11-17-15 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2015 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
MADDY (Oct) ______
BEAN (Dec) ______
JOHNSON (Jan) ______
DAVIS (Nov) ______
GENG (Sep) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6 October 2015
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY
(AUTO SALES)
Applicant: William Kasper, W.S. Sales of Shorewood
Location: 19245 State Highway 7
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING
DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR HOUSING
Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company
Location: 23075 State Highway 7; 6020 & 6050 Chaska Road
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Charles Bennett
Location: 24835 Yellowstone Trail
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Johnson and Maddy; Planning Director Nielsen; and
Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioner Bean
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for October 6, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 4/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 1, 2015
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 1, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER
1200 SQUARE FEET
Applicant: Stephen Ferraro
Location: 5645 Grant Lorenz Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving
as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The
Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the
Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an
application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is
advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item
will go before the City Council on October 26, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is
going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Stephen
Ferraro, 5645 Grant Lorenz Road.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Ferraro proposes to build a new detached garage to the east of his house
approximately 212 feet from the rear lot line. Because the combined accessory space of the proposed
garage and the existing would exceed 1200 square feet Mr. Ferraro has applied for a C.U.P.
The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 47,253 square feet in area. The site
is occupied by the applicant’s home and attached garage. The new garage would contain 1176 square feet.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 2 of 7
Once the new garage was constructed the total amount of accessory space on the site would total 1675
square feet.
He noted Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting a C.U.P. for
accessory space over 1200 square feet. He reviewed how the applicant’s plan complies with the criteria.
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1675 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (1729
square feet) above grade of the existing home.
b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the
R-1A zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complies with R-1A setback requirements and the proposed hardcover
comes to 15.8 percent. Because of the very residential character of the proposed building and the
heavily wooded area in which it will be situated, no additional landscaping is recommended in
this case.
d. The architectural character of the new building would be compatible with the existing house. The
building would have lap siding similar to adjoining homes and roofing would match the house.
Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case Staff recommends the applicant’s request for a
C.U.P. be granted subject to including a standard provision in the resolution that would put the property
owner on notice that the accessory space cannot be used for any type of home occupation.
Nielsen then noted that Mr. Ferraro was present.
Chair Geng stated the proposed driveway is included as impervious surface but the construction notes did
not indicate what it would be constructed of. Director Nielsen noted that it does not have to be paved and
clarified that even if it is not paved it is counted as hardcover. He explained a gravel driveway achieves
85 percent compaction. Geng asked if the project would require removal of any significant trees. Nielsen
stated there would be loss of some significant trees and noted that a C.U.P. does not require tree
replacement. He noted that any location of the garage would result in the loss of trees.
Director Nielsen noted staff had received an email from the owner of one of the adjoining properties and
the owner indicated the location for the proposed garage would be as good of a spot as any on the
property. That owner was an environmental individual.
Commissioner Johnson stated the proposed driveway would be located to the west of the existing house.
There currently is a canoe and retaining wall there. He asked how the driveway would be tied in. Director
Nielsen explained the driveway would have to hug the house because the applicant would have to
maintain a 5-foot-wide setback on the side of the property. Johnson stated he assumes the applicant would
have to do something with the retaining wall. Nielsen concurred.
Mr. Ferraro noted that he had received a copy of an email from the owners of the property just north of
his expressing their support of his request. Commissioner Johnson noted a copy of it was included in the
meeting packet.
Seeing no one present wanting to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Commissioner Davis asked if the reason the applicant needs five garage stalls is because he has five
vehicles. Mr. Ferraro responded no. Director Nielsen noted that about one-third of the new garage would
be for a workshop.
Commissioner Maddy stated the existing house does not have dormers, it has a lower pitched roof and it
has different siding. He asked if the Zoning Code has a definition of compatible. Director Nielsen
responded no and stated the materials for the proposed garage would look more similar to the houses on
the two adjoining properties. Chair Geng questioned if the Planning Commission should at a future date
discuss what compatible means.
Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending granting the conditional use permit for accessory
space over 1200 square feet to Stephen Ferraro, 5645 Grant Lorenz Road. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng reiterated Council will consider this matter during its October 26, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIGNS IN
CEMETERIES
Applicant: Woodside Cemetery Association (Representative Dan Randall)
Location: 27175 Smithtown Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. He stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to consider a
Shorewood zoning text amendment regarding signs in cemeteries. The applicant is Woodside Cemetery
Association and the Cemetery is located at 27175 Smithtown Road.
Director Nielsen explained Dan Randall, representing the Woodside Cemetery Association, has requested
a zoning text amendment that would allow the Association to erect an entry-way arch and identification
sign on the Cemetery property located at 27175 Smithtown Road. Mr. Randall has been a caretaker of the
Cemetery for a long time and his father was before him. The property is located in the R-1A, Single-
Family Residential zoning district which allows cemeteries by conditional use permit (C.U.P.). It is a little
east of Howard’s Point and abutting Cajed Lane on its east side.
The proposed archway would be entirely on the Cemetery property over the entry drive and it would be at
least five feet back from the front property line. The archway would be approximately 24 feet wide and
16 feet tall. The sign would be affixed across the top of the archway. The sign itself would measure one
foot by 12 feet (12 square feet). It would be made of iron and say Woodside Cemetery. The amount of
sign Mr. Randall has proposed would be well within other institutional signs. Up to 20 square feet are
allowed for churches, schools and so forth.
The Association’s proposal would be easily accommodated by a relatively simple zoning text amendment.
The meeting packet included language (printed in red) that could be added to Section 1201.03 Subd.
11.e.(1) of the Shorewood Zoning Code to address the Association’s request. The addition would read
“(e) Cemetery identification signs. One freestanding sign not to exceed 20 square feet in area. The
freestanding sign may be affixed to an entry-way arch, not exceeding 18 feet in height.” The text simply
adds to the list of signs in the R-1A through R-3B Residential Districts. There is only one other cemetery
in Shorewood – St. John’s, located on Covington Road. It has an elaborate entry monument system.
Nielsen noted staff is recommending approval of the text amendment.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 4 of 7
In response to a comment from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen clarified the archway is 24 feet
wide and the sign is about one-half that width.
Mr. Randall stated he thought the archway and sign should have been put in years ago in order to
establish the Cemetery. He thought the Cemetery has been around since the 1920s. Prior to being
established there were burials at that site. There are Civil War people buried there.
Chair Geng commended Mr. Randall for the fine work he does in keeping the Cemetery up. He stated it is
his understanding that Mr. Randall was very cooperative when the Smithtown Road west sidewalk was
being constructed and he expressed his appreciation for that.
Seeing no one present wanting to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M.
Chair Geng stated he thought this is a good idea.
Council Liaison Woodruff suggested the text amendment specify that illumination would not be allowed
on the sign to be consistent with other items under Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(1).
Commissioner Davis commented that Commissioner Bean has not weighed in on the language.
Commissioner Johnson stated the property across Smithtown Road is a marsh. There is a property that has
somewhat of a sight line toward the entrance to the Cemetery. He asked if any consideration was given to
the proposed location of the archway to avoid imposing on that sight line. He noted he thought that would
be a minor point. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the only thing that would be looking at the
sign would be the wetland.
Davis moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of a text amendment to the Shorewood
Zoning Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(1) which would read “(
e) Cemetery identification signs.
One freestanding non-illuminated sign not to exceed 20 square feet in area. The freestanding sign may
” Motion passed 4/0.
be affixed to an entry-way arch, not exceeding 18 feet in height.
Chair Geng stated Council will consider this matter during its October 26, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M.
3. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Applicant: Thomas Wartman
Location: 26985 Edgewood Road
Director Nielsen noted Thomas Wartman received approval to subdivide his property located at 26985
Edgewood Road into two separate lots back in January of 2013. Mr. Wartman chose not to record it. Mr.
Wartman is back with the application.
He explained the property is located in the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland District. The
property contains 88,202 square feet of area. Each lot would contain 44,125 feet of area which would be
in excess of what the R-1A District requires. The lots would comply with the requirements of the R-1A/S
zoning district. The applicant has to provide a title opinion and deeds for the new drainage and utility
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 5 of 7
easements 10 feet in width along both sides of the new lot line. There are already drainage and utility
easements around the perimeter of the property.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of this case Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision
subject to the following.
1. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet wide along each side
of the new lot line.
2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City
Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one park
dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200).
4. Since the division itself does not necessitate the removal of any trees from the property, tree
preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for.
5. Once the applicant receives the resolution approving the subdivision, he must record it and the
easement deeds within 30 days or it would be considered void.
Nielsen noted that Mr. Wartman was present.
Geng moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Tom Wartman
for his property located at 26985 Edgewood Road subject to the five conditions listed above and to
the applicant completing conditions 1 and 2 within 30 days of the October 6, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng stated Council will consider this matter during its October 26, 2015, meeting provided the
applicant has completed items 1 and 2 prior to the meeting packet for that meeting being sent out.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Davis asked if the City received an application for a fence permit for some property near
the intersection of Eureka Road and Smithtown Road. Nielsen stated no.
Director Nielsen explained someone had put posts up on that property so the Building Official issued a
stop work order. The individual came and spoke with Nielsen and told him that he was replacing an
existing fence. Nielsen explained to him that the old fence was nonconforming and that the replacement
fence had to be conforming. That individual was not happy about what he heard. He had already
purchased the necessary material and he wondered how he was going to have any privacy. Nielsen told
him he could have a four-foot-high fence. The Building Official told him earlier in the day that the person
put the fence up anyway. Nielsen noted staff has to find out if the law about replacing nonconforming
applies to accessory structures like a fence. If it was a legal nonconforming use the individual might be
protected by that statute. If he is not, he will start to get administrative penalties. The fence is solid and
the City does not allow that and the fence is too tall.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 6 of 7
Commissioner Davis asked if the City has hired someone to provide urban forester and arborist services
yet. Director Nielsen stated that is on the agenda for Council’s October 12, 2015, meeting.
Chair Geng asked if the Planning Commission will start the review of the Comprehensive Plan in 2016.
Director Nielsen stated he thought some leg work may be done in 2016. A decision will have to be made
as to whether the review will be done in house or if a consultant will be hired to do the review. The
inventory type work would likely be done in house. Nielsen noted the system statement came out and in
half of the statement the City was referred to as Shoreview. The Metropolitan Council puts the statement
out.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a redo of a minor subdivision, a conditional use permit for a used car sales
lot, and a zoning text amendment, conditional use permit and possible rezoning for a senior housing
project on the south side of Highway 7 near Chaska Road slated for the November 17, 2015, Planning
Commission meeting. He elaborated on the senior housing project.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Council Liaison Woodruff reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s
September 28, 2015, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
• SLUC
Commissioner Davis commented that during the last Sensible Land use Coalition (SLUC) session she sat
with some very interesting people who were aghast that Shorewood’s park dedication fees were only
$6,500 per lot.
Director Nielsen explained that before the fees were increased to $6,500 from $5,000 staff researched
what other cities were charging. The $6,500 was about average.
Commissioner Davis stated if Director Nielsen gets the DVD recording for that meeting she encouraged
people to fast forward to the Wayzata portion about the construction of the promenade. She thought only
a person in engineering could really appreciate what went into the ground before everything on top was
built. Those in attendance paid very close attention to that discussion. She found Wayzata Mayor Wilcox
to be extremely engaging and very funny. She stated the first discussion was about Eden Gardens.
• Other
Chair Geng stated he went to the James J Hill Days event in Wayzata and came in contact with two Orono
Planning Commissioners. They had a tent set up and were raising funds for a park that would be
constructed on the former Lakeview Golf Course property. Many residents lobbied for that site to be park
land. The Orono Council was asked to put some of the land aside for park land; that Council chose not to.
The two Commissioners asked the developer what he thought about privately owned public space
(POPS). The developer was intrigued by the idea. That is what the Commissioners were raising funds for.
The developer would match the funds and some other donations would also match funds. There is a
deadline of raising about $400,000 by the end of October. The two Commissioners asked him about the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 6, 2015
Page 7 of 7
redevelopment of the former Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. They were surprised when he
told them that over 40 percent of the site would remain preserved and open and they were impressed with
what is being proposed for public space. He highlighted some of the components proposed for that POPS
site which would be about one acre in size.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Davis moved, Johnson seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 2015,
at 7:50 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
Memorandum
Re: WS Auto Sales C.U.P.
11 November 2015
'ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Although auto sales (indoor) is allowed in the G1 zoning district as a permitted use,
outdoor sales and display requires a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.21
Subd. 4.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It should be noted that the building and the
site are somewhat nonconforming with respect to current zoning requirements.
Specifically, the building is only five feet from the east property line and 25 feet from the
front property line, where 10 feet and 30 feet, respectively, is required.
Following is how the request complies with the specific requirements for the conditional
use permit:
1. The proposed outdoor sales area can be no larger than the gross floor area of the
principal use. The office building contains 3000 square feet of floor area. Since a
car parking space occupies 180 square feet, 16 spaces for auto display could be
located on the property. As noted in 5. below, required parking will dictate how
much display area can be allowed on the site.
2. The proposed auto display area is only visible to adjoining residential property on
the east side of Vine Hill Road, in Minnetonka. These residences are fairly well
screened already.
3. The applicant proposes no additional site lighting. Lighting from adjoining
property is apparently adequate for security purposes.
4. The area proposed for auto display is already paved.
5. The display area cannot take up parking area that is required for the principal use.
Based on the size of the building, 15 spaces are required (one space per 200
square feet of floor area). As shown on Exhibit C. the site has 26 spaces, leaving
11 spaces for display vehicles. The applicant has indicated that he would need no
more than five to ten spaces.
6. The, 1998 C.U.P. for this property addressed several of the negative aspects often
associated with used car lots such as excessive signage and attention - getting
devices (banners, balloons, strobe lights, price signs painted on windshields, etc.).
If approved, the C.U.P. for WS Sales should contain similar restrictions.
7. As proposed, the applicant's request is consistent with the requirements set forth
in Section 1201.04 Subd.l.(d) (general requirements for conditional uses) of the
Zoning Code.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: WS Auto Sales C.U.P.
11 November 2015
RECOMMENDATION
As with the 1998 case, the WS Sales proposal is different than a typical used car lot.
Assuming it will be operated similarly, approval of the conditional use permit is
recommended, subject to the following:
A. The applicant should submit a detailed signage plan showing the size and location
of proposed signs. Attention- getting devices as referenced in the preceding
analysis should not be allowed. Price signs should be limited to small signs
(maximum 3 -inch lettering) inside the vehicle.
B. The display of cars should be limited to no more than ten designated spaces in the
rear parking area. Display area should be clearly marked with small signs
marking the display spaces.
C. No repair of vehicles shall be allowed on the site.
D. Lighting shall be limited to that which currently exists on the site.
E. The parking lot must be striped according to the plan on Exhibit C. It should be
noted that the portion of the parking lot shown as "to be removed" was already
done in the previous application. Due to the narrow aisle width shown for the
angled parking, which is necessary to achieve the required number of parking and
display spaces, a "Do Not Enter" sign should be posted at the Vine Hill. Road
Driveway.
F. Cars must be delivered to the site on small trucks or driven in. No on- street
loading shall be allowed.
G. The parking lot striping and signage must be in place before cars are delivered to
the property for sale.
Cc: Bill Joyner
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
William Kasper
-3-
:cm
�y�
�r
oa
C) y
�O
o�z
cn
CD
�in St
N
A
0 250 500 1,000
FM Feet
49
m 1 Sprin Cir
2 St Al ans
Ba it
ray �
,�a�e Nag
E n
r
Sub ectl
Property
it
Pri nt
lofI
https:Hus-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=cciOueral7elo# ...
. Retail open /outdoor sales car lot
. Purchase vehicles for wholesale at local
auctions
. Display vehicles on premise in,
designated parking spots (5 minimum 10
maximum)
. Limited vehicle information to include
make, model, year and price displayed
inside vehicle tagged on rear view mirror
. No maintenance /repairs done on
premises
. Rented office space utilized for meeting
customers by appointment only
. Company logo to be displayed in front of
building on designated sign for property
per Mark Sass's approval
. Please see attached for blueprint /stats on property
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
NORTH
•jiO�Qr� Q ` Gl� .1�1 tom'' - . I r� N i
N Id �J.
gc. _ —J _✓ c
} co ne
17_I—TZI`f l3 - - -_ / ' " '�S,Sb4L� •
�, • ��: �`• i Ong `./a.� ~—'�
e
N 14, 0. zs . . �3• C
.I hereby cer -t5fy that this is a true
Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
West side of building, from back of parking lot.
East side of building, from C—° Coffee parking lot.
Exhibit D
SITE PHOTOS
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us
PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
16 November 2015
RE: Oppidan – Zoning Text Amendment – Senior Housing Density
FILE NO.
405(15.17)
BACKGROUND
Oppidan Investment Company has arranged to purchase three properties at 6020 and 6050 Chaska
Road, and 23075 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached) on which they
propose to develop a senior housing project. As explained in the request narrative (Exhibit B), they are
requesting text amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Code relative to the requirements for senior
housing in the R-C, Residential Commercial zoning district. Specifically, they ask that the density for
senior housing in the R-C be increased from 10 units per acre to 12 units per acre. They also request
that the parking requirement for senior housing be reduced from two spaces per unit to 1.5 units per
unit. Finally, they ask that the assisted living units be counted as half units for purposed of calculating
density.
The applicant has provided concept plans to help visualize how a project developed under the requested
amendments would look (see Exhibit C). It is important to remember that the application before you at
this time does not include plan approval – only the text amendments necessary to move to the next
stage of the project which would include necessary rezoning and detailed plan approvals.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The requested text amendments should be familiar to the Planning Commission and City Council. They
were taken from a proposed code amendment that was studied by the Commission over the past couple
of years (see Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 3 May 2014, for additional background). The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment (see attached
amendment). The City Council ultimately tabled the amendment and it remains so as of this writing.
Obviously, the extra incentives that were proposed for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area
are of no interest to this developer. Oppidan’s request is limited to the items highlighted in the attached
exhibit.
Memorandum
Re: Oppidan Zoning Text Amendment
16 November 2015
One additional item that should be addressed in this amendment request is a discrepancy between two
sections of the City Code which address building height. Section 1201.19 Subd. 6. of the Zoning Code
limits building height in the R-C zoning district to two and a half stories or 35 feet, whichever is least.
Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. states that elderly housing shall not exceed one and a half stories, except in
the R-3A, R-3B, and R-C zoning districts, where buildings may be three stories. Staff suggests that the
one and a half story requirement is a typographical error. Regarding the three story requirement in
1201.03 Subd. 20. the Planning Commission and Council must decide whether that should be the
requirement or it should be two and a half stories. The applicant asks that three stories be the standard.
One issue that has been raised with the applicant is the fact that the City has taken a position that senior
housing should be a part of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. The applicant’s market
study suggests that the market may not support more than the amount of senior housing than what they
are proposing. In that respect, the City will have to determine whether it wants to encourage senior
housing in an area other than Smithtown Crossing.
Depending on the City’s decisions on these code provisions, Oppidan’s next step is to make the
necessary applications for their specific project.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Shannon Rusk
Patrick Barrett
-2-
16
i
N
0
y
a
c�
u.
XCEEL
v250 500
CHANHASSEN /CARVER CO BORDER
M
v
Feet
0
Galpin
Description and /or reason for Request:
Oppidan Investment Company is applying for two requests for a redevelopment of 3 sites located in
Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The addresses are 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075
State Highway 7 just south of Highway 7 and west of Chaska Road. The parcels collectively represent
approximately 3.7 acres. The PIDs are 34- 117 -23 -43 -0034, 34- 117 -23 -43 -0002 and 34- 117 -23 -43 -0033.
The intent of the redevelopment is to build a Senior Assisted Living facility which will comprise 100 units
on three levels for seniors living in and around the Shorewood community. Oppidan Investment
Company contracted a Senior Living Consultant to perform a market study to determine the demand for
Senior residential units for Independent. Assisted and Memory Care living. The study clearly supports
our proposed project and is attached for your confidential review. The project will have Independent
Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care units to facilitate the aging in place concept by our operator,
Ebenezer. Ebenezer is wholly owned by Fairview Hospital and brings a wealth of experience and
awareness to the aging population both from a caring living experience to necessary healthcare.
The request is:
1. Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b.(8)(c) to allow for "Twelve units per
acre ". Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd.5.h(8) to allow for one and one -half
parking spaces per unit.
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE
Oppidan Shorewood
29- Sep -15
APARTMENTS
Assisted Living/ Independent
Living
Parking
17,400 44 CARS
Lower Level support
1 b tbrd lbrd lbrit 2 b 2brd
unit type
134,380
15% 15% 10% 20% 25% 15%
percenWge
floor area
floor area
617 598 670 948 979 1171
waarea
(g. per floor
(nsf) per floor
# floors
total area
sf / unit sf 1 unit sf / unit sf / unit sf / unit sf / unit
TOTAL
13,380
10,035
1
10,035
2 3 1 2 3 1
12
31,200
23,400
1
23,400
5 6 3 5 6 3
28
32,700
24,525
1
24,525
5 6 4 5 6 3
29
subtotal 12 15 8
17% 22% 12%
Memory Care
0.46 Efficiency
floor area floor area
sf) per floor I (nsf) Der floor I # floor.
Town Center
16,600
Parking
17,400 44 CARS
Lower Level support
5,300
total area
134,380
Parking requirements
percentage units parking rate stalls
Independent Living 60% 41 1.50 62
Assisted Living 40% 28 0.75 21
staff 20
103
Parking provided 44 garage
64 surface
33 proof
studio double
386 629
poof rate stalls
0.50 21
0.375 10
31
12 15 7 69
17% 22% 10%
TOTAL APARTMENTS 69
t type
t area
TOTAL
TOTAL CARE UNITS 24
TOTAL UNITS 93
'• `III► •11f,� 491, s.
0 M P-m.
ON
ME
No
ii -��
:: .
0�
ON
ON
ON
ON
k
f r
r ' �
D
v
3
_ z
0
c�3
� 3
s
O K
A
a
z
a
G
ag0
x�
N
N
D
9
s
2
N
n
N
A \ 1 -
�` R
4 �
m
t t C z O Z O m
f A --I zz °o
z Oc > D > < z
Z —�
i p < D m G) m
m Z
,• f
� ' l
J
Z r f
\'m
v ,
cl
\ Z<
m
~fr
r
r
\
� CrJ
d
n N'
l J
V1
V'f
m
r
D
� D
p m N z C
m Z
Z
C C 25
D N m
p�z
r O m,�A
N
T
m D G)
x
o
I m o
> M z
L/9
0
cz v
m z -
o m
r-
o v)
O
O
°m m
-n
o
o
o*
p
m
V
z
w� �
`0
=
C
N
z
O
A
D
z Z
N
N N
�
D
m
D
r
m
T
O
G
m
4
V
0
R
oT
� V
m
CD
'v
oD
�Z
n
N
IL- _ .. - -
EMORL—
MMMML-
MENEL --
MMIMk_
M
m
�v
M
m
n
Z
cn
20
m
r
m
D
O
m
m
r
m
D
O
Z
m
O
m
m
�v
O
z
I
m
Z
�v
=O
O 'N
�z =
o rn
� C
N < O
Ln
Lnz
S
O
MN
c�
G
O
O
2
�v
v
In
r
O
O
:o
M
r
D
Z
�0
C
c
CD
T
V
oT
v
CDvR
o�T
�ZI
n
w
Vf
m
C)
O
z
v
T
r
O
O
M
r
D
z
o�
ni
D
D
Gi
m
TI
O
O
m
z
0 0
NZ
m
N m
z
O
-0
M
I Z
Z
r
D D
D
m
<
:
< m
m
Z
G7 r
m
Z
G7
m
=O =r
om =
O m
N
ooh
o O
O
LnLn
zVQ CL
View J PGROUPmc.
oint
SULTING
August 13, 2015
To: Shannon Rusk
Oppidan
From: Jay Thompson
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
RE: Initial Demand Assessment for Senior Housing in Shorewood, Minnesota
Introduction
This memorandum provides an initial assessment of the demand for senior housing in
Shorewood, Minnesota. The purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly assess the depth of
demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists to support a new
development. As we understand, the Site is a parcel located on the southwest intersection of
Highway 7 and Chaska Road.
Included in this initial assessment are demand calculations for market rate independent,
assisted living and memory care housing. Potential demand is calculated based on analysis of
the income /asset - qualified target market for senior housing and the supply of competitive
senior housing units serving the primary market area. The ability of the subject development to
capture excess market area demand is discussed in this assessment.
A full market feasibility study, which examines in greater detail the desirability of the subject
site and competitive properties and would also provide detailed recommendations on a project
concept and absorption projections, could be conducted at a later date.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. / 693187t' La Exhibit D
P. 763 - 273 -4303 / www.viewpo APPLICANT'S MARKET STUDY
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Primary Market Area Definition
The subject site ( "Site ") for the proposed senior housing development is a parcel at Highway 7
and Chaska Road in Shorewood. Shorewood is a suburban community of 7,533 people (2013
estimate) in Hennepin County. Shorewood straddles the southern shore of Lake Minnetonka
and surrounds Excelsior (population 2,245) and Greenwood (population 709) on three sides.
Chanhassen (pop. 24,432) forms Shorewood's southern boundary and Deephaven (pop. 3,747)
and Minnetonka (pop. 51,368) are located to the east.
Shorewood is an appealing community with a high proportion of older adults. A new housing
development in Shorewood would draw many residents currently living outside the community.
Based on the characteristics of Shorewood, community orientation, proximity to other senior
housing properties in the surrounding area, geographic barriers, and our knowledge of senior
housing draw areas, we estimate that a senior housing development on the Site in Shorewood
would attract approximately 65% of its residents from a draw area (Primary Market Area, or
"PMA ") that includes Shorewood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, and northern Chanhassen.
The remaining portion of the senior housing demand (35 %) would come from outside the PMA,
particularly parents of adult children living in the PMA. The PMA is comprised of the following
Census Tracts:
275.01
275.03
275.04
905.01
A map of the PMA is shown on the following page.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
905.02
905.03
906.01
906.02
Page 2
August 13, 2015
M
O
:3'
It
n
O
00
O
c
D
N
w �
v
N pp
O N
N w
un
K
�D
D
r�
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Demographic Analysis
Tables 1 through 5 on Pages 6 through 8 show key economic and demographic variables related
to the demand for senior housing in the PMA (age distribution of the senior population and
household base, senior household income, senior homeownership rates, and estimated home
values). The demographic and home value data is from ESRI, a national demographics firm.
The key demographic and economic findings are summarized on the following pages.
Senior Population and Household Trends
The total population in the PMA was 26,361 in 2010. The population grew 19.6% from 2000
to 2010 — or well above the overall Metro Area growth of 7.9 %. The overall population and
household base are projected to continue growing through 2020, albeit at a slower pace.
The primary reason for the slower growth is that the PMA is becoming more fully developed
with a dwindling supply of land to accommodate new housing construction.
/ While the overall population in the PMA grew by 19.6% last decade, the senior population
(age 65 +) grew by 70.1 %, increasing from 1,537 in 2000 to 2,624 seniors in 2010. The age
group 75+ is the primary target market for senior housing with services. This age group
numbered 1,066 in the PMA in 2010, up 66.3% from 2000.
/ Between 2015 and 2020, all senior age groups in the PMA will experience growth. The
population ages 70 to 74 will experience the greatest numerical growth as the first baby
boomers begin turning 70 in 2016. Despite a slower growth rate, the age group 75 and over
is still projected to add 284 seniors between 2015 and 2020 ( +23.8 %).
Senior Household Incomes
Incomes in the PMA are well above average compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area and
Minnesota, meaning a well above average percentage of seniors should be able to afford
market rate housing. The estimated median income of age 75+ households in the PMA in
2015 was approximately $55,499, higher than the Metro Area's $37,464, and Minnesota's
$32,799.
The target market for senior housing with support services is generally senior households
age 75 and older with incomes of at least $35,000 (plus senior homeowners with incomes of
at least $20,000). In 2015, an estimated 625 households age 75 and older had incomes of at
least $35,000. By 2020, about 740 households age 75 and older will have incomes of at least
$40,000 (increased from $35,000 to adjust for inflation). It should be noted that senior
housing with personal care services will primarily serve seniors age 80 +. Also, since assisted
living and memory care housing are predominately need driven, seniors with lower incomes
are still candidates for private pay housing if they have home equity or other savings that
they can utilize to pay for the costs.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Household Tenure
Seniors who own their homes have an additional source of income through the sale of their
home that can be utilized for alternative housing. Seniors in the PMA have a high
homeownership rate compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area (84.4% for 65+ households
compared to 75.8% metrowide).
Upon the sale of their home, seniors can use the income from the invested proceeds dollar
for dollar as supplementary income for housing and services. As Table 4 illustrates, as of
2010, a high percentage of seniors up to age 84 in the PMA are homeowners. The sharp
drop in the homeownership rate among the age 85+ population highlights how rental
housing becomes much more predominant as seniors' care needs rise and /or they no longer
desire to maintain a single - family home.
Home Value Trends
Seniors can use the proceeds from the sale of their home to off -set the cost of senior
housing. Home values are very high in the PMA; the estimated median home value is about
$440,053 in 2015. In comparison, the median home value in the Twin Cities is about
$245,852 and in Minnesota it is about $205,818. A senior selling their home for $440,000
could receive an investment return of approximately $1,020 monthly from the sale (sale
price minus 7% sales agent fees, and a 3% annual return on their investment). If a senior
uses the full home sale proceeds towards the cost of alternative housing, the home sale
proceeds would cover the costs at an assisted living facility ($3,500 per month) for over nine
years. At a memory care facility ($5,500 per month), the same amount of home sale
proceeds would last over six years. These lengths of time are longer than the typical length
of stay in assisted living and memory care housing.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 1
Senior Population Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Table 2
Senior Household Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Change, 2015 to 2020
Age
2000
2010
2015
2020
No.
Pct.
55 to 59
981
2,119
2,665
2,582
-83
-3.1%
60 to 64
646
1,498
1,913
2,395
482
25.2%
65 to 69
469
932
1,391
1,802
411
29.5%
70 to 74
427
626
821
1,297
476
58.0%
75 to 79
291
451
502
684
182
36.3%
80 to 84
183
364
359
410
51
14.2%
85+
167
251
331
382
51
15.4%
Total 65+
1,537
2,624
3,404
4,575
1,171
34.4%
Total 75+
641
1,066
1,192
1,476
284
23.8%
Total Population
22,049
26,361
26,901
27,544
643
2.4%
Sources: ESRI; 2000 Census; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Table 2
Senior Household Growth Trends and Projections
Primary Market Area
2000 to 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6
August 13, 2015
Change, 2015 to 2020
Age
2000
2010
2015
2020
No.
Pct.
55 to 64
959
2,154
2,660
2,738
78
2.9%
65 to 74
566
950
1,328
1,782
454
34.2%
75+
431
743
814
964
150
18.4%
Total 65+
997
1,693
2,142
2,746
604
28.2%
Total Households
8,048
9,921
10,192
10,467
275
2.7%
Sources: ESRI; 2000 Census; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 6
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 3
Household Incomes by Age of Householder
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7
August 13, 2015
2015 Households by Age
Income
55-64
65 -74
75+
<$15,000
99
53
46
$15,000 to $24,999
70
65
49
$25,000 to $34,999
83
75
95
$35,000 to $49,999
134
107
148
$50,000 to $74,999
246
261
217
$75,000 to $99,999
302
212
56
$100,000 to $149,999
617
282
138
$150,000+
1,109
273
65
Total
2,660
1,328
814
Median HH Income
$126,985
$85,261
$55,499
Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income
$80,649
$58,179
$37,464
Minnesota Median HH Income
$69,421
$52,235
$32,799
2020 Households by Age
Income
55-64
65 -74
75+
<$15,000
63
56
53
$15,000 to $24,999
39
57
39
$25,000 to $34,999
47
68
82
$35,000 to $49,999
99
111
153
$50,000 to $74,999
190
288
245
$75,000 to $99,999
281
277
71
$100,000 to $149,999
629
427
207
$150,000+
1,390
498
114
Total
2,738
1,782
964
Median HH Income
$151,149
$102,483
$63,110
Twin Cities Metro Median HH Income
$93,254
$69,137
$42,019
Minnesota Median HH Income
$81,143
$60,316
$37,498
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 4
Tenure by Age of Householder
Primary Market Area
2010
Renters
Owners
Households
No.
Pct.
Age 55 to 64
1,920
89.1%
Age 65 to 74
831
87.5%
Age 75 to 84
475
83.6%
Age 85+
123
70.3%
Total
3,349
87.1%
Total Age 65+
1,429
84.4%
Total Age 75+
598
80.5%
Renters
Average
No. Pct.
Home Value
234
10.9%
119
12.5%
93
16.4%
52
29.7%
498
12.9%
264
15.6%
145
19.5%
Twin Cities Metro Area
Age 65+ 75.8% 24.2%
Age 75+ 68.6% 31.4%
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Table 5
Estimated Home Values
Primary Market Area
2015
Median
Average
Home Value
Home Value
PMA $440,053
$543,615
Twin Cities Metro Area $245,852
$302,051
Minnesota $205,818
$253,394
Sources: ESRI; Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Housing Supply
Senior Housing Defined
Senior housing encompasses a wide variety of product types. The properties that include the
lowest level of services are adult properties, which offer virtually no support services or health
care, but restrict tenancy to those age 55 and over. Adult properties can be rental or owner -
occupied (attached or detached townhomes, condominiums and cooperatives). Congregate
properties, better known as independent living, offer support services such as meals and
housekeeping. These services are either included in the rent or offered a -la -carte so that
residents can choose whether or not to pay for them. Independent living projects attract an
older and frailer senior population than adult properties (generally seniors age 75 and over).
The most service - intensive housing types are assisted living, memory care, and enhanced care
suites as they offer the highest level of services short of a nursing home. Some of the typical
services they provide are meals, housekeeping, linen changes, personal laundry, 24 -hour
emergency response and a wide range of personal -care and therapeutic services. The meals
and services are built into the monthly fee, charged through a tiered service package or offered
a -la- carte.
Competitive Senior Housing Properties
Table 6 shows the inventory of senior housing properties that would provide competition to a
new development on the Site in Shorewood. For each competitive property, Table 6 provides
information on location, year built, total number of units, whether or not it is located in the
PMA, its distance from the Site, its estimated competitiveness and its total competitive units.
The competitive percentage is a measure of draw area overlap and is estimated based on a
property's distance from the Site, its location within or near the PMA, its community
orientation (i.e., its estimated primary draw area), and unique characteristics of the property.
The following are key highlights about the competitive supply.
► A total of 10 competitive properties were identified in and near the PMA, most of which
contain multiple service levels. Combined, the properties have a total of 885 units.
However, only one of the properties is located in the PMA. Eight are located outside the
PMA, ranging in distance from 3.0 miles to 5.4 miles from the Site. Accounting for draw area
overlap, the properties supply the PMA with 202 competitive units.
The service level mix of the competitive units serving the PMA is 85 independent units, 66
assisted living units, and 51 memory care units.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 6
Competitive Senior Housing Supply
Primary Market Area, August 2015
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10
August 13, 2015
Miles
Percent
Year
Number
In the
from
Comp-
Compet-
Property Name
Location
Built
of Units
PMA
Site
etitive'
itive Units
Independent Living
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
90
No
3.3
45%
41
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
94
No
4.3
25%
24
Elim Shores
Eden Prairie
1990
32
No
4.9
10%
3
Beacon Hill Commons
Minnetonka
1995
110
No
5.3
10%
11
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
67
No
5.4
10%
7
Subtotal
393
85
Assisted Living
BeeHive Homes
Chanhassen
2013
6
Yes
< 1.0
100%
8
Sunrise of Minnetonka
Minnetonka
2005
39
No
3.0
25%
10
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
53
No
3.3
45%
24
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
34
No
4.3
20%
7
Deephaven Woods
Deephaven
2014
47
No
4.7
10%
5
Elim Shores
Eden Prairie
1990
32
No
4.9
10%
3
Beacon Hill Commons
Minnetonka
1995
42
No
5.3
10%
4
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
59
No
5.4
10%
6
Subtotal
312
66
Memory Care
BeeHive Homes
Chanhassen
2013
19
Yes
< 1.0
100%
17
Sunrise of Minnetonka
Minnetonka
2005
22
No
3.0
25%
6
Summerwood of Chanhassen
Chanhassen
2005
19
No
3.3
45%
9
Augustana Emerald Crest
Victoria
2005
30
No
4.1
25%
8
Lake Minnetonka Shores
Spring Park
1987
18
No
4.3
20%
4
Deephaven Woods
Deephaven
2014
24
No
4.7
10%
2
Olive Branch Estates
Chanhassen
2015
24
No
4.8
15%
4
The Glenn
Minnetonka
2011
24
No
5.4
10%
2
Subtotal
180
51
1 Percent Competitive is estimated by the researcher based on the competitive property's distance from the subect Site, location
within /near the PMA, its community orientation, and specific characteristics unique to
the property.
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 10
August 13, 2015
N
(D
0
0
O
O'Q
G)
0
N (gyp
CD
VI
n
0
3
F
m
(A
m
2.
0
0
c
VQ
M
1%
fD
0
r+
fD
A
ce
C,
zr M
a. 0
0
•
ID
1•
rri
m =1
0
0
fD
n
0
3
F
m
(A
m
2.
0
0
c
VQ
M
1%
fD
0
r+
fD
A
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
BeeHive Homes of Excelsior opened in 2013 and is less than one mile southwest of the Site
on Highway 41 (6330 Hazeltine Boulevard, in the City of Chanhassen). BeeHive Homes is a
one - story, 25 -unit building that contains 17 memory care units and eight assisted living care
suites. Because of its close proximity to the Site, its draw area will approximate the subject
Site's. It is estimated to be fully competitive. BeeHive Homes will begin an addition this year
that will add 17 units.
After BeeHive Homes, the closest competitive property to the Site is Sunrise of Minnetonka
(3.0 miles east, on Highway 7). To account for draw area overlap with the subject Site,
Sunrise of Minnetonka is estimated to be 25% competitive.
Beacon Hill Commons and The Glenn are located over five miles away in more densely
populated Minnetonka. Elim Shores is also about five miles away in Eden Prairie. These
properties would have minimal draw area overlap with the subject Site in Shorewood, and
are estimated to be only 10% competitive.
Deephaven Woods Senior Living in Deephaven opened in 2014. It is located almost five
miles northeast of the Site, adjacent to The Church of St. Therese at 18323 Minnetonka
Boulevard. The 78 unit building contains a mix of 47 assisted living and 24 memory care
units, as well as seven enhanced care suites. As with Beacon Hill Commons and The Glenn,
Deephaven Woods has minimal draw area overlap with the subject Site and is estimated to
be only 10% competitive.
► While Lake Minnetonka Shores is only 4.3 miles from the Site (direct, not driving), it is
situated in Spring Park on the northern side of the Lake. Because of limited access to
Shorewood on the south side of the Lake, it is only estimated to be 20% competitive.
The newest competitive property is Olive Branch Estates in Chanhassen. Olive Branch
Estates is a 24 unit stand -alone memory care property. It is 4.8 miles from the Site and
estimated to be 15% competitive.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Planned and Proposed Senior Housing Developments
Planning staff at the municipalities in the PMA were surveyed to identify planned and proposed
senior housing developments that may increase the future competitive supply. There are
potentially four new developments in and near the PMA that would be partially competitive.
One is under construction, two are approved, and the third is in the discussion phase with the
city of Excelsior. Only the approved developments are subtracted from demand calculations
presented later in this assessment. The following is a summary of these developments.
1. BeeHive Homes received city approvals in June 2015 to expand their existing property
on Highway 41 by 17 units. As with the existing building, these units will be 100%
competitive with the Site and thus, all of its units are subtracted from demand
calculations presented later in this assessment.
Trident Development broke ground in August 2015 on Chaska Heights. Chaska Heights
will contain two buildings. One is a 65 -unit independent building and the other is a 71-
unit assisted living and memory care building (14 units would be memory care). The
development is on Highway 41 at Hazeltine Boulevard, or 4.5 miles southwest of the
subject Site (outside the PMA). To account for draw area overlap, it is estimated to be
15% competitive. Thus 10 independent, nine assisted living, and two memory care units
are subtracted from demand calculations presented later in this assessment.
3. According to staff with the city of Excelsior, The Waters Senior Living is in discussions
with the city regarding the development of a senior housing building. According to the
city, no plans have been submitted and the discussions are preliminary. Staff did not
indicate the number of units that are proposed, the timing, or even where it would be
located. Because of its preliminary nature, no units at Water Senior Living are
subtracted from demand calculations presented later in this assessment.
4. Headwaters Development has approvals from the City of Chanhassen to develop
Mission Hills Senior Living, a 134 -unit building. It will be located on a parcel on the
northeast corner of Highways 101 and 212, or approximately four miles southeast of the
Site (within the PMA). As proposed, Mission Hills Senior Living will consist of a 120 unit
building that can be occupied by residents receiving independent or assisted living
services, as well as a 14 -unit secured memory care. There will also be nine age- restricted
twinhomes on the campus (18 units). To account for draw area overlap, Mission Hills is
estimated to be 15% competitive with the Site. Thus, nine independent, nine assisted
living, and two memory care units are subtracted from demand calculations presented
later in this assessment.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Senior Housing Demand Calculations
Tables 7 through 9 provide initial demand calculations for the number of market rate
independent living, assisted living, and memory care units that can be supported in the PMA in
2015 and 2020, along with an estimate on the number of units that can be supported on the
subject site in Shorewood.
Independent Senior Livine
As shown in Table 8, unmet demand for independent living housing on a site in Shorewood is
calculated for 85 units by 2020. The points below summarize the demand methodology.
The target market for independent living housing is senior households age 75+ with incomes of
$35,000 or more plus households with incomes between $25,000 and $35,000 who would
qualify with the proceeds from a home sale. There would also be some limited demand from
seniors under age 75. These seniors are the "age /income - qualified base." A capture rate — or
"penetration rate" — is applied to the income - qualified base of younger and older seniors. The
penetration rates are based on the current penetration rates of independent senior housing in
the Twin Cities Metro Area. Applying the penetration rates to the age /income - qualified base
results in demand for 132 independent units in 2015, growing to 156 units in 2020.
The PMA is an appealing housing location with a high number of older adults, therefore it is
estimated that seniors currently residing outside the PMA will generate 35% of the total
demand for independent senior housing. This demand from outside the PMA increases total
demand to 203 units in 2015 and 240 units in 2020. This demand from outside the PMA will
consist primarily of parents of adult children living in the local area.
The number of existing competitive units (minus a 5% vacancy factor) is subtracted from the
total demand resulting in excess demand for 123 units in the PMA in 2015. There are two
pending developments near the PMA to subtract from future demand (Chaska Heights and
Mission Hills). Excess demand potential is calculated for 141 units in the PMA in 2020.
No single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. Based on the geographic size of the PMA,
the Site's location within the PMA, and the limited competitive supply physically located in the
PMA, it is estimated that the Site can capture 60% of the excess demand potential. This results
in excess demand on the Site for 74 independent living units in 2015 increasing to 85 units in
2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 14
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 7
Independent Senior Housing Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
65 to 74 Households in the PMA
1,328
1,782
B
Percent income - qualified
90%
91%
C
Potential penetration rate of independent living housing
0.5%
0.5%
D
Income - qualified 65 -74 households in the PMA (A x B x C)
6
8
E
75+ Households in the PMA
814
964
F
Percent income - qualified
86%
85%
G
Potential penetration rate of independent living housing
18%
18%
H
Income - qualified 75+ households in the PMA (E x F x G)
126
148
1
Total demand for independent housing from the PMA (D + H)
132
156
J
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
K
Total demand for independent living units in the PMA (I / (1- J))
203
240
L
Competitive independent living supply*
81
98
M
Excess independent living demand (K - L)
123
141
N
Estimated percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
O
Independent living demand on the subject Site (M x N)
74
85
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 15
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Assisted Living
As shown in Table 8, unmet assisted living demand on the Site in Shorewood has been
calculated for 50 units in 2020. This demand is for market rate (or "private pay ") units and does
not include additional demand from lower- income seniors who could utilize the Elderly Waiver
program to pay for services. The points listed below summarize the demand methodology.
The primary market for assisted living housing in the PMA is seniors ages 75 and over needing
assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Based on data from the Health and Aging
Chartbook that was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
National Center for Health Statistics, the percentage of seniors unable to perform, or having
difficulty with, ADLs ranges from 25.5% of seniors ages 75 to 79, 33.6% of seniors ages 80 to 84
and 51.6% of seniors ages 85 and over. Applying these percentages to the senior population in
the PMA results in the total age - qualified population needing assistance with ADLs.
To afford market rents, these seniors will generally need incomes of at least $45,000 or have
assets available through the proceeds received from the sale of their home. Overall, it is
calculated that 72% of the senior population in the PMA in 2015 was income - qualified for
market rate assisted living housing.
An estimated 30% of the age /income - qualified seniors needing assistance will need /choose
assisted living housing. The remaining 70% will be able to remain in their homes by receiving
home health care services or will live in other less service - intensive senior housing. This
percentage also takes into account that many seniors are not living alone and will be able to
remain in their existing homes with assistance from their spouse /partner.
Seniors who currently reside outside the PMA will generate an estimated 35% of the demand
for assisted living senior housing — increasing total demand in the PMA to 139 units in 2015
growing to 170 units in 2020.
The next step in calculating demand is to subtract competitive supply from total PMA demand.
A total of 66 competitive units were identified in Table 6. Subtracting these competitive units
(minus a 5% vacancy factor) from total demand results in the excess demand for 76 assisted
living units in the PMA in 2015. Two pending developments in Chaska and Chanhassen would
be partially competitive due to draw area overlap, and thus 23 additional units are subtracted
from future demand. Excess demand is calculated for 84 units in the PMA in 2020.
Again, no single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. It is estimated that the Site in
Shorewood can capture 60% of the excess demand potential in the PMA. This results in excess
demand on the Site for 45 market rate assisted living units in 2015 increasing to 50 market rate
units in 2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 16
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Table 8
Market Rate Assisted Living Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
75 to 79 Population in the PMA
502
684
B
Percent needing ADL assistance
25.5%
25.5%
C
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (A x B)
128
174
D
80 to 84 Population in the PMA
359
410
E
Percent needing ADL assistance
33.6%
33.6%
F
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (D x E)
121
138
G
85+ Population in the PMA
331
382
H
Percent needing ADL assistance
51.6%
51.6%
1
Estimated population needing ADL assistance (G x H)
171
197
J
Total 75+ population needing ADL assistance (C + F + 1)
419
509
K
Percent of PMA population income - qualified
71.7%
72.1%
L
Total income - qualified population needing ADL assistance (J x K)
301
367
M
Potential penetration rate of assisted living housing
30%
30%
N
Total demand for assisted living units (L x M)
90
110
O
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
P
Total demand for assisted living units in the PMA (N / (1 -0))
139
170
Q
Competitive assisted living supply*
63
85
R
Excess assisted living demand (P - Q)
76
84
S
Estimated percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
T
Assisted living demand on the subject Site (R x S)
45
50
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 17
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Memory Care
Table 9 calculates unmet memory care demand on the subject site in Shorewood for 21 units in
2020. Like assisted living, this demand is for market rate units and does not include additional
demand from lower- income seniors who could utilize the Elderly Waiver program to pay for
services. The following points summarize the demand methodology.
Demand is calculated by multiplying the PMA age 65+ population in 2015 and 2020 by the
incidence rate of Alzheimer's /dementia (based on data from the Alzheimer's Association:
Alzheimer's Disease Facts & Figures). An estimated 330 seniors living in the PMA as of 2015 had
memory impairment.
Due to the high cost of memory care housing, the income needed to afford market rate
memory care is much higher than independent and assisted living housing. The income -
qualified base for memory care housing is defined as 85% of households with incomes of at
least $60,000 plus 40% of homeowners with incomes below $60,000.
The majority of seniors with dementia are able to live independently with the assistance of a
caregiver, while those in the latter stages of dementia require intensive medical care that is
only available in skilled nursing facilities. Some also choose other types of housing like adult
foster care. An estimated 30% of age /income - qualified people with memory impairment
constitute the market for memory care housing.
An estimated 35% of the demand for memory care housing would come from seniors residing
outside of the PMA. This additional demand brings the total demand within the PMA to 82 units
in 2015 growing to 102 units in 2020.
The competitive supply is then subtracted from the total demand to reveal unmet demand. A
total of 51 competitive units were identified serving the PMA. Subtracting these competitive
units (minus a 5% vacancy factor) results in the excess demand for 34 memory care units in
2015. The competitive supply is projected to increase by 21 units by 2020 as new units come on
line in and near the PMA in Chanhassen (BeeHive expansion and Mission Hills) and Chaska
(Chaska Heights). Subtracting the existing and pending competitive units from the total demand
results in excess demand for 34 units in 2020.
No single site can capture all of the demand in a PMA. It is estimated that the Site in
Shorewood can capture 60% of the excess demand potential in the PMA. This results in excess
demand on the Site for 20 market rate memory care units in 2015 increasing to 21 units in
2020.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 18
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood. MN
Table 9
Market Rate Memory Care Housing Demand Calculation
Primary Market Area
2015 and 2020
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 19
August 13, 2015
2015
2020
A
65 to 75 Population
2,212
3,099
B
Dementia incidence rate
1.5%
1.5%
C
Estimated population with Dementia (A x B)
33
46
D
75 to 84 Population
861
1,094
E
Dementia incidence rate
18.0%
18.0%
F
Estimated population with Dementia (D x E)
155
197
G
85+ Population
331
382
H
Dementia incidence rate
43.0%
43.0%
1
Estimated population with Dementia (G x H)
142
164
J
Total population with Dementia (C + F + 1)
330
408
K
Percent of population income - qualified
53.7%
54.4%
L
Total income - qualified population needing assistance (J x K)
178
222
M
Potential penetration rate of specialized memory care housing
30%
30%
N
Total demand for memory care units (L x M)
53
67
O
Estimated percent of demand from outside the PMA
35%
35%
P
Total demand for memory care units in the PMA (N / (1- O))
82
102
Q
Competitive memory care supply
48
68
R
Excess memory care demand (P - Q)
34
34
S
Percent of demand capturable by subject Site
60%
60%
T
Memory care demand on the subject Site (R x S)
20
21
* Competitive units minus a 5% vacancy factor
Source: viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 19
August 13, 2015
Senior Housing Demand Assessment: Shorewood, MN
Demand Summary
The PMA has a rapidly growing senior population and a very high proportion of the seniors in
the PMA are also income - qualified for market rate senior housing. These factors, combined
with a strong draw from seniors currently living elsewhere in the metro area, are creating
demand for additional senior housing in Shorewood. The initial demand calculations for market
rate senior housing on the Site in Shorewood is summarized in Table 10. Total unmet demand
in the PMA for the three service - levels is projected for 260 units in 2020. The estimated portion
of demand that can be captured by the Site in 2020 is 60 %, which equates to 85 independent
units, 50 assisted living units, and 21 memory care units, for a total of 156 units.
Table 10
Summary of Initial Demand Calculations
Primary Market Area, 2015 to 2020
As noted in the introduction of this report, the purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly
assess the depth of demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists
to support a new development. Thus, the findings are preliminary and should be viewed in that
light. A full market feasibility study would more closely examine factors such as the desirability
of the subject site and the performance of competitive buildings, both of which may impact
demand.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20
August 13, 2015
Total
Unmet
Demand
PMA
Competitive
PMA
on Subject
Demand
Supply
Demand
Site
2015
Independent Living
203
81
123
74
Assisted Living
139
63
76
45
Memory Care
82
48
34
20
Total
424
192
.232
139
2020
Independent Living
240
98
141
85
Assisted Living
170
85
84
50
Memory Care
102
68
34
21
Total
512
252
260
156
Source: Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc.
As noted in the introduction of this report, the purpose of this initial assessment is to broadly
assess the depth of demand for senior housing in the local area to determine if potential exists
to support a new development. Thus, the findings are preliminary and should be viewed in that
light. A full market feasibility study would more closely examine factors such as the desirability
of the subject site and the performance of competitive buildings, both of which may impact
demand.
Viewpoint Consulting Group, Inc. Page 20
August 13, 2015
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900
Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: ,
Planning CommissionMayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
3 May 2014
RE:
Elderly Housing – Zoning Requirements
FILE NO.
Zoning (Elderly Housing)
Several years ago, Shorewood amended its Zoning Code to include and encourage
elderly (senior) housing. At that time three phases of housing were identified, which -
for the most part- still exist today: 1)independent living; 2)assisted living (minimal
care); and 3)care facilities. Since then there has been some consensus on the
Commission that Shorewood’s ordinances do not address the future demand for senior
housing and that it should be examined as part of a future work program. This has
been confirmed in talking with senior housing developers who have expressed interest
in our Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area.
As a brief introduction to the topic, following is how Shorewood’s Zoning Code
addresses the three phases of elderly housing:
Independent Living. Section 1201.03 Subd. 20, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
A, provides for elderly housing within all of the various residential zoning districts.
Densities vary from four units to the acre in the R-1A districts to 10 units per acre in
the multi-family and R-C districts. A minimum of three acres is required for a senior
housing project, which must be processed as a P.U.D.
Care Facilities. Nursing homes are allowed in the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning
districts, by conditional use permit. It is worth noting that no land is currently zoned
or planned for R-3B development, and only a small area along Lake Linden Road is
zoned R-3A. Provisions relative to nursing homes are attached as Exhibit B. Density
is not a factor relative to nursing homes and there is no minimum acreage requirement.
Setbacks, impervious surface, parking and building heights restrictions dictate the
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
intensity of the development. The City should consider allowing these facilities in the
C-1 zoning district as well.
Assisted Living. Shorewood’s Code does not currently address assisted living
projects. If one were proposed today, it would fall under the category of elderly
housing, subject to Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. Arguably, this phase of senior housing
should be treated more like care facilities where density would not be a factor. As
with care facilities, intensity of use would be dictated by setbacks, impervious surface,
parking and building height restrictions. It is recommended that “assisted living” be
addressed in the R-3A, R-3B, R-C and C-1 zoning districts.
From a planning perspective, there are certain issues that should be addressed relative
to elderly housing, particularly with respect to Smithtown Crossing:
1.Density. It is becoming increasingly clear that our current density provisions are
too restrictive for anything other than “cottage style” senior housing. For
example, the developers with whom we have talked are generally interested in
projects ranging in size from 60 to 100 units. Using our highest available density
(10 u/a), this would require a site of 6-10 acres. Few if any sites in Shorewood are
available at that size. The chart on Exhibit C shows the densities allowed in a
select list of other communities. There are a number of ways to address this issue:
a.Simply increase the allowable density for projects in the R-C or C-1 zoning
districts, or both. Alone, this measure would require upwards of 20 units per
acre for a project to be feasible within the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Area.
b.Apply the density requirement only to independent living (i.e., senior
apartments) projects or portions of projects. Assisted living units would either
be counted as partial units (e.g., assisted living might equal one-half unit), and
portions of senior housing projects devoted to care facilities would not count
as density.
c.Allow for density transfer. This tool would provide for the allowable density
from another site to be applied to the subject site. In the case of Smithtown
Crossing, the one acre site owned by the City would allow eight units of senior
housing. These units could be transferred to the Smithtown Crossing project.
d.As part of a mixed use P.U.D., allow the entire site, including any commercial
portion of the site, to be counted for density purposes.
e.All, or more than one of the above.
2
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
2.Zoning Conditions. The current Code relaxes certain development requirements
for elderly housing. For example, park dedication and local sanitary sewer access
charges are drastically reduced for senior housing projects. At present, our Code
requires two parking spaces per unit for elderly housing, again making no
distinction for assisted living. The City may wish to consider a lower number of
parking spaces for independent living apartments and especially for assisted living
units. If this reduction has merit, a proof of parking requirement should also be
considered. Proof of parking is a tool whereby, the development plan provides
room for two spaces per unit, but only requires a certain lesser number to be built.
Then, if the use is ever changed, the full parking requirement can be imposed.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
3
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
Section 1201.03 Subd. 20
Subd. 20. Elderly housing.
a. 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-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-
1D, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C, R-3A, R-3B 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
4
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
(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-1A and R-1B: 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. 1d(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.
5
Memorandum
Re: Elderly Housing – Zoning
3 May 2014
Section 1201.09 Subd. 4.e.
e. Nursing homes as defined in § 1201.02, provided that:
(1) Side yards are double the minimum requirements established
for this District and are screened in compliance with §
1201.03, Subd. 2.g.;
(2) The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of
sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be
generated;
(3) All signing and informational or visual communication
devices shall be in compliance with § 1201.03, Subd. 11.;
(4) All state laws and statutes governing the use are strictly
adhered to and all required permits are secured;
(5) Adequate off-street parking is provided in compliance with
§ 1201.03, Subd. 5.;
(6) One off-street loading space in compliance with § 1201.03,
Subd. 6. is provided;
(7) The provisions of § 1201.04, Subd. 4.d.(1) have been
considered and satisfactorily met.
Exhibit B
6
Memorandum
Re: Bennett -Minor Subdivision
9 November 2015
At staff's request, the applicant has provided legal descriptions for drainage and utility
easements, 10 feet around each of the lots. Prior to City Council review of the request,
the applicant should provide deeds for the required easements.
City records indicate that the property is only served with one sewer connection. There
is, however, a manhole conveniently located in front of the property into which another
connection can be made at such time as a new home is built on the property
It is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following:
1. The applicant must provide deeds. for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet
around each lot.
2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review
by the City Attorney.
3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicant must pay one
park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200).
4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the
property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building
permits are applied for.
j
i
Cc: Bill Joynes
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Tim Keane I
Charles Bennett I
0
1
im
Freeman Park
I I ct
LU
�3 yx
0
INEW
U
Minnetonka Country Club property
N
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
1:3 �� 0 Subject
Property
Hi�aY 7
int
..a
s
� � a
to
Al r
-, 4► �°� � � tv N
`s
• •
2 VMW
_ o
° 7 /
wu
Ojow
V% doom
b b
y o
° o o .�
a�
U
go
QoAo
r.
/ a � cd
y y y o 0 y o'er'
cis
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
m
Zvi
�pp
W(
Z
Q
h
>
0
-o{�
�i
N t 1
�
8 W
a
d
p,
„1,,, »\
m
N
�x
IL
Uw�
ti
3c�m
\
0. Q�
w ZS
m �
z
00
E
i
r
Q�
�L
11
w
$
a�
Z
W
W
N
o
v
X11
Q
c
Z
`
g
A
Q'
'
Z!5
o
kos
cr
w
ld
0
Q WZ
c
o
N
Qww
o
LL
ffQw
zo-
Ow
vV
ZR
� Q
w
c
V
a
E
11
O
'u5
r c
m
— `o
0
(0
o
0
U �
goy
a
WN
8
3
if
O
w
R
Ea
PI
ol
m
Zvi
�pp
Z
h
�i
:hibit B
:OPOSED DIVISION
ol