foot or one story restriction does not apply. Darling confirmed that. Commissioner Bean asked if Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(2) states “Accessory building shall not exceed 15 feet or one story in height” only applies to a detached building. Director Darling confirmed that. Bean suggested changing it to say “No detached accessory building shall exceed 15 feet or one story in height.” Commissioner Riedel asked if garages count, even if they are attached and part of the house, in the total accessory space calculation and the three building limitation for accessory buildings. Director Darling confirmed that. Riedel stated having 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(3) and Subd. 2.d.(4) apply to attached structures and Subd. 2.d.(2) not seems confusing to him. Darling stated adding “No detached” to the front of Subd. 2.d.(2) would clarify things. She then stated that Subd. 2.d.(3) clearly intends to have the attached and detached buildings in the building envelope for the property. Commissioner Bean again suggested changing Subd. 2.d.(2) to say “No detached accessory building shall exceed 15 feet or one story in height.”; that would make it consistent with Subd. 2.d.(1). Commissioner Bean stated with regard to the current Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(6) there are situations where condensers are on the back of the house but technically in the side yard as far as setbacks are concerned. Director Darling explained the Code is trying to make sure the noisier equipment is located away from the narrow parts of the lot. Bean stated for his house it is technically in the side yard but on the back of his home because of the way the home is positioned on the lot. It would not make sense for him to move the condensers to the side of the house which would actually be in the back yard. He does not think his situation is unique. Darling explained yards are based on how the lot is laid out. A front yard is the space between the front of a house and the street frontage. If there is more than one street frontage the front would be the smaller of the two street frontages with the rear being the opposite of the smaller frontage. Chair Maddy noted Subd. 2.d.(6) states they cannot be in the required side yard setback; they cannot encroach into the side yard setback but still be located in the side yard. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Bean stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.b basically states a person cannot have a dock without there being a principal dwelling on the lot. He referred to the previous debates about the Radisson Road easement holders and Christmas Lake situation. He explained there are a number of easement holders for a portion of an outlot abutting Christmas Lake. That easement gives the easement owners access to get to a dock. There is no one living on that lot. That dock would not be allowed under the Zoning Code. Director Darling noted there has been a dock at that lot consistently since 1910; it is already protected under several court cases. Commissioner Riedel noted the proposed changes to Subd.14.b do not change the intent of adopted Code. Riedel asked why the proposal is to remove “and wharves, permanent or floating,” from the approved language. Darling stated wharves are included in the definition for docks. Bean stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c talks about various dock dimensions and slips. But, there is no mention about the length of a slip. Darling stated that is likely include in the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District’s (LMCD) Code of Ordinances and that is adopted in the Shorewood Zoning Code by reference. Chair Maddy noted the Zoning Code defines a slip as “A water dockage area accommodating one boat.” Bean asked if there was a desire to limit the length of a slip. Maddy stated if the LMCD code addresses dimensions he asked if it would be best to remove dimensions from Shorewood’s Code. Commissioner Riedel stated the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) also includes regulations. He noted the DNR regulations state a dock is not allowed to extend further than required for its intended use which he thought was vague. Riedel stated Subd. 14.g states “Unless specified otherwise in the city zoning code, all docks on all lakes shall comply with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances.” Chair Maddy asked if the City can be less restrictive than the LMCD. Director Darling clarified that most of the LMCD’s regulations are for the water side and the City’s regulations are mainly for the land side. Maddy asked who manages the length of docks. Commissioner Bean stated there are provisions in the LMCD Code that limit the length of docks and slips (for marinas). Commissioner Riedel stated the DNR has rules for when a permit is required for a dock. He read what they are. He then stated the LMCD Code states the dock length cannot exceed the width of the shoreline nor 100 feet. It also specifies side setbacks. There was consensus to leave the topic of slip length for a future discussion. Commissioner Sylvester stated Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) states “For single-family and two-family homes, no accessory building, including attached garages, or combination of accessory buildings, shall exceed three in number ….” She explained by adding structures (e.g.; fences, lights, docks) the limitation of three is very limiting. Director Darling stated structures do not always meet the definition of building. Sylvester stated that means there can only be two structures in addition to a garage. Commissioner Riedel stated including things like fences and light poles makes the limitation problematic. Chair Maddy stated Code’s definition of a building is “Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.” Riedel asked why lights, light poles and fences were included in the definition for Accessory Building, Structure or Use. Darling responded because they are a structure. She clarified the buildings have the restriction of three not the structures. Sylvester stated it is confusing to her because Subd. 2.d states “Accessory buildings, structures, uses and equipment” and she interprets that to mean everything included under Subd. 2.d. She then stated Subd. 2.d.(4) refers to buildings only so she was no longer confused. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 5 of 7 There was ensuing discussion about how to clarify the definition for Accessory Building, Structure or Use including possibly separating the definitions along with the examples of and possibly making the number of accessory buildings limitation dependent on lot size. Commissioner Riedel asked if the conditional use permit (C.U.P.) process could be used to obtain approval for having more than three accessory buildings. Director Darling stated that would depend on how the ordinance was crafted. Chair Maddy noted that he was content with the limit of three for accessory buildings. Commissioner Riedel stated he was also content with the limit of three but he wanted docks to be excluded. Commissioner Bean asked what the impact would be on the proposed Code if docks were limited to structures and not buildings. Director Darling stated she was not sure; she would have to look at all of the relative Code. Director Darling clarified that all buildings are structures but not all structures are buildings. Commissioner Riedel asked if retaining walls are structures. Director Darling clarified they are. Commissioner Sylvester asked what the impact would be of changing occupy to reside in Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.c on someone who’s property with a dock is not their primary residence. Does reside imply a primary residence? Director Darling stated she does not think it does. Sylvester noted she was not concerned about the change provided it does not require someone to live their year-round. Chair Maddy stated he preferred residing because it implies they are living there some of the time. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. There was ensuring discussion about what changes to what had been proposed were discussed and agreed to. Riedel moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending approval of the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Code as it pertains to accessory buildings, structures and uses and regulations applicable to shoreline property subject to the following changes: in Section 1201.02 – change the definition of to list examples of accessory buildings in one Accessory Building, Structure or USE sentence and the examples of accessory structures in another sentence; in Section 1201.03 change Subd. 2.d.(2) to read and, No detached accessory building shall exceed 15 feet or one story in height: in Section 1201.03 change Subd. 2.d.(4) to exclude docks from the combination of accessory structures limit of three. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:06 P.M. 3. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion Regarding Public Testimony Commissioner Bean explained that during its June 20, 2017, meeting the Planning Commission discussed a variance and conditional use permit to redevelop a nonconforming lot, a variance for the combined total of the side yard setbacks, and a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Part of the discussion relied heavily on what a relative of the applicant, as a technical expert, explained. After the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 6 of 7 meeting he questioned if there could have potentially been a conflict of interest on the part of the expert. He wondered if the Commission should have relied on that expertise. Or, should the Commission have relied on the opinion of an independent engineer. If there were to be a similar situation in the future he asked to what degree a relative of the applicant should be able to provide technical advice. Chair Maddy stated he did not consider the conversation to be relevant to the issue at hand because the drainage is approved as part of the building permit review. At that time he did not think it appropriate to prohibit the relative from commenting on the application. Commissioner Bean clarified he was concerned about the fill portion of the application regarding what was going to be done to address erosion of the fill on a temporary basis before all of the grading was complete. Director Darling stated for similar applications in the future where there is a request for additional fill or other pertinent grading issues she could ask the City Engineer to attend the Planning Commission’s meeting for that discussion. She explained that relative is a landscape architect. Landscape architects are allowed under their certification to prepare grading plans; similar to what an engineer can do. Commissioner Bean stated he assumed the landscape architect relative had a bias toward the outcome. Director Darling noted it is the applicant’s responsibility to be able to defend and explain their proposal. It was not out of line to ask the applicant to justify their plan. Commissioner Bean stated had the City Engineer been at the meeting he would have directed his questions to the Engineer. He thought asking the applicant’s relative to explain and justify what was proposed does not ensure the same independence of looking out for the City (i.e.; the neighbors). In response to a question from Chair Maddy, Director Darling noted the City Engineer’s comments were included in the staff report. Some of the conditions were the Engineer’s suggestions for that application. Commissioner Riedel stated from his vantage point sometimes the Commission strays off topic to discuss tangential issues instead of focusing on the application. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Darling stated during the July 10, 2017, Council meeting adopted a resolution granting a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) and variance to build on a substandard lot, a variance to side-yard setback and a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for John and Stacy Lynch for their property located at 25380 Birch Bluff Road. Commissioner Bean asked if there was any discussion about Tonka Bay’s initiative to possibly close the access to Birch Bluff Road and Pleasant Avenue at the Shorewood/Tonka Bay border. Director Darling responded no and stated Council had previously elected not to have the City participate in the traffic study for Birch Bluff Road and Pleasant Avenue. • Other – Update on Projects Approved CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18, 2017 Page 7 of 7 Director Darling stated that as part of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development the bituminous trail parallel to Country Club Road has been constructed. • SLUC Commissioner Riedel noted he attended his first Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session. The topic was planned unit developments (PUDs). He thought the session was informative. He provided a brief overview of what he learned at the session. There is not much basis in state law for PUDs. The use of PUDs has been increasing. The use of PUDs varies by municipality in how they are applied. The speakers and discussion was neither pro nor against the use of PUDs. PUDs allow planners flexibility. There is a danger when cities try to extract too much. There is a trend in urban developments to use PUDs in order to have smaller lot sizes. Commissioner Bean cited a few examples in Shorewood where a PUD had been used. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated there is an application for the redevelopment of an undersized lot and more Zoning Code amendments slated for the August 1, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bean asked if the application for Item 3.B on the agenda was permanently withdrawn. Director Darling stated it was not pulled for good. The applicants have not given any indication of when they may want to resubmit their application. She clarified the 5550 Marsh Pointe Drive property is not part of the Marsh Pointe development. 6. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Sylvester seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 18, 2017, at 8:28 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder