Loading...
01-02-2024 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2024 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Gorham called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. He explained that 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. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Gorham; Commissioners Eggenberger, and Huskins; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Maddy Absent: Commissioners Holker and Johnson 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, approving the agenda for January 2, 2024, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 5, 2023 Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2023, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. Planning Director Darling stated that while the minutes adequately reflect the discussion, she believes that there was a question directed to her at the December 5, 2023 meeting that she misheard that night and wanted to clarify her answer. She stated that the staff report always reflect the staff’s position on the requests. She stated that even if they refer to the applicant’s narrative, the information and the positions in the staff report are from the staff themselves. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – T-MOBILE ANTENNA Applicant: SMJ International, LLC (on behalf of T-Mobile) Location: 24283 Smithtown Road CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the request on behalf of T-Mobile from SMJ International to add a microwave dish and supporting equipment to the existing triangular array on the existing tower. She reviewed the location of the tower and the properties that surround it. She explained that staff recommended approval subject to the five conditions included in the staff report. Commissioner Huskins noted that a portion of the staff report on page two was duplicated. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if this request was for a replacement or a new antenna. He asked if there was a limit on how many can be installed on this tower. Planning Director Darling explained that this request was not for a replacement and will be a new dish. She noted that replacement antennas can be reviewed administratively and would not need to come before the Planning Commission. Chair Gorham asked if this application would require an additional FAA permit. Planning Director Darling stated that would be between the FAA, FCC, and the applicant. She noted that she believes that this tower is far enough away from any airports so they would not need one unless they went taller. Chair Gorham asked about the piping shown on the diagram and if it was new or existing conduit. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the applicant is proposing to run any cable through the interior of the tower and out using the existing ice bridge. Chair Gorham referenced diagram C-501 and noted that he felt that this drawing made it appear as though it would be new vertical conduit. Andy Bobrytzke, Project Manager, SMJ International, explained that the conduit will run through the tower and use the existing ice bridge to connect to the equipment which means nobody will see the extra wire. He stated that the antenna will be about 12 inches by 12 inches in size. Planning Director Darling referenced the drawing labeled C-201 in the packet that shows the cable going through the inside of the monopole. Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be an interruption in service during the installation process. Mr. Bobrytzke stated that there will not be any disruption in services for the existing antennas and noted that the entire process will most likely only take 1-2 hours. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if Mr. Bobrytzke had looked at the conditions being recommended by staff. Mr. Bobrytzke stated that he had seen them and noted that they all seem fine. He asked about the reference to the need for a third party inspection. Planning Director Darling explained that if he had questions about the third party inspection he would need to discuss that with the Building Department. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Chair Gorham opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. No one appeared to address the Commission and Chair Gorham closed the Public Hearing. Huskins moved, Eggenberger seconded, recommending approval of the request for a CUP for Additional Telecommunication Antennas for SMJ International, LLC (on behalf of T- Mobile) located at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to the 5 conditions included in the staff report. Motion passed 3/0. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Home Applicants: Ben and Kelly Vanderheyden Location: 5995 Glencoe Road Planning Director Darling reviewed the variance request for property located at 5995 Glencoe Road to expand their existing non-conforming home. She noted that the home was constructed in 1950 which was prior to the City’s incorporation as a city. She explained that the applicant was looking to add a second story onto their home in order to expand their living space and expand the main level to include a two foot cantilever, and add a front porch addition. She explained that staff found that the applicant has met some of the criteria better than others and feels that a reduced request would resolve the practical difficulties. She stated that with the reduced request related to the cantilever and front porch area, staff would recommend approval subject to the conditions included in the staff report. She stated that the City had received two letters of support for the application from James Loffler, Glencoe Road, and Jeffrey Colby, 5985 Glencoe Road. Commissioner Huskins stated that the staff report mentioned that the lot was currently legally non-conforming and noted that he feels the way it was worded implies that something that City may do would make it illegally non-conforming. He asked if he should just ignore the word ‘currently’. Planning Director Darling stated that it is currently legally non-conforming because of the zoning district that it is within because the lot is less than what would not be allowed in the R-1C zoning district. She reiterated that the lot was created legally prior to the City’s incorporation. Commissioner Huskins asked about the commentary regarding the future and potential development of the property to the south and the impact it would have on the road. He asked if the City typically takes into account future activities when making decisions about this type of variance request. Planning Director Darling explained that they can take it into account if the decision that they are making could impact the neighborhood into the future when a change in circumstance with either the road layout or a possible extension occurs. Commissioner Huskins asked if this were to be approved by the Council as it is presented, and the road changes and development occurs what would happen then. He asked if that would create a condition where the resident would have to undo something that had been done. Planning Director Darling stated that they would not have to undo something and explained that if the City makes the decision to approve the variance as proposed, the porch will stay because the legal rights for the porch extend beyond the lives and ownership of the current property CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 4 of 8 owners. She stated that generally, the City, when doing roadway work, tries to work within the existing right-of-way in order to keep the costs down where possible. Commissioner Eggenberger asked for clarification of what was meant by the cantilever portion of the plans. Planning Director Darling reviewed the plans and explained that the cantilever is a 2x11 addition on the north side of the home and as proposed would be 3 feet from the property line. Chair Gorham stated that it appears as though staff is saying the cantilever portion of the plans does not reflect the minimum that could be done but noted that staff had not taken that position for the mudroom and bonus room portion of the addition. Planning Director Darling explained that what the applicant currently has is a 3 season porch, which means from the outside it generally looks like part of the house. She stated that she would say that their proposed plans improve that area of their home. Commissioner Huskins asked if there would be an impact to the setback for this portion of the plans. Planning Director Darling stated that the whole 3 season porch area is also too close to the property line and explained that they would need a variance in order to add the second story above. She clarified that this would not change the setback on this portion of the property. Chair Gorham asked if the addition would extend further east than the 3 season porch does. Planning Director Darling stated that the existing porch is 16 feet and the new area is close to that number. Ben Vanderheyden, 5995 Glencoe Road, confirmed that the 3 season porch is the same size as the proposed addition. He stated that he wanted to comment on the cantilever portion of their plans on the north side of the home because they feel very strongly about it. He stated that they have completely renovated the main level of their home and the existing plans that they submitted of the main level reflect the current space as it is today. He noted that the only exception to that is that on the existing plan the dining table is positioned between the bar and the island. He explained that they had not put the table there because it is extremely tight in that location. He stated that they have always had their dining table in the northeast corner near the windows. He explained that if the cantilever was removed from the plans it is the one thing that would still leave them with a significant pain point because there is not a designated dining area on the main level. He stated that they feel the cantilever is essential to the new design and would dramatically improve the functionality of the home. He stated that the majority of the home on the north side is staying, as is, and their proposal is just for a small 2 x 11 section for a dining nook that they are requesting. He stated that their neighbor to the north was one of the individuals who had submitted a letter of approval for their plans, as proposed. He stated that the new front porch is not that different from what is currently there right now. He stated that the concrete steps already extend 6 feet 4 inches from the house and the step furthest to the west is raised 7 inches off the ground and has a railing on it that is 31 inches high and 8 feet long. He stated that their proposed porch is longer than the existing porch but explained that the front steps get very icy during the winter because they are not covered. He stated that their architect had designed the front porch to extend the roof coverage over this area in order to mitigate those safety issues without pushing the structure of the home any closer to the street. He stated that another advantage to the porch would be an enhanced aesthetic along Glencoe Road. He asked the Commission to consider CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 5 of 8 approval of their requests, as proposed, and noted that he believes their remodeled home would be a great asset to the neighborhood. Commissioner Huskins stated that Mr. Vanderheyden’s letter claimed that they would not be pushing the home any closer to the street with their new design. He stated that confuses him because the information in the staff report made it seem as though it would be pushed closer to the road. Mr. Vanderheyden explained that on the west side of the home, the walls will be going straight up, which was what he was referring to and acknowledged that their plans for the porch does extend it forward a bit. Commissioner Huskins asked about Mr. Vanderheyden’s claims regarding their plans not impacting the ability of the street to be widened in the future and if that referred to the main portion of the home and not the porch. Mr. Vanderheyden stated that in his conversations with Planning Director Darling that was something that had come up and she had indicated that whether this is approved or not will not impact what the City may need to do down the road for future development to the south. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that there appeared to be someone in the audience who wanted to comment on this item. Pamela Honzl, 6065 Glencoe Road, stated that she owns the acreage on the dead end. She stated that she has been here for over 40 years and noted that her husband is deceased and her children have grown and gone. She stated that she is in her 70s so it is conceivable that in the future the road will need to be widened in order to accommodate what will happen to her acreage when she leaves. She stated that she has no problem with their plans but is still confused about the porch and if it will come closer to the road or not. She stated that if their plans for a porch would not impact plans to widen and improve the road in the near future, she would support their plans. She stated that she would not want the City to end up saying that they did not want to widen the street because those homes come too close. She reiterated that she is still confused about the plans for a porch and explained that the Vanderheyden’s have been wonderful neighbors, and she hopes that their plans work out so they can stay in the home. She stated that there is already a concrete porch on the home and asked if their plans were to expand that and bring it closer to the road or it they were just covering what was already there. Planning Director Darling explained that the current right-of-way in this location is 40 feet and the typical measurement is 50 feet. She stated that what the City tries to do with a road project would be balance the right-of-way acquisition, which would mean an additional 5 feet on either side of the road. She stated that she believes the City Engineer has been very careful about trying to stick within the existing rights-of-way, when possible, in order to minimize acquisition costs. She stated that if the road ever had to be widened, and centered within the right-of-way, the concern from staff on this application is that the porch will be even closer to the street in appearance than it is now. She stated that in the future, when Ms. Honzl’s property is developed, they may need to extend the roadway into that property in order to construct more than one or two homes. She stated that the road would not necessarily have to be widened or centered with just the development of that property, but if, in the future, the roadway has to be reconstructed, that may be when the road is centered within the right-of-way. Commissioner Huskins asked if the applicant wished to cover the existing front porch if that would require a variance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Planning Director Darling stated that it would still require a variance because it would be considered expanding the non-conformity. Commissioner Huskins stated that he had additional questions for the applicant. He asked what impact Mr. Vanderheyden would see on his project if the design of the porch were to be no closer to the roadway than it currently is. Mr. Vanderheyden stated that as designed, the porch extends six feet from the house and noted that the current porch concrete is six feet-four inches. Commissioner Huskins stated that he was confused because as he read the staff report he thought it was something else. Planning Director Darling explained that it currently is an uncovered concrete porch that does not have a roof. Commissioner Huskins stated that he understands that but thought he had seen in the report that the new design of the porch extends closer to the road. Planning Director Darling explained that it extends the roof structure closer to the road, but not the concrete stoop that is already in place. She stated that, as proposed, the porch will appear closer to the street than the current uncovered porch. Chair Gorham asked how the Commission felt about the practical difficulties in this situation that this is a small lot created before the zoning districts. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the practical difficulties that exist provide him with empathy to the applicants. He stated that he believes the applicants are trying to make this home a long-term livable place that they can grow into and are doing the best they can with the size of the lot. He stated that he does not have a problem with the cantilever or the porch overhang. Chair Gorham noted that the cantilever will be very close to the property line and their reason for it is to just get more of a breakfast nook, which he questions. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understands that, but they are just asking for 2 feet. Chair Gorham stated that he feels they need to draw the line somewhere and this is the property that they have purchased and believed that Planning Director Darling has attempted to find a balance. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that ‘his line’ would be the additional 2 feet that they are asking for. Chair Gorham stated that he meant programmatically he questioned where the City would draw the line into what makes a home and whether that included having to have a mud room and a breakfast nook. He stated that this just seems like this is what the applicants want to do and that no regard was given to the existing non-conformity. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understood Chair Gorham’s position, but he thinks of it from a perspective of designing the home with the thought of living there for a while and believes that anybody would want to design it so it would be as livable as possible. He reiterated that he CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 7 of 8 did not think 2 feet was too big of a request. He stated that he thinks what has been presented is a good plan. Chair Gorham agreed and admitted that he felt it was a smart design but had concerns about the entire plan of the second floor as well as the bump outs. He reiterated that it feels like the applicant has not done the minimum and had just presented what they want to do. He stated that he feels that if the City approves this then every house that was built before 1950 can do whatever they want. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that the difference for him was the non-conforming lot. Chair Gorham stated that the applicants would know it was a non-conforming lot with a small house when they purchased the property. He stated that he would like there to be an acknowledgement of the City’s setbacks and not just come before the City asking to do whatever they want. He stated that it felt a bit like their mindset was ‘the zoning code be damned’. Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not quite see this the same way and believes the owner was being creative about using a non-conforming property to do what he felt was arguably necessary, in order for the family to have space. He stated that he was not at all concerned about the second floor. He stated that he was initially confused and thought that they were asking to come 2 feet closer with all of the structure, but they are not and agrees that the front porch situation is a safety issue. He stated that he feels the biggest issue is the cantilever because they are already 5 feet from the property line and this plan brings a section of their home just 3 feet from the property line, but it is not the entire length of the building and is just a small portion. He stated that the Planning Commission is not in the business of telling residents how to design their homes and noted that his sense is that this proposal is a workable solution for the community and for the family. He stated that he was inclined to vote in favor of recommending approval without all the conditions suggested by staff. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would agree but would still like to see the downspouts included in the conditions. Commissioner Huskins clarified that his comment was intended to be about the conditions related to the cantilever and the front porch only and would support the condition related to the gutters. Chair Gorham stated that he was struggling with what the ‘minimum’ is in this situation and if they were doing the minimum in order to alleviate the practical difficulties. Commissioner Huskins stated that he did not feel they were doing the minimum. Chair Gorham stated that he thinks they are supposed to be doing the minimum and believes that part of the struggle that Planning Director Darling had was finding what the minimum actually is. He noted that he believes she came up with the minimum being the changes suggested to the front porch and cantilever, but he would add the mudroom and bonus room to that list. He stated that the code says they have to do the minimum. Commissioner Huskins stated that he felt that was subject to interpretation. He stated that he did not see anything within the design that would suggest that they are being greedy about what they are requesting. He stated that he understands that they could find another place to put their table or get a smaller table, but it is not up to him to make those recommendations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 2, 2024 Page 8 of 8 Chair Gorham stated that he was not suggesting they tell the applicant where to put their dining room table but was saying that what they are proposing was not the minimum. He stated that he feels the proposed design does not take into account any of the City’s constraints, which is what an architect should do. He stated that the applicants just want the cantilever for the breakfast nook and to have a covered front porch. Commissioner Huskins noted that the covered front porch does not bring the structure any closer to the road. Chair Gorham noted that it will give the appearance of being closer because now there is a covered structure in front of the home that was not there before. Commissioner Huskins reiterated that it will be no closer to the road that it currently is and reminded the Commission that this is a legally non-conforming structure already. Chair Gorham stated that he feels their plans are expanding the non-conforming. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that was why they were asking the City for a variance. Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, to recommend approval of the variance requests to expand a non-conforming home located at 5995 Glencoe Road, subject to the condition included in the staff report related to adding gutters and downspouts on the north side of the home, that they acquire all necessary permits, but remove the proposed conditions related to elimination of the cantilever and reducing the front porch size. Motion passed 2/1 (Gorham opposed). Chair Gorham stated that this item would come before the City Council on January 22, 2024. 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Council Liaison Maddy reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings and some upcoming staffing changes with the Finance Director and Park and Recreation Director positions. The Commission discussed the recent vandalism that has taken place at three of the park bathroom facilities. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there are no private development applications slated for the next meeting, but she was planning on the Commission considering some proposed ordinance amendments. 7. ADJOURNMENT Eggenberger moved, Huskins seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 2, 2024, at 8:13 P.M. Motion passed 3/0.