Loading...
01-17-12 Planning Comm Mtg agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE HUTCHINS (Open) ______ CHARBONNET (Open) ______ GARELICK (Open) ______ DAVIS (Open) ______ ARNST (Open) ______ GENG (Open) ______ HASEK (Open) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 December 2011  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – CHRISTMAS LAKE ESTATES Applicant: Eric Zehnder Location: 6040 Christmas Lake Road 2. DISCUSSION – ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENTS 3. DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING 4. DISCUSSION – 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM 5. APPOINT CHAIR / VICE-CHAIR AND UPDATE COUNCIL LIAISON SCHEDULE 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick (arrived during the discussion of Item 1 on the agenda), Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for December 6, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  November 15, 2011 Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Robert and Joan Bauman Location: 26640 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a December 12, 2011, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted the applicants, Robert and Joan Bauman, were present this evening. Director Nielsen explained this request is for an after-the-fact conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Joan and Robert Bauman, 26640 Smithtown Road. The fill was brought in before they applied for the C.U.P. Mr. Bauman initially received a permit to bring 100 cubic yards of fill to level portions of the rear part of their property. There was some miscommunication between Mr. Bauman and the people from whom he received the fill (the City of Chanhassen). Approximately 900 more cubic yards was brought on to the property than was authorized. The Baumans were informed that they either had to remove the excess fill or apply for an after-the-fact C.U.P. They have explained what happened in their C.U.P. request letter (a copy of it is included in the meeting packet). CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 2 of 21 The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains approximately 39,000 square feet of area. The land is bounded on its north by a wetland, on its south and east by street, and on its east by single family residential. The applicants were required to submit a topographical survey showing the contours of the property once the fill has been graded out. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the C.U.P. process for fill/grading projects serves three purposes. They are: 1) heightened scrutiny on drainage issues; 2) additional control over traffic patterns for trucks hauling fill; and 3) advising local residents of what can amount to a dramatic change in terrain. The second and third purposes are somewhat moot in an after-the-fact C.U.P. request. The City Engineer assessed the pavement and curbing on Marsh Point Drive to make sure it wasn’t damaged by the trucks; it was not. The City engineer inspected the property and found that site drainage does not affect adjoining properties. The land continues to drain north toward a small wetland area. The City Engineer does have some concern about the berm that was built along Marsh Point Drive. It has some potential for erosion onto the street until the turf is well established. It appears that the amount of fill placed around the existing trees is relatively minimal. It doesn’t appear to have adversely affected the trees at this time. It’s going to depend on how much impact the truck traffic and dumping the fill and grading it out had on the roots. The affect on the trees may not be seen for a few years. The City Engineer recommends that the silt fence the applicants installed along the north edge of the filled area either be anchored or trenched as early next spring as possible in order to prevent sediment bypass. Heavy rain could result in washing underneath the silt fence. The Engineer also recommends some type of erosion control be placed along Marsh Point Drive along the east side of the berm because the turf isn’t well established, and over-seeding the disturbed areas. Those things should be done as early as possible next spring. The Engineer has reminded the applicants that they are responsible for any erosion and resulting street cleaning that may be necessary next spring. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case, Staff recommends approving the after-the-fact C.U.P. subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations including the over-seeding of exposed soil and additional erosion control. Chair Geng asked if the silt fence will be a permanent feature. Director Nielsen responded it will be removed as soon as the turf is established. Commissioner Hasek asked if the applicants had applied for the C.U.P. before the fill was brought in what else they may have been required to do. Director Nielsen responded they would have had to have provided a proposed grading plan. The topographical survey they provided is basically that. Nielsen stated the only other thing they may have been asked was to make sure the trees were cordoned off so equipment wouldn’t drive over their roots. Hasek stated if the trees died in the future he asked if the applicants would have to replace them. Nielsen responded not necessarily but condoning them off could have been a condition of approval. Hasek commented that the large walnut tree on the back of the property would have been a concern for him. Nielsen stated it appears the fill did not go as far as that tree. Mr. Hasek asked if the fill extends into the public right-of-way. Nielsen responded the down slope of the berm may come into the right-of-way. Hasek asked if the berm is restricted to a certain slope. Nielsen stated it has to be a 3:1 slope. Mr. Hasek asked the Baumans if they put fill as far south on their property as the large walnut tree. Mr. Bauman explained the walnut tree sits on a higher spot on the property, and right behind the walnut tree the property dropped off and that is where the fill was put in. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 3 of 21 Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated she thought the grading was nicely done. The drainage continues to flow to the north. Commissioner Hasek stated if the C.U.P. had been applied for before the fill was put in and the grading plan had shown fill was going to be placed in the right-of-way, he asked if that would have been allowed. Director Nielsen responded if Staff was not comfortable with the berm being in the right-of-way Staff would have recommended it be removed. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of an after-the-fact conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Robert and Joan Bauman, 26640 Smithtown Road, subject to the City Engineers recommendations. Commissioner Hutchins stated irrespective of the results of the grading he asked what accountability the City of Chanhassen will have to take if there is damage to the trees being it conducted the work and the fill was in excess of the amount of fill authorized in the permit. He also asked if there has been any follow-up conversation with representatives for the City of Chanhassen. Director Nielsen responded Staff has not spoken with anyone. Nielsen stated Staff has taken the applicants at their word that there was miscommunication. He then stated it may be worthwhile to notify the surrounding communities about this issue and let them know that if in the future any of them dispose of fill in Shorewood they should contact City Staff first. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (continued from November 15, 2011) Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. He explained this Public Hearing was continued from the Planning Commission’s November 15, 2011, meeting to ensure residents owning property relatively close to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) area had adequate opportunity to comment on the Study. th Director Nielsen stated the initial notification for the November 15 Public Hearing was a general notification. Individual notices were not sent out to residents in or near the redevelopment area because it th is an overall Comprehensive Plan amendment. Because there were no residents present on November 15 he had suggested the Hearing be continued and residents who live in a 1000-foot radius buffer area be notified individually. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the Study area. He explained it encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The boundaries of the Study area are as follows. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the City’s Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City’s current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (the Comp Plan) has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 4 of 21 The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money has been invested over the years to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a “civic campus” including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that effort the City acquired, in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission has been working on the Study for the last two years. He explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the Study area, noting that he will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: study area west boundary – it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat  flexible in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area; land uses – considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the study area;  buffering and land use transitions especially on the west of the Study area;  taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and  within Gideon Glen; vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road;  internal circulation – vehicular and pedestrian;  possibility of contaminated soils;  phasing the redevelopment;  redevelopment of lots on an individual basis;  future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area;  land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road;  pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and,  drainage.  The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 – 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development approach was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer’s standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. Photographs of some of the various projects were displayed with explanations of what the Commission did and did not like. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 5 of 21 A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City’s vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit at a later time. th Nielsen stated that during the November 15 Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked Staff to clarify a few things. He explained there was some confusion about the boundaries of the Study area. The maps for the Study area are all consistent. There continues to be some confusion about what parts of the Study area are still developable. The report indicates there the study area contains over a total of 23.46 acres. That is a little misleading. The areas that really have redevelopment potential don’t include Gideon Glen conservation open space property because there will not be any development there. With regard to the commercial portions of the area, there are two portions that are currently zoned commercial. He highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the northwest quadrant. They are: what used to be the gas station; the American Legion; the pole barn and storage (which used to be a car sales lot); the small apartment building; and, a vacant lot. He then highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the southeast quadrant. They are: the Oasis Market and Gas Station; an approved building pad that had been proposed for a Dairy Queen some time ago; and, some other commercial businesses as well. The area in the Study goes beyond that and shows the SSCC, the police and fire public safety facility, and the Shorewood Public Works facility. The acreage for the Public Works and public safety facilities are included in total in the Study; that needs to be clarified because they don’t represent any redevelopment opportunities. The reason they are included in the report has to do with access and the relationship to Badger Park. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains 4.52 acres which is all zoned commercial. The southeast quadrant is approximately 2.74 acres. There are two residential areas in the Study area for different reasons. There is a residential property located close to the public safety facility that is surrounded by higher intensity uses. The City needs to consider how that might be redeveloped in the future. That is slightly more than 1.5 acres in size. There are a westerly couple of lots in the northwest quadrant that may or may not end up as part of the Study area. The area is about 2.4 acres in size almost divided equally between the two lots. The acreage that can potentially be redeveloped needs to be clarified in the Study. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 6 of 21 Nielsen stated earlier in the day he received some good advice encouraging him to view this Study as a resident might when viewing it for the first time. He then stated if he were a resident trying to find information in the report for the first time it would be challenging. He thought there needs to be additional work done on the report. The background information could be elaborated on explaining what the various sites are currently used for, what their acreages are, and what their characteristics are. That would provide a clearer depiction of what is in the Study area today. There should be more information on the existing uses and zoning of the various land areas. The areas that are developable should be clearly identified. He suggested that the sketches be incorporated into the report in some fashion. Also, there should be some consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him that even more detail could be useful. Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and displayed it on the screen. They are as follows. 1. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs. 3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. 4. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. 7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the Commissioners to comment on them this evening. Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations. One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City’s website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City’s website. The responses should also be accessible on the website. Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30-day period of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 7 of 21 time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a turn in direction. Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It’s a work in progress. From the very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input. Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It’s hard to do that in a vacuum. Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to do so before they leave this evening. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were about 14 residents present. Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, stated his property is just on the west end of the area under discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update. Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or hodge podge redevelopment they are going to respond unified. If they are asked if they would like to have the ugly eyesore commercial development upgraded or developed in a unified manner the exact same number of people will respond with a yes. But, if you ask them if they would like you to encroach on the existing, single family home residential area and build a forty-five-foot high block-wide multi-unit housing next to them the response would be very different. From his vantage point, the rezoning of the single family homes is required in order to make the commercial redevelopment possible. He noted he didn’t think the report indicates that. Mr. Dietz noted that he thought it was useful to see the conceptual design. He stated the open space is primarily for people whom now live in the redevelopment area. People that don’t live in that development are not going to bike to the space and have a picnic there. The City’s character is primarily single family residential. The Comp Plan land use section states the City will strive to maintain this character. He noted the report doesn’t make any case for converting single family property to multi-use housing independent of the commercial development. He recommended separating the residential lot in the northeast quadrant out. He questioned how the residential property located adjacent to the commercial property (which the City now owns) gets rezoned. That property abuts his property. He suggested a separate case be made for those two residential properties. Mr. Dietz stated he could not find the link to the Study on the City’s website. He then stated by the City buying the residential property that it did before the zoning changes went into effect the City now has a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 8 of 21 vested interest in converting a single-family residential property into a multi-use property. That could potentially result in a conflict of interest situation for the City. He suggested making the City-owned property a park. Mr. Dietz explained that his well went dry a few years ago. In the past year his well has been identified as having dangerous levels of arsenic. He asked what this additional water use will do to the water table. He then asked if the City has researched if the water table can sustain that additional draw on water. He stated he applauded the desire for the City to figure out what to do in advance. But, if there is no pressing plan then from his vantage point there isn’t a rush. He asked the City to separate out the commercial development from the single family home development. Chris Polson, who lives on the west side of Echo Road (which is the east side of the development area), asked if eminent domain will be applied to any of the commercial or residential sites in the Study area in this process. Chair Geng stated there has been no discussion of eminent domain by the Planning Commission over the last two years. Mr. Polson asked if it is possible that could happen. Geng responded anything is possible, but he doesn’t see that happening. Geng clarified that the City isn’t trying to drive this redevelopment. It is attempting to influence any future redevelopment of the Study area. The City has no interest in condemning properties in this area. Market forces will drive the redevelopment, and it’s likely that it will not happen for years because of the state of the economy. Director Nielsen noted that the City has been loath to condemn land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of eminent domain. Mr. Polson then asked what the probability is for high density housing or apartments and condominiums being part of any redevelopment of the area. Chair Geng responded he wouldn’t hazard a guess. Geng stated it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If/when a developer comes forward the City will look at what they are proposing, if it will benefit the City and if there is a market for it. Mr. Polson asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner. Geng stated before the Study becomes part of the City’s Comp Plan it does have to be submitted to the Met Council for review and comment under state law. Mr. Polson asked if the Met Council is pressuring to get something done with the Study area. Geng stated this came about from the City. Mark Flanders, 5695 Christopher Road, stated his property is located on the western side of any redevelopment. A redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has already been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is underdeveloped it doesn’t create a very significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could be if the area were to be redeveloped. He noted that as a homeowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what the American Legion’s role is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development (commercial and multi-unit housing) in the northwest quadrant, he asked if the Legion would be interested in moving to the southeast quadrant or some other part. He also asked if senior housing could be built in the southeast corner where there could be easy access to the SSCC. If so, he didn’t see a need for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding information about what the Legion may or may not want and add that to the City’s website. Chair Geng explained that relatively early in the process the Planning Commission invited the affected land owners in the Study area to a study session. The American Legion was represented at that meeting. The Legion is interested in redeveloping its facility. It indicated during that meeting that it would be open to some type of collaboration. It expressed a strong desire to stay in Shorewood and be part of any redevelopment that occurs. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 9 of 21 Mr. Polson asked if the American Legion is opposed to relocating as part of a redevelopment. Chair Geng responded he did not know the answer to that. Director Nielsen stated he has had conversations with developers over the years even before the Study was started and one of the developers did explore the idea of relocating the Legion. He does not know what the Legions reaction to that was. Nielsen then stated the Legion wants to stay in the City, work with the City and see that corner redeveloped. Nielsen noted the Legion is a key player in any redevelopment of the Study area because it owns a good share of the land in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Polson asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment of the southeast quadrant where it won’t impact existing home owners. That would reduce the need for more acreage on the northwest quadrant. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, noted he was speaking from the perspective of a resident and property owner this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission and Director Nielsen for the work they have done on this Study to date. He stated his issue is the two residential properties along Smithtown Road that could become part of the Study area. He expressed he disagreed with guiding principle # 5 which is “Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community.” He stated it comes down to having a buffer between the residential area and the commercial area. He explained that basically all the residential properties to the west of the area are one-acre homestead lots. He noted that buried in the Study it states that in exchange for a developers concessions a new building could potentially be as tall as 45 feet; 45 feet is measured to the midline of the roof. In theory the top of the roof could be 55 – 65 feet above ground. That’s a stark contrast when compared to the house next to the area which he guessed could be about 20 feet tall. He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn’t appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn’t changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on. Brian Meghan, 5670 Christopher Road, commented that his background is in real estate development. He stated that earlier this evening Director Nielsen suggested the Study be revised. Nielsen stated that is correct but the Planning Commission hasn’t taken any action yet. Mr. Meghan noted that he knows Nielsen professionally and personally. Mr. Meghan stated he assumed the meeting with the landowners only included those who own land in the Study area. He noted that up until the open house input was not solicited from property owners who could potentially be impacted by a redevelopment of the area. Mr. Meghan highlighted comments made in the letter he and his wife wrote to the City and Planning Commission regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study dated October 23, 2011. The highlights are as follows. The vision statement seems well thought out albeit a bit idealistic. It’s unlikely that any mixed use redevelopment will be pedestrian or bicycle friendly or neighborhood friendly. The shoulders on Smithtown Road are too narrow to safely use, and although the traffic flow at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road is controlled it is still a bad intersection for non-vehicular traffic. There is no good route of travel to get safely to the LRT to the north, to the east on County Road 19 or to the west on Smithtown Road. Keeping any proposed redevelopment more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. The City doesn’t need a big box retailer, a developer who will come in to take what they want in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on only a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking to CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 10 of 21 clip a coupon with no interest in what is happening in the community. It’s all about economics for most developers. With regard to landscaping, unless the City requires planting of very large trees (which is outside of the scope of most developers’ budgets) it is unlikely anything will be done to the site lines. Coordinated redevelopment makes a lot more sense than a piece meal approach. If done properly it would result in a nicer mix of assets. The Study area intrudes further into a residential area than any other areas in the City with the potential exception of the area around CUB Foods. That commercial development stops before it really intrudes into a residential area. The homes along Lake Linden Drive across from that development were basically built after the development was done. When the CUB site was redeveloped a few residential properties were taken in the back. The Study area intrudes heavily to the west. The benefit of having taller buildings for commercial development is it’s cheaper to have more space under a smaller roof in terms of cost to build and long term maintenance. Land use should focus on low to moderate density housing in the western most portion of the Study area with considerable open and heavily landscaped space buffering the properties immediately to the west. Buffering and land use transitions will be critical in gaining support from the residents in their neighborhood. Care should be taken with the property immediately to the east of the SSCC as it abuts a residential neighborhood. When Gideon Glen was acquired it was done to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear cut and serves as a drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. He does not see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Study. That area has already been designated as a natural area by the City unless there is a plan to allow a portion of this property to be rezoned. Any competent developer or investor will know to take advantage of the site lines Gideon Glen offers in spite of the fact that it has been decimated. Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 from the northwest quadrant should be pushed north of the existing intersection with Smithtown Road to provide for better ingress and egress from that development area. The City’s Planning Department is better suited to address those issues than he is. With regard to phasing the redevelopment, in reality the Study area actually includes only three potential areas of redevelopment – 1) the area at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; 2) the area on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger Park; and, 3) the area north of County Road 19 and south of the City’s Public Works facility. Area 3 is quite small and can only be redeveloped in one phase. It won’t be a multi phased development. Area 2 could be a phased development. It is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small retail use or service use. Area 1 will likely be a phased development with part of it being for some commercial uses and potentially some housing. From his vantage point it would be better to build lower density housing. He thought it prudent for the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the future redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property as part of this Study if it’s anticipated that it will have a change of use over the next 3 – 10 years. The 24250 Smithtown Road residential property is an island in an area that is generally commercial. It makes sense to rezone it. It could potentially accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily redevelopment or an institutional type of user (e.g., a senior center, a VFA, Community Center, library, post office). With regard to drainage, Gideon Glen already provides drainage for a shopping center that is not located in the City. He questioned why there is concern about requiring ponding on the northwest quadrant. Any ponding is going to involve Gideon Glen. It’s not possible to hold that much water on that quadrant. Director Nielsen clarified that Gideon Glen is not sized to accommodate the drainage for the lots in that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 11 of 21 quadrant. The drainage for it has to be accommodated on site. Mr. Meghan stated that will be difficult to support economically. The 40 – 45 foot height restriction for any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant does not include the roof. In reality the height will be 50 – 65 feet. TIF may be a popular tool, but he doesn’t think it’s a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. He asked why taxpayers should partially fund a development from which third parties will benefit. He then asked if the City is prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain if necessary to acquire all of the properties needed to maximize the redevelopment potential of the site. He also asked how the City will offset the loss in tax revenues from parcels it acquires if it ends up owning them for a number of years. The second draft of the Study appears to suggest the broader public/community involvement. The City didn’t notify the residents that would be affected by a redevelopment of the Study until September 23, 2011. The only meeting with them was held on October 4, 2011. Several City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners did not attend that open house. He interprets that to mean they don’t care about the input from residents. The second draft references the County Road 19 Corridor Study which was adopted in 2003. That document has not been provided to the residents. Mr. Meghan concluded by saying he believes that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the properties in the Study area could be a very positive thing for the community. The City Council and City Staff should take into consideration the residents who have been paying taxes to the City for a long period of time more than they have. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. Chair Geng thanked all of the residents for coming this evening. He also thanked those who addressed the Planning Commission. He assured them the Commission will take their comments into consideration. He noted this is a process and not a fait accompli. He stated that he felt bad that some residents felt they were excluded until recently. The Commission has attempted to be open and inclusive. He noted this has been an ongoing process undertaken by volunteers. He stated the process has not gone as quickly as the Commission would have liked, but that may ultimately be a blessing based on the feedback provided by residents. On behalf of the Commission he reiterated the Commissioners were thankful for the feedback they received this evening. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needs to consider the input the residents provided this evening. It also needs to consider the suggestions made by Director Nielsen earlier in the meeting about the Study. Commissioner Garelick stated on his way to this meeting he saw a for sale sign at the former gas station. He asked how that would impact the Study. Director Nielsen stated the Council has asked Staff to research that. Nielsen noted that it is in the Study area. Administrator Heck noted that property did go to Sheriff’s sale and it was sold as a foreclosure in that sale. Nielsen stated Staff is researching who bought it. Chair Geng stated based on the public input received this evening he asked if it’s realistic to be in a position to hold another public hearing in January 2012. He thought that could be ambitious. Director Nielsen stated he suggested getting a revised document back to the Commission for its January 17, 2012, meeting and holding a public hearing in March 2012. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on some of the comments made this evening that could be somewhat of an aggressive timetable. Hutchins then stated input from the entire community needs to be taken into account; not just those living in the area close to the Study area. Nielsen clarified that would be the quickest it could be done, but it doesn’t need to be done by then. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 12 of 21 Commissioner Arnst stated from her perspective revisions to the Study area is a topic for a work session. It should be the only item on that agenda. Commissioner Hasek asked if the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area was specifically addressed in the resident survey that was recently conducted. Administrator Heck responded the survey didn’t contain any questions that specifically addressed Smithtown Crossing or the redevelopment of that area. Heck stated there were walk ability questions and general questions about services. Hasek then stated a January timeline is too aggressive. It should be included in the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program. Chair Geng stated there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commissioners to take the time needed on this. There is no sense of urgency. He stated he endorses Commissioner Arnst’s suggestion that a work session be devoted to discussing the comments received from the public to date. Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 8:43 P.M. 3. GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION Director Nielsen stated the GreenStep Cities Program Best Practices (BPs) also relate to Item 8 on this agenda which is the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program. He noted that during the Commission’s November 15, 2011, meeting he explained that Staff assigned responsibility for the BPs to the staff member or Commission it thought should address the best practices. The ones that were assigned to the Commission were assigned to the work program. During that meeting he suggested the Commission consider if there are other action items it would like to have responsibility for completing and if the ones that have already been assigned to the Commission are appropriate. Commissioner Hasek took the conversation off topic and back to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study topic. He asked Director Nielsen how long it will take Nielsen to compile things for another discussion about it. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission needs to tell him what additional information it wants and what it wants to address. Hasek asked if it could be ready for the January 17, 2012, Commission meeting. Nielsen asked if it would be helpful to the Commission if he drafted an outline of changes he suggested be made to the Study earlier during this meeting. Hasek suggested a potential redevelopment of the Minnetonka County Club be discussed as part of this. After ensuing discussion between Commissioner Hasek and Director Nielsen about the Country Club property, Commissioner Arnst suggested this be tabled to a work session because this evening’s agenda is very full. She asked that the discussion return to this agenda item currently up for discussion. Commissioner Arnst asked if this evening the Planning Commission is to be reviewing what BP action items the Commission is responsible for and other items it may want to be involved with. She stated she is looking forward to seeing what the Ad Hoc Trail Committee identifies as best bike and pedestrian routes. That Committee is assigned a task to develop a map that shows them along with other things. Director Nielsen stated the Commission endorsed the Trail Plan developed by that Committee. Arnst asked if the map in the Trail Plan is that. Arnst explained in BP 12.(1).a states “Produce/distribute a map(s) and/or signage and/or a web site that shows (by neighborhood if a larger city) key civic/commercial sites, best bike and pedestrian routes, and transit routes and schedules.” She asked what that would be. Administrator Heck noted that is existing bike and trail routes. Heck explained it would be similar to the Three Rivers Park District’s bike and trail map. He stated the City doesn’t have a bike / pedestrian map because there are not very many bike or pedestrian trails in the City. It would be something that would be developed as part of a GreenStep Program BP action item. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 13 of 21 Commissioner Hasek stated the best practices document states the City will not pursue BP7 Higher Density at this time. He asked why. Director Nielsen explained the City’s Comprehensive Plan doesn’t call for high density housing in the City. The higher density the GreenStep Program is talking about is significantly higher than what the City would allow. The only density issue Staff suggests be looked at is the issue of senior housing as to whether or not the current regulations allow senior housing to be built. Administrator Heck explained another reason for saying certain BPs will not be pursued at this time is the intent to target the required BPs and required actions as the primary focus. Council Liaison Woodruff suggested the Planning Commission discuss whether or not the action items Staff assigned to the Commission are appropriate and if there are other action items the Commission should be involved with. He stated he understands that Staff is suggesting the focus be placed on the BPs and actions items that must be completed to be certified as a GreenStep city. He noted this is an ongoing process. Commissioner Hasek stated he agrees with the eight action items assigned to the Planning Commission. He commented that some time in the future he thought it would be necessary to discuss high density housing. Commissioner Hutchins stated action item 5(1) talks about adopting an historic preservation ordinance. He asked Director Nielsen if there are areas in the City where historic preservation will become an issue for the community. Nielsen responded he didn’t know. Nielsen stated there has been discussion in the past about creating a list of historic places in the City. Hutchins noted the City has an architectural historic ordinance. Hutchins asked if a redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area would be considered somewhat of a Minnesota Main Street model type of area which is referenced in action item 5(2). Nielsen stated he will research what the Minnesota Main Street model is. Nielsen explained the City doesn’t have a downtown area and the Smithtown Crossing area isn’t intended to be one. Chair Geng stated based on what’s been discussed he interprets it to mean the Planning Commission is satisfied with the action items it has been assigned with the exception of Commissioner Hutchins’s question about the Minnesota Main Street model. 4. REVISED ANIMAL REGULATIONS ORDINANCE Director Nielsen explained that during its November 1, 2011, meeting the Planning Commission discussed the third draft of an amendment of the City Code regarding animal regulations. In addition to making some minor formatting changes, Staff was asked to address the shelter and screening requirements for urban farm animals. The meeting packet contains a copy of the proposed changes made to the third draft. The changes have not been incorporated into a fourth draft yet to make it easier for the Commission to read. Commissioner Hutchins suggested Director Nielsen incorporate all of the changes recommended into the draft of the new Code Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals and email that Chapter to the Planning Commission. Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, explained he has a chicken coop on his property. He noted that Section 704.09 Subd. 2.b. states “The shelter structure and confinement areas shall be adequately screened to the satisfaction of neighboring property owners as provided in Section i.(2) of this subdivision.” He asked if a property owner would have to get written consent from their neighbors. Director Nielsen responded that the plans that would be submitted for a permit would have to be shown to the adjoining property owners and a percentage of them have to provide written consent for it. Mr. Dietz explained he has an existing structure that is purported to be a historic structure. They keep chickens in that structure. He asked if their existing structure for chickens would be grandfathered in. Nielsen CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 14 of 21 responded the proposed Code doesn’t provide for grandfathering in. Mr. Dietz would have to get a permit subject to the requirements of the Code. Nielsen noted the building would be grandfathered in. Mr. Dietz asked if any existing use has to be permitted. Nielsen responded yes under the proposed draft. Mr. Dietz stated from his vantage point it would be reasonable to grandfather in a property owner who has raised chickens for over 10 years. Note: There was some discussion that could not be heard because the microphones were either not on or not used. Commissioner Hasek stated he found it interesting that the Dietzs mentioned that other wild animals have harmed some of their chickens. Commissioner Arnst noted the Code allows for hens; therefore, the Dietzs would not have to get rid of their chickens. Director Nielsen explained a property owner could only have 4 chickens and the Dietzs have eight. Commissioner Davis explained the Dietzs have over 2.5 acres, and the Planning Commission has discussed adjusting the limit based on the size of the property. Nielsen noted that provision is not in the current draft. Davis stated the draft does not stipulate what percentage of the adjoining neighbors has to approve another neighbor’s plans for urban farm animals. Commissioner Hasek stated it stipulates 75 percent. Commissioner Hutchins asked Ms. Dietz if 75 percent of their neighbors would support them having the chickens. Ms. Dietz responded she thought they would. Ms. Dietz was not speaking into the microphone when making some comments. They could not be understood. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the document in this evening’s meeting packet contains provision Section 704.06 Subd. 1.f. which states “... such animal within 24 hours after death to a crematory, sanitary landfill, rendering factory or any other place approve by the Chief of Police or his designee.” He asked if the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Chief of Police is on board with being the contact place to find out where a person would cremate their dead chicken. Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t know that yet. He has not asked SLMPD Chief Litsey what his thoughts are. Nielsen explained it has been written from the beginning that the Chief of Police or their designee would be responsible for that. The code that language was taken from had a health officer taking that responsibility on; the City doesn’t have a health officer. Commissioner Arnst stated the draft Code states an urban farm animal must not be contained in the front yard. It’s her recollection that the Planning Commission defined it further than that. She commented trying to merge the separate versions together made it more difficult to get a clear picture of how the Code is going to read. Commissioner Davis stated when the Planning Commission first discussed the proposed Code Chapter 704 it talked about having the limit for the number of chickens be variable based on the size of the property. A property that is 2.5 acres in size is a large lot. From her vantage point it is not unreasonable to allow an owner of that size of a property, such as the Dietzs, to have 8 hens. She noted she thought the Dietzs should be grandfathered in. She stated the Commission has not discussed grandfathering residents in provided they are in compliance with everything in Chapter 704 and if they have adequate space. She noted she has explained that she has adequate property but if she wanted to have chickens they would have to be located too close to her neighbor’s property and therefore she couldn’t have them. She stated she did not think the Commission has considered the implications of lot configurations yet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 15 of 21 Commissioner Hasek stated upland properties 2.5 acres in size are one thing, but there are properties that are 5 acres in size that only have one-half acre of upland on the property. He suggested the ordinance include a requirement for the amount of upland there has to be on a property. Commissioner Davis noted that she has a neighbor who has 5 acres of upland who would like to have chickens. She stated if there are residents who have been raising chickens for a long time and if there haven’t been any complaints about them she doesn’t think they should have to end up running afoul of the proposed ordinance because they have 8 chickens. She then stated she thought a limit of 4 for a small city lot is fine. Commissioner Arnst stated the first time the Planning Commission discussed this proposed Code it noted there are lots in the City that may be too small for raising chickens. She noted the proposed Code Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals can not be completed this evening. Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commission what limit it wants to place on chickens. The limit it had agreed to is 4. Commissioner Davis asked if the limit could be 4 for a property up to 1 acre in size. Nielsen stated 704-09 Subd. 2.a. s states “An urban farm animal may only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property …” It has to be behind the house on the property and it has to meet the setback requirements. The rear yard setback varies by the zoning district the property is located in. The smallest rear yard setback is 30 feet. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the smallest side yard setback is 15 feet. Nielsen clarified it is 10 feet. Commissioner Arnst stated it is the 10-foot side yard setback that concerns her; the animal structure could be located too close to an abutting property line. Arnst stated if she is the only Commissioner with this concern she didn’t want to hold up the proposed Code amendment for only this. Commissioner Arnst reiterated Commissioner Hutchins’s request for the complete Code Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals to be emailed to the Planning Commission. Council Liaison Woodruff stated if the Planning Commission does want to consider a grandfather in provision he recommended the Commissioners think about what grandfathering livestock really means. He asked how the 8 chickens would be grandfathered in. He stated that from his vantage point deceased chickens couldn’t be replaced if the number exceeded 4. Commissioner Hasek agreed that the current chickens would be grandfathered in; not replacement chickens. Commissioner Arnst stated 8 chickens may be allowable on a 2.5 acre property once the Commission has finished its discussion on this proposed code. Director Nielsen stated he will send the Planning Commission the complete draft Code and he asked them, as well as himself, to think about options. Commissioner Hasek stated he would like to know if other municipal ordinances allow for more than 4 chickens and if so what the stipulations, such as property size, are. There was ensuing discussion about number of chickens and what, if any, limits the guest speaker on urban farming during the Planning Commission’s October 18, 2011, meeting recommended. Administrator Heck recommended the limit on the number of chickens allowed be based on property size. The larger the area the more chickens a resident can have. He stated that would be better then creating different levels of licensure. Director Nielsen noted that the guest speaker who spoke on urban farming stated he thought 4 chickens per acre is reasonable. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 16 of 21 Commissioner Davis explained that the number of eggs a hen lays is based upon the amount of sunlight they have. Unless their structure is lighted on the inside they lay fewer eggs during winter months. There was ensuing discussion about setbacks and restrictions for locating structures. Commissioner Hutchins commented the guest speaker related that people tend to put their structures close to their homes for easier access to the chickens. Director Nielsen read provision 704-09 Subd. 2.i.2. which states “The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of this chapter shall provide with the application the written consent of 75 percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure. Where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street. Where a property within 150 feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need only obtain the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building.” Council Liaison Woodruff stated the City Council asked the Planning Commission to address this because the City didn’t have any regulations for this. He cautioned the Commission against trying to address every possibility because it could end up spending time on things that may never become an issue. The Commission should evaluate if what there is or will be after making changes discussed this evening is “good enough”. 5. REVIEW DRAFT MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSE ORDINANCE Commissioner Hutchins stated City Code Chapter 311 Therapeutic Massage Licensing 311.03 Subd. 1.b. states “Information on other names the applicant, partners, or officers have used or by which they have been known.” He asked if that only relates to other businesses they have been involved in or known as personally. He questioned if it should be their personal aliases as well as other businesses. Section 311.05 General Conditions of License Subd. 1.c. states “Maintain necessary records on the premises documenting the training and certification of each therapist pursuant to section 311.06 of this chapter.” He asked if employment should be included in that statement because employment records are referred to in Subd. 2 of that Section but it doesn’t state what employment records are asked for. Director Nielsen explained that in Subd. 1.c. it referred to employment training records at the company they are currently employed at. Hutchins stated in Subd. 1.c. employment could be inserted between maintain and necessary. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he took Commissioner Hutchins’s recommendation to mean information would be maintained on an employee’s home address, phone number and date of employment and so forth. Director Nielsen stated that means contact information. Woodruff then stated in 311.02 Definitions the definition of massage therapy business states “… or other institution for the hospitalization or care of other human beings …”. He suggested removing the word other from that sentence. In 311.05 Subd. 2 Access to Records states “The owner or general manager of the facility must be present during business hours …” He stated he doesn’t think the City wants to require them to be present. That would be telling them how to run their business. There needs to be someone who can authorize the access to records. Commissioner Garelick asked if Staff has talked to any massage therapy business owners or general managers. Director Nielsen stated this is in response to a business owner who employs quite a few CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 17 of 21 therapists to provide massage services at his location who expressed concern to the City about what it costs the therapists to get an individual license. Chair Geng stated with regard to employment records he asked what if it isn’t an employer/employee relationship. For example, there is a manager of a massage facility and all of the therapists are independent contractors. He suggested Section 311.05 Subd. 1.c. be modified to say “… records on the premises documenting the training, certification and contact information for each therapist …” Commissioner Charbonnet suggested Section 311.05 Subd. 2 be modified to say “… allow city inspection staff access to documentation in order to verify compliance with this section.” Commissioner Arnst stated the Knewtson Health Group in Shorewood has chiropractors, chiropractor assistants, physical therapists, massage therapists and other types of skilled professionals working there. The only workers this ordinance is regulating in that office are the massage therapists. Administrator Heck stated this ordinance excludes massage therapists who work in connection with a chiropractic office. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the definition for a massage therapy business specifically excludes “…a hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing home, boarding home, or other institution for the hospitalization …”. He questioned if chiropractic offices and other medical professionals should also be excluded in the definition. Heck stated massage therapists who works in a chiropractic office would not be subject to this ordinance. This applies to a business that only provides massage therapy services; they are not connected with any type of medical practice. Council Liaison Woodruff stated the definition of massage therapist states “A person, other than a person licensed as a medical doctor, chiropractor, osteopath, podiatrist, licensed nurse …”. A massage therapist working in a chiropractor’s office who is not a licensed chiropractor would not be included in the City’s licensing requirements at all. Administrator Heck noted that under the proposed ordinance only the massage therapy business has to be licensed. Woodruff stated there could be a hole in the ordinance. Woodruff then stated he has a strong belief that any medical professional would not allow a massage therapist to operate in an inappropriate manner at their practice. Commissioner Hutchins stated Section 311.08 License Restrictions and Regulations Subd. 1. Display License states “Display current licenses in a prominent place at their place of employment;” He asked if it should say place of business. Director Nielsen responded it should. Hutchins then stated Section 311.08 Subd. 2. states “Upon demand of any police officer or Shorewood inspections staff at the place of employment, produce correct identification;”. Hutchins asked what the correct identification is. Is it a driver’s license? Nielsen stated that not everyone has a driver’s license. It would be some type of personal identification card. Nielsen noted place of employment will be changed to place of business in 311.08 Subd. 2. Council Liaison Woodruff stated he thought there are few licensed massage therapy businesses in the City today. He noted that Commissioner Garelick had asked earlier if any of those business owners or managers had been provided the opportunity to comment on this ordinance amendment. He supported asking for that feedback once the ordinance does not include both the original and changed language. He stated it’s not the City’s intent to do anything onerous to them. Commissioner Garelick asked what a minimum of 500 hours of class credits signifies in the definition of massage therapist. Director Nielsen stated that seems to be the standard, it is in the current City Code and massage therapy schools seem to support it. Commissioner Hutchins asked what the next step is for this Code amendment. Director Nielsen stated he will revise the amendment based on this discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 18 of 21 6. DISCUSS LIFE-SYCLE HOUSING Commissioner Davis stated the topic of life-cycle housing should be a work session topic all of its own. There is too much information to discuss this evening. Director Nielsen stated there are many facets to life-cycle housing. Commissioner Arnst stated that Director Nielsen had mentioned that he may have census data available for this meeting. She noted she didn’t find any in the information in the meeting packet on this topic. Commissioner Arnst asked the Planning Commissioners what they wanted to do about this topic. Director Nielsen stated the background information in the meeting packet is needed to at a minimum explain why the Planning Commission is even talking about this at all. Commissioner Arnst expressed interest in discussing accessory apartments some time as part of life-cycle housing discussion, particularly in light of the current economy. She commented that Presbyterian Homes does a good job with assisted living. She questioned if that is something that the City needs to focus on. She stated she thought there is something in between leaving your home as you age and moving into assisted living. She clarified she is not saying she wants to discuss this at 9:59 P.M. this evening. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought accessory apartments fit into a sustainable community. Commissioner Hutchins noted that a trend over the last 5 – 10 years has been to convert single family housing, especially lower levels, into what used to be called “mother-in-law residences” but is now for transitional housing. Senior family members are willing to sell their homes to their children and in return those children would prepare an apartment for their parents in the lower level of the home. There is a lot of that type of conversion of residential property occurring. Commissioner Arnst stated she thought it makes great sense to do that. Commissioner Arnst stated during a recent Council meeting the City’s representative on the Minnetonka Communication Education Advisory Council explained that the Minnetonka School District area has lost 20 percent of its population in the last 10 years according to the recent census data. That figure is shocking to her. She suspects a lot of the loss is because residents’ children who grew up in the City moved away because they couldn’t afford to live in the City. Life-cycle housing is about aging in place. Commissioner Hutchins stated life-cycle housing is on the draft 2012 Planning Commission work program. He then stated in a community like the City’s where there is not as much as is desired in senior housing people may want to have more of it in the City but they don’t want it to be located in their neighborhood. That creates an issue when the City is so well developed. There was consensus to defer conversation on life-cycle housing to 2012. Director Nielsen asked if there is any interest in having someone come and talk to the Planning Commission about senior housing. Commissioner Hasek stated if there is going to be discussion about that it should be not only about the need for it. It should also be about how it would work for Shorewood. Any person would have to know something about the City and its demographics. Commissioner Hutchins stated residents in the community want to age in place. They don’t want to go to assisted living residences or to nursing homes or other care facilities. They want to live out their lives in their homes. He questioned what this would mean to Shorewood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 19 of 21 Director Nielsen stated aging in place also includes finding a way for those who can’t remain in their current living situation to remain in their community. Commissioner Hutchins stated with the aging society home renovators are finding retrofitting opportunities. He then stated it’s becoming more difficult to run a health care center on a profitable basis because of reimbursement levels. There are people in this community who have the financial wherewithal to get the services needed and have renovations made that will allow them to live out their life in their homes. Director Nielsen suggested when this is discussed again in a 2012 work session the first discussion should be about accessory apartments. 