Loading...
02-08-12 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD WEDNESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE CHARBONNET (Open) ______ GARELICK (Mar) ______ DAVIS (Feb) ______ ARNST (Open) ______ GENG (Jan) ______ HASEK (Open) ______ HUTCHINS (Apr) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17 January 2012  1. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – CHRISTMAS LAKE ESTATES (continued from 17 January 2012) Applicant: Eric Zehnder Location: 6040 Christmas Lake Road 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AND LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT Applicant: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon Location: 28170 / 28180 Woodside Road 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) 4. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 5. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – LIFE CYCLE HOUSING 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 8 February 2012 Page 2 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet Absent: Commissioner Arnst APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for January 17, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  December 6, 2011 Hasek moved, Charbonnet seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2011, as amended in Item 6 to change the name of the item to “DISCUSS LIFE- CYCLE HOUSING”. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – CHRISTMAS LAKE ESTATES Applicant: Eric Zehnder Location: 6040 Christmas Lake Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a January 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Eric Zehnder, Zehnder Homes, Inc., has arranged to purchase approximately 3.5 acres of land at 6040 Christmas Lake Road. The developer proposes to remove the existing house on the property and plat it into three single-family residential lots. The house is served by a long driveway off of Christmas Lake Road. Nielsen explained the property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential, as is all of the property surrounding it. Approximately the easterly one-third of the site lies within the “S”, Shoreland District. The Shoreland District has a lower hardcover percentage; 25 percent versus 30 percent. The center of the site consists of wetland and the easterly side of the site is relatively open. Two of the proposed lots will front Christmas Lake Road. The westerly lot will be accessed by Christmas Lane. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 2 of 14 With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated all three proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum size requirements for the R-1A zoning district which are 40,000 square feet in area, 120 feet in width and 150 feet in depth. They lots range in size from 40,922 to 66,625 square feet and average 49,687 square feet. All of the lots are buildable. The houses shown on the drawings are for illustrative purposes; they are intended to show how a house would fit on each site. Nielsen explained the wetland / buffer setback exhibit shows a wetland buffer setback on Lot 2 that is less than what the City Code requires. The developer’s consultants have based the buffer and setback on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements. The MCWD’s requirements can be less than the City’s depending on the wetland. The City Code does not allow for buffer averaging. The plat must comply with the 35-foot natural buffer and the 15-foot setback from the buffer requirements. Nielsen stated the illustrative style of house shown on Lot 2 probably won’t work. It is a garage forward design and the building is relatively deep. The house on that lot will have to be a little longer and shallower. The developer must also leave enough room at the rear of the house for patios and decks. Lot 1 still has plenty of depth to accommodate a building site. Nielsen explained the proposed plat takes advantage of existing streets. Both Christmas Lane and Christmas Lake Road are substandard with respect to right-of-way (ROW) width. Code requires 50 feet. The ROW on Christmas Lake Road is 49.5 wide and therefore needs only one-half foot of dedication. The ROW on Christmas Lane is only 33 feet wide. Staff suggests that only one-half of the deficiency (8.5 feet) come off of this property. The other half would come off the property to the south of Christmas Lane when/if it is developed further. With regard to grading, Nielsen explained the City Engineer has looked at the plat. The developer has provided a proposed grading plan for the three building sites. It shows elevated home sites, especially for Lots 1 and 2. The proposed house on Lot 3 is located very close to where the current house is located. The grading plan indicates the proposed houses will be walkout designs. Staff is confident that the sites are buildable at minimum with a slab on grade. Staff does not have enough information to determine if walkout designs will be acceptable. The City Engineer has asked for the stormwater calculations for the wetland area and water table information to determine what the low-floor elevation can be. That will not be provided until the final grading plan is submitted with the final plat. The applicant has been asked to submit a cut and fill plan/calculation as part of the final plat submission. If the fill amount exceeds 300 cubic yards total the applicant will have to apply for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the fill prior to bringing it on to the sites. The applicant intends to bring the fill on to each site as it is developed. They don’t intend to do plat grading in advance. The City Engineer doesn’t have any problem with that provided it complies with the approved grading plan. The driveway for the existing house will eventually be removed and the culvert under the driveway will be replaced by a drainage swale. Rather than do that work as part of the plat, the developer proposes to do it in conjunction with house construction. Nielsen stated the property owner to the south has expressed concern about the potential for water to backup on to their property as a result of this plat. After a preliminary look the City Engineer thinks the water would have to go up six feet to get back to the culvert. The water would likely end up somewhere other than the adjacent property. Staff will know more about that when the stormwater calculations are submitted with the final plat. The removal of the driveway and reconnection of the two wetland basins is viewed as a positive improvement to site drainage. Erosion control will be addressed in conjunction with house construction on the lots. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 3 of 14 Nielsen explained sanitary sewer exists on three sides of the subject property. The existing home is served by a stub on Christmas Lake Road. This will undoubtedly change upon removal of the existing driveway. As part of the final plat, the developer must demonstrate how sewer service will be provided to Lot 3. Prior to release of the final plat the developer must pay local sanitary sewer access charges in the amount of $2400 ($1200 per lot). Credit is allowed for the existing house on the property. Nielsen noted the City does not have municipal water service available to this area. The lots will be served by private wells. Nielsen explained the City’s Code requires the developer to pay $5000 per new lot for park dedication fees. Credit is allowed for the existing house. Therefore, the total park dedication requirement is $10,000. Nielsen noted most of the trees are located along the westerly and northerly boundaries and there are some trees scattered throughout the property. There is no street or utility construction involved with the plat itself. Therefore, no trees will be removed until construction of the houses starts on the lots. He stated Staff recommends preservation and restoration be addressed with individual building permits. Each permit application will show what trees exist on the site, which ones will be protected and which will be removed. Removed trees will have to be replaced according to the City’s preservation and reforestation policy Nielsen also noted that the developer is not proposing street lights. Any such request would have to be made by future property owners. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approval of the Christmas Lake Estates preliminary plat subject to the following conditions. 1. The final grading plan to be submitted with the final plat should include the following. a. Cut and fill calculations indicating how much, if any, fill will be required to be brought in. The developer is hereby advised that any more than 100 cubic yards of material per lot to be imported will require a conditional use permit. b. Storm water runoff calculations must be submitted in order to confirm what type of building design will be allowed and to determine if any type of on-site ponding will be required. It’s unlikely any ponding will be required. c. The wetland buffer and setback should be revised on the preliminary plat and grading plan to reflect Shorewood’s requirements. d. The grading plan should be revised to show an illustrative house plan with less depth, allowing adequate space for decks and patios. e. The final plat should include a provision stating that the existing driveway to Lot 3 will be removed upon construction of a house on Lot 2 or demolition of the house on Lot 3, whichever comes first. 2. The utility plan should indicate how Lot 3 will be served by sanitary sewer. 3. Prior to final plat release, the developer must pay $2400 in local sanitary sewer access charges. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 4 of 14 4. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer must pay $10,000 in park dedication fees. 5. Tree preservation and reforestation will be addressed with individual building permits. Eric Zehnder, President of Zehnder Homes, Inc., stated Director Nielsen summed things up pretty well and that he is willing to answer any questions the Planning Commission has. He explained the houses that will be built on the sites will be mid to upper price point houses. They will be consistent with the houses in the area. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Lynn Powers, 6075 Brand Circle, stated her and her husband’s property is adjacent to the subject property. She asked what the anticipated value of the new houses will be. Mr. Zehnder stated he anticipates the minimum price (the base price) to be around $600,000. Mr. Zehnder noted he is a custom home builder so it is likely they will sell for more than that. Ms. Powers stated she and her husband don’t think the proposed subdivision will cause more of a problem with stormwater runoff. She noted they currently have a problem between their property and the King’s property. The stormwater flows off of the highway and pools in the driveway and at the bottom of Brand Circle. She stated they don’t want that problem to be exacerbated. She asked if there is any anticipated impact on the water table by the draw down from the three new wells. Director Nielsen clarified there will only be two new wells; there already is one. He explained the question about the impact of new wells on the water table basically comes up with each new plat. There hasn’t been any problem to date because of draw down by new wells. New wells go relatively deep. The only problem there has been is with older, shallower wells independent of whether or not new houses are built. He explained that with regard to the stormwater runoff problem at Brand Circle the subject property drains entirely to the wetland on the property and ultimately to the north. The new sites will also drain to that wetland. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any impact on the property to the west. He stated he will mention the pooling issue on Brand Circle to the City Engineer. Nancy Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, stated her and her husband Rodney’s property is located to the south of the subject property. She noted they sent a letter to the City earlier in the day asking a couple of questions. She asked what the proposed three houses with foundations and the three driveways on to the new sites do to the wetland. Director Nielsen responded the only effect this plat will have on the wetland will be to help restore it. He explained the current driveway somewhat dams up the stormwater. When that driveway is removed the stormwater flow will be restored going to the north. The new houses will be 50 feet away from the edge of the wetland. There is a 35-foot buffer plus a 15-foot setback. Once the old driveway is removed there will be a large drainage swale to help the stormwater flow to the north. Ms. Peterson asked what the value of the new houses will be, and if the new three sites have been sold or are they spec homes. Commissioner Hasek stated Mr. Zehnder stated the base price will start at around $600,000 and no building permits have been issued as of yet. In response to another question from Ms. Peterson, Mr. Zehnder stated that price includes the lot. Mr. Zehnder explained the priced of the lots are anticipated to cost $175,000 – $225,000. He noted if none of the lots are sold right away the plan is to build one spec house on Lot 1 and hopefully pre sell the other two. Ms. Peterson stated there is quite a slope going down from the road to the wetland. She asked how much fill will be put in there and what kind will it be. Mr. Zehnder responded the final grading plan has not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 5 of 14 been developed yet. Mr. Zehnder noted he hires an engineering firm to develop the final grading plan for him. He noted the soils will be consistent with what is on the property. David Pemberton, a land surveyor with Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. (an engineering and land surveyor firm Mr. Zehnder has contracted with), explained the preliminary grading plan indicates on Lot 1 a garage floor elevation of 962 and the current elevation out at the street is 965. Ms. Peterson commented that the garage is close to the road. Mr. Pemberton explained if the houses are allowed to be a walkout design the basement floor will be at 953.66. The wetland elevation out in the back yard is about 951.5. Mr. Pemberton then explained the amount of fill required for each new site will vary based on the size of the house and basement (how much is taken out to put the footings in). He also explained the drainage will flow around the house and down to the wetland following a pattern similar to what occurs today with the exception it will flow around the house. Director Nielsen stated he spoke with Bob Molstad, an engineer with Sathre-Bergquist, the previous week who indicated the intent is to balance the cut and fill on the properties to the extent possible. He commented that is always a developer’s intent. The plan is to take the material that is excavated for the foundations and use it to fill around the house and achieve the grades Mr. Pemberton spoke of. If the excavated material isn’t sufficient to accomplish that some additional fill may have to be brought in. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the 100 cubic yards of fill per lot referenced earlier is imported material. Mr. Peterson asked if there is a guarantee that there will be no change in the drainage from the three new houses on to her property. Director Nielsen responded the City will not guarantee that. It will guarantee the City Engineer will look at the design criterion a developer is charged with accommodating to make sure the plat is designed to that standard which is two back-to-back 100-year storms. He noted if a 500- year storm comes along there will be a change in the stormwater flow. Ms. Peterson asked what her and her husband’s recourse would be if there is a change. Director Nielsen stated with an event change (e.g. a 500-year storm) there wouldn’t be any recourse. Ms. Peterson then asked Director Nielsen to explain the reason for taking property on the south side of Christmas Lane for the ROW. Director Nielsen explained when and if her property is developed further (i.e., subdivided) 8.5 feet would be taken for Christmas Lane ROW. Nielsen noted the City’s subdivision requires that. He explained the Peterson’s, or a new owner of their property, would be subject to the same requirements as the Christmas Lake Estates are if the Peterson property were to be subdivided. He also explained if the Peterson property were already subdivided into lots and was not subject to any additional development potential later on the entire ROW deficiency would have been taken off the property on the north side of Christmas Lane (the subject parcel). If the Peterson property is never subdivided the City will never get the remaining 8.5 feet of ROW it wants. Ms. Peterson asked to see a copy of the City Ordinance relating to this. Nielsen noted it is Subdivision 1202 in the City Code. Rodney Peterson, 21355 Christmas Lane, stated he and his wife have discussed this quite thoroughly. He asked if a proposed driveway will encroach into the wetland area. Chair Geng stated the proposed driveway does encroach on the wetland setback. Director Nielsen explained the City Ordinance does allow encroachment into the wetland setback by driveways where it is necessary. But, Staff doesn’t think that is necessary in this case and recommends the driveway be moved out of the 15-foot wide setback. Doing that will affect one tree located approximately midway up the driveway. The question becomes wetland setback or tree and Staff recommends planting a reforestation tree or two rather than encroaching into the wetland setback. Mr. Peterson asked if there is room to move the driveway out. Nielsen CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 6 of 14 responded there is. Mr. Peterson asked how far the driveway needs to be from the property line. Nielsen responded five feet. Mr. Peterson asked how the stormwater is going to drain and not come on to their property when the elevation level on the new lot is increased. Chair Geng clarified that Mr. Peterson’s is talking about the western boundary of the proposed Lot 3 and the construction of the driveway from Christmas Lane north to the proposed building site on Lot 3. Geng explained the water currently naturally flows from west to east to the wetland and Mr. Peterson is concerned that the proposed north/south driveway on Lot 3 may somehow change that natural drainage pattern. It was clarified the elevation of the area where the new driveway will go is not going to be raised. Mr. Peterson suggested the area for the driveway be raised somewhat because it currently gets pretty wet in that area. Ms. Peterson asked if this has already been decided. Chair Geng explained this evening the Planning Commission is considering an application for a preliminary plat for the redevelopment of the property located at 6040 Christmas Lake Road. He noted that the Planning Commission is just an advisory board. It only makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will consider this matter at its January 23, 2012, meeting. Council will decide whether or not to approve the preliminary plat. Mark Themig, 21780 Lilac Lane, stated he does not own an adjacent property but he does live in the neighborhood. He noted he walks around the neighborhood quite a bit. He stated he thought the developer’s plans to build upscale homes fits well with the neighborhood. He commented that he hopes the apple trees are saved. He explained that he tried to do a project in the City two years ago and he had to request variances to make some things happen. Unfortunately, the City was adamant about following its rules and guidelines. Based on his experience, he believes the Planning Commission will ensure the developer doesn’t inadvertently impact the Peterson’s property. And, he also believes the developer will do the right thing based on what he heard this evening. He stated he thought what is proposed will be a great addition to the neighborhood and raise the tax base. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Davis asked the surveyor (Mr. Pemberton) if the contours on the grading plan are survey contours or city topography. Mr. Pemberton responded it’s a combination of both. Davis then asked how far beyond the boundary of the property was surveyed. Mr. Pemberton responded that on the east side all of Mr. Fayfield’s property was surveyed. On the west there was some overlap. Davis also asked the Peterson’s if they have any drainage problems currently. Ms. Peterson responded there is a swale today. Mr. Pemberton explained they surveyed toward the Peterson property and tied things together after locating a couple of the Peterson property corners. Mr. Pemberton noted they did locate the culvert that goes from the Peterson property north to the subject property. Commissioner Hutchins stated that when looking at the drainage plan it appears the land to the north of the subject property is also staked. He asked Director Nielsen if he is aware of any development plans for that piece of property. He then asked if the impact of the additional drainage, due to the increased hardcover, on the large wetland in the middle of the subject property and the small wetland on the northerly edge of the property was considered. Director Nielsen noted that normally the property downstream is the main concern, but upstream is also considered. Nielsen explained that when the City Engineer receives the stormwater calculations for the wetland area he can assess the impacts thoroughly. He then explained that the rate of runoff after development can not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development. If the stormwater calculations indicate that rate of stormwater leaving the site will be faster CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 7 of 14 than what exists today the developer will have to install some type of retention pond to hold the stormwater for a period of time and control the rate of runoff. The same thing holds true if the stormwater is backing up. Chair Geng asked if in general a retention pond could be created in a wetland buffer. Director Nielsen responded it could. Commissioner Hasek asked if there is a list of the surveyed trees on the subject property. Commissioner Davis noted they are indicated on the tree survey included in the meeting packet. Hasek commented that the plum tree on the subject property has not been pruned in a long time and is not worth keeping. Therefore the driveway can be moved to the west and that tree sacrificed. Hasek stated that tree #1501 is a walnut tree not an ash tree. He recommended leaving the walnut tree on the property if possible. Hasek then asked if decks are allowed in wetland buffers. Nielsen responded they are not. Hasek went on to ask how far above flood elevation a basement walkout has to be. Nielsen stated he thought it is 3 feet, but he is not totally sure of that. Hasek stated if that is true he suggested that after the current driveway is removed the City Engineer may want to encourage the developer to lower the area slightly because the area of that elevation will be close to the basement elevation on Lot 2. Hasek then asked about the fire lane trail from Brand Circle to Christmas Lane. Director Nielsen explained that street used to go through. The neighbors petitioned to have it closed off. The City decided to install a cul-de-sac (which the residents paid for) and closed off the thru street leaving it as fire access only. Hasek commented that the ROW for Brand Circle is only 40 feet wide. Hasek asked if the small segment of trail is reflected on the trail map in the Trail Plan. Nielsen stated the map doesn’t show a trail on Christmas Lake Road or Christmas Lane. Nielsen noted that trail segment is counted as an on-street trail. Commissioner Davis stated she would like the plat drawing to reflect more appropriate house footprints based on what has been discussed this evening. She also wanted the drawings to reflect the driveway being moved out of the wetland setback and the tree removed. She also wanted clarifications included about not allowing decks and porches in wetland setbacks. Commissioner Hasek agreed. Mr. Zehnder stated that he spoke with Director Nielsen the previous week about the City not allowing wetland averaging. He noted he is fully aware a different style of home will have to be built on Lot 2 than what is currently illustrated. He stated a shallower home will be built instead; one that allows the homeowner to put a deck or porch on the rear of the house. He then stated the same house will not be constructed on all three lots. Hasek moved, continuing the Public Hearing for the preliminary plat for Eric Zehnder for the property located at 6040 Christmas Lake Road to the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. Chair Geng asked if there are any concerns regarding the 60-day rule with regard to this request. Director Nielsen responded the City will have to give notice to the applicant that it will not be able to satisfy the 60-day rule for acting on this request. The notice can extend the time to 120 days. Chair Geng asked Mr. Zehnder what the impact would be to him if Council action on this item is delayed until mid to late February 2012. Mr. Zehnder stated once Council approves the preliminary plat is it considered an approved plat. Director Nielsen stated if Council wants to approve the preliminary plat Staff will ask Council to direct Staff to draft a resolution which stipulates all of the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. As a practical matter once Council approves the preliminary plat it is approved. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Zehnder stated if he received approval in February it is not an issue because nothing will start until April anyway. Davis seconded. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:07 P.M. Per Mr. Peterson’s request, Director Nielsen explained what stormwater runoff means. Nielsen noted stormwater runoff calculations are discussed as part of the final plat consideration. He explained the stormwater calculations and the final grading plan are submitted as part of the final plat consideration. Council takes action on both the preliminary and final plat. 2. DISCUSSION – ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALLOWABLE FRONT YARD ENCROACHMENTS Director Nielsen explained that during its November 28, 2011, meeting Council discussed a variance request involving an entry structure encroaching into a front yard setback. The applicants withdrew their variance application at the end of that discussion. He noted the Planning Commission had recommended denying the request because it didn’t meet the standards for granting a variance. He explained the applicants raised some issues with regard to older homes and how entry features are treated. Those issues generated consensus among the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers to review the Zoning Code (the Code) to determine what, if any, change should be made in terms of allowable encroachments in the front yard setback area. He noted Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) already allows small entries to be added on and encroach into the setback area up to four feet in order to create an energy airlock. There had been some agreement that the proposed covered walkway to the entry feature had some merit. The applicants were trying to make the entrance to their home more easily accessible by the disabled and elderly. Nielsen then explained that Staff was directed to review the Code and make amendment recommendations. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of Staff’s recommendations. He reviewed the recommendations which are as follows. 1. Add the definition of portico to the definitions section of the Code. “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.” 2. Define what is allowed for a portico, making it consistent with provision in 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) for the airlock feature. a. The portico can be wider than four feet but can only encroach into the front yard setback four feet. b. The length of the portico can not be longer than 25 percent of the width of silhouette of the building, excluding eaves and including the garage, as viewed from the street. c. This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at last 60 percent open. d. Ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. (The current Code does not have a provision for ramp systems that rise above grade to encroach into the front yard setback.) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 9 of 14 Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.c.(2) states “A one story enclosed entrance for a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling, existing prior to adoption of this chapter, may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width.” Nielsen noted Staff recommends amending Subd. 3.c(2) to read as follows. “(2) For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling in any residential zoning district, ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. For a detached single-family, two-family or townhouse dwelling constructed prior to 19 May 1986: (a) A one story enclosed entrance may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance shall not exceed six feet in width. (b) A one story open portico may extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet, provided: (i) The length of the portico shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the width of the silhouette of the building, excluding eaves, as viewed from the street; and (ii) This area shall not be enclosed nor screened with mesh, glass, or other similar material, except for guardrails no higher than 42 inches and at least 60 percent open.” Chair Geng stated he thought the solution proposed by Director Nielsen is very good. The solution is simple and it can be easily monitored. He thought this could prove helpful for older homes. He noted in the neighborhood where the above referenced applicants live many of the houses are built close to the street. Commissioner Hasek stated he absolutely agrees with the handicapped access addition. He questioned if it should be temporary. Director Nielsen responded there is no such thing as temporary. Nielsen stated there is no good way to know when there is no longer a need for access for disabled individuals. Nielsen explained if the City knows the need is temporary (e.g., 1 – 3 years) the City can require a letter of credit and stipulate when a certain condition occurs the property owner has to do something or the City will do it for them and use the letter of credit. When the need is for say 5 – 10 years it becomes extremely difficult to enforce. Nielsen stated that when there is no longer a need for disabled access devices people tend to take them down. There was ensuing discussion between Commissioner Hasek and Director Nielsen about what type of disabled access devices are allowable under the proposed amendment. Commissioner Hasek questioned if the 25 percent restriction for the length of the portico may be too small. He suggested the restriction be 50 percent noting he did not think there would ever be a need to exceed that. Director Nielsen commented that whatever the restriction is there will always be some instance when it doesn’t work. Nielsen stated part of the walkway could be uncovered. Commissioner Davis stated she agreed that 25 percent is too low. Davis then stated there is a desire to have builders CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 10 of 14 build longer, shallower houses and 50 percent would work for them. Davis agreed that 50 percent would be more than sufficient. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen why he has recommended 25 percent. Nielsen explained to keep the portico minimal, and he reminded the Commissioners this is about a structure that can extend four feet into the front yard setback. Nielsen commented that it is an arbitrary number and he would not want it to be so small that people have to apply for variances. Geng asked if Nielsen had issue with increasing it to 50 percent. Nielsen responded that seems to be too high. Commissioner Hasek stated he didn’t want the percent to be so low that it will cause people to have to apply for variances. Hasek expressed his preference to set the percent too high. Nielsen stated 50 percent would probably accommodate a residential handicap ramp better because they need to stretch out longer. Commissioner Hutchins noted it is called the Americans With Disabilities Act and recommended the amendment be corrected to say that. There was consensus to change the 25 percent restriction to a 50 percent restriction. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code amendment subject to changing “American Disabilities Act” to “Americans With Disabilities Act” and changing “The length of the portico shall not exceed twenty-five percent …” to “The length of the portico shall not exceed fifty percent…” Motion passed 6/0. Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this proposed Zoning Code amendment during its February 21, 2012, meeting. 3. DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a second draft of the proposed amendment to City Code Chapter 311 Therapeutic Massage Licensing. It contains the changes the Planning Commission recommended during its December 6, 2011, meeting. Commissioner Hutchins recommended in Section 311.03 Subd. 1.(b) changing “or other businesses have used” to “or other business names they have used”. Also for consistency, in Section 311.08 Subd. 3 changing “Practice massage only” to “Practice massage therapy only”. Commissioner Garelick asked how similar the language in this amended Ordinance is when compared to ordinances for other cities in the area. Director Nielsen responded it varies and some cities don’t license massage therapists. Director Nielsen explained the current Ordinance requires each individual massage therapist to get a license from the City of Shorewood. The City has a background check conducted on them. The Planning Commission had previously suggested the business should be licensed and that the business be responsible for background checks on individual therapists. Staff has talked about licensing the business and potentially having a minor license for a nominal fee for individual therapists at a given business. Chair Geng noted that Section 311.03 Subd. 2 states “All licenses issued under this chapter shall expire on the last day of December each year.” He asked if that means an applicant has to submit an application annually. Director Nielsen stated the business has to do that and the business doesn’t have to specify how many therapists work there. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 11 of 14 Director Nielsen stated if the City conducted a spot check on a business and, for example, it has 12 therapy tables it should be able to provide the necessary information on at least 12 therapists. Chair Geng suggested adding a condition to Sections 311.03 Subd. 1. (a) – (f) requiring the business to identify on the application the therapists working at the business. Administrator Heck stated the proposed amended Ordinance does mirror ordinances of other cities in the metropolitan area. But, this Ordinance only applies to businesses. Some cities also license practitioners. He then stated the problem with identifying the names of the individual therapists at time of licensing is there is a lot of turnover in therapists. He went on to state the easiest way to track individual therapists is to require them to get a minor license for a minimal fee. He commented that he is aware that there are differing opinions between Planning Commissioners with regard to streamlining this for all affected parties. Chair Geng asked what the amount of the nominal fee for an individual would be. Director Nielsen stated Staff has discussed a fee of $25. Commissioner Hasek asked if $25 would cover administrative costs. Director Nielsen stated it would cover paper work. It wouldn’t cover the cost if the City asked the police department to do a “cover” check, but the business license fee would. Administrator Heck explained $25 would cover the cost to process the paper work provided the City doesn’t have to do a lot of extensive research on an individual’s qualifications and requirements. Heck noted the business is responsible for doing background checks on individual therapists. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the advantage of doing dual licensing is if there were to be some type of violation by a therapist the therapist could lose their small license immediately for infraction. There could potentially be a system where if there were two violations by therapists the business could suffer. Chair Geng stated when a business owner originally asked the City to considering changing its massage licensing ordinance the owner was looking for licensing on a sliding scale based on when the therapist started with the business. He assumed that with the minor license approach that nominal fee would not be prorated. Director Nielsen responded that is correct. Commissioner Charbonnet stated there are references to employees in the amendment. He suggested the wording be changed so it covers independent contractors. Administrator Heck stated they could be called practitioners or therapists. Director Nielsen stated if the decision is made to require individual therapists to get a minor license for a nominal fee he will have to make revisions to the amendment. Commissioner Hutchins stated that would be rehashing what the Planning Commission discussed months ago. The Commission made a decision to license the business only in part because of the transient nature of therapists between businesses. Commissioner Hasek stated that boat has sailed. Director Nielsen stated he will make the minor changes discussed this evening. Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of the amendment to the Therapeutic Massage Licensing Ordinance subject to making the minor changes discussed during this meeting. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 12 of 14 4. DISCUSSION – 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen stated during its December 6, 2011, meeting the Planning Commissioners had been provided with a potential list of tasks for the Commission’s 2012 work program. They were asked to send him a list of how they thought the tasks should be prioritized. He noted that Chair Geng and Commissioner Hutchins are the only Commissioners who submitted a prioritized list. Nielsen then stated the intent is to complete the higher priority tasks earlier in the year. The top four items in his draft work program are the zoning code study (discussed earlier in the evening), a Code amendment for therapeutic massage licensing, a Code amendment for farm and other animals, and additional work on Smithtown Crossing. He noted that farm and other animals is not necessarily a high priority item but the Commission has been talking about it for quite some time and it should be wrapped up. The Zoning Code Study on general provisions is anticipated to go on throughout 2012. The task to revisit Comprehensive Plan Planning District 6 could take longer than what is shown on the work program. Nielsen asked the Commission how it would like to move forward with prioritizing the tasks. He then asked if the work program schedule he drafted makes sense. He noted the schedule is based on one Commission meeting a month unless there is a real need for a second. Commissioner Hasek reviewed his prioritized list. He stated he thought the priority 1 tasks should include tasks the Commission has already started to work on that should be completed. Priority 1 tasks should also include things that are the most important issues. Director Nielsen should provide that guidance. Priority 2 tasks should be tasks related to the City Code and Comprehensive (Comp) Plan, tasks that have a 2012 deadline for completion, and GreenStep Cities Program tasks that need to be completed in 2012. The remaining tasks would be Priority 3 tasks. He listed his Priority 1 tasks which he thought were the same as Director Nielsen’s. They are zoning Code study about entry porches and encroachments, Smithtown Crossing, Code amendment for therapeutic massage licensing, and Code amendment for farm and other animals. Chair Geng reviewed his Priority 1 tasks that he sent to Director Nielsen earlier this month. They are the Code study about entry porches and encroachments, Smithtown Crossing, a revisit of Comp Plan Planning District 6, the Code Study about mixed use regulations, and the Comp Plan about variances and nonconformities. He expressed his agreement with finishing what has already been started. He recommended taking into consideration what Council’s priorities are for the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen noted there is a joint meeting with the Council scheduled for February 21, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. Chair Geng stated he would be comfortable with going with the schedule drafted by Director Nielsen. It can be adjusted based on Council feedback. There was Planning Commission consensus to go with the schedule drafted by Director Nielsen and to adjust it based on Council feedback. 5. APPOINT CHAIR / VICE-CHAIR AND UPDATE COUNCIL LIAISON SCHEDULE Director Nielsen stated Commissioners Arnst’s and Hasek’s Planning Commission terms are up the end of February. Arnst has informed the City that she will not reapply. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 13 of 14 Director Nielsen stated that Administrator Heck suggested he ask the Planning Commission if they would prefer to wait to appoint a chair and vice-chair until after the replacement commissioners are seated. Commissioner Hasek stated that makes sense to him, noting there is no guarantee he will be reappointed. He noted the plan is for Council to interview candidates on February 27, 2012. Heck stated the Park Commission chose to postpone making similar appointments until the two soon-to-be open seats are filled. Council Liaison Hotvet supported waiting to make those two appointments. There was Planning Commission consensus to make the chair appointment and vice-chair appointment during the Commission’s March meeting. Council Liaisons were selected as followed: January 2012 Chair Geng February 2012 Commissioner Davis March 2012 Commissioner Garelick April 2012 Commissioner Hutchins 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Chair Geng stated there is a public hearing slated for the February 8, 2012, Planning Commission meeting. It is a continuation of this evening’s preliminary plat public hearing. Director Nielsen stated there will one more public hearing for a lot line rearrangement along Woodside Road. There will be continued discussion of the Code amendment for farm and other animals. The Zoning Code text amendment regarding allowable front yard encroachments will be on the February 21, 2012 agenda. Director Nielsen stated that from his vantage point the Planning Commission bogged down on the discussion of farm and other animals when it came to the number of chickens that would be allowed. He asked the Commissioners to think about what they want the Ordinance to accomplish in advance of the February 8, 2012, meeting. He stated it’s intended to allow a family to raise animals for themselves. It’s not intended to allow a business from a person’s home. He noted he will send out a clarification email on the Ordinance. Commissioner Hasek stated he did not think it would be out of line to allow six chickens because chickens die and young ones are being raised to replace them. Director Nielsen stated he agreed that there should be an allowance for overlap. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17, 2012 Page 14 of 14 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Councilmember Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the December 12, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 2012, at 9:09 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder C ITY SHOREWOOD TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen/James Landini DATE: 31 January 2012 RE: Christmas Lake Estates — Preliminary Plat (revised) FILE NO.: 405(11.14) At its 17 January meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing for the above - referenced preliminary plat. The initial staff report for this plat (dated 10 January 2012) had recommended approval subject to a number of conditions. Based on neighborhood concerns, the Commission asked to see the suggested revisions. Following is how the various issues raised in the staff report have been resolved: The applicant's engineer has provided calculations indicating that cut and fill for the project will not exceed 300 cubic yards (100 cubic yards per lot). He also revised the grading plan to show a different (illustrative) house plan for Lot 2 (see Exhibits A and B, attached). As we had asked, the shallower design now allows ample room for a deck or patio at the rear of the house. 2. The applicant's engineer has provided storm water calculations based on leaving the culvert under the existing driveway to Lot 3. Earlier plans had shown that culvert being eliminated and that is what staff recommends. Revised calculations will be submitted. What is clear is that runoff from the two new homes will not adversely affect the property to the south. Any accumulated water would leave the site to the northeast before it would back up into the culvert on Christmas Lane. The applicant's engineer has revised the plans to include a 35 -foot buffer and a 15 -foot setback, per our requirements. 4. In his revised plans the applicant proposed to use the existing sewer service for Lot 3 to serve the new house that will be built on Lot 3. This would require an easement across Lot 2, which the City Engineer recommends against. The ®� i��� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Christmas Lake Estates — Preliminary Plat (revised) 31 January 2012 applicant's engineer indicates they will extend a service to the sewer on the west side of the plat. 5. As shown on Exhibit A, the driveway for Lot 3 has been moved slightly to the west so as to avoid the wetland setback area. Property owners to the south have written a follow -up letter to their original comments (see Exhibit C). Shorewood's development regulations have attempted to address the very issues that are raised. First, the R -lA /S zoning district requires 40,000 square -foot lots, among the largest in the area. Secondly, Shorewood adopted wetland buffer and setback requirements more stringent than those of the local watershed districts, in order to protect wetlands. Lastly, Shorewood not only adopted the 25 percent hardcover maximums for Shoreland District properties, it went on to establish a 33 percent hardcover requirement for properties outside of the District, again more stringent than many of the surrounding communities. It is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the recommendations herein. Cc: Brian Heck Larry Brown Tim Keane Eric Zehnder Bob Molstad -2- N LO N N O In J N N <L Op w 0 N N T>, E o >, « � U 0 II U 00 y N 0 E i 0 II II II a, .J :3 :3 m U (r) U LZ Z o ol c c - CJ _ J V —�z� : I V — � v r v - 1 I \ I L ' / - 1 I rl y ( . 89 O N �• �p -Ip 3 d � � i� QV f S jk • L� v M„ 8S, r`0 0 00S O — • o o ID N� O O 0 J ri p p N 1 cy� It fl �f1 �/ I OD �` V OL 01' S 1 a[ i oVF3962;0 b b / A 1 1 I It it + k r y n o- O �"i — a O O 52.5 x 1 �.I �L d x 15' I� i_ a Lya�'lt..b 4 _> i sWai TI A I y� � vIv R A � I Ti - - -- - -. i -- O, co . N r �0. OF i x F O Exhibit A -= I C REVISED GRADING PLAN a 10 1522.. 152 = _ . = s i 1 ' � 150 i SAN SERJ. INV. x i Wye 6415± i J j �x Remove Existin Ge! Driveway x t r (salvage grave!) , Replace w/Tops raS II - -�.�_- Existing 18" C vest to R ain" - Regrade Eto 991.0 ",i/ g55 t vc g ` 6 1 ���, 1503 y , Z, j `ri _ ; M p lt� - <� _ j yfl i f r l t /' iI x 960.5 /x SAN SER'J. INV.,� t d �Y E _ I � b= 943.11 i u 644.1± d 00/ LO 1 � � � � � -- 962J i i 0 5 '(_ Li V� -�., JT C .l 0) 1 l b � S X @ 4. j , s W � - 9 945 J. j Y, CZ j 1 p [00) _ . i 1 f lt i LL 1` e•- 961 1 - I f I C''3 Exhibit B REVISED GRADING - ENLARGED 9 ,5 Dear Commissioners, Follow -up from January 17, 2012 planning committee's meeting re: replatting 6040 Christmas Lake Road. 1. On a property that has been virgin soil for at least forty plus years, that we know of, what will be the impact on the land, the wet lands, and the drainage into Christmas Lake? Consider that there are: a. Three new asphalt driveways where there is one gravel road. b. Two additional houses with their foundations and material for grading placed upon the property where there is presently but one home for a total of three homes. These issues, we feel, must be addressed and answered before approval of the request is granted. There is no question that the land will be affected by these changes as well as the changed and altered runoff. Very truly yours, N cy and` 0 Peterson 21355 Christmas ane Excelsior, MN. 55331 Exhibit C RESIDENT COMMENT LETTER Dated 18 January 2012 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUES ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 January 2012 RE: Cannon, Mike — Lot Line Rearrangement and Width /Area Variance FILE NO.: 405 (12.01) BACKGROUND Mike Cannon owns the property at 28170 Woodside Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to convey a small portion of his lot to the limited liability corporation that owns the lot to the south at 28180 Woodside Road. Both lots are somewhat substandard for the R -lA /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland zoning district in which they are located. A buyer for the southerly lot, understandably, does not wish to purchase the property needing a width variance to build on the property. The proposed lot line rearrangement (shown on Exhibit B) techtucally equalizes the widths of the two lots, bringing them both into compliance with Shorewood's zoning provisions relative to nonconforming lots. Since the northerly lot will be reduced in this process, a lot width/area variance has been requested. The R -lA /S zoning district requires lots to have 40,000 square feet in area and 120 feet of width, as measured at the building line (front setback). Currently, the northerly lot contains 37,155 square feet of area and is 98.5 feet in width. The southerly lot contains 39,495 square feet of area and is 71 feet in width. The northerly lot is occupied by Mr. Cannon's home, while the southerly lot is vacant. ®� ��� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Cannon Subdivision/Combination/Variance 31 January 2012 ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION A. Nonconforming Lots of Record. Shorewood’s zoning regulations state that a nonconforming lot of record is considered buildable if it meets 70 percent of the width and area requirements of the zoning district in which the lot is located. While the northerly lot meets this standard, the southerly lot is thirteen feet too narrow to comply. The proposed division/combination results in the northerly lot having 35,687 square feet of area and 95 feet in width, both of which exceed the 70 percent standard. The southerly lot will have 39,045 square feet (after 17 feet of public right-of-way is dedicated for Woodside Road) and 84 feet in width. Both area and width for the southerly lot will meet or exceed the 70 percent requirement. B. Variance. The proposed division/combination, although slightly decreasing the size of the northerly parcel, actually results in greater overall conformity with the Zoning Code. Approval of the division and combination will result in two lots that meet the City’s requirements for buildable nonconforming lots. Following is how the request conforms to the new variance standard of “practical difficulties”: 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The property will be used for single-family residential homes, which is anticipated in the R-1A/S zoning district. As proposed both lots will meet or exceed the 70 percent minimum width and area standard for nonconforming lots of record. 2.The ordinance prohibits this manner of use. Under current Code requirements, the southerly lot is not considered buildable due to its width. 3.The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Both the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan encourage better compliance with respect to nonconformities. 4.The ordinance creates “practical difficulties” in achieving the manner of use. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a)reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not -2- Memorandum Re: Cannon Subdivision/Combination/Variance 31 January 2012 caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. a.Addressed in 1. above. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. The narrow lots were created before Shorewood’s current zoning requirements. c. The variance does not create any new lots, it simply brings one of them into compliance with City standards. It is worth mentioning here that construction on the southerly lot will require a conditional use permit providing additional scrutiny of the actual home to be constructed on the lot. The buyer of that lot is preparing to submit the C.U.P. application upon approval of the subdivision/combination. C. Subdivision Requirements. Approval of the proposed division and combination should include the following: 1. The applicant’s attorney must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for the property for review by the City Attorney. 2. The applicant’s surveyor must provide legal descriptions for the drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each of the lots, and for the 17 feet of right-of-way abutting the southerly lot. 3. From the legal descriptions in 2. above, the applicant’s attorney must prepare deeds in favor of the City. 4. Once the deeds are received in our office, the application will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. 5. The applicant must record the resolution approving the division and combination within 30 days of the Council’s approval. Subject to the conditions set forth in C. above, approval of the division, combination and variance is recommended. Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Mike Cannon -3- u� u e � • oc , e ��cidge .�d IN CD , I-on IM MI c 0 cu J . Q � o CO a LL- Q Lad 7 i 0 U a� 0 U as `o 0 T L, Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Cannon — Subdivision /combination /variance o n, Vat O'O sIpf 90 o VT or 9z - of 12 ! of OL -7 9--6 < 9 g Is L Jn g - 6 9w o v rj) LIj h 72 N I or m It L z ------ - ----- I L P\ T) 1 6 0 LIj of LJ LIj L w o -4 [if cn 0c) LIj z z of °W LLI < < < < f- z LIj O} C) Ld < w Ld u R - H of < cr < (3- o cL of of j 0 of of ! Ld < w of °¢ o o z L, D- < wo D41, tw o cr) Lj 0 z 0 Exhibit B (D 0 0" PROPOSED DIVISION/COMBINATION Robert and Lindy Hensley 28110 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN 55331 February 1, 2012 City of Shorewood c/o Planning Dept. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Public Hearing regarding lot -width variance and lot line rearrangement Mike and Elizabeth Cannon/28170 and 28180 Woodside Road Dear Madam /Sir: We have received the notice regarding the public hearing for the above - referenced lot line rearrangement that has been requested by Mike and Elizabeth Cannon. We own the property immediately to the north of the Cannon property. After reviewing the survey (revised January 4, 2012) and meeting with Bradley Nielsen, it is our understanding that the purpose of the lot line rearragement is to avoid the need for any future variance in the event a single family house is built on either of the lots. It is our understanding that a purchase agreement has been executed for the lot located at 28180 Woodside Road (the vacant lot) and that if the current application is approved that the new owner of 28180 Woodside Road would need a conditional use permit in order to build a house on the lot. It is also our understanding that due to hardcourt and other restrictions, that it is the intent of the applicant that: (a) the two lots would continue to share a common driveway; (b) the driveway exit onto Woodside Road would continue to be at the current location; (c) if a new driveway is constructed, the new driveway would either closely follow the lot line between the two lots currently owned by the applicant or would remain at the current location; and (d) if a new driveway is constructed, the exit from both lots onto Woodside Road would remain at the current location. However, the new configuration locates the existing driveway entirely on 28180 Woodside Road (the vacant lot) and leaves the current house on 28170 Woodside Road without any portion of the driveway on that lot. This creates a potential driveway easement and access issue if the lots are no longer under common ownership. While the current intentions are clear, future owners may have different plans. We are in favor of the lot line rearrangement provided that approval be subject to the City requiring a recorded driveway easement agreement between the two parties and /or some other condition to approval concerning the shared driveway so as not to create a future hardship variance or other issue for 28170 Woodside Road. Sir cer'9 rt Hensley cc: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon r , cc: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 February 2012 RE: Animal Regulations — Fourth Draft FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 700) Attached is the fourth draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code that would establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Changes from the third draft have been shown in green lettering. When we last left off, two main questions remained to be answered: 1) how many animals should be allowed; and 2) what, if any, grandfather rights should be included. With respect to the number of animals, based on our last discussion; it is recommended that this number be increased from four to either six or eight. This would allow a family raising its own animals (e.g. chickens) to have four active producers and two to four nonproducers. Relative to grandfathering, it is recommended that all properties be subject to the permit requirements. Anyone that currently has more animals than currently allowed would simply not replace dead animals in excess of the six or eight allowed. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet 1179, 4 ®W ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER cr[c OF SIIORF,WOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, [MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -6128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us I A IW11 ►1 1111U l TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 February 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Review of Public Testimony FILE NO. 405 (Smithtown Crossing) At its 6 December 2011 meeting, the Plamiing Commission held a public hearing regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. At the conclusion of the hearing, the consensus of the Commission was that a study session should be scheduled to go over, in detail, the testimony from area residents relative to the study. Attached for your review is the excerpt from the 6 December meeting minutes pertaining to Smithtown Crossing. This item is scheduled for discussion at the 8 February meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet ®% % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1. 7°00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — SMITIITGWN 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. 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 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. 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 lie 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; - - l 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, A 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. 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. W 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. 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. - -3 7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian /bicycle friendly. S. 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 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. W 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 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 Poison, 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. Poison 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 - -5 developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of eminent domain. Mr. Poison 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. Poison 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 Linder state law. Mr. Poison 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. Mr. Poison 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. Poison 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 - -6 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 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. - -7 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 pending 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 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. hl 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 COunc111nembers 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 Sheriffs 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 lie 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. 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. ILG CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 February 2012 RE: Life -Cycle Housing - Topics FILE NO. 405(Comp Plan — Housing) One of the items on our 2012 Work Program is the issue of Life -Cycle Housing. We started this discussion at the end of last year with a staff report, dated 1 December 2011 that provided background on Communities for a Lifetime. Due to its length, we are not redistributing that staff report, but Commissioners are urged to review in preparation for our discussion at the 8 February Planning Commission meeting (if anyone needs a copy, we can e -mail it to you). To lend some organization to our study, staff suggests the following outline of topics to be discussed over the coming months: • Review of existing zoning requirements relative to senior housing (Exhibit A, attached). This will be our topic for the 8 February meeting. • Senior Accessory Apartments • Barriers to seniors staying in their homes • Update Zoning Code to address assisted living and care facilities We have compiled some demographic data relative to Population by Age and Gender in Shorewood, comparing the 1990, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. These are attached to the back of this memorandum. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet 4121 f .0 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ELDERLY HOUSING. A dwelling or group of dwellings where the occupancy is restricted to persons 62 years of age or older, or which qualifies as housing for older persons under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Subd. 20. Elderly housing. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to provide opportunities for elderly housing within residential zoning districts and to maintain compatibility with other uses within those districts. b. Conditional use. Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R -1 A, R -1 B, R -1 C, R -1 D, R -2A, R -213, R -2C, R -3A, R -313 and R -C. In addition the following conditions shall apply: (1) Elderly housing projects shall be processed as planned unit developments (P.U.D.) in compliance with § 1201.06 of this code; (2) Occupancy of each dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than two adults, 62 years of age or older. Occupancy of dwellings which qualify as "housing for older persons" under the Federal Fair Housing Act shall be limited to two adults, 55 years of age or older. The occupancy limitations shall be memorialized in restrictive covenants approved by the city and filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated above shall not apply to one adult live -in care - provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that if the care - provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator; (3) To continue to qualify for the elderly housing classification, the owner, homeowner's association or agency shall annually file with the City Administrator /Clerk and the Zoning Administrator a certified copy of a quarterly resume of occupants of the building or buildings, listing the number of tenants or occupants by age, by unit; (4) Adequate off - street parking must be provided in compliance with Subd. 5 of this section. Parking plans must show room on the site for at least one garage space per dwelling unit; Exhibit A (5) Parking areas for five or more cars must be screened and landscaped from view of surrounding residential property, in compliance with Subd. 2g of this section; (6) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Subd. 11 of this code. (7) All structures shall comply with the Minnesota State Building Code; (8) The residential density of elderly housing projects shall not exceed the following: (a) R -1 A and R -1 B: Four units per acre; (b) R -1C, R -1D, R -2A, R -2B, and R -2C: Eight units per acre; (c) R -3A, R -3B and R -C: Ten units per acre; (9) The minimum site size for elderly housing projects shall be three acres; (10) Dwelling units may be detached or attached; (11) Building heights shall be limited to one and one -half stories in all districts except the R -3A, R -3B and R -C zoning districts in which buildings may be three stories; (12) Where allowed, multiple- family elderly housing must have elevator service to each floor; (13) Usable open space as defined in this chapter is equal, at a minimum, to 20% of the gross lot area; (14) The provisions of § 1201.04 Subd. ld(1) are considered and satisfactorily met. C. Fees reduced. Park dedication fees as required in § 1202.07 of this code and local sanitary sewer access charges as required in § 904.18 Subd. 1 of this code shall be charged on the basis of the development potential of property as currently zoned. Fees shall not be charged for additional residential units achieved under b(8) of this subdivision. I 3 0 L .rr • L 'Ct C Q �.r r G :G U O U U U C/1 O N 7 C N U O O O N ti J �i U r�l O O O n J w 70 2 w ra r LL N Cry 900 O 1` .i � O O mi Z9 CA U') cri v ID ZR vi 00 m IT U') � TA n c� co to T -i In v J+ It m v m v as v a� v a% v a. v 0% n ao w N N 1D ID to !n v v M 0 N N .i ri O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W ++ ++ 4' ++ +' ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +' Y Y 0 O n O In O 0 O n O n O In O n O w r� p z •,D In !n v v M M N N .a . - 1 Z ID In O ID Dq N O ID O O ri c� TA N v �D OR N (Y1 N N `D N h Op M v M N N v v Census 2010 O O L O ri Cr • L C Ci Q �I O i+ CC G C 2 �i 1�1 c� s U O c� n3 .. U U U 0 N -n r- y _U 0 0 0 0 f`J C N U O C rn ti C U U a� T ro r LL N I O O � M rl O O , ZR N � rl O rl N 41 4J 41 i v O ++ + + y 4j + i 4d r Y y y � C O LO O U7 O LO O U7 O U) O 0 O 0 O � OD f• f� •D �D V7 U7 C � M M N N rl ri O 't U7 O � O z R Z9 .D N 'r T *� M N U7 N N U7 T O v N .D .•J N O �j r-1 c� L V: E E El C �.i _ z U • L U Q L O _ U is _ v U _a L Q] 3 U vi 4i i 3 O Census 2000 Z F � It U7 It LO LO ZR co c� ID N OD Li CO T O O 3 0 ri .i C �.I 'C C CC Q r. C'3 r G C !�I c� s U O -v U U N c U O O O N 7 N U 0 c a� U Q) W r� C LL r♦ M ZR M Z9 LO Z9 ��gg � N zg Od Oo N N M r♦ 6 O O . - ■ M Ifl .-I u� M o o r- t- tiD ID O O V V M M N N ri ri O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U +' o o u; a 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o n o zi ■ �+A r� M O � � O M T O 0' M1 � o It OD ui v ui Census 1990