Loading...
10 06 2020 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Gorham, Gault (arrived at 7:25 p.m.) and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Siakel Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda for October 6, 2020, as presented. Roll Call Vote: All – all. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  August 4, 2020 Eggenberger moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2020, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0.  September 1, 2020 Joint Work Session Chair Maddy noted a change on page 3, item 4, that should state Strawberry “Lane” and not Strawberry Land. Gorham moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Joint Park/Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes of September 1, 2020, as amended. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 4/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy 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. A. PUBLIC HEARING – PUD AMENDMENT FOR MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB-5745 FEATHERIE BAY Applicant: U.S. Homes dba Lennar Location: Lot 7, Block 3 Minnetonka Country Club CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Planning Director Darling summarized the staff report regarding the request to allow the rear yard of an existing home to be regraded and in the process increase the height of the home beyond the 35 feet already permitted. She gave an overview of the standards to be considered when evaluating a PUD amendment and noted that staff recommends approval. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the property just needed more slope in order for the water to drain correctly. Planning Director Darling stated that regrading will keep the water away from the home rather than have dirt up against the water barrier. Commissioner Riedel stated that generally when you dig down further you will increase the likelihood of water pooling next to the foundation, but in this case, they are lowering the grade to improve drainage. Planning Director Darling reiterated the plans to regrade the house are in order to drain water away from the home and noted that this requires an amendment because it will result in the home being above the maximum height allowance. Paul Tabone, Lennar Homes, stated that he believes the original structure was built and developed in 2015. He stated that when the home was originally graded, there was about one foot of fill that was brought in to essentially make the home meet the height requirement, so a vapor barrier was put in along the foundation. He explained that earlier this year, the vapor barrier failed so the intent is to regrade the back yard by bringing down the grade by about 8 to 10 inches around the home and then regrade the remainder of the yard so that when the water falls it runs further away. He stated that because they are taking away the dirt, then more of the house is showing which means it is roughly 10 feet over the average land grade. Chair Maddy stated that the applicant had already gone out of its way to make sure this house was conforming and then a year later there was a surprise. Mr. Tabone stated that this was correct and the home, as originally proposed, was about 5 or 6 feet taller than it is now. He stated that they ordered roof trusses to bring that down and they did what they could to meet the definition of average land grade or average height for the neighborhood. Commissioner Riedel commended Lennar Homes for going through the process and applying for the amendment because this seems quite minor. Commissioner Gorham asked if the vapor barrier would be removed. Mr. Tabone stated that he will have to check to make sure, but imagines that since the barrier failed it will need to be removed. He stated that he can find out and report back to the Commission. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no public testimony, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, recommending approval of the PUD Amendment to allow the height of the building to exceed 35 feet a 5645 Featherie Bay. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all Motion passed 4/0. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Variance for Setback to Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Christmas Lake Applicant: Richard Hoyt Location: 5710 Ridge Road Planning Director Darling stated that this application is a request for a variance to the setback of the OHWL to allow a deck to be constructed six feet from the OHWL where 75 feet is required. She explained that a previously constructed deck was demolished by a mudslide in 2014 and indicated that the accessory building and a stairway were not removed as required. She gave an overview of the proposed location for the deck and how the deck would look. She gave an overview of the variance criteria and stated that staff is recommending denial. She noted that the criteria are open to interpretation and the Commission could reasonably disagree. She gave an overview of the three conditions that staff would attach to the variance, if the Commission saw fit to approve the request. She updated them on the steps the property owner had taken to stabilize the bluff. She stated that attached to the staff report is a letter from the neighbor indicating support for the request. Commissioner Riedel explained that he would be abstaining from this discussion since he is a neighbor of the applicant. Commissioner Gorham stated that the applicant had already received a variance in 1997 for the previous deck structure, but asked if the Commission should consider this as a new application since the location of the deck is in a different location. Planning Director Darling confirmed that each variance has to be reviewed on its own merits. Commissioner Gault stated that a key point for him is that some of the key components of the 1997 variance have not been fulfilled and asked why the City would have any expectation that the conditions on a new variance would be fulfilled. Chair Maddy asked if the property was under the same ownership as during the previous variance. Planning Director Darling stated that it was the same owners. Commissioner Gault noted that the 1997 variance was granted after the deck had already been constructed without any permitting. Commissioner Gorham stated that the letter gives the impression that this is a replacing a previous deck that had a previous variance, which is a bit misleading. Commissioner Gault asked about access to the deck from the trolley area. Planning Director Darling stated that the applicant would just walk across the grass because the lot is relatively flat in that area. Chair Maddy asked if there was still a funicular rail. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Planning Director Darling noted that the original one was destroyed in the mudslide and they have repaired and replaced it in the same location. Chair Maddy opened this item up for public testimony at 7:35 p.m. There being no public comments, he closed the public testimony. Commissioner Gorham stated that he does not see the criteria being met to allow for a variance. He noted that the Commission has not discussed the essential character issue and feels it would set a really bad precedent if it is allowed. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he agreed with Commissioner Gorham. Commissioner Gault stated that he concurred with the other Commissioners. Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, recommending denial of the variance request by Richard Hoyt for the property at 5710 Ridge Road. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – 4 (Maddy, Gorham, Eggenberger, Gault). Abstain – 1 (Riedel). Motion passed 4/0/1 5. OTHER BUSINESS A. Zoning Ordinances Amendment (Continued)- Miscellaneous text amendments discussion Planning Director Darling stated that before there is a public hearing on these proposed amendments, she would like the Commission to take another look at the amendments that they had previously discussed. She reminded the Commission that these changes were discussed in January and February of 2020 but then the COVID-19 pandemic hit which pushed them to the back burner. She stated that the proposed changes primarily fall into two categories, substantive and housekeeping. She stated that the substantive changes are related to lighting regulations, two homes on a property, allowing decks and porticos to encroach into the front setback, egress pit encroachments, digital order signs, zoning permits, and the PUD process. She reiterated that she is looking to gather comments from the Commission on the proposed ordinance amendments. Planning Director Darling went through the proposed changes page by page and asked for comments. The Commission discussed clarifying the language around the building height requirement so it makes sense as a standalone statement even if people do not go look up the definitions. Commissioner Riedel noted that the definition of the word “dock” went to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Chair Maddy stated that the City had cleaned up that issue a few years ago. Planning Director Darling stated that she will double check this one because the codifiers did not get all of the code changes. She noted that she will compare ordinances to make sure she didn’t miss anything. She reviewed Section 1201.03, General Provisions as it relates to two homes on a property. Commissioner Gault noted that he thought the Commission had discussed tying this to the Occupancy Permit if construction of the new home was going to take longer than 9 months. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Planning Director Darling stated that she will look back over the minutes and incorporate the feedback from the Commission. Chair Maddy noted that it is not uncommon for a custom home to take a year of construction. Commissioner Gault stated that he does not have a problem with the language as it is proposed, but was looking for ways to perhaps not have to deal with this in the future. Commissioner Riedel asked about the detached accessory building language. He stated that he understands the intent, however modification 12, seems redundant. There was discussion about the accessory building language and the Commission decided to leave the detached accessory building language alone. Commissioner Riedel stated that he feels the detail on the lighting provisions is very well written. Chair Maddy stated that he agreed and while this language cannot be perfect, is on the right track. Commissioner Gorham asked where Planning Director Darling got the changes to the lighting provisions. Planning Director Darling explained that she had used information gathered from Plymouth, Bloomington, and Excelsior. She stated that if the Commission felt it was too much, it can be stepped back because the City only has about 15 commercial properties. Chair Maddy that he thinks the proposed changes are within the realm of reasonable. Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks that as commercial applications come into the City that is when the problems will come to “light” and reiterated that he feels this is well written and very specialized. Commissioner Eggenberger suggested that it may be a good idea to see if the proposed changes stand the test of time. Planning Director Darling reviewed the revision related to allowing encroachments into residential areas and one thing the Council has expressed interest in having the Commission review some of these for things like attached open decks and porticos and allowing them to bump out into the front setback regardless of when the home was constructed. Commissioner Riedel that just above Section 19, he believes that there is a copy/paste error on number 7. Planning Director Darling stated that she will double check that section and correct it if appropriate. Commissioner Gault noted that throughout the document there is significantly different formatting between the commercial and the residential. He noted that he thinks the commercial formatting is more clear and suggests that the formatting under the residential be revised so it is similar. He gave examples of a bullet pointed list being easier to understand than a paragraph. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Planning Director Darling reviewed the sign section and asked if there was anything that needed to be revised in this section. Commissioner Riedel stated that he assumes political signs are specifically excluded and are allowed without a permit. Planning Director Darling stated that is correct. Chair Maddy stated that he believes that is pre-empted by State law so the City does not need to cite it. Planning Director Darling stated that there are some things that can be done to limit political signage but it is nothing the City will take on without discussion from a wider group of people and not during an election year. She reviewed the proposed changes in CUP and administration. Commissioner Riedel asked about the possibility of going paperless with digital applications. Chair Maddy noted that at his work they use Bluebeam so they do not deal with paper anymore. Planning Director Darling stated that they are looking into some options such as Bluebeam but still need to use paper for some applications for the time being. Chair Maddy asked the Commission for their opinion on the City moving towards becoming paperless. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would support that but understands that it also will mean dealing with the archival aspects of the stacks of plans and surveys that are in the basement. He stated that he agrees it should be done, but realizes that would involve a substantial amount of time and effort in order to be converted. Planning Director Darling explained that the City already has the surveys scanned in and are available electronically. She stated that the plans would probably not be scanned in and noted that it is not required that the City keep them beyond a certain time period so the additional expense of scanning them all would be unnecessary. Commissioner Gault asked what determines whether or not a residential deck requires a building permit. Planning Director Darling stated that it is outlined within the building code. She stated that if it is 30 inches or more off the ground, it requires a building permit and if it is less than 30 inches it does not and simply requires a zoning permit. She reviewed the proposed changes to the PUD section of the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Riedel noted that the 60-day requirement for PUD applications was removed. He asked if State law mandated that there be a response within 60 days. Planning Director Darling confirmed that State law does mandate a 60-day response and the City has the right to extend it. Commissioner Riedel commended Planning Director Darling for doing such a great job on this document and noted the importance of language in this type of document. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 7 of 8 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Tim Leister, 26355 Oak Ridge Circle, stated that he has lived in this location since 1993 and in the area since 1971. He stated that he understands the City is doing a survey regarding the fire lanes and wanted to specifically address Fire Lane #3. He stated that there are a group of about 20 people in the neighborhood that are interested in amending the fire lane to a class 2 status. He explained that the objective is to allow them to continue to reasonably use the fire lane in a manner consistent with what they have been doing for over 30 years. He stated that he understands that the City is conducting a study and is curious about the status of the study and asked what the next steps are in the process. Chair Maddy stated that Fire Lane #3 is at the end of Grant Lorenz Road and explained that barriers were put up last winter when there was concern that as the law is right now, people are not allowed to use motorized vehicles on that fire lane. Planning Director Darling stated that there was a discussion at City Council about the fire lanes. She stated that the Council directed to staff to enforce the current codes while the City was studying the issue, which is why the barriers were put up last winter. She stated that at this point, the fire lanes have been surveyed and staked and Park Commission and Planning Commission members have all toured them. She stated that they held one joint meeting where the Commissioners could share their ideas regarding public uses in some of the fire lanes and have asked for some additional information, regarding vacation of fire lanes, but noted that this doesn’t necessarily pertain to fire lane #3. She stated that she will be bringing this information back to the two Commissions for further discussion sometime in November of 2020. Mr. Leister asked if it will be in front of the Council in November. Planning Director Darling stated that she is not sure when it will be on the Council agenda, but will be on the Park Commission and the Planning Commission agenda for one of their November meetings. Mr. Leister asked if the public will be allowed to speak at those meetings. Planning Director Darling explained that would be at the discretion of the Chairs. Chair Maddy stated that the public will be allowed to speak at the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Director Darling noted that usually Matters from the Floor is located earlier in the agenda and suggested that the Commission may want to move it for future meetings. Commissioner Eggenberger agreed and stated that he had already written himself a note to bring that up so people don’t have to sit through the bulk of the meeting in order to speak to the Commission. Chair Maddy asked that Matters from the Floor be moved to item #3, directly following Approval of the Minutes, on all future agendas. 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Council Liaison Siakel reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s September 28, 2020, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling noted that the Commission will discuss the code amendments and there may also be a CUP for fencing on the agenda • Liaison Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings October – Commissioner Gorham November – Commissioner Eggenberger December – Commissioner Gault January – Commissioner Riedel February – Chair Maddy 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gault seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2020, at 8:37 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0.