7. DISCUSS CELLULAR ANTENNAE ON WATER TOWERS Director Nielsen explained that earlier this year the Planning Commission recommended Council approve additional antennas for the top of the Southeast Area Water Tower. At the end of the Commission’s discussion about that request a question arose about how much room there is remaining on the City’s two water towers for additional antennas. Per Public Works Director Brown, the only capacity issue that currently exists is on the top of the Southeast Area Tower. In addition to the number of antennas on that Tower, the cabling for the current antennas located on the Tower has started to encroach on the access path for personnel to get to the top of that Tower. Commissioner Garelick asked if the antennas are mainly for the community or is the space leased out to private enterprises. Director Nielsen responded they serve the community, but they are not just primarily for the community. Garelick then asked if leasing the space out generates income for the City. Nielsen responded it does. Garelick went on to ask what the lease rate is. Nielsen explained the City divides the towers into what it calls vertical real estate (i.e., 20-foot sections). The going rate at this time is $18,000 per year. A carrier can start out with 6 antennas and go up to 9 antennas. To date 4 – 6 antennas are the most any carrier has up. If each carrier were to put up the maximum number of antennas they are allowed to put up space could start to become an issue for new carriers. Council Liaison Woodruff stated in 2010 the City received almost $150,000 in antenna space rental revenue. That revenue used to be put in the Water Fund. In 2012 $40,000 of that will be put in the General Fund with the remainder being put in the Water Fund. Council can redirect where that money will be put. He explained the Water Fund is an enterprise operation the City runs to provide municipal water service to some areas in the City. It is one of 5 enterprise operations the City runs. 8. DISCUSS WORK PROGRAM FOR 2012 Director Nielsen stated that because it was 10:15 P.M. he asked if the Planning Commissioners would like to email him what they thought the priorities should be for the Commission’s 2012 work program. The meeting packet contains a copy of a memorandum authored by him listing the items the Commission accomplished in 2011 and 13 potential topics for the 2012 work program. Commissioner Hasek stated the 8 action items assigned to the Planning Commission on the GreenStep Cities Program Best Practices should be added to the 2012 work program. So should the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, Massage Therapy Licensing ordinance amendment, completion of the Farm and Other Animals ordinance amendment, and a discussion about life-cycle housing. Council Liaison Woodruff stated that in 2010 the Planning Commission considered zoning permits and their recommendation went to the City Council for consideration. The Council chose not to adopt the permit recommendation. He questioned why the Commissioners would want to take that on again unless CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 20 of 21 they think Council will change its mind or they feel they can make a more compelling case for Council to consider. Director Nielsen stated he thought the Commission recommended not moving forward with zoning permits. Administrator Heck agreed with that. Woodruff confidently stated he remembered Council deciding not to implement zoning permits. Commissioner Hasek asked if a majority of the Councilmembers disapproved of having zoning permits. Woodruff responded yes, noting he didn’t recall if there was any dissention. Woodruff noted there are two different people on this Council than in 2010. There were no other additions made to the 2012 work program this evening. Director Nielsen stated he would like to provide the Planning Commission with a 2012 work program before its January 17, 2012, meeting. He asked the Commissioners to send him their prioritized list by the end of December 2011. Commissioner Arnst suggested Director Nielsen email the Commissioners the potential list of 2012 work program topics and ask them to add to it and prioritize it by some date. Commissioner Hasek stated if Commissioners are going to add to the list he suggested they email their additions to all of the Commissioners as well as Nielsen. 9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 10. OLD BUSINESS Director Nielsen reported that the trimming of brush at the Shady Hills Road intersection has been completed. The City has received a complaint about a deer feeding site. The site didn’t look like it was actively in use, but City Staff will continue to monitor it. At the area of the Eureka Road and Mann Lane intersection there were lilacs obstructing the view. The City doesn’t have much right-of-way at that intersection. The property owners will be sent a notification telling them they have to maintain the site triangle at the intersection. There was a question about clearing cattails at the Mann Lane and Seamans Drive intersection. Clearing them was not a violation. One more deer was harvested this past weekend bringing the total to 32. 11. NEW BUSINESS None. 12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The agenda for the next Planning Commission was not drafted. 13. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the November 28, 2011, Regular City Council meeting and the December 5, 2011, City Council Special Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). • SLUC No report was given. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 6, 2011 Page 21 of 21 • Other None. 14. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of December 6, 2011, at 10:25 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF MI W:j►1411 0y TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 January 2012 RE: Zoning Code Amendment — Allowable Front Yard Encroachments FILE NO. Zoning Code (1201.03 Subd. 3) Last November the City denied a variance request involving an entry structure encroaching into a front yard setback. Although that application failed to meet the standards for a variance, the applicants raised some issues that resulted in direction from the Planning Commission and City Council to review what types of structures may be allowed within the front yard setback area. As you are aware, the Shorewood Zoning Code (Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) allows single - and two family homes and townhomes built prior to 19 May 1986 to construct a six -foot wide entry enclosure that encroaches as much as four feet into the required front yard. The intent of that provision was to allow an energy saving airlock at the front entry to the home. The Code goes on to allow terraces, steps, stoops and similar (ground level) features to encroach 4.5 feet into the front yard setback. It also specifically prohibits porches and balconies from the same exception. The arguments raised by the variance applicants included a desire to have a structure leading to the entryway that would allow people, especially elderly visitors, entering the building to stand out of the rain as they wait to enter. In discussing this, a consensus of the Planning Commission agreed that some sort of amendment was in order to provide for this type of feature, but that the issue of encroachment must be addressed cautiously. In reviewing our Code against those of other cities, one of the first suggestions staff makes is to better define what it is we are allowing to encroach. The feature to which people appear to be sympathetic is best described /defined as a "portico ". Following is a proposed definition derived from several dictionary sources: "Portico — A covered walkway in the form of a roof supported by columns or pillars, usually attached to a building, and leading to an entrance of the building." # f j % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 13 January 2012 RE: Massage Therapy Ordinance Amendment — Second Draft FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 311) Attached is the second draft of the massage therapy ordinance, including revisions suggested by the Commission at its 6 December meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Laura Hotvet ®* 1P®1{ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER